AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic - Server-wide plots

I see many of you voted for the overarching server-wide event. That in my opinion is the most controversial category and it has always been like that.

Personally, after the Arcanum event I spoke against such events as a player since the server plots were ranking above the regional, random ones. Never liked that idea because it dismissed the importance and impact of other events. It also dismissed the importance of player-generated threat, like Banites or even Tarkuul. In truth, I think the PC threat thing became nearly insignificant after 2008-2009 in contrast of the DM generated evil. That was one of the negative result of the Arcanum, Mortegaurde and other plots were the greatest contributor to that. The outcome and the impact of these events also had an impact on future factions and the playerbase in general. These impacts

So I would like to ask how do you all good players want to see these events appear, evolve, resolved etc.? Why do you want them? How do you imagine them? What are the issues with them usually?

Going to list a few issues that I've seen (These are hypothetical cases and they are intentionally exaggerated

) emerging during my time on the server:

WARNING in advance: Keep it civil or the topic won't last.

I never DMed in NWN but occasionally do so in pen and paper.

A world wide event can in my opinion be kept in many smaller seperated events and later tie in to one big to not remove from the smaller plots.

An example I had was that a local lord gave the party and old family castle that been abandoned by a branch of his family over the last generation when the lord and lady disappeared with their son and the local village had its villagers move out and head to a larger settlement west of it.

Overaching plot was this necromancer cult seeking vengeance for a kings war on the mages free "state" islands. The necromancers influenced a local insane lord to fight the lord that had the adventurers on pay. So that was one problem. There was also sightseeings of undead and bandits roaming. All these things seemed to be seperate at first glance but all tied in somehow to the necromantic cult, the lord was influenced by them, he hired the bandits, the bandits spread havoc, killed people and sold bodies to a random crazy hermit that sold on the bodies to the necromancers. All things was seperated plots but in the end arched into a bigger plot and a even bigger plot and eventually civil war.

What I mean is that you can easily turn so many small plots feeling like the smaller ones, and not neglect the little "guy and gal" plots but have them tie in to a bigger to bring in more groups and eventually maybe they have to cooperate or cross roads, Like Wiltun, Kohlingen and Winya are weary of each others but to stop a certain group that threatens them all they have to cooperate as their seperate "plotlines" they been investigating brought them to a threshhold.

I think it would be interesting to. To give out subtle hints and mini plots that ties into other smaller plots and shows on a bigger picture.

The great elven rangers of Winya has shadowed a party of odd rogues in their part of the forest, Fort Summer had battles with some odd new foe and follows their retreat as a group of non aligned Drow and other underground groups found bit to many surfacers buying a horde of crystals that can be used to create large explosions, following this transport they all end up at the same place as the shadowed rogue party and the retreating group.

Just example of how it can tie on to player generated things and the impact of smaller events and be put forward in a heavily IC supported way I think.

Point by point;

1. Schedule these in advance. Make a DM story thread that just says "Something might happen wednesday at 7" and then do something at that time that isn't in any of the hubs.

2. Have the NPC or whatever have little stomach for bickering. Alternatively don't allow for PC dialog, a simple threat or large monster with no excuse or logical reason to be there at that time that only wants to destroy isn't going to cause a lot of inter-pc bickering. It also allows for IC investigations.

3. Lead follow or get out of the way. If people want to fall in line instead of take charge, let them. You can't make people participate so don't worry about the parts of the plot you can't control.

4. Don't follow good/evil/law/chaos. Real conflicts don't, so emulate those. Resource wars for example don't have good and evil just winners and losers.

5. Solved by good writing and clearly explaining whats at play, and making those explanations available publicly in a 'this is all anyone is talking about!' post in DM stories.

6. Good, involve the NPC's more. This prevents 'all-starring.' The leader of a town shouldn't just live behind a bar, he should be out doing things with PC's around to bounce ideas/suggestions off of or to get advice from.

7. You don't need an 'evil' alternative if the event is made properly. Additionally evil and good are now so separated geographically due to the treaty of light this isn't really as big of a deal as previously. Eschew good and evil and look at conflicts that actually happened in the real world and base things on that.

8. So don't worry about it. If someone wants to be passive, then complains about not participating, let them complain. They had a chance to be a part and opted not to. Encourage participation and ignore those who ignore offers to participate.

9. Put a roadmap on the DM forums so it can be continued or aspects of it can be run by others. The thing with a big 'national' plot is that it actually works better if different cities are run by different DM's who might not have all the info for their part of the prep. If there's a demon invasion and some chucklenut tells Kohl it's a 'devil' invasion and Kohl goes and preps a bunch of anti-chaos gear and then gets pooped on by LE devils, then let it happen. It's ok to be wrong.

10. Run the events as scenarios. A monster on the beach, week two a monster from the volcano, week three a monster from the swamp, week four an NPC has 'places to be' and doesn't have a whole lot of time before they literally have to go IC. Cut people off if they loiter, punish indecisiveness and encourage action.

11. By using the NPC's that actually run the cities now as the main plot points it allows you to avoid all-starism. Anyone can go talk to Garth when a DM is on. Not 'anyone' can talk to Hector. Additionally it puts the NPC's that run these places into the forefront so people playing the game can actually meaningfully interact with them. These NPC's can also demand that others help, and as the PC's are not literally in charge, their personal ic bias against races/creeds isn't particularly relevant.

