Dark Borizons II

Staff positions are something that bring about a lot of responsibility and work. They are not fun for the most part, but CAN be satisfying from time to time.

I imagine it will become more satisfying and more fun as we progress to a better game. But at THIS point, it's not a place that is fun.

And that brings the conversation full circle I think. How does the game become fun for both staff and players? I think we all see glimmers and potential, otherwise no one would log on at all. But it's bringing those glimmers to fruition that matters. I've had a lot of conversations with folks who have expressed opinion and thought. I'm going to try to hit a lot of the things brought up. Please bear in mind, these are not necessarily my opinions so I might not be able to justify or elaborate on them.

1) We're all to weak to be heroes compared to some of the challenges in front of the players, yet are expected to do the work of heroes.

2) The militaries are vacant, yet we're supposed to be at war.

3) Even if they militaries arent' vacant things seem to be stuck in more of a cold war than real conflict.

4) Players need leaders, but leaders also need players.

5) Staff are waiting for players to step up yet when they do, they get slapped back down. (I'll even say I was confused in part about this comment)

6) The suggestions of things to do usually involve stuff I could go down to Starbucks and do in my real life. So why bother RPing it?

7) We're expected to improvise situations and not depend no staff, yet when we do, we get told we can't improvise.

We need more staff.

9) We need less staff.

10) There is no game vision, only game existance. DH2 was built with the mindset of if you build it they will come simply because it's there, rather than having a vision, plot, and direction for the first few months.

11) Staff burned out making the game while running the old one and now there's nothing in the tank for the new game.


I would submit these points (that were submitted to me) for discussion to perhaps steer conversation into corrective resolutions. The focus is on correcting the issue and the matching expectation is that posts will address one or more of these points into how to correct or if there is a contention about their validity. Note some directly refute each other.

1) They wouldn't be challenges if they weren't challenging. I mean, maybe it's because people think the sith are supposed to be defeated in a month or something... this is our theme for a while.

2 & 3) I'm pretty sure all 10 of our players are in the militaries. But seriously, I think we have most players IN militaries, but it's not really feasible to have staff-run daily missions. But spec-ops stuff is starting to gain some ground.

4) Players have been given some bumps to "leadership" of task forces... this is a relatively new thing, and needs some time to gain traction, maybe?

5) Show me some real examples of staff slapping players down and maybe I can explain. I have told some people some things aren't really going to be do-able (usually when asked if I can provide a bunch of stuff to help them start their own idea.)

6) I have no idea.

7) Same as 5.

8 & 9) We need better staff who is willing to work harder.

10) There is a vision... I had thought Gulp shared some of it... maybe not. But when he's back, he can share that.

11) No, we burned out during the first two weeks of DH2.

I want to start off by first thanking Firehawk for doing all the work he has on the game so far. I've seen Yankee and Gamma online but Firehawk seems to log the most hours and is busy running plots when he can if he's not handling code.

I don't know what happened to everyone but as far as I can tell we lost a lot of people in the transition from DH1 to DH2. Some of my favorites quit before the change as they couldn't take the juvenile behavior any longer. Others were run off shortly after the change to DH2 by being called some very offensive names. I don't get it why people go at one another. Having less players means less activity and less RP. You don't "win" when your supposed OOC nemesis leaves. That just means their friends have one less person to RP with. Any more I think we're down to about 20 players remaining. People need to think twice before they type negative stuff otherwise we're going to run out of players. Its hard to get a new player but its sure easy to lose them.

I think a lot of people came into DH2 with the idea that this would be the next KotoR type game where they build the characters and then the staff orbit around them keeping their lives busy. Maybe the whole @hooks gave this impression. Maybe it was all the storyteller talk. Regardless such a game is impossible. Even on the pay to play games you don't get this kind of service, so why expect it on a free game? I know we'd all like something like this and maybe we thought we could pull it off. Looks like we won't.

Needless to say we're finding out quickly that having enough staff to keep things busy is difficult. People are waiting for staff to make stuff happen as promised. However the staff aren't available for reasons unknown. And if we keep waiting for them there won't be a game left soon as activity will fizzle to nothing.

Let's be good stewards of Gulp's game while he is away. People have invested a lot of time planning, building, describing, and rolling DH2 out. They basically built a brand new game in two months! They did it without asking for anything more than for us to play and give them the keys to the city. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt that things will get better. In the meantime do your part to generate RP for others by hosting events. Sure you can't create any earth shattering results or give out massive amounts of toys as rewards, but at least you will create opportunties for RP, opportunties that other players will be thankful for.

