Archived A Discussion We Had On Conflict Generation

[ElderShrub]

Hello players! So within a skype chat a discussion about the nature of conflict generation in Massivecraft was sparked and I wanted to let others jump in and give their thoughts.

Conflict as a result of an imbalance of power is not working. We need a paradigm shift. This is a bit of a shame as conflict is a central and import part of roleplay. In this case I am defining conflict as two characters, groups or other entities that have differing goals that either are mutually exclusive, or at the least come into conflict, thus generating roleplay.

Currently conflict is difficult due to the ideology present in Regalia. Those who do not conform are generally significantly set back and from the groups that have power they all work together well, generating no inherent conflict. Worlds were the conflict comes not from authoritarian overlords but instead conflicts between different sects, ideas, group and orders creates a more colourful and engaging world that is more responsive to antagonism and player interaction.

The current political environment of Regalia was built in an effort to create in imperfect world that would generate conflict, however it has now settled into a position where, bar the sewers where ideologies and groups do compete, conflict generation becomes difficult. A solution to this would be to give more opportunities for surface roleplay that isn't underground heretical, magical or criminal groups. Opportunities that innately generate conflict such as conflicting merchant guilds, or competing religious ideologies such as Protestantism and Catholicism would be ideal for this however I'll let you imagination go wild. This diversity of stances is significantly more interesting and allows conflict without fear of losing a character as a result of it.

A few half-brained ideas for other opportunities:

1. In response to the Estel problem, powerful political groups from both the Shadow Isles and Altalar kingdoms arrive in Regalia, however their goals are mutually exclusive and they fight for dominance.

2. Teams of Allar scientists studying Circci's reproductive problems arrive in Regalia, however some groups take issue with their methods.

3. The Black Order goes rogue and becomes a playable faction, selling information to the highest bidder and establishing a network of spies, plotters and informants.

4. A new creed brings the church and the nobility into conflict. Some nobles or clergymen accept the new creed, others reject it also causing internal conflict. Both groups must now attempt to win over the general populous.

While all of the above are of course possible, none are really built into the system. While Aloria has a plethora of racial, cultural, religious and ethical conflicts most don't enter Regalia due to either having very little sway over the scene as a whole or being considered heretical.

Please share your thoughts on how we can improve conflict in Regalian roleplay.

 

[Wumpatron]

I can speak from being a more active participant in the noble system now that there is a great deal of conflict that exists there. Tensions are high between certain individuals and their actions. I myself am doing what I can in rp situations to create tension and this sense of uncomfortability towards my peers. I do agree that this cannot be seen from those outside of the noble circles and that is unfortunate. I feel the best way is for the players in those groups to work towards creating their own conflicts. I am willing to assist in that regard where needed.

 

[FireFan96]

I can't speak for the world as a whole, but I've definitely seen conflict going on. Though most of my conflict stems from areas that the general commoner wouldn't have access to. It's more of a battle of ideologies, but the fight is waged behind closed doors. That's where most of my conflict stems form nowadays. While I'd say there isn't a lot of conflict affecting my characters directly, they are present in tense atmospheres.

Though if you wanted to have a more active conflict present, I'd look to trying to get sewer thugs to work together. I really want to see the Vampires start to be more of an active enemy. While I have no idea how that progress is going (since the only one's I see potentially interacting with myself are Ombratores), I think the new lore offers a good way to generate conflict.

The secret to getting conflict on the surface is to know the environment. The city guard is always present. So try and stir dissent within the ranks. The city council are oppressing you? Find a way to blackmail some councilors. A rival business is making more profits? Attempt to call a hit on them. There's definitely ways to cause conflict. It all depends on how much risk you want to take, and are all the pawns in the right place at the right time.

 

[Vegemiite]

The general idea we had was for people to stray away from the conflicts generated by nobility where its generally one sided. If you're a high noble and someone speaks out against you, you win, and if someone has a higher power within nobility of someone else, they generally win as well.

And while yes, conflict can be created by anyone, we were aiming to discuss about the conflict on the surface of Regalia how anyone who speaks against the church, a few noble families or go against the guards, they would generally lose no matter what. We wanted a fair system where conflict between two groups of people or even more could have a hint of surprise to it, where both are relatively equal powers and have a chance of winning, rather than the current system where one group easily just outweighs the other in terms of power.

One of my ideas, while generally not required, I was hoping that nobility and the church could be brought down in terms of power so criminals or other group of people, whether religious sects, mercenaries, gangs or whatever else actually have a fair chance at winning. A conflict/situation where the groups are mainly equal and you don't know who would win or lose from the start. Where they can work to better their own group or sabotage the opposing group. As long as the conflict is generally equal and one side doesn't have the power to immediately crush the opposing side would be fantastic and open up many more opportunities.

 

[Conflee]

Iv played DND for a while and a lot of the funnest times were in chaos. For a Massively Multiplayer setting, that doesnt work so well, but I feel like conflict is very important, and I also think staff known this, given their efforts to spark it in story.

I would like to see Estel (since shes around being a statue somewhere still) make some decree and try to turn Elves and Yanar against Humanium. Makes sense to happen, and would just drive another wedge between people ICly.

 

[Vegemiite]

Iv played DND for a while and a lot of the funnest times were in chaos. For a Massively Multiplayer setting, that doesnt work so well, but I feel like conflict is very important, and I also think staff known this, given their efforts to spark it in story.

I would like to see Estel (since shes around being a statue somewhere still) make some decree and try to turn Elves and Yanar against Humanium. Makes sense to happen, and would just drive another wedge between people ICly.

Click to shrink...

Another suggestion was to to see that if any opposing force goes against Regalia, its a fair fight where the outcome generally is not decided from the very beginning and both forces have relatively equal power, so players can decide what they want to do, whether to aid Regalia or this opposing force. Something where players won't just go "This occupation ruined my character because the Emperor isn't in charge anymore." if Regalia does lose would also be great, having players accept loss rather than always wanting to stay in control and win. And yes, while it is an Ailor and Regalia story, the two should face more opposition in the larger scale of things that have actual impact and aren't just fixed straight away after Regalia regains control, if they even do at that.

 

[Conflee]

Another suggestion was to to see that if any opposing force goes against Regalia, its a fair fight where the outcome generally is not decided from the very beginning, where players won't just go "This occupation ruined my character because the Emperor isn't in charge anymore." if Regalia does lose. And yes, while it is an Ailor and Regalia story, the two should face more opposition in the larger scale of things that have actual impact and aren't just fixed straight away after Regalia regains control, if they even do at that.

Click to shrink...

The Orc tribes were united during the Bone Horror crisis. I maybe they start pillaging and we need to stop them.

TBH I feel like distant wars arent enough though. Racism increases in the city, sure, but there isnt much to RP out.

 

[Vegemiite]

The Orc tribes were united during the Bone Horror crisis. I maybe they start pillaging and we need to stop them.

TBH I feel like distant wars arent enough though. Racism increases in the city, sure, but there isnt much to RP out.

Click to shrink...

That is a great idea in all truth. The two Orc tribes uniting and making the Orcish empire that was feared earlier in history. Something that gets people to work together, or even work against each other.

Distant wars aren't generally progressive, but if they came to Regalia or somewhere extremely close, so it effected the playerbase, that would work out.

 

[ElderShrub]

The problem I have with the above occupations of Regalia, despite them being great ideas, is they are very destructive to other peoples characters. I think something less destructive would probably be better, even if it means it needs to work within the confines of the current system rather than upturning it.