I mean, if all the cities are now run by NPC's and things like elections arn't being run, then those NPC's need to be up front-and-center. If they fail or fuck up or make shit decisions then let it play out.

For example, you could have Cordor have a 'town hall' style meeting for citizens only that has the four ministers running it to discuss what to do. That way you get fair PC involvement and it would logically be scheduled so people could attend.

Having helped run a megaplot in the past, with the good and bad that came of it, here are some tips I have for running such an endeavor, if you choose to do so.

1: I'd strongly recommend trying to make it so that you can give different groups of PCs mutually exclusive goals. One of the highlights of running the Cordor madness I feel was the West vs East conflict. It kept things going even when I wasn't running around DMing stuff. I feel if there is a megaplot, and if there are villains, that they should provide some incentive for different PCs to work for them and oppose them. The Arcanum by in large were an enemy everyone had to fight or face annihilation, which I don't think was good. They only had about 2 PCs helping them.

2: If you have an antagonist, they can and should be powerful, but they shouldn't be so overwhelmingly powerful that PCs don't bother opposing them. Especially if permanent consequences are in play, it's plenty burning out to have a PC stuck in a situation where they have to act or they or their allies suffer, but are also paradoxically completely helpless to do anything about it. If a threat is too overwhelming, then PCs are more likely just going to give up and not bother, which doesn't really do anything for the plot.

3: Don't knock spontaneity! It's good to have planned events, but you can get a lot of RP going from just random stuff happening around groups of active PCs. Angry mobs, people talking in taverns about rumors about the plot, a seemingly random scuffle that ties into the plot that happens on the fly I find help enrich the server environment. This was one of my favorite ways to keep things going in Cordor.

4: Try to keep it open ended. The best events I feel are the ones which are truly up in the air. Cast the dice and see where the pieces land, and go from there. I find plots to be best when open ended enough to allow many outcomes to happen. Events should flow smoothly and allow them to draw their own conclusions based on what happens.

(Though try not to have plots where the consequences of the PC's failure results in the destruction of the server setting, that's a bit too much.)

Anyways, that's my take on it. Please let me know if you'd like more ideas to bounce around, I could come up with something!

The1Kobra wrote:

(Though try not to have plots where the consequences of the PC's failure results in the destruction of the server setting, that's a bit too much.)

Or do just that, and force the server into a gritty post-apocalyptic setting, you would have my support! :twisted:

Quote:

3: Don't knock spontaneity! It's good to have planned events, but you can get a lot of RP going from just random stuff happening around groups of active PCs. Angry mobs, people talking in taverns about rumors about the plot, a seemingly random scuffle that ties into the plot that happens on the fly I find help enrich the server environment. This was one of my favorite ways to keep things going in Cordor.

From a player standpoint: the spontaneous events has always been my favorite ones. They add a living feeling to the server, but they are also the most personal events. Since they aren't about great deeds or misdeeds they present smaller problems or situations that any PC could solve, so what becomes important is how characters solve them. This way these smaller events don't end up about the deeds, but about the characters and letting the players immerse in them.

Yeah, don't create 'plots' really, create NPC's that plot and plan situations around their plots.

Don't have a script you feel you need to stick to.

Years ago... and I mean years ago. Tormak did a massive plot around Khem and I think it was best large plot ever done on the server because it was like non-stop and every DM got to take part. http://www.amiaworld.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=29724&hilit=Bendine

Tormak dealt with the story progression of the main plot ((corrupted relic that was meant to keep the dead at rest was tainted in the crypt outside Ne'sek, undead were spilling out trying to take over the desert if I recall it was Set/follower of who caused it))

We had set up camp outside the town defending doing RP of working on plans, killing undead...ect all siege type RP.

Every other DM got to do mini-events be it attacking us, NPC interactions such as searching the desert to find the wandering bendine so they would not die and join the ranks of undeath but also bolster our numbers, getting resources for them..... anything and everything they could think of as side stories to the main plot.

At this point in the servers lifespan DM initiated plots are the best hope to jump start conflict, rivalry, and basically an sort of serious roleplaying now. Where I think that the most common problem with this comes along though, is as you said the matter of the threats and dm plots eclipsing players who want to be threats them selves. Furthermore you have groups of players with very different tastes when it comes to the sort of events they enjoy: some players want dungeon runs slaying monsters, some players want clashing of ideology, meanwhile others want to be detectives and search up clues. To make matters worse you have pcs who feel excluded or burned on previous events, what do you do with them? Finally you have the power of amia island it's self to consider, kohl plus all it's allies can stomp most anything that isn't a major force on the mainland.

So how do you deal with the situation? You need a serious of organic events that tie into a loose plot, one with a set of goals but no written middle for how this comes about. Set up events ahead of time, have npcs bring reports of weird things or plain possess one near a large group of pcs and get stuff moving. even have servants of the major antagonists show up to various cities and factions to parley, I believe this is critical for the longevity of the server right here. Players need to have the choice if they want to work to help said faction in their assumed goals or rally against them. Furthermore creating this division between pcs in the wider plot means they will have reasons to argue, fight or work together beyond who's a spooky necromancer. A server wide plot should be a way to facilitate actions of pcs with the clout to not do otherwise. Seriously, this could finally be the time when the upstart "evil" factions find a patron and are given resources instead of floundering. We need a shift from big masses of monsters with very clear goals of wanting to blow things up, into smaller more personal events where antagonist npcs arise through organic interaction with pcs.

