Player Created Progression - The Way Forwards As I See It.

[Conflee]

Hello! I have noticed a trend with player driven events and plot lines that has been frustrating, and I am just going to dive into it, and propose my 'Way Forwards' for RP Plotlines as a whole in the future, centering on an idea: Players not only should be capable of creating their own progression, but already are, but fail to because of poor approach. I can back this up with examples, and instances where this has happened in the past, as well as outlining why I think this method would be far more entertaining and generate a lot more roleplay for everyone involved on all sides.

DM Roles
For a long time, the term "DM" has applied to (mostly) staff in unique positions of power, generally dictated by a story need for that role. @MonMarty as the Emperor and now as the face of the Kade Council, or @LumosJared as head of Guard affairs with various title changes but generally filling an oversight role to the guards, and shorter-term roles like the player behind Freya Lo. What I am suggesting is a broadening of the term, to put leaders of large groups in the mindset and role of DM themselves.

Every Gang Leader and head of a Charter, ever Noble Patriarch/Matriarch, down to every Main Street/Emporium Business Owner, should see themselves not only as the IC leader of their respective groups, but as the DM of them. Your job is not only to roleplay as your character. When you are put in a position of any power over how a number of other roleplayer's experience will go, it becomes your duty to attempt to provide the best roleplay experience you can. Part of this is, in my eyes, a certain detachment from the situation. The ability to step back, look at what is unfolding through as unbiased a set of eyes as you can, and trying to figure out how the situation could play out in an entertaining and engaging way, not only for your members but for other groups effected by the situation.

Not all players can be in on this DMing, a large portion wont want to be because they prefer to know as little as possible that falls outside their own character's knowledge. But for DMs, that is almost a must to an extent. You know the behind the scenes and guide it so that your members can approach it with unspoiled eyes and minds. And that doesn't have to harm the experience, far from it. By following through with my next point, it can lead to a much less toxic and more enjoyable story for everyone.

OOC Cooperation
As a part of taking up the mantle of DM, players in this position will need to be willing to place trust in each other. In other DM's ability to set aside the momentary, short-term gain and the selfish isolated and restricted view on their own groups, to consider the bigger picture and work together to further it for everyone. Open communication between DMs when relevant is a must to avoid toxicity from growing within divided groups, and to allow for more complex, long-term plots to be set in motion by DMs and their members.

As a personal example, during February I was part of a crime war of sorts between my gang, The Beggars, and the Hounds who have for all my knowledge don't play anymore, and @Yigit 's crew the Devout Few. During this series of events, my main was beaten into the ground repeatedly and not given a chance to heal, and though it fit into the story and I allowed it repeatedly, because of constant attacks and ambushes and offensives by the Hounds+, Jochund was captured and beheaded within two weeks of the conflict, leading to the Beggars falling apart and, with no competition or goal, the Hounds quickly following, with them all going inactive soon after to my knowledge. Because of poor OOC Cooperation and no planning or forethought to the long-term story, coupled with my over-compliance, what could have been an interesting long term plot for the Crime world was cut shot anticlimactically and lead to a long stretch of inactivity where nothing happened really outside of the shadows.

To show how I think something like this should be handled in the future, I will take the Coven Conflict. I am woefully out of touch with this plotline and know only thread bare details, but I'll use it as a theoretical example based in current events for now: As it stands, the Vampires sparked a larger conflict, and rushed to use their momentum to take the Dragon Quarter, bringing down the wrath of the Guards and other Gangs on them and resulting in a crippling blow being dealt, merely a week or so into the story. If things continued, we will say in theory that they strike back to try to regain face, resulting in a harsher crackdown by guards leading to the Coven dying off almost fully, eventually fading to nothing with so few members and a lack of interest in revival.

The alternative, is that the Coven and Guard Charter DMs talk OOCly, and discuss interesting directions the plotline could go down. After debate and mild planning, they agree to allow certain things and react in a certain way to major plot beats, to allow for the Coven v Guard war to spark once more, for both sides to have small victories and defeats, and overall generating much more Roleplay for both sides over a longer stretch of time, keeping their members and themselves entertained more thoroughly.

This not only makes situations much less salty overall, as it would be more fairly planned out so that every side has its moments to shine, it also means DMs can plan dates and times for major events in advance so both sides can have a fair number of people participating- for larger groups like Guards (who generally have far more players than other groups) this might mean limiting how many people show up in some cases, but otherwise caps aren't needed.