 

[Vegemiite]

The problem I have with the above occupations of Regalia, despite them being great ideas, is they are very destructive to other peoples characters. I think something less destructive would probably be better, even if it means it needs to work within the confines of the current system rather than upturning it.

Click to shrink...

Occupations are entirely situational, and one happening doesn't have to be the only form of conflict. Though if an occupation does result in negatively effecting a character, that's just how it is. You wouldn't expect someone leading an occupation to keep everything the same, there wouldn't exactly be a reason to overthrow the current government if it was like that.

If an occupation did occur however, it would be nice to have it seem like Regalia finally met their match, that someone or some Empire could finally compete with them. Of course if Regalia wins in the end so be it, but generally having it as Regalia winning no matter what ruins conflict and surprise.

 

[Wumpatron]

"Power resides where people think it resides"
You don't need to have a physical opposition to win and while at face value it may be apparent there are groups with more power than others, nobility, the clergy, guards, etc. However these individuals have the most at stake. Should anything be brought against them it could prove detrimental. I am sure a great many who fall under the above categories have secrets and do actions that they would otherwise like to hide. Find them out and use them towards your advantage. I know I am doing everything I can to drop subtle hints towards potential weaknesses to be exploited. Just keep a keen eye out for these hints. I'm not the only one employing them. So dominate the scene or be subtle and pick out weaknesses. They could provide conflict, not the straightforward one you are referring to, but one that provides a great deal of meaning. Anyone can obtain this power, the problem is no one acts on it.

 

[Conflee]

The problem I have with the above occupations of Regalia, despite them being great ideas, is they are very destructive to other peoples characters. I think something less destructive would probably be better, even if it means it needs to work within the confines of the current system rather than upturning it.

Click to shrink...

Perhaps more story driven conflict in the Sewers, as opposed to random gangs doing minor things.

(cough Beggar King cough Rat King doing stuff hopefully? cough)

People going into the sewers are basically consenting to putting their character in harms way the entier time they are down there. Thats how the Sewers work. So having major drama going on down under would be fine. Maybe have minor spillage onto Surface RP as well from time to time.

 

[Vegemiite]

"Power resides where people think it resides"
You don't need to have a physical opposition to win and while at face value it may be apparent there are groups with more power than others, nobility, the clergy, guards, etc. However these individuals have the most at stake. Should anything be brought against them it could prove detrimental. I am sure a great many who fall under the above categories have secrets and do actions that they would otherwise like to hide. Find them out and use them towards your advantage. I know I am doing everything I can to drop subtle hints towards potential weaknesses to be exploited. Just keep a keen eye out for these hints. I'm not the only one employing them. So dominate the scene or be subtle and pick out weaknesses. They could provide conflict, not the straightforward one you are referring to, but one that provides a great deal of meaning. Anyone can obtain this power, the problem is no one acts on it.

Click to shrink...

And what happens if someone does find out the secret to said person in power if there is one? They would either be ignored or filed for heresy as they plan to blackmail or insult the clergy, nobles and are even at huge risk of getting punishment constantly from the guards if they find something out about them. These groups can and do hold too much power, though that is just my opinion. If they had a secret that can make them fail, I will be ultimately surprised and would actually like to see that come into place, at least once. Which it hasn't at all yet.

 

[Conflee]

And what happens if someone does find out the secret to said person in power if there is one? They would either be ignored or filed for heresy as they plan to blackmail or insult the clergy, nobles and are even at huge risk of getting punishment constantly from the guards if they find something out about them. These groups can and do hold too much power, though that is just my opinion. If they had a secret that can make them fail, I will be ultimately surprised and would actually like to see that come into place, at least once. Which it hasn't at all yet.

Click to shrink...

Knowing secrets adds a very... dark... twist to the world, if they are big enough. Adding a diverse ... perspective to a narrative always makes it more interesting, especially in a multiplayer- or MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER- setting. I found out one recently and it blew my mind and has me paranoid AF NOW.

 

[Vegemiite]

Knowing secrets adds a very... dark... twist to the world, if they are big enough. Adding a diverse ... perspective to a narrative always makes it more interesting, especially in a multiplayer- or MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER- setting. I found out one recently and it blew my mind and has me paranoid AF NOW.

Click to shrink...

Having secrets can make it interesting, but suggesting that every single one of those people in ultimate power has one that would cause them to fall in prestige and whatnot seems highly unlikely.

 

[Wumpatron]

And what happens if someone does find out the secret to said person in power if there is one? They would either be ignored or filed for heresy as they plan to blackmail or insult the clergy, nobles and are even at huge risk of getting punishment constantly from the guards if they find something out about them. These groups can and do hold too much power, though that is just my opinion. If they had a secret that can make them fail, I will be ultimately surprised and would actually like to see that come into place, at least once. Which it hasn't at all yet.

Click to shrink...

There are ways to use that information against them, you just need the proper outlet. I can come up with a few outlets but I won't be naming them as that defeats the purpose. If someone doesn't know how to provide conflict I can't guarantee they will be able to maintain it properly. One outlet is visible in the context of the groups. Think about what I said about there being existing conflict in noble circles. The outlet should be fairly straightforward. Not everything can be black and white and plainly visible, otherwise we'd have large scale powergaming issue because everyone wants to spill the beans on everyone's weaknesses. I hope that helps somewhat, apologies for being vague, but it is necessary if you plan on providing conflict properly. Remember, more power means more to lose. Though some may not have this destroying weakness, some do, myself included. Find the weakness, use the proper outlet.

 

[Vegemiite]

There are ways to use that information against them, you just need the proper outlet. I can come up with a few outlets but I won't be naming them as that defeats the purpose. If someone doesn't know how to provide conflict I can't guarantee they will be able to maintain it properly. One outlet is visible in the context of the groups. Think about what I said about there being existing conflict in noble circles. The outlet should be fairly straightforward. Not everything can be black and white and plainly visible, otherwise we'd have large scale powergaming issue because everyone wants to spill the beans on everyone's weaknesses. I hope that helps somewhat, apologies for being vague, but it is necessary if you plan on providing conflict properly. Remember, more power means more to lose. Though some may not have this destroying weakness, some do, myself included. Find the weakness, use the proper outlet.

Click to shrink...

I don't think you're understanding the general point of the change that we want to make. The major problem is that everything on the surface, no matter what it is, revolves around the nobility and their little cliques. More power doesn't exactly mean more to lose as well, having more power generally puts you in a position to keep it. And I'm very aware of how you need a proper outlet to get things through, whether it be secrets or anything else. But you're continuing to make reference to nobility, which is what we don't want. We want conflict that can effect the majority of the playerbase, something that makes people want to go to the surface. We want the surface to not be a place where you have to be noble, guard or part of the clergy to do anything of note or value. As of now, if you want to do anything, you have to be a part of those three groups or cliques. Any sort of major conflict or even antagonism is shut down immediately, killing possible roleplay.

 

[Wumpatron]

I understand the point your making, but unfortunately I can't see any way to create this conflict without using the major players. You have a commoner, no power, a humble worker. What conflict can he provide? That's the argument I am seeing, which is one that I would like to see having something, but its hard to create conflict without any relevant power to back your conflict. Do you see my point?

 

[ElderShrub]

I understand the point your making, but unfortunately I can't see any way to create this conflict without using the major players. You have a commoner, no power, a humble worker. What conflict can he provide? That's the argument I am seeing, which is one that I would like to see having something, but its hard to create conflict without any relevant power to back your conflict. Do you see my point?