Anyways, my main point here is that these events should start off small with a clear focus to interact with the playerbase, at which point through these interactions agendas and rivalries will become clear. From there you can start to build a larger narrative with the help of the pcs, if they become hostile towards one they can go raid things, do detective or spy work on them, or even work with them and help them in their goals. Players can take a lot of satisfaction knowing their friends and them help contribute to an overarching story even if it's minor.

Seriously it doesn't have to be epic scale, a low key interaction that lets a lesser known pc get into the mix and find their way into kohl keep, tarkuul or any other populated place is the end goal here. Once you have an interested group of players built, you can plan events with them and feed off their creativity and ingenuity. To few dms really consider the sort of whacky ideas their players can come up with, often more interesting than their own. Furthermore as the story builds and begins to form webs, module changes should be put in to give players a visual reminder and way to take pride in their actions

Granted this idea of mine does mean a large sink of man hours, but I remember how much work Tormak put into dming for us in the Frozenfar so I consider that the standard for dming.

Quote:

Personally, after the Arcanum event I spoke against such events as a player since the server plots were ranking above the regional, random ones. Never liked that idea because it dismissed the importance and impact of other events

You could have done both. It worked while I was a DM. Even while the Arcanum was running. I don't know what happened to lose this critical disconnect after I left and after the Arcanum Plot was handed off.

Quote:

Every other DM got to do mini-events be it attacking us, NPC interactions such as searching the desert to find the wandering bendine so they would not die and join the ranks of undeath but also bolster our numbers, getting resources for them..... anything and everything they could think of as side stories to the main plot.

I tried to do this three separate time when I came back to zero success.

Quote:

In truth, I think the PC threat thing became nearly insignificant after 2008-2009 in contrast of the DM generated evil. That was one of the negative result of the Arcanum, Mortegaurde and other plots were the greatest contributor to that.

I STRONGLY disagree with this, considering Morteguarde only went off like it did because of PCS, and the Arcanum (pre2013) was VERY VERY STRONGLY PC driven in ways that ot's SO MANY SPOILERS to talk about now.

Quote:

6: Your PC's place in the universe. Your PC is only one among thousands of NPCs which consists, guards, locals, adventurers alike. You are not a walking demigod but one person in the universe who posses a little bit more power than your neighbor agricultural worker who shovels cow shit for a living. Ignoring the environment won't get you any favors from PCs or DMs alike.

PS: This way of thinking is bad. PCs are movers and shakers. Treat them like they are. Within reason - but do not discard the fact that PCs are PCs for a reason.

To add to the above suggestions, by relevant points;

1. Introduce "plots" via small events. It's not necessary for players (or even some DMs) to instantly know what is an important occurrence, and what is a generally normal, if unlikely happening. This may prevent overcrowding for the time being.

2. Separate (introductory) events for smaller groups, united by agenda, faction, species, alignment or even chance would partially alleviate this problem.

3. Same as above.

4. I had written it before; non-alignment based conflict is a likely, or at least partial solution to the issue. Resources, ideology (not alignment aspect), territory, etc. - you name it, mankind fought over it. Why should characters be any different?

5. Difficult, complex point. Consistency is important here, in my opinion - but problem arises, at least partially, from difference in expectation between players and DMs. In example, something may appear as a minor and unimportant matter to one, while another finds it to be one of central plot elements. Both parties therefore would expect different difficulty of challenge to solve the problem.

Another issue is not unlike that of some "quest" genre games of yore, that a single problem should not necessarily have one and only one correct solution. And views on the nature of that (those) solution(s) can vary dramatically between DMs, and among players. Example of Gordian Knot comes to mind.

6. Had been answered succinctly above, if with an understatement.

9 & 10. Avoidance of unnecessary delays and prolongations would help, as would good notes. Ultimately, however, if plot / critical NPC changes controlling DM, everything changes. Different view, different inspirations. It should be either reflected in some IC alterations, or avoided if possible. I think change of DMs was an important factor to increasing decline and deterioration of the "Arcanum plot".

11: I agree with a suggestion of building "plots" around critical NPCs with their agenda, and respective plots resulting into events for PCs (and NPCs!) to participate - or not to participate in. Open-ended, preferably.

12: Quest/plot risk/reward. From my observations, over the years, risk had been minimal to none, reward even more so. However, risk-taking has not always been proportional to reward; when one escalated - either through DM-plot, after a number of explicit warnings, or PC-choices, such as opposition to an overwhelming force, there were only Dream Coins for event participation. Which are not even necessarily usable for requests. If, by any occurrence something more significant then unusable currency becomes available, that risks "disappearance" at the end of the plot, or soon after.

And RP appreciation by the player may not be necessarily sufficient reason for IC involvement of PC or group of PCs into plot/event not directly affecting them. I believe that Amia would benefit from raising the stakes.

