Open Letter | To Team and All Pt. 2
-
It might be a hard request to perform here, but before continuing further I would like, if possible, that every player participating in the open letter (non current staff DMs that's active) to write up their 1. definitions of what is Dungeon Master, and 2. What should a Dungeon Master do.
Hopefully if we do not derail on those two questions, we'll get more info to work with.
This with idea to compare the subjectiveness of what people expect from a DM when playing DnD.
I list the players that have wrote so far in (but if others are reading on, please, just come in and write that up. The more info we get, the more we can work with to do something):
@KingCreeper
@Chrystoph
@its_a_fire
@Jazz-Vancouver
@Gonnar
@SatansAdvisor
@Scout-Hen
@Robyn
@CBthe4th
@Karnivor
@Darkspyr
@Fadia
@RedMenace
@rei_jin
@WouldBeBard
@Andelas
@Kerby
-
I think its important to consider also that 'active' is a pain point in this entire conversation, from start to finish.
There are people stopping by and investing hours of their time to outline the very reasons 'why' they are no longer active, what pushed them away. People who quit the server recently as well as those names we haven't seen in [to say the line] real life years.
ALL of them should be validated here. Narfell as it stands can't afford to ignore their input.
-
This is a point of interest for me and I realize it's something that'd be difficult to implement, let alone garner support from the current team as it stands.
I'd recommend reinstating the PG and PL positions, limiting them to a few (I realize server population currently adds another layer of difficulty to this proposal, but lets run with the thought), and having their vote count as a vote from the players.
I agree that 'terms' should be employed for DMs, active or not. I believe everyone that holds a DM position should have to step down after 3 - 6 months. I would like to see considerations granted for DMs that are engaged in ongoing plots, to have their time in the DM chair extended - however with a clear outline and expectation for when their project will wrap up or be in a spot where their stepping down won't leave a bunch of players hanging.
I'd like any new applicants to be put to the top of the pool, to be voted on - not necessarily voted in - but to be given the chance to jump to the front of the line so that they are not buried beneath the experience and likely fraternity of those being rotated out.
I don't know if they should have veto powers, or what kind of permanency their position should have - if they should be rotated out every so often.
I think that this would be a welcome leap towards introducing fresh ideas into the team, and to encourage our current DMs to be active and seen enough for the PL/PG(s), Devs and those permanent DM slots that shouldn't be stepped down, to actively want to vote them back in.
I realize this is a discussion that might be better once these posts close down on Friday. But any thoughts over the next couple of days would be welcome.
-
“Is the implication that if only this one small group who play together on weekends went away, everything would be peachy dory and the masses of old and new players would come welling in?”
Holding DMs accountable by player voting is not about getting rid of anybody. Why would it? It’s also to give players who want to actively DM a chance rather than their app being shot down behind closed doors by inactive DMs. At this point a majority of the DMs serve to gatekeep potential stories and RP rather than promote.
I’m going to back away. Just wanted to say DMs with term limits that are player voted gives so much opportunity to the server and I was and still am very curious what the argument against this would be.
Take care, all
-
It's obvious to me that we do not, in fact, agree on what the problem is. I certainly don't agree with "A New Era for Narfell"s analysis, in which the issue of powercreep in items and levels, the expanded world and current trend towards powergaming and soloing is wholly lacking. Is the implication that if only this one small group who play together on weekends went away, everything would be peachy dory and the masses of old and new players would come welling in?
I think that's simply not true, nor are the rest of the allegations. A 'small group' is often the entire server population, on any given day, and that some players are also DMs is true for a lot, if not all people currently on the staff. Narfell's been like this for as long as I've played though, and I notice changing that isn't specified on the New Era's board.
This past weekend saw a group of I think 8 players join in on an adventure in the hands of an experienced and still active DM. It was fun, and the most players I've seen in one spot for weeks on end. Everyone was invited - that's always been the case, and the fact that some have actively chosen not to isn't a sign that some exclusive club exists.
It is after all a players right to choose to join in or not - I've certainly exercized that right myself for various reasons in the past, walking away from plots I didn't feel fit my character, events I felt were hopeless to see through due to time constraints, and ones I simply didn't enjoy. I never complained about it after, or blamed the DM for not catering to my PCs desires. There should always be more than one DM active and more than one plot running, for this precise reason.
We have DMs, even if many of them don't run plots at the moment (the why of that, I won't speculate in). What we are short of is players, so how is (active) players voting on DMs really going to solve anything? What does it take to be counted as 'active' in the first place? Who makes up this community I no longer feel part of, really?