Click to shrink...

I do, however please note the examples given above.

1. In response to the Estel problem, powerful political groups from both the Shadow Isles and Altalar kingdoms arrive in Regalia, however their goals are mutually exclusive and they fight for dominance.

2. Teams of Allar scientists studying Circci's reproductive problems arrive in Regalia, however some groups take issue with their methods.

3. The Black Order goes rogue and becomes a playable faction, selling information to the highest bidder and establishing a network of spies, plotters and informants.

4. A new creed brings the church and the nobility into conflict. Some nobles or clergymen accept the new creed, others reject it also causing internal conflict. Both groups must now attempt to win over the general populous.

Click to shrink...

In all bar the fourth the Nobility is a reactive player while commoners are a driving force. Also commoners can be more than workers, some own merchant guilds, others are mercenaries, so on

 

[Vegemiite]

I understand the point your making, but unfortunately I can't see any way to create this conflict without using the major players. You have a commoner, no power, a humble worker. What conflict can he provide? That's the argument I am seeing, which is one that I would like to see having something, but its hard to create conflict without any relevant power to back your conflict. Do you see my point?

Click to shrink...

I see your point very clearly. Thought I don't think you see mine. Criminals, rival religious sects and even opposing guilds facing off against those that are already established such as the guard and clergy. But the problem with that, and what the main point of this is, is that the guard, certain noble families and clergy hold so much power so there is no point in facing off against them, ending any sort of conflict quickly with little to nothing to do anything against it. We want conflict against these groups to be fair, where you don't have to be a part of the three major ones I mentioned to do anything of importance.

 

[Wumpatron]

I see your point very clearly. Thought I don't think you see mine. Criminals, rival religious sects and even opposing guilds facing off against those that are already established such as the guard and clergy. But the problem with that, and what the main point of this is, is that the guard, certain noble families and clergy hold so much power so there is no point in facing off against them, ending any sort of conflict quickly with little to nothing to do anything against it. We want conflict against these groups to be fair, where you don't have to be a part of the three major ones I mentioned to do anything of importance.

Click to shrink...

I believe I do see your point, which while you want the commoners to be the driving force you still have all these more powerful factions as rivals. Which is why I recommended finding their weaknesses. You doubt me when I claim they have weaknesses, but I can assure you they do. These are veteran players who have built their characters full of flaws to match their power. Conflict will always reach the guards who are ran by the nobility who are under the watch of the clergy. Everything is connected. Its just a matter of making those connections work in your best interest.

 

[Conflee]

Having secrets can make it interesting, but suggesting that every single one of those people in ultimate power has one that would cause them to fall in prestige and whatnot seems highly unlikely.

Click to shrink...

I mean, maybe not EVERY one. But lets just say the High Nobility has a lot of dark shit going on behind the scenes , as should be expected honestly.

 

[Parz1vol]

So, @ElderShrub , you and I have differing opinions on whether an event should risk other characters. Character death shouldn't always be in your control, and it should be a scary thing. Realizing that character death creates RP is important, and while a bit aggravating, it's good for the die-er in the long run. You can only be crippled and immobilized so many times before your body just stops functioning. Maiming is not the answer, realistic dieing is.

And people also ignore the fact that "Poor Person" and "Beggar" RP just doesn't exist. At all. Last I checked, there was not a single man on main street, begging for a bit of coin so that he can feed himself, his alcoholism, and his kids. These are opportunities that just aren't abused, especially given the immense numbers of refugees in the city following the bone horror crisis. Staff needs to encourage and reward disease and poverty RP to flesh out the world, but they don't. They also need to take reliance on nobles away, and stop rewarding noble rp so much.

 

[Sidereum]

In summary of the huge spiel that i wrote up that eventually started running circles is this:

The Narrative of the story needs to stop being directed at the higher up groups in Regalia's society. It also needs to stop being driven by them. Every government institution in Regalia, and Regalia itself needs to be driven by the "Game Master" of Binral, leaving the nobility, commoners, sewer-folk, and the world at large left to react to it. While it makes sense for the nobility to be running things, it does not make sense for a non-staff playerbase to be the sole driving of the story. If you're going to allow player to effect the story, you will allow everyone to equally have that chance, regardless of societal position. Sometimes it's the little people that are actually doing anything of legitimate worth, as compared to the "pampered" few, who hold onto their comfortable amount of power. With that idea in mind, the Nobility's influence on the story should be limited to the things like the intellectual field and business, instead of running huge government central organizations like the Bluesteel Order. Any entity of Regalian governemnt should be limited to the Narrative voice, preventing clique mentalization in the story, favoritism, story targeting, and other "corrupt"/misguided directions in the story of Aloria.

The Narrative voice needs to cease being all about Regalia and Unionism as soon as humanly possible. The world that has been created is too vast and too diverse for it to be limited to a fascist, racist, extremist state that denounces and looks down upon that diversity. Unionism and Regalia's political and social environment is, in my opinion, detrimental to roleplay intrigue. Regalia was created to be the imperfect "antagonist" state, but through its continued significance and power in the story, it became the sole driving force of the Narrative. Regalia's narrow minded view of the world and what happens in, outside, and around it does not allow for differing mindset among characters to go against each other. Nobody can oppose the nobility, clergy, or state without condemning themselves or anyone around them to perpetual isolation or, at worst death.

The collective voice of characters and the stories they weave and sow need to be what drives the Narrative. The sewer-scum need to be able to rise in significance, and the nobility cannot be awarded significance simply for being what they are. Commoners need to be able to rise above others if they so choose. Mages should be able to win against fear and practice their art, just as the clergy should be denounced for instilling that fear.

tl;dr: Regalia needs to take hits and actually change accordingly, and most importantly- Sometimes the gods, kings, and old ways need to fall away and change in order for progress and development to be had.

 

[Sidereum]

I'd also like to say I agree with @Parz1vol on this matter. While it is still the player's dictation of their character, there needs to be an actual reason to roleplay the disease and the famine and the death and natural happenings of the world that exists. Sewer folk shouldn't all be clean and spiffy people, for example.

 

[Film_Noir]

Every government institution in Regalia, and Regalia itself needs to be driven by the "Game Master" of Binral, leaving the nobility, commoners, sewer-folk, and the world at large left to react to it. ... If you're going to allow player to effect the story, ...

Click to shrink...

While I agree that dungeon masters are necessary for roleplayers to interact with, being restricted to only reaction rp is the most boring sort of roleplay EVER. If you aren't contributing to creating the story, then what are you doing? You might as well head off and watch a movie or something.

The fun in roleplay is creating and driving some of the story. Without that, there's nothing. Don't take that away from the players.

 

[Vegemiite]

While I agree that dungeon masters are necessary for roleplayers to interact with, being restricted to only reaction rp is the most boring sort of roleplay EVER. If you aren't contributing to creating the story, then what are you doing? You might as well head off and watch a movie or something.

The fun in roleplay is creating and driving some of the story. Without that, there's nothing. Don't take that away from the players.

Click to shrink...

I believe you missed his point in where if one group of roleplayers can effect the story, then all should have the same chance and capability..

 

[Sidereum]

While I agree that dungeon masters are necessary for roleplayers to interact with, being restricted to only reaction rp is the most boring sort of roleplay EVER. If you aren't contributing to creating the story, then what are you doing? You might as well head off and watch a movie or something.

The fun in roleplay is creating and driving some of the story. Without that, there's nothing. Don't take that away from the players.

Click to shrink...