Right now there's two ways to go about things while the staff is away. 1) Do nothing, stand around, wait for something to happen, and watch activity dry up. 2) Get out there, inititate scenes, be flexible, be courtious, and think about the fun for all, not simply the fun for yourself.

I'm choosing route #2. I hope others do as well. If everyone pitches in a little a lot can be accomplished. Nothing would make Gulp more proud than if he were to come back to find his game humming along nicely while he was away because of unfortunate circumstances. Gulp has given a lot of himself for DH1 and DH2. I've never need a head wiz so dedicated. Don't let all his hard work come to nothing.

Remember it is your actions, as the player, which determine the fate of DH2, both OOCly as well as ICly.

I've disappeared from DH2 pretty much. I haven't been involved enough to gripe about anything specific or call any one person out. I"m certain many people have put time and effort into the new game and have done their best to make it a success.

But I think its very clear, the overall tone of DH2 is substantially different from DH1. I was interested and excited to see how it would work. But after playing for a week or so, and changing characters to boot, DH2 is just not for me.

Ok, we know something is wrong so we can set the dead horse aside. How do we fix it?

Let’s generate some ideas! Things to remember when you do
1. Keep it simple! It should be easy to use!
2. Keep it simple! It should be easy to set up!
3. Try to develop multiple ideas.
4. Avoid shooting down ideas you don’t like offhand. Give a good faith effort into refining them into an idea that might be usable before you give up on them. The structure of the US constitution was a rejected idea at one time but it was the idea that worked (mostly … sometimes …) in the end.
5. This is not an adversarial debate so there is no “winning”. Avoid insults and loaded language as much as possible. The idea is to explore and develop ideas and that is hard to do when one person is shutting others down before things have a chance to develop.
6. Be productive to the discussion! If you feel the need to attack an idea then you should be willing to post some of your own or offer suggestions on how to fix the problem.
7. If a coder chimes in and says it isn’t possible or practical then you just have to accept that. Sorry, there just isn’t a way around that. Keep in mind that other MUs, even those with the same code base, use different interrelated systems so comparisons are usually not accurate. Also keep in mind that many older games using PennMUSH are heavily modified via hard code and we are not. Our systems are exclusively soft code. This allows other MUs to do some things that we can’t.


Some firestarters for brainstorming:

We seem to be lacking in “spheres of play”.

Firehawk is working at establishing an NPC criminal group. This should improve the flavor of the game but the effect may be quite limited. One problem with the independent sphere of the game is that it is independent. It is a sphere that is at its best when it is player run and generated. This /should/ become easier once the economic systems are finalized but maybe there are other ways to support it.

A major fixture on Dark Horizons I was the political sphere of play. With the local resistance movements and Imperial politics we have a potentially fertile environment for that sort of intrigue. We just need to find an easy way to take advantage of it.

We have two militaries with task forces, leaders, members, and equipment. They can fight against each other but that can get as old as day to day coffee shop RP. We need ongoing missions and goals for these groups rather than “one shot” missions. I’d prefer if you’d focus on goals that require minimal contact with staff since it is easy for us to generate goals that require constant contact. (But if it seems like a really neat idea then go ahead and develop it anyway)

This first post is a bit long so be aware. This is not mine, I took it from another place but I agree with it.
First: I think the following should be adopted (at the very least read) by Staff:

1. Have a Vision
It isn't enough to say I want to run X game inY setting. You have to know why you want to run it. What is your specific goal? What do you want to do in the RPG? I call this detailed idea a Vision, it is what separates your game from every other X game in Y setting. So, instead of saying "This is a Vampire game set
in San Francisco", you should say, "This is a Camarillan Vampire game
set in San Francisco with the theme of how predators fare in a social
setting, with a heavy focus on Clans."

Having a Vision acts as a road map. When questions come up about what new character types, plotlines, expanding the game in different directions, and so forth, having a Vision keeps you focused. It stops you from doing the "Ooo, I should add X because it would be Cool." You should add X because it fits your vision. If it isn't, it is diluting the game, making it a mish mash of stuff, just like every other boring MU* that seems to lack anything new and interesting.