If we have a big server plot generated by DM's, I'd want:

1. Scheduled event times when the big stuff happens

2. Smaller, less important spontaneous stuff to keep life interesting (not every day of course, DM's are humans too)

3. Consequence permanence. I don't want to play in a plot where the outcome is either predetermined (i.e. "the good guys are supposed to win" or "the bad guys are supposed to win"), and if it's a self-described server-wide plot, then I want the consequences to be something actually appreciative. Like, maybe a portal to the far-realm is opened in the Troll Caves and Bendir Dale has to be evacuated, and people have a limited amount of time to either fix it or else the Dale becomes a wasteland with crazy spawns in it, and the Troll Caves get overhauled to become an epic level area filled with insane spawns from the Far-Realm. Or something. Consequences!

4. I want evil and universally reviled characters to be involved. Osiris isn't universally reviled by any means, but there are other characters that are reviled. They should be able to take part in the plot in a large and fun way just like good guys. Maybe they help the plot's villains. Maybe they -are- the plot's villains. Maybe the bad and good guys have to team up for some reason. But above all, make sure that if the bad guys are excluded ICly from the event, and they aren't able to do anything, give consequences to the server. Maybe we can't rescue the Dale from that Far-Realm portal without the aided firepower of, idk, Tarkuul's armies. Maybe we can't destroy the portal without a good and an evil deity working together for some Yin-Yang reason, or some shit. IDK. I just want everybody to be able to be involved.

5. No more memory wipes.

6. Not longer than a year, please.

7. Permadeath should be considered a likely outcome of certain events - not all, but some. Maybe Osiris got too close to the Far-Realm portal and his soul was erased from existence, so that he literally doesn't exist at all anymore, even in the afterlife. That'd be some epic shit.

That's basically it. If we can come up with an event like that I'll probably enjoy it a lot. Something with high stakes, consequences, danger, that lets all people get involved and gets resolved by the end of the year, sounds great.

The main thing is I just don't want it to feel like PC's getting to jerk themselves off in front of others. I want there to be danger. If you want to be the big bad hero, you might just get your fucking dick eaten off by a harpie - that's why every NPC in the world isn't a fucking hero.

Keep in mind I just got off a stint of playing on the EFU server where permadeath is a common occurrence so maybe nobody else agrees with me that drastic consequences should be realized in a large, important plot. But that's just how I feel. We're PC's for a reason. I feel our characters should have high-stakes lives in general. I feel like the bar for entry into being a PC is not just "I'm powerful" or "I'm skilled," but also "I'm brave, because to be a PC means facing real consequences that most peasants can't imagine, like being eaten alive by a demon."

I think that the best kind of plots are morally "grey", for example that there may be different groups with different reasons for being interested in something. It doesn't always have to be mega-good versus mega-evil, but inter-factional conflict.

I also believe that it's important to have multiple possible outcomes(No railroading!!) that makes PC success or failure impactful.
Examples of "railroading" I've seen in the past that I do not believe should ever happen:
1. Cordor siege, demons assault Cordor relentlessly. Friendly PCs are(ICly, completely fine!!) being reckless and casting "hellball" right on friendlies. We're about to lose due to the enemy's strength in combination with that (for obvious reasons!). Some PCs order to retreat through the Cordorian sewers. It was a legitimate PC-call based on how things were going. Then miracolously the salvation-army of NPCs shows up and destroys the enemy for us just like that.

2. Kohlingen boat battle. Kohlingen fights on the water. They unfortunately "lose" fairly quickly, but instead of accepting that as an outcome (them losing didn't seem "intended") they're just saved with virtually no consequence.

Both these scenarios it didn't seem to matter what the PCs actually did, they were just there for the ride as a part of a predetermined ending. If plots continue like that, I don't think they will be something for me to enjoy.

Regarding "allstars" and such: It will always happen, some PCs are like that and the player wants them to succeed. Therefore they'll snag all the DM's attention for whatever their character wants to do (PnP spells or otherwise). We've had the conversation a million times on this forum and it hasn't changed a thing. With that said It's simply something I think we/you'll just have to live with!!

Oooooh... Do a Lawful vs Chaotic driven conflict, with good and evil on both sides. :twisted:

Yeah, personally, I would like to have at least the possibility of every single city in the server being hurt or even obliterated, if the PCs fuck up too much. There would be a single city I personally would not obliterate completely, Cordor, since that pretty much is the starting point for like everyone. But every other city on the server should, in my opinion, have the chance of being wiped off the map. I mean, either PCs are the driving point, or they are not, but if they are made to seem like it, and then fail, an NPC army shouldn't just rush in. It makes PCs irrelevant. Or have that army there from the beginning. But let's be honest, in D&D, PCs are supposed to much stronger than an average person. I mean, do you really want to just play a rank-and-file soldier of the Cordor army? No, you want to be more important, more powerful than them. The only reason I would give Cordor some immunity is because if cordor died, basically the most important city (on an OOC level) suddenly falls away. Still, can Cordor lose things? Yes, we saw that. There's a fucking hole in the middle. And actually, in that line, in general I think events shouldn't be planned from start to end, in my opinion. I mean, this is actually the reason I like PnP: You can do so many things that you can't properly script into a normal game. But, if there is one thing that annoys me more than lack of choice, it's lack of consequences of that choice. It might also shake a few things up, leading to more interesting things. I mean, personally, I would almost kind of like this as a way to change the cities around a bit. A 'faction' that is only made of three characters might actually lose the faction-ness of it. A city, where only one or two people really are active, might be re-activated, or culled. It reminds me a bit of Thraan'dariv. The amount of people that suddenly stepped up 'hey, Drow players exist' actually surprized me a bit. If cities actually needed defending by players once in a while, it might mean that all the inactive characters either are kicked out as inactive, or start being active again. I can think of a few places that have semi-active characters or even inactive ones being pretty important. (My experiences are just based off my time zone, so all imformation isn't neccessarily correct) I don't mean like 'surprize attack on Tarkuul, let's see how many people gather within two hours', but basically just a way to see which places have which active characters. I mean, I know a few places that seems to have like three characters there. Or Wharftown, that was Flavour of the Month a while ago, but I haven't seen (m)any of the characters online in a while. Tarkuul pretty much the last two years. Any character thal holds/held a position anywhere, but isn't playing regularly is perfect example of this. If gives people an incentive to play that character. And this really isn't meant as unfairly as it sounds. I still would want people to have a chance to defend their place, but it might just boost activity in places that have been abandoned. At least I think this would help solve that a bit. And it would give them a reason to play, which might also boost player count.