Like Veg said, I'm not so much saying it's limiting it to solely reaction, I'm rather saying that the solution is for everybody to be given the same relative ease-of-access capabilities to control the story through collective acts. For example, the Merchant's guild you operate. From what I can gather, the direction of the Merchant's Guild's choices, decisions, and story are collectively dictated by it's members and what they do. Basically take that small scale model, and apply it to the scheme of the whole story.

I'm basically saying that, it terms of roleplay type, everyone needs to/should be able to be the director at the same time, guiding the narrative in whatever way everyone's actions dictate.

 

[MonMarty]

But the problem with that, and what the main point of this is, is that the guard, certain noble families and clergy hold so much power so there is no point in facing off against them, ending any sort of conflict quickly with little to nothing to do anything against it.

Click to shrink...

Please concisely prove this by stating the factual basis for this, as well as examples where it applied within the recent 3 months.

 

[Vegemiite]

My entire basis on that quote was;
1. Any criminal groups going against the Guard would get almost immediately shut down, as it has happened in the past. Recently I cannot say if its still the same, as I haven't seen or heard of any criminals on the surface as of late.

2. Those that are against the idea of Unionism or are a part of any other religion or sect can be prosecuted and shut down before they even practically get a start. Showing that if you even oppose the Clergy in the slightest amount, you have no hope to succeed.

3. Generally, most nobles run everything. And if you make one slip up, and go against their ideals or speak against them, you generally won't get anything, as they shut down any opposition fairly quickly.

Examples:
https://forums.massivecraft.com/threads/regalian-state-law-amended.52262/
"Canon law now applies to speaking "favorably" of other religions, meaning a person is liable to prosecution by the Canon Law if they speak well of any other religion save for Unionism in public."

This promotes that anyone who isn't a Unionist, and not even generally against the Clergy, could be prosecuted for talking lightly about something menial as their own religion. This puts that if you're not a Unionist and on the surface, you may as well keep your mouth shut about anything religious.

https://forums.massivecraft.com/threads/introducing-the-bluesteel-order.52239/
(Clergy is also lead by Coens I believe? With the Reverend a Ravenstad.)

Major positions in government most usually go to the Coen, Kade and Ravenstad family, and the occasional Typhonus. While it is safe to assume they earned that all through IC interactions, wouldn't it be fairly decent for a position of major power to go to a family that isn't as high as the ones mentioned? Or perhaps have them as separate individuals that have no real strong affiliation with those families? This could also stop "You insulted me or my family, so you get nothing."
While I am not against these families in the slightest, I am somewhat against them holding the major positions of power, though that is just my opinion majorly.

https://forums.massivecraft.com/threads/writ-of-sin-of-catalina-vanetti.52924/
(Cannot find the other link pertaining to her trial before it happened.)

Catalina spoke out against a Reverend, I have no knowledge of what I was not there though being proven innocent in the court then having a writ of sin denouncing everything and saying those who she "breaks bread with" are also viable to be deemed heretics doesn't exactly seem like the greatest thing to do. This is also resulting in people not wanting to roleplay with said character.

This is (generally) all entirely my opinion, and if I'm wrong in assuming any of this or reading something wrong; a clarification would be great to clear up any mistakes in my thoughts.
@MonMarty

 

[MonMarty]

1. Any criminal groups going against the Guard would get almost immediately shut down, as it has happened in the past. Recently I cannot say if its still the same, as I haven't seen or heard of any criminals on the surface as of late.

Click to shrink...

"Past" is not a clear definition of time, the example also lacks factual references. Guards don't meta game, and their "powergamey" aspects are only permitted in certain areas. Criminals can engage in both greater and petty crime in over half the total surface area of the city, the entire countryside and the villages outside of Regalia which have no frequent guard presence. Criminals being not on the surface is not an indicator for this. It's just a consequence or a factor from a variable in the situation. The fact that no criminals try, is good enough to cast doubt on this assertion, since it cannot be backed in actual factual value. It's sort of like everyone just selectively concluded that it wasn't worth trying, so now it must be true, that's not how that works.

2. Those that are against the idea of Unionism or are a part of any other religion or sect can be prosecuted and shut down before they even practically get a start. Showing that if you even oppose the Clergy in the slightest amount, you have no hope to succeed.

Click to shrink...

"Can be prosecuted" alludes to the idea that this is an assumption, not an actual factual statement. We haven't had any proper crimson inquisitions, heresy trials or any other religious situations in the past 2 years, aside from the vanetti trial. Various families such Santorski, Norrvakt, Wodenstaff and more continue to sail a different religious banner, and will likely never get caught out on it because religious roleplay is often applied when it becomes convenient. Religious character roleplayers are well aware that pogroms will never work, since alternative faith characters never record where their heretical items or worship takes place, thus you can never catch anyone in the act, thus you can never truly arrest anyone. The only exception to this is public statements and speech: which leads exactly to what OP wants: Conflict. Even just the statement of the Vanetti and the Heresy trial caused an event that lasted for 2 hours, and further conflict both in the government and nobility as a whole. This means that this second point, rather than a detractor to serve your assertions, is disproving it by default, for serving exactly the purpose of what OP is trying to put across.

3. Generally, most nobles run everything. And if you make one slip up, and go against their ideals or speak against them, you generally won't get anything, as they shut down any opposition fairly quickly.

Click to shrink...

"Generally" is too vague, but let's assume it's true for the sake of the argument. I can provide anecdotal evidence to support why this is a nonsensical assertion- Take the weapon permit situation. People send messages to William Coen (this already has been counted into more than 6 to my understanding) and all of them were rejected because they were non-proposals. What I mean with that is that as soon as a commoner needs a noble to do anything, they simply ask for it straight away. The reason why this won't work is obviously because the noble isn't owed anything to this commoner, and won't just accept their request blindly without incentive. Sure, you could say "William Coen is stonewalling my progress!" And this is true. However, what is also true, is the need to understand that this is not a one way river. If this commoner were to be requested by William Coen to do something, the response would casually be "i dunt owe the nobels anything!!11!!" or something to that effect. The problem is not that a player slips up, or that the nobility stonewalls things, the problem is that all role players are inherently disinterested in each other, and see no reason to defer themselves in any situation. This is a social problem, not a manufactured one enforced by staff work. The social problem here is that everyone inherently doesn't want to see their character as dependent or in need of someone else. Unfortunately most of the power is vestige in the nobility, which is why it appears like this is a one way river. There are still plenty of systems that do not rely on the nobility however, and they suffer the exact same problem, even but just on a smaller scale.

Major positions in government most usually go to the Coen, Kade and Ravenstad family, and the occasional Typhonus. While it is safe to assume they earned that all through IC interactions, wouldn't it be fairly decent for a position of major power to go to a family that isn't as high as the ones mentioned? Or perhaps have them as separate individuals that have no real strong affiliation with those families? This could also stop "You insulted me or my family, so you get nothing."
While I am not against these families in the slightest, I am somewhat against them holding the major positions of power, though that is just my opinion majorly.

Click to shrink...