If we're going to talk about change, let's do it for the right reasons. To me, this smells only of resentment and a desire to get rid of the few still eking out some fun on the server, a handful of hours each week. If Narfell's not big enough for that, then there really is a problem.
-
Any format of player voting that holds DMs accountable to the playerbase is a great improvement over the current structure. I assume the details will continue to be worked out in a community discussion. The first step is to agree the issue is worth addressing and discussing, rather than being shot down or swept under a rug.
-
Out of curiosity, since I've seen it suggested a few times in these discussions, how would player voting DMs work? Does a certain amount of no votes sink an app? Or is it majority focused, i.e, 10 yes votes beat 9 no votes? Would there be a time limit on the period you can vote, or is it a wait until every active player votes? I suppose these are some of the questions I have on the concept.
-
Player voted DM’s with term limits would have helped avoid years of the same issue that drove away so many players, which is DMs DMing for DMs (who don’t DM and only serve to reject dozens of DM apps over the years to maintain the status quo.) This concern has been voiced many times for many years in many ways. The staff still will not acknowledge it and players have run out of options.
Regardless of wether current staff think it’s a valid issue, current DMs stepping down and being subject to player voting is a quick and easy change for the staff to implement and solve a lot of issues for a lot of players. Why not?
-
@kingcreeper said in Open Letter | To Team and All Pt. 2:
A player base of "30 plus", built up of people who have already shown that they'd rather cut and run than talk about the damn thing. I'm salty about it. Speak up and fix it.
Most of them tried to speak up over the last few years. They got nowhere and left. A few DMs included.
I spoke with several players that still log in. Some were happy with the way things are. Others wished for different, but figured their voices were in the small minority and stayed with the status quo.
On my part, it took a family emergency to force a break. It gave me pause for reflection on why I was still logging in and the things I was doing when I logged in. Without the creative outlet I was seeking, I didn't see the point and left.
Frankly, what I'm looking for will not be found in the existing server without serious radical changes. The kind of changes that the majority that still play in Narfell don't want. I know because I've asked. Did I cut and run? Absolutely. I simply dropped something I wasn't having fun doing. My time is too limited to plug away at something that doesn't give me enjoyment.
I don't see the harm in letting a group of people tinker with a copy of the module and run it the way they want. Depending on the outcome, I may or may not play. I'll have to see what comes of it.
If you want to talk about it more, please DM me.
Thanks
-
Well yeah, it would be - could be - even, if working together was an option. Otherwise it's an independent division and neither server benefits at all. Which would make the entire thing relevant I suppose in that the whole thing burns to the ground due to the correctly termed redundancy of the thing.
My biggest hope is that in knowing that Clone of Narfell ultimately is going live regardless of what is said or done here, that there's some take-away from everyone involved on either side of the fence if that fence can't be torn down completely (again, working together would benefit 'all'), and that these perceived issues that go beyond the mechanical don't follow the Notfell crew, and this bugbear becomes their burden to shoulder.
Human nature suggests it will persist. Someone will get upset, inevitably, that craft resource X was not available for them, but was bountiful for player character Z, who just happens to have a fair rapport with DM Y. Or an event will be run that involves character Z and the DM doesn't want to advance it in their absence, so the rest of the players feel left out because nothing is moving. What happens then? Another rift? Narfell III: Return of The Split?
It's an incalculable variable built on a foundation that is already swirling the drain. I can wish all the well in the world but I can smell doom on the horizon. A player base of "30 plus", built up of people who have already shown that they'd rather cut and run than talk about the damn thing. I'm salty about it. Speak up and fix it.
-
@kingcreeper said in Open Letter | To Team and All Pt. 2:
Clone-of-Narfell sounds redundant and irrelevant.
I'm not convinced that's it's redundant or irrelevant at all.
Standing up another image of the server would allow significant changes and testing on the fly without impacting the existing server. The existing server would stay up and running as is and wouldn't be affected. It might take 6 months or longer to get the new server stood up the way the community wants. As alluded to by others, there are folks that may be happy with the current environment, and this would leave it entirely unchanged.
I've been doing stuff like this for a very long time in a corporate environment, and that's exactly how you do it. From proposal, specifications, development, user acceptance testing and then finally, production. It's all done in parallel with existing systems. Unless you want to build the airplane in flight so to speak (Funny EDS add. Google it), it's really the best way to go.