Taking the L
Another point that falls into this line of Progression and Story Telling is accepting defeat. In much the same way that players feel the need to meet some win condition for their character, be it victory or failure, this can fall under Win-RP (which is admittedly a gray term, and all RP is in some fashion in my mind leaning into this gray). it would be important for DMs not to plot too far ahead, as unforeseen effects of their plotline may change the course of the story, and in order for things to feel dynamic room has to be left for the story to sway with these motions. On top of this, if all DMs have their set plots lined out, this could lead to a sort of DMed Win-RP, wherein the outcome of situations is always what the DMs collectively wanted regardless of the way the situation actually played out. Just because the DMs for say the Rooks and the Wardens plan for a fight and for the Wardens to win the scuffle, bystanders who support the Rooks or favor them may pitch in and sway the course of the battle. or a third, unexpected group might in the moment get involved because that is what makes sense for their groups goals ICly. it is important to keep the vision from clouding things too heavily and becoming too dead-set on an outcome. Improvise and adapt, and rework what needs reworked afterwards.

Conclusion
In the end, I do believe Cooperative DMing would be a strong tool for players to mold and create their own stories and plotlines within RP, without an over reliance on gimmicky RP phases or large-scale staff planned world events. A way for things to stay, almost constantly, endangering and active in all corners of Roleplay, and to ensure that plotlines aren't cut short by unintentional short sighted behavior that hamstrings what may have been months of enjoyable roleplay. Not everything needs to be planned, and plans should be able to adapt for unforeseen events, but overall more OOC Cooperation and a stronger DM mindset among Leaders is a giant step in the right direction I think.

 

[MonMarty]

History (i.e 7 years of experience) has shown that when these things are left to the devices of the players, they create an equilibrium of "this is fair for everyone" which works in theory, but in practice showed the neglect and complete disregard of fairness to certain culture groups. This creates the unfortunate situation where a group of players identifies a path to go forward, and if you're not okay with that path, you're suddenly "lame" or a "hug box roleplayer" or "whining".

Every case you've even directly referred to in the cited examples was loaded with ooc drama, and ended very differently than you imagine. Those gangs did not lose or quit. The Devout Few simply gave up on roleplaying one day because they grew tired of being mass-mobbed by plate armored hounds who routinely god-rp'd in combat-rp. In turn the Hounds quit because they felt unfairly treated by staff and because their members got falsely demonized OOC by rumors of nonce-omancy. Every step along the way staff tried to intervene, stop the rumor mongering, stop the rule breaking, but only ended up being demonized itself by the guilty parties that were being reprimanded.

Even the Vampire conflict has already seen what you have suggested. @Freema attempted to create dialogue between the leaders on both sides to create the narrative you suggested, but it stranded because neither side was willing to let some sort of scripted sequence happen, and instead just went out to do their own thing even though this dialogue was still ongoing, until it broke down.

Your post is well intended, but when supplied with the context of reality, impossible from the getgo. Staff exist to enforce common fairness because it will be completely absent otherwise. Players are free to dictate progressions until Staff have to step in, which is effectively, always. This is not because Staff are any more or less uniquely toxic than players or somehow superior, but rather because staff have someone above them holding them accountable and because they have a responsibility which a player never needs to have.

Certainly there are players who are very fair, overly fair even, with being inclusive of other players to the point of self detriment. But those players are never comfortable taking the foreground of 50 or so players and directing them into a progression, and then there's no guarantee that of those 50 players, some of them wont abuse the fairness of the individual to seize the spotlight and cause it all to break down.

The way things work right now are fine, because the alternative you're proposing is a step backwards, not forward. That's not because your idea is wrong or bad, but because you don't have all the information available that would result in you coming to the same conclusion.

 

[Conflee]

The way things work right now are fine, because the alternative you're proposing is a step backwards, not forward. That's not because your idea is wrong or bad, but because you don't have all the information available that would result in you coming to the same conclusion.

Click to shrink...

I think that some of it can still be applied, and Ill attempt to in my own future plots. its good to get more details though- I've not got the best record but Im trying to step back and look at everything and figure out how to move forwards, and this whole thing spiraled out of that. So the added information will help. Ill have to think on it too.

Edit: Ill add, mainly the whole, leaders thinking of themselves as DMs and stepped back to consider events and the future more is the biggest part I think still applies. Its good form in general.