Let's look at how the Government is made up:

• The Crown Prince is a Kade, which is the highest political and religious office. I maintain this semi NPC character for the benefit of driving the political narrative as a DM.
• The Religious order leader is a Coen, which is the second highest religious office. This office is maintained by Doc largely because he wrote most of the religious lore on iterations of my work, and nobody can beat his knowledge of religion. That being said, he can barely be considered a loyal Coen, since he not only "cucked" the Jingoist league led by the Coens twice, he leans more towards the Crown Prince and his own Reverend clique than the Coen clique.
• The BlueSteel Order is led by a Coen, but he is constrained by a Ravenstad and a Kade (who is an NPC ran by me to drive narrative once more). This coen cannot put laws in place, he has no authority over the Ravenstad suspending his guards, and he cannot get any commanders invested without a unanimous vote. Just because you do not see the political scheming and arguing, doesn't mean it does not happen.
• The State Council counts 15 members in total, which is:
  • Ulric Typhonus, the Steward. He only has one vote, so 7.1%
  • Leonzo Vauclain, No voting power (independent as moderator)
  • Eirik Valdemar, one vote, 7.1% (member of Jingoist League)
  • Christopher Black, one vote, 7.1% (member of Merchant Guild)
  • Dietrich Drache, one vote, 7.1% (member of Axis if I recall)
  • Elros of Turent, one vote, 7.1% (independent)
  • Medard Ravenstad and Rodolphe Ravenstad, two votes 14.2% (members of Axis if I recall)
  • Sigurna and Jonathan Wodenstaff, two votes 14.2% (members of both Merchant Guild and Jingoist League)
  • Gaston de Baccarod, one vote 7.1% (independent)
  • Bastien Lefayette, one vote 7.1% (independent, but suitor to Sigurna Wodenstaff)
  • Osric Coen, one vote 7.1% (but controlled by me, thus not a political player, but part of the narrative of the Dm position that I drive)
  • Elsharaawy's character whose name I don't remember, one vote 7.1% (independent)
  • Charles and Arian Montagarde (I think they are related), two votes, 14.2% (independent. I should also note these players are less than 2 months old on the server, which means something in this analysis).
• In summary, there is in fact not a single Coen on the State Council, nor a Kade. One Typhonus and Two Ravenstad exist, both in different political parties, but together they do not count more than 23% of the voting power of the council. Your lack of experience or knowledge with the functioning of the state council is probably why you assume that old political standards are still in effect. Not only is this demeaning to the families like Montagarde and Wodenstaff who have built up out of nothing and taken almost 40% of the council together, it actually perpetuates the belief that the old trias of Kade, Coen and Typhonus dominate the political scene, by only paying attention to them instead of the others who exist inside it. Essentially, by only paying attention to a small group, and by seeing them as the boogeymen of politics, you are adding to their power. These families can only remain powerful by will of people recognizing them as sources of power, which becomes all the more ironic when they are not, as I have just displayed.

In summary. The reason why you perceive nobility, the government, and what functions around it to be exactly the same as 2 years ago, is because you do not invest in it. To you, this system is meaningless because it doesn't benefit you in any way. This in itself is also a piece of evidence of the point I tried to explain further above, it's that disinterest in roleplay that players inherently have towards one another that normally causes them to not wish to concede to one another, causes you to neglect the factual situation.

The same problem is shared with OP. OP assumes incorrectly there is no conflict. There is plenty of conflict, in fact what most people aren't aware is that the State Council collapsed yesterday, one councilman walked out, the steward resigned and the whole council degraded itself like it was some eastern European parliament brawl. Advantages, storylines and narratives could have been driven home from this, but others aren't aware because they do not invest into nobility until they need something from it, and then become frustrated when they feel the nobility don't hand it over to them on a platter.

The world of role play moves around us constantly, conflict and story telling and world impact can be found everywhere, be it showing up at the Coen-d'Eluise wedding and causing a mess or trying to do politics, or engaging with a gang to try and kidnap someone or play some foul game against the guard. Story lines are constantly developing around us, as well as opportunities, the only reason why we don't see them, is because we naively don't care about anyone else's role play until we need them for something.

I don't fully know how to otherwise suggest a change in this sort of sentiment aside from suggesting a repression of frustration and anger at a specific group for one's own lack of ability to be interested in what others are doing. The nobility group is so powerful IC indeed, but also on an OOC level, the pure wealth of story lines and conflict that can be derived from their struggles is what makes this system so functional. You can become part of the benefit, if you open yourself to the idea that trading favors or playing the servant or loyalist for a period of time isn't all that bad, and can actually lead to situations you never had access before, giving you the ability to step into the limelight of the world in never before seen ways. Many players already do this, be it the various family loyalists who eventually become valued members of households and sent on important missions or given much sway in words.

TL;DR If you don't see any conflict, it's because you don't look for it. If you don't look for it, it's because you're not interested or don't care in the role play of others. If you don't care in the role play of others, don't expect them to include you for the sake of it, or provide role play for you without investment. I disagree with the assessment that nobility or any of the systems strangle roleplay conflict. Rather I would say it adds to it strongly, and the problem that is being perceived isn't real. It's all based on assumptions that make imagining this glass ceiling above yourself really comfortable and easy, instead of inspiring the tenacity to self-inspect, and likely come to the conclusion that one is trying to imagine blame on something else, to avoid confronting one's own shortcomings in attempting to achieve what one wants.

Note I'm not accusing anyone of malicious intent. Rather, I think this situation is a consequence of natural shyness, anxiety or just lack of confidence when it comes to approaching others, but also a pinch of salt contributed from bad experiences in the past that unfortunately set the mood and continue due to lack of forgiveness or forgetfulness. So my only practical real suggestion is: Recognize that nobody will care about your character or wish to hand anything to you if you don't do the same to them. You will be surprised at how pliable political roleplayers actually are if you approach them with the idea in mind that you need to give in order to receive.

Lore Staff creating hypothetical far off enemies and competition to the Regalian Empire isn't going to change anything. The same problem happens every time when an occupation event occurs in Regalia. People get excited, a small group of daring and active roleplayers engage in the situation and provide entertainment for themselves and others, while the vast majority just spectates from the sidelines and provides comments about how it all doesn't live up to their standards and how more of it should happen because it's "interesting.". No good things come to people who simply sit sedentary around the people they are comfortable with, not venturing beyond, and then blaming the system for creating a glass ceiling that isn't really there.

 

[Vegemiite]

Well structured and valid argument.

Click to shrink...

Thank you for actually taking the time to reply to the points that I made, and I can fully understand everything you said. I most likely have been too bias with my views and statement. I have taken everything you said into consideration and plan to (Hopefully anyway) do the things you suggested in the later parts of the argument.

 

[babaMP3]

The fact that no criminals try, is good enough to cast doubt on this assertion, since it cannot be backed in actual factual value. It's sort of like everyone just selectively concluded that it wasn't worth trying, so now it must be true, that's not how that works.

Click to shrink...

I'm no big voice on the matter of criminal roleplay at all and lack any substantial understanding in terms of the social culture that exists with this school of roleplay, but in what @Vegemiite was saying, I think it was less that criminals lack opportunity to roleplay how they would, but rather, when they do, it is very vigorously and heavy-handedly shut down to the certain extent of not wanting to pursue that desired roleplay on the surface. Of course, this isn't some great defense of people stupidly running around wanting to chop off hands and murder characters carelessly, but moreso that tactful criminal roleplay that's carefully catered to be something of an elevated art can be indiscriminately shut down like any other bit of wanton criminal roleplay.

Even just the statement of the Vanetti and the Heresy trial caused an event that lasted for 2 hours, and further conflict both in the government and nobility as a whole.

Click to shrink...