I notice I worded this a bit poorly. With 'every city should have the chance', I don't mean one event per city, but rather if there was a siege on a city, during an event, that city should have the possibility of being at least hurt by it. If it's devils, and PCs seem like the only thing holding them off, RIP city/district/whatever.

Some good points that I remember from events. Doing huge amount of work IC and OOC to gather people and then you were casted to the side as a fill to make things look big.

That was my worst experiences. As Tormak pointed out, make PC's count. Avoid the "No" and "That does not work". Maybe try to give a hint of options possible to do even.

Perhaps server announcements of opportunity to join and only for the first five people who make it. To make it more manageable for DM's. If DM sees same player there all the time, maybe say a nice no to let room for others in between.

If old plot is being picked up, please let an OOC reminder if changes are done into the "old" and perhaps in some sense, "expected" thing. Lets player know that perhaps expecting the old how it was going is not going to happen.

TormakSaber wrote:

Quote:

6: Your PC's place in the universe. Your PC is only one among thousands of NPCs which consists, guards, locals, adventurers alike. You are not a walking demigod but one person in the universe who posses a little bit more power than your neighbor agricultural worker who shovels cow shit for a living. Ignoring the environment won't get you any favors from PCs or DMs alike.

PS: This way of thinking is bad. PCs are movers and shakers. Treat them like they are. Within reason - but do not discard the fact that PCs are PCs for a reason.

Yeah the notion of PCs being "a little bit more power than your neighbor agricultural worker who shovels cow shit for a living" does not do much to make it seem like anything your PC does matters given by the statement meant they are insignificant to the setting. ((not going to drive people to do anything))

corypx wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

Quote:

6: Your PC's place in the universe. Your PC is only one among thousands of NPCs which consists, guards, locals, adventurers alike. You are not a walking demigod but one person in the universe who posses a little bit more power than your neighbor agricultural worker who shovels cow shit for a living. Ignoring the environment won't get you any favors from PCs or DMs alike.

PS: This way of thinking is bad. PCs are movers and shakers. Treat them like they are. Within reason - but do not discard the fact that PCs are PCs for a reason.

Yeah the notion of PCs being "a little bit more power than your neighbor agricultural worker who shovels cow shit for a living" does not do much to make it seem like anything your PC does matters given by the statement meant they are insignificant to the setting. ((not going to drive people to do anything))

This is maybe a bit roughly put but our characters are basically just another living being, so is the NPCs, That is morely what he focus on. No one is born a hero except for maybe a few chosen by the gods heroes. Some can become more than the peasant or baker but most are not going to become that. BUT WE AS PCs, can get further. That is my take on it.

Lutra wrote:

(These are hypothetical cases and they are intentionally exaggerated

)

Please read that. It was written that way to initiate conversation not because PCs do not mean anything.

Well one thing to keep in mind, Lutra. If you don't allow Pc's who are interested in holding office or an important position to do that, and instead have those positions held by NPC's, then you should feel obligated to do things as those NPC's to justify the removal of the position.

Cordor and WT are good examples of NPCs that ought to be better utilized. Cordor specifically with the lack of elections and players wanting to participate.

Lutra wrote:

(These are hypothetical cases and they are intentionally exaggerated

)

Please read that. It was written that way to initiate conversation not because PCs do not mean anything.

To be fair, nothing of 11 seemed exaggerated to me. Everything mentioned happened before.

Consistency plays an important role. Aside from that weaving smaller sections in to an over arching plot is relatively easy. Being creative enough to know how to appeal to these different 'groups' of different interests to weave together can be a little harder.

But yeah. It can very easily be done with some hard work and team effort. Commie actually has some very good tips for you.

Example: Commie made this point. If you want the environment to show case that pcs are only a -little- stronger than towns folks you need to make the NPCs much more involved in plots. You need to stop focusing on alignments and focusing on telling a good story. Go for 'realistic' conflicts, let personalities create friction and consequences. Have NPCs feel like living breathing cogs in the overall machine that is the world give them goals and aspirations, they don't need to be big by any means but they need to have substance.

By allowing different smaller events to tie in to a larger one you can very easily help both evil and good groups actually work to affect the plot and work against each other and let the tension grow.