This also applies to staff joining an existing game. If you can't get a straight answer to "Why should I play this game?" or "What does this game do that other X theme games don't do?" then you are going to have problems staffing. If existing staff can't tell you what their game is really about, how can you help them run it? If you are picking up a dead game and trying to revitalize it and no one knows what the Vision of the game is, make one!

In the end, the game is going to succeed or not because people want to play it. If you have a Vision and the Vision works with players, then you have a shot at making something really cool. You want to have this game, players want to play in this game, everyone wins. And if the Player's don't share your vision? Then find a new one. You can't force players to play the game you want them to play, and you will just be annoyed if you run a game you don't want to run. Having a Vision you can articulate makes your statement up front, "This is what I am offering you." It will save you a lot of grief in the long run.

2. The Game is Your Focus
Staff often times get distracted by other things that get in the way of good staffing. Some people are too involved in their own ideas of how cool they are, some cater too much to the players, some are fiercely protective of the source game and try to emulate it perfectly, and some just want to watch out for the friends. (Good) players don't come to the MU* because they think you are cool or the game system is holy writ or to get ahead and be the big fish in the small pond, they come because they want to play a game. They want to have fun. Their focus is the game, so yours should be as well.

This means you need to be ready to say "screw it" to game books and canon setting. This means you need to be ready to make unpopular decisions that will piss players off. This means you need to forestall your own ego or your own sense of how things should be done if it is hurting the game.

Putting the game first is the best away to avoid abuse as well. Almost every time you hear a horror story about a MU*, it is because people are not putting the game first. Staff are using the game for their own ego stroking, players are trying to make their own fiefdom, slavish attention to setting makes the game a chore instead of a game. People log into a MU* to play a game, so that is the focus.

3. Communicate!
Staff has a lot of duties and time constraints, so just issued edicts from on high seems like a good idea because it is efficient. But it is also counterproductive. Players and staff are here to do one thing, play the game. You may have different roles, running the game vs. playing the game, but the game is the thing. So if your players are part of the people making the game happen (you can't have a game without players), include them. When you decide something, tell them why, just don't issue it.

Communicate also means listen. Be available to your players, talk with them about their concerns. You don't have to agree with them or do what they say, but you need to understand their positions about things. You need to be able to explain why you can't do what you want them to do not because you don't know why, but because you have considered it and you think your way is better. You may not be able to persuade them, but at least they will know you heard them.

And be persuaded at times by them! You are not god (even if you have access to #1). You are fallible, you will make mistakes, and you will make bad calls. Your best reality check is your player based, because they see first hand the impact of your decisions. If you start ignoring them or rejecting their ideas out of hand, you are no longer serving the game, you are serving yourself, and that just leads to abuse.

Lastly, Communicate also means be honest. Never make a decision in secret that you wouldn't want to be known by the player base as a whole. If you have to hide something because you will look bad if players find out, you have stopped serving the game. You don't have to broadcast every thing you do, but keep in mind that in the net people will probably find out sooner or later. Further, admit to your mistakes. You will make them, and if they hurt someone, apologize. People are much more willing to forgive an honest apology than forget a slight never acknowledged.

4. Be Open to Change
Opening a MU* is like having a wedding. There is a lot of work and effort and passion getting to that point but the day after is when the work really starts. It is one thing to make something new and interesting, it is another thing to keep it new and interesting. You should always be striving to make the game better.

This does not mean, however, you should make change for change sake. There is still the Vision to remember; that is your road map. And there is focus on the game. If a change doesn't fit the Vision and if it does not serve the game, it is not good change, it is just change for the sake of change.

However, if a player offers a new idea, if metaplot or player actions make significant alterations to the world, or if people want some thing new that isn't what you expected; and if this new stuff fits Vision and Game, then do it. Your default position as a staffer should be to say yes. Unless Vision or Game gives you a specific reason to say no, say yes. This will keep the game alive and fresh and new. Saying no as default locks the game into staticity. Static and unchanging is just another way of saying dead.

So do not be afraid to try new things. Innovate. Alter. Expand. You will make mistakes and some of the ideas or stories will be craptastic, but trying is better than not. Be open to change, and the game will stay fresh and young for you and your players.

5. Have Fun
The whole point to doing this hobby is to have fun. You aren't getting paid, you aren't going to save the world, you are not going to get laid (probably). The reward is the enjoyment, the fun. If you aren't having fun, then for god's sake why are you doing it?