In speaking as someone who had stakes in the Vanetti conflict, I can't say that this specific example fits your argument. Where the OP is looking for further opportunities of conflict, Vegemiite is, as I'm interpreting it, saying that where conflict against Unionism is present and certainly has opportunity to occur, where it does, it can be immediately and harshly struck down, as the case was with the Vanetti trial and Writ of Sin. I think it is accurate in saying that a lot of,'going against the flow,' faces very rigid consequences that don't necessarily birth substantial or otherwise meaningful roleplay for those that do, or even those that defend said flow. I don't preach after allocating special treatment for those who actively try to push and prod the system and institutions so heartily maintained by staff and players, but moreso a perhaps more distinctively cooperative prior understanding that efforts generated by players shouldn't result in a hard beat-down.

"Generally" is too vague, but let's assume it's true for the sake of the argument. I can provide anecdotal evidence to support why this is a nonsensical assertion- Take the weapon permit situation. People send messages to William Coen (this already has been counted into more than 6 to my understanding) and all of them were rejected because they were non-proposals. What I mean with that is that as soon as a commoner needs a noble to do anything, they simply ask for it straight away. The reason why this won't work is obviously because the noble isn't owed anything to this commoner, and won't just accept their request blindly without incentive. Sure, you could say "William Coen is stonewalling my progress!" And this is true. However, what is also true, is the need to understand that this is not a one way river. If this commoner were to be requested by William Coen to do something, the response would casually be "i dunt owe the nobels anything!!11!!" or something to that effect. The problem is not that a player slips up, or that the nobility stonewalls things, the problem is that all role players are inherently disinterested in each other, and see no reason to defer themselves in any situation. This is a social problem, not a manufactured one enforced by staff work. The social problem here is that everyone inherently doesn't want to see their character as dependent or in need of someone else. Unfortunately most of the power is vestige in the nobility, which is why it appears like this is a one way river. There are still plenty of systems that do not rely on the nobility however, and they suffer the exact same problem, even but just on a smaller scale.

Click to shrink...

Perhaps this comes into a problem, then, of maintaining these institutions that can certainly provide for roleplay with demographics of people that are reliant or maintained by IC perspectives. Because after all, it would be really strenuous on any normal player or staff member to have one of their personal characters dedicated to something like weapon permits. Is denying a weapon permit to your everyday Joe roleplayer something that promises the generation of roleplay or conflict? While it can certainly provide ample opportunity for supposed conflict, or roleplay at any rate, I don't imagine it would. In this area of the discussion, though, I could be wholly wrong, in that my assumption with this is that whoever applies for weapon permits and is denied them doesn't necessarily look to wine and dine William Coen at brunch.


I'd personally would want to rewrite the OP's mission statement about conflict from,'give more opportunities for conflict,' and instead change it to,'support conflict that perpetuates positively.' Granted, I am seeing my new mission statement as what the growing sentiment is.

"Support conflict that perpetuates positively."
In saying this, I want to establish what positive conflict is. Positive conflict is conflict that:

1. can be tense and strenuous, but ultimately can and will result in incremental pleasure/satisfaction up until the conflict's end
2. doesn't bleed too heavily into ill sentiment/opinions OOC
3. doesn't eat itself too shortly
4. can be a mutually communicative avenue with invested trust
5. doesn't decimate or dismantle either party to the point of personal dissatisfaction in future plotlines or character
6. can establish vague mutual satisfaction in its conclusion or in its progression

Point 1:
Conflict in roleplay is always going to be stressful and tense. Oh yes, even in personal experience with roleplay with my closest friends, I can get stressed out and anxious and worried - be it my character's fate, things not going how I imagined, or so on. Yes, it can be stressful and it can be tedious on my part, but in positive conflict, the stress is outweighed by what fun I allow myself to have, or, at least look to try and have. Of course, something like that can likely only be applied to a niche demographic (I suppose when you look at it objectively, there might be something twisted about taking pleasure in your own stress), and in recognizing that, I want to further establish that the stress and anxiety of any conflict isn't something that can necessarily be pinned and plopped squarely as a definition - people's own balancing scales between stress and fun vary widely, and to that I simply say try and find your balance with whoever you are conflicting with in roleplay.

Point 2/4:
I'll roll into point 2/4. Looking back at what conflict can birth in point 1, it's obvious then that the stresses and anxieties that conflict can make will easily turn into a kind of simplified equation of,'who is against me and how do I stop them definitely,' which in itself turns into a rather sour atmosphere between two parties OOC. I'm of the personal belief that no one can be so genuinely malicious against another person or party to the extents that some might imagine in these scenarios of conflict. With that said, I want to continue in saying that any amount of roleplay conflict can only give so much fun and negate so much anxiety as dictated by how much trust anyone can have with who they are conflicting with. Naturally, I trust that no one is going to kill my character, or wound them. When I am in a situation of conflict, especially physical, I can easily identify the possibilities of injury or death, but ultimately, I will trust that my own comfort circumstantial to the conflict or opposing party will be a validated consideration. I honestly doubt any of the matured roleplayers here on Massive want to go out of their way to murder someone else's character wantonly, or destroy their means of future entertainment with that character. And of course, if that is your present worry, then look to open that avenue of dialogue and look to build that trust that conflict necessitates.

Point 5/6:
We all roleplay for a myriad of reasons, and we all roleplay as our specific characters for even more reasons. Conflict in any capacity is a means of progression for a player's character and a player's experience in roleplay - for the purposes of my explanation, the two are to be exclusive from one another. Your character is the personification of a whole time of experiences and investment - it's quite easily anyone's tangible connection to roleplay, and even why it is fun. And in saying that, it is likely the consideration of yourself and any other roleplay that anyone's character is dear to them. Yes, even with the consideration that people are often more concerned with themselves and their characters, there is still that vaguely humanizing factor of recognizing the universal significance of characters to their players. And it is in that recognition that roots me into establishing that any conflict should never be a means to an end, unless that's the comfortable goal for both parties.

Ultimately, these points and explanations are opinions drawn from my own experiences in roleplay, with roleplayers, with my friends or otherwise, and from my own ideological characterization of human nature. I'll be honest in saying I'm very much a 'growing mind,' so to speak, and I'm probably very naive in much of what I preach. But at any rate, I still feel they might be good sentiments to try and live by.

 

[MonMarty]

tactful criminal roleplay that's carefully catered to be something of an elevated art can be indiscriminately shut down like any other bit of wanton criminal roleplay.

Click to shrink...

Aside from the obvious public agitators that we are bot familiar with, I am of the opinion that there are no tactful criminal role players. That may be too much of a grandstanding statement, but I feel that any sort of "high value" activity is closely linked to community benefit as well as conscientious activity. Most if not all groups I have engaged with lack either the former, the latter, or both. The only actual event hosted in the sewers from my understanding was one hosted by lore staff themselves. I have suggested numerous groups numerous times some underground or criminal activities that are engaging to the community as a whole, but nothing happens, and the noble roleplayers as well as those supposedly oppressive anti criminal elements shake these events hosting entertainment for at least 40 to 50 people so easily out of their sleeve.

Maybe there are elevated crime roleplayers, but in such case I am not aware of them. And I personally feel that if such a person existed and had provided good content for the server from "down there", then I would have noticed it by now in the form of public bejazzles and what not. I'm sure there are elevated crime roleplayers dispensing their art in small social groups, but then they shouldn't be surprised that nobody shows interest in their existence or relevance to the story as a whole, if they don't express their activities elsewhere.

but moreso a perhaps more distinctively cooperative prior understanding that efforts generated by players shouldn't result in a hard beat-down.