In my opinion once all such matters have gotten to the point where groups start realizing who's been helping who in the plot things get Beautiful. RP feels much more believable for the world you've crafted and by then you should have several strong NPCs that play supporting roles and leading roles that help you work the story along with the PC's. Remember you should let your PC's actions affect the story and let it play out. Restricting PC's from effecting anything is a definite interest killer and makes players feel like rp doesn't matter. Actions should be impactful. Mistakes should be punished with Consequences, great calls and plays should be rewarded with sensible changes in the plot. Domino effects that branch out in all directions. Place your pins correctly and it should be relatively smooth and easy to handle.

To any DM's, if you guys want an outline of something that could drive the server for a good while let me know. I got an outline.

I haven't read this thread over yet but some brief advice I can offer for "bigger plots" is that scope is important to establish ahead of time. Have a definite beginning set and a few end scenarios in place so you an understand the scope you're going for so that you don't have a story that drags on like the Reyes plot did. Ending an arc an arc in a plot is also a good potential way to move between chapters of plot and satisfy people who are involved in the plots that you're running while not necessarily ending the whole story either. Sometimes having planned stages and chapters of development helps, though players can change pacing very quickly if you let them.

There's obviously no single solution to the plot formula but I just thought I'd throw out some ideas that can help you keep things from becoming a grind for everyone involved and hopefully make it easier to be able to run things in a way that allow you to keep track and not burn well on it.

speaking as someone who was invovled in the reyes plot from day one of inception (under Robertltoner) until just before Yoss handed it off

1: definitely didn't drag outside one minor plot arc that really only dragged because we as PCs dragged our feet, so it was us, not the plot
2: definite 'development arcs' and sub arcs that concluded at several points
3: had a beginning and several end goals that could feasibly occur (most of which we tried to stop)
4: definitely had chapters that started and ended and opened new threads while closing others

in my experience it's the post Yoss arcanum that people seem to levy complaints about in terms of pacing and development - but i don't think it's fair to have expected anyone in the world to have been able to pick up what he did and run it in the same way, especially because he notoriously didn't keep many notes outside of his own brain and like, actual physical Real World notes, to my knowledge.

Well going by the past oh gosh how many years for some of us?

Server wide plots are great, but it is best to do small things here and there and have it slowly build up over time. Here are some examples...

1. Start by a series of small separate events, that will eventually tie in together, through players actually rolling dice and taking an active role in the story its self.

2. Instead of DMs creating a threat its self, which is fine and dandy, with coordination between dms, have some DMs gently work out the clues on (good side) of the event, while other DMs work out stuff with the (evil or bad alligned player characters.)

3. You could include neutral as well. The best events were always where players were able to take an active role and the player decisions shape how things end. For instance, my old drow many years ago, he was in a few plots where he totally screwed himself, but it was still fun as a player.

4. Also help encourage players to create their own events, as long as they do not over step the server rules.

Some ideas to help alleviate some of the perceived problems with running server-wide events:

1. Area exclusivity. This means that rather than have something happen where everyone can be you specifically choose to have parts happen in Kohlingen or Tarkuul or any place where not everybody can go or is welcome if they do. This can be as simple as having the dead rise from their graves in Kohlingen; we all know who would start to get the blame in that case. This will help to prevent a situation where a paladin has to work with an evil character to pursue a goal.

2. Red herrings. As per my earlier post on the poll topic every good main event needs a decent undercard to fill the rest of the time. Don't let the players know what's part of the main event and what's not. Is the giant poo volcano part of the main plot or just the work of an independent mad svirfneblin?

3. Allow for different end goals not only to be achieved but desired. Take an event where the goal is to pursue an artifact. Faction A may want to destroy the artifact because it is too powerful to be trusted with any group while Faction B wants to destroy it simply because it's alien and unnatural while Faction C wants to keep it for study and Faction D wants to have it so that they may use it In Hoc Gimmicko Vinces style. This will still allow for player conflict while pushing the plot.

area exclusivity can be also helped by just doing it in unclaimed areas.

Quote:

This will help to prevent a situation where a paladin has to work with an evil character to pursue a goal.

i think thats fun roleplay. 'fuck the blackguard has a point! im conflicted!'

While it can be fun roleplay it needn't be forced every single time. By making everything open to everyone you only penalize those that play stalwart good characters since the evil ones generally won't eschew working with the good as long as there's something in it for them.

Oh yeah! I'm in agreement with that. Having a paladin work with evil unless he has no other choice is usually a 100% fall. Sometimes even when he has no other choice. That's like something that you sign up for the moment you choose to play a paladin. I personally like to show empathy to those who choose to play the most miserable and stupid class ever

Like not forcing them intentionally to 100% fall situations.

And thank you all for the constructive responses here and for keeping a sensitive topic civil! I really appreciate it!

ucfgoose wrote:

While it can be fun roleplay it needn't be forced every single time. By making everything open to everyone you only penalize those that play stalwart good characters since the evil ones generally won't eschew working with the good as long as there's something in it for them.

its not forced if its an organic situation.

ucfgoose wrote:

While it can be fun roleplay it needn't be forced every single time. By making everything open to everyone you only penalize those that play stalwart good characters since the evil ones generally won't eschew working with the good as long as there's something in it for them.

This is the biggest factor which has affected me from being part of most events.

It's much easier for evil to work with good than good to work with evil in most of those cases.