Lots of staff fall down on this one. They stay staff even without having fun out of a sense of obligation (if I don't do it, who will?), or because players ask them to do it, or because they may hate their game but they love the attention. At best, these reasons will lead to burn out and you doing a piss poor job as a staffer. At worst, it will make you abusive because you will no longer be serving the game, but serving the players or your own ego.

Now that is not to say throw in the towel the first time you get discouraged. All staff have bad days. But if over time you realize you are not having fun anymore, that the game is a chore, then quit. Either turn the game over to someone else, or reboot it being something you do want to play, or shut it down and do something else. You will be happier and in the end, part of being a good staffer is enjoying yourself.

Now the Nitty Gritty

1. Empower the Players
Let the players play with as little input as possible by Staff. Just because abuses occured in the past, that is no reason to add more and more restrictions. Handle the one or two abuses, don't restrict all players.

Let them +snipe, let them +sneak, let them +slice. Right now to take any of those skills is a waste. They have to get staff involved and sometimes, many times, staff is not available. This goes across all Skills that are offered. If it requires staff to be there, then don't offer the skill. Use +check when there is no skill offered.

2. Give the players a BB for news
There is a lot that goes on and should be reported. This BB is not for political Speeches, it is not so that one player can have a galactic argument with another, it is so that Faction A can tell of the skirmish with Faction C and how Faction A won the day. Just the news, folks. If a Speech is wanted, that should be submitted to Staff and if they feel it is news worthy then post it. If it is player A bad mouthing Player B, I mean ICly here, then do not post it. If it is abused, staff can remove the post and remind what the BB is for.

3. IC promotion based on IC actions.
Let each faction have their IC BB. They can post requests for actions, they can give news that only that faction should know. They can also, after following Player 1 from Faction A meet with Faction C and soundly defeat a larger force, submit him/her for promotion to Lt. The other members of the faction then send in a vote and the Staff then either does: 1. Send the ST Commander in and promote the Player, 2. If the vote fails but staff thinKs it is really something that should be recognized, then send in the ST to award a valor medal. Enough medals and auto promotion. But it all has to be on IC reasons, not OOC reasons.

4. Requests from players
This is very important. For a player to submit a request and 5 days later they check and it hasn't even been read makes for some very disgruntled players. At the very least, with in 24 hours the player should get an @mail saying it is under review and in X days an answer will occur. Then, keep that Deadline! If it is not possible, Staff C is not avail due to RL and that is Staff C's responsiblities, send the player an @mail saying why. Be ahead of the players, do not take them for granted. I have seen staff have an agenda keeper that ensures this all occurs. If the Agenda keeper fails on this, get a new one. This is the direct communications between players and Staff. No responses, no reading tells the player one thing, that Staff doesn't care. True or false, this is what it says.

5. Help the slow factions
If Faction A is thriving and all is good, Faction B is struggling and Faction C is all but dead, bring in the STs and help Faction B but definitly go to Faction C and do something! Waiting to see if it will pick up, waiting for some one else to do something is nothing more than saying Good bye. It will die out if action is not swift and meaningful. For staff to do nothing means that they do not care about Faction C and willing to let Faction B die off. This may not be true, but that is the message that is sent.

6 Do not dump the Newbie, fresh out fo CharGen, on the grid and say "Have fun!"
They do not know what to do, they have no idea where to go. Each faction should have Newbie helpers. They will, via RP, get them the stuff that that faction uses (military - weapons, uniforms, assignment to a squad, etch.). Now this doesn't mean that the new smuggler gets a ship, but he is directed to the Smuggling King and begins working for them. Get the Newbie active as soon as his/hers feet hits the grid.

The post is from WORA. I've read it several times. Please do not repost without citing it. And preferably just link to it (maybe outline the 5 pillars and link) because there IS Copyright issues involved.

It's probably okay. But still.

Also? Yes, those things are things we plan on doing.

Oh well, I tried. Glad you got all those ideas already in the works. Funny how that works.

Mr.T wrote:

I don't mind fast-tracking PCs for promotions ... but the PCs have to show leadership. Take initiative and do something!.

I fully support the idea that PCs should show leadership in order to become leaders.

The main problem is that DH2 was introduced with pre-designed organizations, with pre-designed plots around pre-designed goals. If we had completely open ended organizations, it'd be a lot easier, because then players could coalesce around the concepts and ideas they like most, and the natural leaders of said groups could emerge.