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure how to express this in a manner in which it is not already done. To count the Vanetti trial as an example permitted 7 personal attacks on the integrity of the church, and eventually just walked out of the heresy trial, thus debunking the whole "you're already guilty at a trial, it's just a matter of how badly you're guilty.", resulting with a final writ of sin, an easy come-down. Everyone knows Writs of sin are essentially meaningless: They are powerless words of the church which implore religious role players to denounce a particular character. But religious role play is so niche, that such social rejection becomes practically nonexistent beyond just quips in social and political circles. Aside from the Vanetti trial, there are no other precedent situations which can count as an example to prove otherwise, or support the case, since they simply have not happened. Anything short of me making a thread that states "We do not kill characters unless your character is literally spitting in the face of the court and has committed a grand heinous crime of heresy", I don't know how to otherwise resolve that. To me the idea that religious contrarianism gets super punished, is just an assumption, not one based in fact, and one that can actually be denounced by very simple analysis of the singular precedent case.

Is denying a weapon permit to your everyday Joe roleplayer something that promises the generation of roleplay or conflict?

Click to shrink...

No, but you completely missed the point. The server grants special privilege in the form of nobility to a select group of people who work for it. The work they have done is undisputed, so (at least the title holders) deserve every inch of it. Then, we employ the nobility to extend that privilege further. Lets call it trickle down Role play privilege if you would. (as opposed to Trickle down economics however, this obviously does work since nobody loses anything from granting privilege that was not previously there). The point and case of the example weapon permits is thus: Players already have access to a certain weapon. The difference here is that weapon permit askers wish to be granted the privilege of wearing a 30 inch blade, instead of a 14 inch blade, and to be allowed to carry it non-concealed. The difference in size of blade does not entice roleplay, nor does the ability to carry it in the open or indeed to carry it at all, since the laws still equally apply. Rather the rejection should give the player pause, and make them re-consider asking for privilege without deserving it, and then plan appropriate roleplay action to remedy that. It's not so much that rejection or acceptance results in more roleplay. It's rather that rejection is a moral objection to the idea that everyone should just be able to get what they want without working for it, and that sentiment is carried on into the whole issue where people imagine a non-existent glass ceiling above themselves, because they are denied something they want, but would rather blame others than themselves over it. Hopefully this realization will set players on the path of creating more roleplay instead of seeking that instant gratification. To create perpetuated storyline with a satisfactory outcome. After all, if all goes well, both parties are satisfied in that the granter was given something of value, or acknowledgement, while the receiver got exactly what they wanted, and even got quite some days/weeks of roleplay out of it to boot. Who can really object to that. If the receiver gives up after receiving a no from the beginning, or starts either an IC or OOC spite crusade, then the objective is missed by default, and they have also violated the explanation you provided for positive conflict.

Point 1:

Click to shrink...

No objection there.

Point 2/4:

Click to shrink...

While I don't have objections to your intent, let me clarify why some of your reasoning is a bit off.

I'm of the personal belief that no one can be so genuinely malicious against another person or party to the extents that some might imagine in these scenarios of conflict

Click to shrink...

This is wrong by the simple fact that as Lore staff, we frequently have to step in to prevent the formation of spite characters meant to revenge the death or disappearance of a latter, plot lines laced in meta gaming to continue an opposition point, or other activities that perpetuate an OOC relation into IC one way or another. I'd like to believe Lore staff frequently step in, but the vast majority of these activities fly under our radar because they are conspired in far off private Skype chats. As such, to point 4, trust is often hard to come by and additional effort has to be expended to create it in some cases. This often relates to many people's personal feelings: It takes a certain type of personal interaction to build even the basest of trust, as even speaking from my own experience, many role players aren't interested in driving a narrative or story line with me, they just want something I can offer them either OOC or IC.

I honestly doubt any of the matured roleplayers here on Massive want to go out of their way to murder someone else's character wantonly, or destroy their means of future entertainment with that character. And of course, if that is your present worry, then look to open that avenue of dialogue and look to build that trust that conflict necessitates.

Click to shrink...

This is the main explanation that drives a problem. It goes off the assumption that the worst causes for distress are death and maiming, while I've come to find to many players, there are things much worse than death or loss of character, the loss of archetype, the inability to express a character in the way it was designed to be, for a specific purpose. These things can often be extremely small, and to people who only deem character death to be problematic, it often becomes easy to dismiss the feelings of others who think differently as trivial, and spell total collapse of dialogue and communication.

Point 5/6:

Click to shrink...

No objections.

In conclusion however. I am not 100% sure why you decided to post here. I find nothing inherently disagreeable in the actual finer point of the expansion of OP's post, and after reading your post, it seems to neither actually attempt to counter-act my post, disprove or prove a post made by another or anything such like. I feel it is just a re-iteration of values which you yourself know are already present in the lore perspective of things. I even detailed about this myself in the considerate essay of https://forums.massivecraft.com/threads/direction-roleplay-is-dead.52485, while you may disagree on some of the finer points in it, the ethical morals are effectively identical to what you wrote above in your bullet point summary. I'm having a hard time discerning whether your post is a call to action, a re-affirmation of another call to action. It's lacking a substantial conclusion for me.

 

[MonMarty]

I actually forgot to answer to OP's post after getting side tracked with other replies:

Hello players! So within a skype chat a discussion about the nature of conflict generation in Massivecraft was sparked and I wanted to let others jump in and give their thoughts.

Click to shrink...

Before I start on points, I want to actually quickly comment on this: be careful when it comes to Skype discussions. Very rarely when one has a discussion on skype, are opposing views present. The very nature of skype groups is that we add our friends and like minded individuals, which usually guarantees a very closed circuit discussion. It's like an echo reverberating itself into a locked room, truths that are often half truths become that much more powerful when resounded against like minded individuals. It's good that you opened a public discussion on the board here, but be careful with carrying a conclusion derived with people who all share the same ideology and same access point from the very beginning. Your conclusions might be very skewed in favor of what you wanted to hear.

Conflict as a result of an imbalance of power is not working. We need a paradigm shift.

Click to shrink...

There is no imbalance of power. Right now we are actually at the most severe equal power shift that is possible, and politics actually seem to be working with how frequent families switch sides. If the statement is more relevant to noble versus commoner as opposed to noble versus noble family, then it's still a wrong assertion to make. A Noble has allies, a commoner has friends. Neither is above the other, and whatever assets one has access to is ultimately irrelevant in the long run if one follows the words of both myself and Baba: Dialogue, communicate and compromise. If you talk things out with people you're roleplaying with, assets of either side don't matter when both sides seek a favorable outcome for both parties.

If one party is being problematic, just ask Lore staff to intercede. I've not seen any requests pop up in lore chat, so I'm to assume nobody has tried.

Opportunities that innately generate conflict such as conflicting merchant guilds, or competing religious ideologies such as Protestantism and Catholicism would be ideal for this however I'll let you imagination go wild. This diversity of stances is significantly more interesting and allows conflict without fear of losing a character as a result of it.

Click to shrink...