 

[MonMarty]

It would be good form. But this is asking the people who work the hardest for their IC advantages to step back and take none of the benefits of their labor. It's an unrealistic and unfair demand of players. If they are prepared to do that, they are staff material. If not, then that is fine too, since no-one can compel a player to sacrifice their own entertainment for someone else.

 

[Reaganism]

As a personal example, during February I was part of a crime war of sorts between my gang, The Beggars, and the Hounds who have for all my knowledge don't play anymore, and @Yigit 's crew the Devout Few. During this series of events, my main was beaten into the ground repeatedly and not given a chance to heal, and though it fit into the story and I allowed it repeatedly, because of constant attacks and ambushes and offensives by the Hounds+, Jochund was captured and beheaded within two weeks of the conflict, leading to the Beggars falling apart and, with no competition or goal, the Hounds quickly following, with them all going inactive soon after to my knowledge. Because of poor OOC Cooperation and no planning or forethought to the long-term story, coupled with my over-compliance, what could have been an interesting long term plot for the Crime world was cut shot anticlimactically and lead to a long stretch of inactivity where nothing happened really outside of the shadows.

Click to shrink...

Every case you've even directly referred to in the cited examples was loaded with ooc drama, and ended very differently than you imagine. Those gangs did not lose or quit. The Devout Few simply gave up on roleplaying one day because they grew tired of being mass-mobbed by plate armored hounds who routinely god-rp'd in combat-rp. In turn the Hounds quit because they felt unfairly treated by staff and because their members got falsely demonized OOC by rumors of nonce-omancy. Every step along the way staff tried to intervene, stop the rumor mongering, stop the rule breaking, but only ended up being demonized itself by the guilty parties that were being reprimanded.

Click to shrink...

Denial is and was a constant issue.

The Devout Few never even agreed or even entered a fight with the hounds, claiming powergaming on the plate armour of a group led by a character also leading a military charter / house guard. Similarly, Jochund was offered aid, entered an alliance, was given aid, then turned all of a sudden and went against the hounds. He did this twice: first he was given a warning, second he was executed (this was the kill-perm rule at the time).

There is a highlight in your text: you do not remember the mock-trials we held as hounds, the many sieges of the court, the intrigue of the set-up fight between the beggars and the blinders, the great battle when the hounds interrupted your event. And there is a vital part in your not marking these.

Your event was allowed to go on for an hour before the Hound attack, which concluded it, as per OOC agreement and courtesy. The rat court battles saw absolutely no staff moderation yet they always proved to be fun to me at least. The many meetings, the trials and set-up stuff were all finely arranged for the sake of roleplay, and not some awkward 4d chess. Lest you say it wasn't fun to have Retardo as a defense lawyer and be "trialled by stone" before being let go with the OOC conclusion that you're free to RP injuries of your preference.

 

[Conflee]

The Devout Few never even agreed or even entered a fight with the hounds, claiming powergaming on the plate armour of a group led by a character also leading a military charter / house guard. Similarly, Jochund was offered aid, entered an alliance, was given aid, then turned all of a sudden and went against the hounds. He did this twice: first he was given a warning, second he was executed (this was the kill-perm rule at the time).

There is a highlight in your text: you do not remember the mock-trials we held as hounds, the many sieges of the court, the intrigue of the set-up fight between the beggars and the blinders, the great battle when the hounds interrupted your event. And there is a vital part in your not marking these.

Your event was allowed to go on for an hour before the Hound attack, which concluded it, as per OOC agreement and courtesy. The rat court battles saw absolutely no staff moderation yet they always proved to be fun to me at least. The many meetings, the trials and set-up stuff were all finely arranged for the sake of roleplay, and not some awkward 4d chess. Lest you say it wasn't fun to have Retardo as a defense lawyer and be "trialled by stone" before being let go with the OOC conclusion that you're free to RP injuries of your preference.

Click to shrink...

I simplified the issue for the sake of brevity. Regardless of how much was packed into the time, it was still very short lived. Also,

before being let go with the OOC conclusion that you're free to RP injuries of your preference.

Click to shrink...

Was literally executed, tried to say I didn't want to die yet because it felt really premature, then gave in because I was a pushover with the issue. Not quite "free to RP injuries of your preference."

Either way I wont get into the little details because Id rather avoid any extended arguments over semantics: In the end the lack of OOC communication both ways lead to a shot lived event. From your side it may have seemed entertaining but my way I let people get away with too much and was literally just kicked while I was down for 2 weeks straight then killed. The fact that there's that much disparity proves my points.