I think a #1 priority for DH2 is to allow a great deal more flexibility in how groups form and operate. I am also all for said groups creating their own goals, so that the players can play out their own fantasies with laser swords and doomsday devices and such. Rather than, say, us just playing out Republic vs. Sith, or Rebellion vs. Dark Side, or whatever pre-designed plots were initially created.

I sort of imagine I'm late to the game here, and this might not even be what this thread is about anymore.

Also it would be super if +requests was fixed. I'd like to see that put higher up on the priority list, since many things on the game seem to require players to put in a +request for various activities.

I didn't know there was something wrong with +requests. Does that mean my requests aren't being seen?

The +requests system is buggy for some reason. We really don't know why... or at least I don't.

We know it eats some requests seemingly at random. And it doesn't notify any of us that there is a problem. So we might see the request one day, and then two days later it's gone.

I first noticed this during SR Weeks, when some people would page me asking about their request and I didn't see it at all, yet I cleared all requests out.

Gulp will have to take a look at it and work on it, when he's back. Which is, hopefully, less than a week away.

As for Stalker's points... a lot of what you said IS known and IS planned. But, since you haven't been around much, you probably don't know how dire our staffing situation is. So things like responding to requests and the like is rather hard for us. And no one wants to just grab a bunch of new staffers... especially with out new low numbers.

Perhaps having the +org/join screen in CharGen is a problem. Since it does seem like it IS required to join and that's the "proper" way to join.

As T said, we're trying to make it easier for players to be more independent and the new task forces are supposed to be helping with that, as it definitely gives the players the role of "hero" and "mission maker." The Sith, after all, have decided to make a concentration camp and so that's a project they are working on.

Mr.T wrote:

1. Keep it simple! It should be easy to use!
2. Keep it simple! It should be easy to set up!
3. Try to develop multiple ideas.
4. Avoid shooting down ideas you don’t like offhand. Give a good faith effort into refining them into an idea that might be usable before you give up on them. The structure of the US constitution was a rejected idea at one time but it was the idea that worked (mostly … sometimes …) in the end.
5. This is not an adversarial debate so there is no “winning”. Avoid insults and loaded language as much as possible. The idea is to explore and develop ideas and that is hard to do when one person is shutting others down before things have a chance to develop.
6. Be productive to the discussion! If you feel the need to attack an idea then you should be willing to post some of your own or offer suggestions on how to fix the problem.

I was only trying to do as T suggested. Nothing more. But as you already have all this in the plans then ignore it. Seems that you have a handle on it and it is in the works so things should turn around right away.

I just hope, for the game's sake, that the planning doesn't take to long else you won't have any active players. Oh well, such is the way of the games sometimes.

Yeah, Yeah.

It takes how long it takes. It'll be unfortunate to lose more players, I really hope we don't. But if we correct the measures, those corrections will work whether we have 1 player or 100, and so, if we only have 1, we can start recruiting again.

Firehawk wrote:

Yeah, Yeah.

It takes how long it takes. It'll be unfortunate to lose more players, I really hope we don't. But if we correct the measures, those corrections will work whether we have 1 player or 100, and so, if we only have 1, we can start recruiting again.

Nice discussion.

Forgive me for not getting too excited about the ideas of someone who's left already.

If you were in there day to day, I'd probably listen a bit more. Voth, J, K, Kez, and many others are in the game, struggling with what is or isn't there, and what they say they need is definitely going to the top of anything to do.

General guidelines on how best to be a good staff is pretty important, as well. But at the same time we can't implement every change overnight. As much as we really would like to.

But I never said I'd ignore what you posted. In fact, I said the opposite. That I've read the pillars from WORA already and intend to implement them.

Sorry for lack of further input on this discussion from me. Was sick over the weekend and I was diagnosed with the H1N1 virus on monday (yay for me!) so expect me to be AWOL for a few more days at the very least.

So, there's plenty of problems with DH2 that were simply not present on DH1--most of them because a system that used to be in place is no longer there. There is a reasonably simple solution for that, though as simple things tend to, it misses some finer points. Nevertheless, that solution is this:

Bring back DH1's code.

Not all of it, of course--obviously the combat systems have been revamped. But if a system does not have something to replace it (and +check does not count as something to replace code), it should be brought back. That would bring back things such as stealth, which I have dealt with thoroughly in the past; forgery in the form of disguises and fake IDs, which made it a lot more feasible for people who were enemies to interact without having to pull out the guns; and so on. This won't solve every problem, but it will solve at least part of the biggest ones: players right now have no agency.