There are two problems with this:

• I welcome competition of Merchant guilds. Unfortunately nobody has tried. Film_Noir effectively rules supreme because nobody else is putting any paperwork effort into it or trying to start their own organization. I tried running a merchant game for a while to facilitate guild struggle, but this was too much work on my shoulders and eventually it collapsed. The other guilds who participated then instantly collapsed after, because the roleplayers were not willing to actually put their work into roleplay, as soon as a simple forum message for instant gratification was no longer available. That covers your first example.
• Your second example is very severe. You cite Protestantism and Catholicism as an example. In real life history, the opposition of the reformation caused numerous destructive wars that ravaged the countryside of various nations, spawning the 80 year war and the all-destructive 30 year war, the latter of which supposedly costed the lives of 8,000,000 Europeans at the time. Religious conflict is anything but peaceful or constructive. It is deadly by its very nature and to avoid death within, is practically impossible since religious rifts are such a strong driving force of hatred. Furthermore, sects exist. Many of which are legal as defined here: https://wiki.massivecraft.com/Unionism#Sectarian_Groups and here: https://wiki.massivecraft.com/Unionism#Denominational_Differences Only very few of these actually result in prosecution, and there is a lot of religious opposition possible as long as the Clastic Law is still in effect.

1. In response to the Estel problem, powerful political groups from both the Shadow Isles and Altalar kingdoms arrive in Regalia, however their goals are mutually exclusive and they fight for dominance.

Click to shrink...

This is a cool idea and I might engage in this. The problem that I always have with "MAKE A NEW EMPIRE TO RIVAL REGALIA!" is that it breaks away the stable foundation of Regalia and throws things into a turmoil. If a situation that doesn't directly relate to Regalia spawns itself to which Regalia is a spectator however, we can entertain it, because it doesn't force a stance onto the roleplayers, rather it makes participation optional.

2. Teams of Allar scientists studying Circci's reproductive problems arrive in Regalia, however some groups take issue with their methods.

Click to shrink...

This is already an ongoing plan, but due to the recent failure of the Dulofall campaign, we haven't had anyone willing to come up with a low input alternative yet.

3. The Black Order goes rogue and becomes a playable faction, selling information to the highest bidder and establishing a network of spies, plotters and informants.

Click to shrink...

I am more of the opinion that competent player spies should exist, but then we run into the problem of no info release. Roleplayers always hold their secrets close to their hearts and scream meta gaming as soon as any sensitive information is leaked without consent. This wont work, as such, because it relies too much on players leaking their own questionable activities, which they will inherently keep closely locked up.

4. A new creed brings the church and the nobility into conflict. Some nobles or clergymen accept the new creed, others reject it also causing internal conflict. Both groups must now attempt to win over the general populous.

Click to shrink...

This can in theory already happen. Not so much for the denominations, but surely for the sects. Players can in theory also come up with sects, as long as they (in line with what both me and Baba said above in terms of communication and dialogue) discuss this with the lore maintainers of the religious lore on how to best do this in a way that it doesn't immediately incite religious hatred, but rather causes a longer running ideal. There are some really aggressive policy changes made by this Crown Prince, which could inspire sects to form just because he is already so hugely unconventional in many of his actions. I don't release the Crown Prince's statements or address for no reason. The controversial statements he has made to thus far are entirely meant to entice roleplay between individuals, in the same way that the previous Emperor's actions had a coup staged against him. Tyrolleaneagle did not act on lore staff instructions or my narrative guidance, nor did the people ratting Ulric Typhonus out. All of that was political play.

 

[Magivore]

To be quite honest, the reason the surface and the sewers lack conflict are because there's no real story for them to be made for. At that point, all you can do is try to impose control, but ultimately fail due to the sheer number of individual characters who don't like being part of groups, enemies, or the rare few that are too powerful to really step aside from.

Although all conflict has those, I can't tell you how many expert magic users, expert fighters, supreme scholars and perfect leaders there are. Too many chefs in the kitchen, if I'm allowed to say. Although a few people are supporting the leaders, as seen in groups owned by Sozzer, Eccetra and Overseer_ in the sewers and charters owned by PonyoWantHam or BillyTheScroofy, there still remain too many people who all want more control between them. All these characters made to create conflict exist, as I see them almost daily now that covens and political strife are popular again, but there aren't any characters made to keep it alive by following orders, taking orders a bit too far, etc.

Let's say a noble stabs someone: that's it. That could be a massive plot that leads to an investigation, more murders, or the ultimate surrender, or more that I cannot possibly imagine. However, this noble is thrown right onto trial because the opposing party wants to have the upper hand on this conflict so that they get the story they want. It's like they're blowing a torch to burn hotter and brighter, but all it's really doing is making the torch burn out a lot sooner because people are using bellows on the flame, not more firewood. Sure, it's hot among those involved, but then it gets cold before anyone is able to get close enough. In great stories, a lot of characters, memories, and outside obstacles stand in the way of the resolution.

To put it simply, I believe too many people want to start conflict or end it, but no one wants to be the 500 pages that will take a week to read between the beginning and close of the book, which actually has the best parts. I've noticed, as a stupid little Dwarf who sells weapons to criminals, that I've inadvertently created short stories by giving a robber his mugging tool and vigilante his last words in blood. I've only used him for 4 weeks in total and had my most common phrase be "you need a weapon, but better yet my weapon", but I've experienced more as this supporting character than I did as an instigator, Wilfre the anti-mage, that I've used for literally 2 years and have gone neck-deep with into anything I can get my hands on. Too many people don't want to be John Watson, Alfred Pennyworth or Samwise Gamgee, whom are all supporters to the main characters, but end up becoming extremely valuable (and as seen with Samwise, perhaps be the true hero in the end) simply because they were always there to help the protagonist keep them going.

TL;DR - Maybe it's not that you need to create conflict, but that you need to help it grow so that there is more opportunity for someone to join in to alter or support future results, which will spiral the story and prolong its life and expand even greater. The only reason nobles see more conflict are because they're in the immediate area of where it starts, and no commoner or low-brow mercenary ends up coming to help them, which causes it to meet its end far too soon.

I apologize if this does not make sense or does not fit this thread, as I made it this morning and have lazily copy-pasted it. I don't really see much else I can say aside from my two cents.

 

[soapboxstage]

1. In response to the Estel problem, powerful political groups from both the Shadow Isles and Altalar kingdoms arrive in Regalia, however their goals are mutually exclusive and they fight for dominance.

2. Teams of Allar scientists studying Circci's reproductive problems arrive in Regalia, however some groups take issue with their methods.

Click to shrink...

LOVE BOTH OF THESE IDEAS LET THEM HAPPEN NOW PLEASE

 

[Film_Noir]

I am more of the opinion that competent player spies should exist, but then we run into the problem of no info release. Roleplayers always hold their secrets close to their hearts and scream meta gaming as soon as any sensitive information is leaked without consent. This wont work, as such, because it relies too much on players leaking their own questionable activities, which they will inherently keep closely locked up.

Click to shrink...

Maybe careful log-taking on the spy's part, as proof that things were learned IC, for those rare instances when they actually are able to find out something secret. I'm not sure. Second-hand meta is also a problem. Seeing organisations like the Black Order being played, and being played well, would be amazing though. On another tangent, seeing life put into the spies and having them capable of failing sometimes, as a part of being human, would be amazing character development for them. (Yeah, I'm a big advocate of a playable Black Order.)

And the Azure Order for that matter.

 

[Conflee]

Maybe careful log-taking on the spy's part, as proof that things were learned IC, for those rare instances when they actually are able to find out something secret. I'm not sure. Second-hand meta is also a problem. Seeing organisations like the Black Order being played, and being played well, would be amazing though. On another tangent, seeing life put into the spies and having them capable of failing sometimes, as a part of being human, would be amazing character development for them. (Yeah, I'm a big advocate of a playable Black Order.)

And the Azure Order for that matter.

Click to shrink...

I can say from personal experience, running a Spying / Information Network is a PAIN IN THE BUM. Iv been at it for.... 5 months now? And we have barely gotten anywhere.