It's sort of baked into our setting at this point. Moral ambiguity can exist until you get to alignment/class requirements. I'm not even sure where the "if you see undead, you have to ask the person to unsummon it or fight them, or fall" thing started. Of course most paladins are staunchly against undead, but as far as that being an immediate fight or flight routine seems more like something we came up with. I guess there's the thing where they can't knowingly travel with evil cohorts in P&P, and if you employ undead you've at least committed an evil act, most of the time.

Honestly, I wish we could all play more by Gray Guard rules on that one. If you earnestly think it will lead to a good end, you do it(travel with them), but immediately seek Atonement afterwards. If you knowingly abide their bullshit after it proves not to be worth it(you know, failing to use your Wisdom and judgement), then you get in trouble. Paladins, hell, Lawful and Good characters in general are not the majority in FR. From a realistic standpoint, they have to have better ways of working with groups other than "You better not do anything evil, or I'm either completely out of this or I have to threaten you with death." Yes, there are certain things that are an outright dealbreaker, and they vary from clergy to sect to situation, but honestly, half the time it feels like players are so afraid of being Fallen that they never feel comfortable exploring those edges. Happen to do something that one DM interpreted as irredeemable on this particular day? Donezo, zap, you're out.

D&D has its problems with alignment expectations, yes. But I feel like there has to be a way where we can both respect the lore but not constantly hold a gun to people's heads for wanting to be involved in a plot, when they cannot control who else decides to walk through the door and help.

Commie,

By forced I mean the fact that if you want to participate in the event you have to work with the evil guy. Your only choices in the matter are to work with him, force him out, or leave. Since leaving means you can no longer take part it sucks for you. Since forcing him out means he can't take part it sucks for him. Since working with him goes against what you believe in it sucks for your character.

Look at it like being put in a situation where you have to work with a that's drawing major stinky guy heat. Since you can't forcibly shower the dude you are put in a position where you can run him out of a job, you can quit, or you can work with him and be miserable. Since the stinky guy can't notice his own funk he doesn't have a problem until you try to run him out of his job. If you put him in a position where he can work with other stinky people in a stinky environment he will be happy because he gets to keep his job and you will be happy because you no longer have to have your senses assaulted by B.O. that makes Right Guard turn left. Now sure, he might still show up at the company Christmas party but you don't have to drink eggnog next to him.

That's a pretty awful outlook.

Evil people are still 'people.'

And stinky people still stink. Until they can fix what's wrong with them I don't want them getting too close to me.

Yeah but evil's not real. You can't tell someones evil by the stench. And even then what does it matter? If there's demons invading and an 'evil' guy is there fighting those demons, whats your plan? Walk away?

I mean I play evil characters and I've fought alongside Hector several times fighting a 'greater' evil or a clear and present danger. It's not a binary state you just weigh the pros and cons and do it.

"Well, alright, Wifekiller Evilpants may have slaughtered every woman and child in a village while their husbands were off defending against an invasion of blob monsters but he's here to help us now against this threat so I guess that's we'd better let him in. Oh, and there's Jeffy the Necromonger! Let's have him join in, too!"

Piss on that. If the new threat offered him the chance to join them at no real risk to himself or his possessions and afforded him the possibility to gain more he'd probably at least consider it. That's to say nothing of the very real possibility that the threat could be his own doing.

It's the reason why we have prisons; we can't trust the people that we put in them not to behave in ways unacceptable to society so we do what we can to keep them away from everybody else. There's a reason why nations generally don't empty their prisons and send the inmates to fight in the case of war. There are exceptions, sure, but often penal soldiers are used in such a way as to prevent them from becoming a threat to the very nation for which they are supposed to be fighting.

Commie wrote:

Evil people are still 'people.'

This is pretty fucked up opinion, my man.

But the again - maybe your point of view on what evil is differ from mine. From my perspective, "evil" people have no place in the society. Period.

If evil has no place in society, how do you figure most evil is born in society? :mrgreen:

Evil people are often shaped out of evil.

Or from another society that attacks another and so on.

Evil as evil is often only evil to the people they are evil to. They often are not batshit crazy or demon summoning (demon summoning in real life? I guess that goes to genocides and such)

I get what he means and it goes back to what I was saying. If someone does something terrible you keep them locked away from society. Much the same if you want to do something that is blatantly illegal you don't advertise it publicly; you'll never find a strip mall with Bob's Murder-for-Hire next to Connie's Crack House & Chinese Food.

RaveN wrote:

If evil has no place in society, how do you figure most evil is born in society? :mrgreen:

Evil is made, not born.

I think the importance here is there's varying kinds of evil.

At least in this example, there's evil that's simply selfish and out for number one, however they can still be a pleasant ally or friend, and genuinely helpful, depending on how they handle themselves. They might also be unpleasant to be around but still helpful.

There are also however, the kind of evil that you would never ever want to have around, as they'll betray any 'good' allies the moment they can simply because it's the evil thing to do. They might put on a veneer or be ax-crazy, either way taking them along for any kind of delicate or dangerous task is a precarious thing at best.

I've seen and played both kinds. I've also been on the good side and seen what happens when someone 'good' gives any measure of trust to someone evil and then gets betrayed with absolutely disastrous results. It happens often enough that it does justify some of the paranoia that more 'hard good' PCs have when working with a known evil PC.

They're all factors to consider when participating in or running a plot.