T, you mentioned that the political sphere on DH1 was popular. I'd like to explore that for a minute. It was popular, as far as I was able to tell, primarily because there was essentially ultimate freedom to do whatever. You could build up your little hegemonies. It was a lot like a very involved game of Junta or Diplomacy. You didn't need staff to resolve your machinations, be they political or military. While there were plenty of people who played in the lawmaking side of things, the real political game came with the power struggle between people with militaries and planets and economies.

Because this political game (which I will henceforth call 'this game;' I am not referring to the MUSH, which I will refer to as 'the MUSH' or 'this MUSH') was highly involved, it was possible to play on different levels of it. You could, as some did, play as the people wielding power. You could play as an agent of one of those power-wielders--as a pilot, or a general, or a spy, or a mechanic, or what have you.

I suspect that this game can't really start up until the economy is implemented--if Gulp's original vision of it survives, then it will be perfect for what I have just described, or should be. Politics is about vying for power, and in order to do that, there needs to be real power to be vied for.

The thing that made this game thrive is it was all player-fueled--and I think the same is true of the MUSH in general. Staff could help with some things that couldn't be handled by players, but you could operate without ever interacting with staff, and effect change without needing staff to type a command for you.

So, extrapolating from there: player agency and efficacy are important. I would posit it was the combination of these two things that made DH popular. I know that's why I stuck around. Unfortunately I don't think the problems of a lack of either will entirely go away until the economy is implemented, but a few things will, in the meanwhile, help greatly. This is, conveniently, also a numbered TL;DR for this post:

(1) Players require agency, the ability to make independent choices; efficacy, the ability to effect change; and self-efficacy, the belief that they are able to effect change (and the belief that they are able to make independent choices).
(1a) to ensure agency, the PC should never be waiting on orders from staff-run NPCs. The PC should be ICly more or less autonomous--at least at the higher ranks. Whether this means there are no staff-run NPCs is a question I leave to other people. It is easier to ignore orders from a PC than from an NPC.
(1b) +check does NOT give players efficacy, and +check does not actually do anything. +check is not an adequate replacement for the functionality that hiding, forgery, and disguises provided. Stealth, fake IDs, disguises, etc, need to be reimplemented.
(1c) Self-efficacy is the hardest to reproduce, but when it is demonstrably possible for a player to do something without needing to ask staff, self-efficacy will follow.

(2) Once the previous items are taken care of, all available effort needs to go to implementing the economy and implementing the rest of the planets. If combat is still nightmarish (ground and space) that should also be cleaned up. If we are using the standards of efficacy and agency, combat should be able to take place without any staff involvement, and ideally the victor should be able to capture or destroy things/territory/etc without any staff involvement.

You brought the length on yourselves.

I'm going to spring board a little off of what Rcantz here is saying because ironically I pointed out many of these same things to a fellow player on Dh2 who asked me why I thought things were going so terribly awry.

The simple reason is this: on DH1 Staff weren't really needed to make the game go. On DH2, they are. Now sure, people claim they aren't needed that players should go out and invent and create on their own. But such statements are very false. We can create casual bar rp certainly... except an entire segment of the population is being hunted to death on the ONLY PLANET GRIDDED which makes such encounters very difficult.

Sure, individuals could go out and RP with the other side, except the above statement applies and the simple mindset that this game was designed for 40 players hasn't soaked in. This game was designed with a large playerbase in mind, not for the current 10-15 that exist regularly on the game. Why don't people go out and do? Because there is /zero/ motivation for most players to go out due to the fact that as Rcrantz is saying, there's next to no efficacy for doing it. I couldn't think of a better word (because ironically I used it last night)

What's the solution? I agree, players shouldn't be waiting around for NPCs to come down from mount high to hand out edicts. Now here's the staff rebuttal (which I have heard many times) -- players should have the initiative to go out and create. My response? Why.

Why is it on the players to go out and create plots for the staff to then step in and run or in some people's opinions (certainly not mine), ruin? I have heard that sentiment shared. But let's get much more exploratory of how DH2 is in fact a /downgrade/ from DH1.

Politics - This was covered in previous post, but is non-existent
Economy - Non existent
Force - Non Existent
Space - Non Existent
Conflict - Non Existent
Heroism - Non Existent
Villainy - Existent
Adventure - Non Existent
Exotic Locations - Non Existent
Exotic Encounters - Non Existent
Casual Bar RP - Non Existent (For some people, I actually get RP when I choose to)

That's a pretty hefty list of things that don't exist, many of which are core to star wars. Right now, you could go through and rename any number of items or locations and it would be Generic MUSH #422. We have a serious problem at present, not just developing obviously. So what's the solution?

Well, as Rcrantz stated, I agree with completely. We need to can this notion that somehow throwing more staff at the problem is going to be a solution. I voiced at the very onset of development that I thought the ST idea was horrible. At this juncture, I would venture to say this assessment was completely accurate. I'm open to discussion on that assessment, but we have taken a game that was for people who could go out and do things on their own and turned it into one that is dependent on (relatively) non-existent staff. And that is the biggest problem at present.

The vision that was DH2 has failed. Is it salvageable? Everything is, with work and cooperation, the question is if people are willing to admit where the mistakes are and we move to correct them, or if things continue on the same path of 'this is on the players'. I know some staff are literally busting their butts to make things happen. And for that I know I'm very appreciative. Some players are too. But it feels like trudging through sludge.

I don't want people to read this as a negative post (even though it is very negative I suppose) but rather a call to arms. I have let some folks know of windows that are open, directions perhaps they should take and ideas on improving some things that are tangible. If you are interested, feel free to PM me. But we have a primarily US based player base, usually in the evenings. I have been on every evening by and large since opening. In the past two weeks, I have seen wizards visible this many times:

3

If you guys have quit on the game? Just shut it down instead of stringing along the player base with false hopes. If you haven't quit on it? Then it's time to f'in start doing something.

As a newbie I have seen the game with a pair of fresh eyes only a month old. What I have seen is that there are some fantastic RP! Some of the players that I have been able to RP with are just the best I have found anywhere.

Most of us on the Republic side are low +level compared to the Sith side and stand no chance to ever win (actually I have been in a few of the "events" and not once has the Republic side come close to winning any of them). Now winning isn't everything, but loosing all the time gets very old not to mention it creates a "Why Try" attitude.

There seems to be absolutely no support for the republic side. It seems the Republic side has no supplies what so ever nor have I seen any way to get any. There is no Bacta to be purchased. I have had three suits blown off me and really can't make any more as the Sith has control of the only tailor booth.

Not to mention if you are not one of the captured Republic types then there is little to no RP to be had (I know in my connect times - evenings Pacific times - this means only two PCs to RP with). So it is very hard to even get better in your skills as it takes longer and longer to be able to +level while those in the Spaceport and the Sith get a lot more than we do. For my character to RP with "the other side" means death and there is no way I can even compete in any combat action against any one on the Sith side (save for one) nor have I seen any other Republic type able to either. Or I guess I could be like the other Republic types and get captured then get the RP from all sides.

As Paradox stated, it is like sludge not a fun flowing game. It is nights and nights either RPing with the same two players or sitting around doing nothing. While I do love RPing with the two Republic types we can only go to pretend clubs or hang out in some obscure room while sitting around chatting before it gets boring. Add in that there is no where to go but Vassar Island it only adds to the problem of boredom.

The events where +check was used, well I would rather not use it at all to the point of avoiding it at all costs. It all but kills the RP flow, creates a lot of OOC chatter and arguments, it feels more like a D&D game with poses thrown in then a MUSH game. It seems way to random in the results. If I wanted to play a D&D game I would play one. I choose to play a mush and interact with PCs.

I think the last three posters have really hit the nail on the head.

I enjoyed DH1 immensely because it was laissez-faire, as Gulp described it some months ago. I do believe there is a place for Staff and Staff-run NPCs. But they should be making things happen on a grand Galactic scale (which is something where I believe DH1 never lived up to its potential with the FCs).

Here's an example of the kind of Staff intervention I think would be ideal.

I'm going use World War I to illustrate. After Jutland, the German High Seas Fleet and the British Grand Fleet sat in port for the most part. Safe, but not very fun. So, Staff would decide its time to shake things up. A Staff NPC gets intelligence to the British that the Germans are on the verge of perfecting cloaking technology. It will alow the High Seas Fleet to sortie, sail to Scapa Flow, sight their guns, decloak and destroy the Grand Fleet with the first salvo. A second Staff NPC shows up in Germany with the technology, says its almost finished, asks for creds, protection, all that.