This doesn't really need to devolve into us trying to solve the Problem of Evil over the internet. But it's for those reasons that I often choose to interpret Evil as some sort of Objectivism when playing an Evil PC or doing evil acts. You don't have to agree with the outlook to wrap your head around it or understand how Neutral characters could sometimes employ or tolerate the view.

Evil as D&D wants to describe it is hard to rationalize. "Good" is not just as understandable as "Evil" in D&D. No sane being wants to live next to dudes who kick babies because even evil people have babies and prefer their babies not to be kicked. But things like not pitying people or offering them mercy because to do so would be taking away their dignity or impetus to do better, that's more understandable. Doing great things not because you owe it to others through altruism, but instead because you're a badass motherfucker who is strong enough to do it, people can go "alright, that dude can be my neighbor." You can deal with the selfish guy with a goal. It's harder to stomach as good, neutral, or evil, the guy who punches your grandma and then when asked why, sticks his hands in his pockets, shrugs, and goes "iunno, I'm ebilz."

In my mind, even a Evil person can be worked with by most individuals, so long as the other party doesn't have anything that they happen to want at the time, be it power, recognition, or property. As Kobra describes, there are indeed varying forms of Evil, just like there are varying forms of good(zealots, proselytizers, genuinely benevolent people). There's no reason you have to be able to smell the "evil stink" off of a person just by walking up to them, nor do I believe that Evil means being a dick or unpleasant in every single instance. It simply means you're a lot more willing to be a dick or unpleasant to get what YOU want, when you want it. But as long people keep thinking evil means generally being a bastard, I don't think a lot of headway will be made here. In the past, people have spit on people's shoes, summoned undead because lol fuk u, gone out of their way to hinder others(with no real gains to themselves even?), and then cried foul when they are constantly on the receiving end of beatsticks. It's not a matter of sneaky evil or overt evil, it's just basic human nature. If the only interaction you can give to anyone is negative, their opinion of you will be negative and there is absolutely no rationale to put up with you if they can do something about it.

What you're describing sounds more like neutral than evil. Both are capable of doing badass things for their own glory but the neutral character does care whether or not he hurts an innocent to do them whereas the evil guy may not go out of his way to do so but he certainly won't feel bad about doing it.

When I brought up the stinky guy heat I didn't mean that evil itself had a stench. What I mean is that if someone is generally a known and unpleasant commodity you would be understood if you did not want them around. As a bouncer I had a rule that if I ever had to throw you out twice you never had a chance to be chucked out a third time. Once is an accident, twice is a decision. In the real world the idea that the customer is always right is absurd since it offers no incentive to be decent and every incentive to be a dick. In the same way someone that shows no remorse for their actions whether they kick a baby or defile the dead should not be allowed to be able to take part in every single event where folks obviously don't want them around.

ucfgoose wrote:

What you're describing sounds more like neutral than evil.

By D&D standards it probably is. But Evil in D&D is, as shown, extremely hard to reason in its own right, so I supplant it with something that's more coherent when and where possible. Like I said before, it only works up until alignment requirements come into play, because some things are evil in D&D for no other reason than they are explicitly said to be so, no matter the ends.

ucfgoose wrote:

"Well, alright, Wifekiller Evilpants may have slaughtered every woman and child in a village while their husbands were off defending against an invasion of blob monsters but he's here to help us now against this threat so I guess that's we'd better let him in. Oh, and there's Jeffy the Necromonger! Let's have him join in, too!"

Piss on that. If the new threat offered him the chance to join them at no real risk to himself or his possessions and afforded him the possibility to gain more he'd probably at least consider it. That's to say nothing of the very real possibility that the threat could be his own doing.

It's the reason why we have prisons; we can't trust the people that we put in them not to behave in ways unacceptable to society so we do what we can to keep them away from everybody else. There's a reason why nations generally don't empty their prisons and send the inmates to fight in the case of war. There are exceptions, sure, but often penal soldiers are used in such a way as to prevent them from becoming a threat to the very nation for which they are supposed to be fighting.

Please don't strawman. Remember you're playing in a world where knowing how to kill someone in melee or ranged attack means you are always evil, but knowing spells that do the same thing does not, nor does knowing evil spells.

Please remember to contextualize good and evil here.

ucfgoose wrote:

When I brought up the stinky guy heat I didn't mean that evil itself had a stench. What I mean is that if someone is generally a known and unpleasant commodity you would be understood if you did not want them around. As a bouncer I had a rule that if I ever had to throw you out twice you never had a chance to be chucked out a third time. Once is an accident, twice is a decision. In the real world the idea that the customer is always right is absurd since it offers no incentive to be decent and every incentive to be a dick. In the same way someone that shows no remorse for their actions whether they kick a baby or defile the dead should not be allowed to be able to take part in every single event where folks obviously don't want them around.

I find your view on this very self-centered and narrow-sighted.

First of all you should consider that events aren't as common as they used to be, and I think every player should be welcome to general ones, at whatever character they want. There's a time and place for everything, and events aren't the place to push your character's agenda against another PC.

You seem to have forgotten that every character has a player behind them, and I think Amia should strive to be as inclusive as possible towards all players, and whatever character they present.

2nd. You should start to look at evil in the larger perspective: Amia would be pretty boring without the conflict evil characters bring, be it NPC's or PC's. Sure there's creatures to kill, but they hardly bring the same tension.

Server-wide plots

Who is online