The British has some choices.

• First, the Grand Fleet could go to sea to evade the attack. But it will cost a lot creds and resources.
  
• Second, the British could disperse the Grand Fleet, but that would just dissipate their combat power and the Germans would break the blockade.
  
• Third, the Grand Fleet could try a pre-emptive strike on the High Seas Fleet. But the High Seas Fleet is protected behind minefields.
  
• Fourth, the British could send in a commando team to try and steal or sabotage the cloaking technology.

Perhaps the British players could think of something else with their imaginations.

I sort of want to further explore my comparison to the politics to a board game like Junta or Diplomacy, because I am in love with the sound of my own voice, figuratively speaking. I'll focus more on Junta, because it's more apt and I know the game better. If you don't care, you can probably disregard; this message probably won't contain anything else.

Those of you who are unfamiliar, it goes something like this: each player represents a ruling family in a banana republic. The goal of the game is to secret as much money away as you can to your Swiss bank account before the foreign aid money runs out. It's a very simple goal, and on its face, very straightforward: every turn (which represents a year) the current president draws eight money cards from the foreign aid pool. Only he knows how much money has been dealt. He then decides how to allocate that money to the remaining players.

Everything else gets a lot more complicated. Each player has various ways of getting influence--either through votes, or through military threats (staging a coup and overthrowing the current regime), or through threats of assassination. The president has to convince the rest of the players that he is going to be more helpful to them in office than out of office. This is at the same time as each player knows, with certainty, that the president is cheating them all out of money.

The gameplay is, as such, a lot more complicated than simply "secreting money away to the Swiss bank." There are coalitions built and broken constantly, people are routinely assassinated, and for many players there are more goals than simply winning. Some hope to hold on to a certain title, or to avoid being killed, or to maintain X degree of influence.

This is notable for two reasons.

First, a very simple goal can yield very complex politics. Indeed, the longest part of gameplay takes place in throwing coups, which doesn't directly advance the ultimate goal of earning money at all--it's merely about assigning a new president. On DH1 the goals were slightly more complicated, but for most of the hegemons it was essentially 'amass power and wealth.' The two are, of course, often synonymous.

Second, all of these things are /possible/. If you wanted to assassinate someone, that is possible. Whether you have a card which allows you to make the attempt, or whether you are the Minister of Internal Security (who gets a free assassination attempt every turn), or whether you merely want to bribe MiniSec, it's possible. If you want to overthrow the president violently, it is possible. You can either have him killed and then hope to vote a new president in next year, or throw a coup, bribing the generals over to your side, and this new junta can vote in the new president.

At no point is someone required to arbitrate the rules, or does someone need to be approached for permission. If DH is to be viewed as a board game, the role of staff ought to be, essentially, that of the owner of the game: if there is a rules dispute, they decide how it is to be resolved.

In a game like Junta, each game has its own narrative as it plays out. The last game I played, I narrowly escaped being executed by rebels after I was ousted in a coup by escaping to the Russian embassy. I then was allowed to return the next year by the new MiniSec, with whom I established a coalition and overthrew my replacement. I was the last president before foreign aid ran out, governing a reasonably stable triumvirate.

You saw this on DH1, as well. Without staff dictating the direction of the story, you saw various hegemonies rise and fall, alliances formed and broken, and disparate forces throwing in with one another. The stories that players told without any real staff prompting were cool.

This isn't to say I am anti-staff. But staff's role in events should be that of a gentle nudging--if things have grown too stagnant, they should throw in something to offset that stagnancy. In Junta, stagnancy is prevented by random cards being drawn every turn. Even if there is an equilibrium, the randomness ensures that eventually someone will become too powerful for the rest of his coalition. It will collapse.

Staff would, of course, not be (entirely?) random, but they should be impartial to the story, or at least agnostic. That is to say, they shouldn't tip the balance of power in such a way as to support their vision of where the story is going, but only to make sure that a story is going.

I think one of the best ways to keep the story interesting is to create new ways to amass power. The arms race on DH1 kept the conflict alive for a long time--not in terms of getting huge fleets, necessarily, but in terms of things like the clones, the VSD, the cloaking technologies, and so on. New technologies, new ways of having power, kept people racing to be on top of that struggle.

When staff ran actual plots, I always felt like it was a little flat. When staff simply implemented goals for actual players to go after, it was quite lively.