-
In light of this group of people, seemingly 30 strong, I think it would be best we get a grasp on just how many people are willing to weigh into any directional conversation with regards to what roads to pave for the server. Poles thankfully can also come with discussion under them and I would recommend a series of poles to not only gauge the true number of interested participants, but to give a more focused and direct conversation on important topics.
I think the first things that need to be addressed before any other proper choices can be made in any sort of informed way revolve around direction and 'balance'.
- Server Min - Average - Max player level.
- Server Magic level
- Broad general direction of the server.
With these three topics I think a proper base of discussion can be reached long before any, as SA puts it, Omni-potent on leader or communist masses duke out what the rest of us don't generally care about. Who wears the hat while we have the fun.
To give people a general idea of what I think these three topics look like I'll give my breath to it before any poles are erected into the ground and waved.
- I am of mind that levels do not in any way impact the level of roleplay any one person is willing to give to a server. If someone wants to do nothing but grunt and kill goblins or grunt and kill fire giants that is what they will do. If someone wants to spit out countless lines of eloquent thought out roleplay for themselves and others to enjoy they will do it at level 1 or level 10, 20, 30, and even 40. I believe we have an excellent example of that in @Karnivor who despite the level, class, power of the character they play they are always roleplaying and story making and the 'numbers' do not change that. So I reject any impulsive merit people try to give low levels giving better RP experiences.
I am also of mind that the progressive expansion of levels leads to my personal expansion of fun and involvement in my character. I am one of the few players who has long advocated for higher levels on the server because I find them more fun and engaging while also allowing a lot more diversity in individual characters. I think Narfell should consider level 30 as a cap level of character power with specific and defined feats like Epic dodge, Dev crit, and Dragon shape disable and unavailable because really those are the only 3 feats that ACCTUALLY make the game worse than it was before epic level. (Some other PRC epic feats may also need to be consider, Shifters mainly, but that kind of balance needs to take into account #2 magic levels.)
As for how those levels are restricted, well, they shouldn't be. Unpopular opinion, I want everyone to be a hero of their own story capable of moving mountains and a goliath of their own path. Power. Is. Fun. Unless you're Wyv, then you can be a level 30 commoner who tells the most epic stories about the latest harvest.
- Magic level in my opinion is very simple, it's based on the level the server characters are put at and altrhough not perfect, this is my rough pre discussion thoughts on it.
1 to 4 - +1 ab weapons, +1 eb rare and valuable, occasional +1 stat, prolly a +3 cap to gear with +3 cap to any 1 skill. Save gear is rare.
5 to 8 - +1 eb is common, +2 ab is med-hard to find, +2 eb is rare and valuable, +1 stat items are fair to find, +3 cap/stat max 6, +6 to any 1 skill and common on all gear 1-3 skills pending rarity. +1 vs X and +1 Will/fort/reflex can be found rarely.
9-12 - +2 eb is common enough, +3 ab is med-hard to find, +3 is rare and valuable, +2 stat items become more abundant, +4 to 1 stat, 8 overall. (+3 to mental stats cha/wis/int) - Skills become very common on gear from +1-3 /skill with 1 or 2 skills per item. Universal saves are rare, +will/fort/reflex easy to obtain with stats/skills pending item weight balance.
I think we can all generally see where I am going with this, my general logic is Caster buff centric, if a caster can +3/4/5 a weapon then a Mundane should be able to find a weapon that isnt just +1, but +3 with 1d4 dmg and maybe +2 taunt or something or +3 +1 universal saves +2 concentration. A mundane should be able to acheive stats without the punishment of giving up skills/saves just like a caster who can +5 armor/shield (cleric) or Buff steroid with Shadow shield/Shield/tenser/shapeschanges (mages). And for people who save 'ah yes if a mundane can get it so can a caster silly Tiger, hmm... yes well if casters can already do all that anyways.... why can't mundanes get some of that pie too? NWN has class restrictions, UMD is a thing for more than scrolls/wants/trinkets people it was used to by-pass excellent melee focused gear (with high enough skill) that was used to bring melee up to a casters power. (PS Ban UMD as a skill on gear to prevent this. Casters have enough kool-aid.)
- I enjoy the times when it's Players Vs Server and Players vs. Players (not PVP) when it comes to server direction.
I enjoy the big arching War times that give every level range important roles, the best part of a war is that it can include SO many power levels and SO many Roleplay capabilities.
I also enjoy when Players are trying to outplay each other, to do something epic, like blow up an entire temple anyone? Like wiggling into the highest reaches of a political seat to influence laws/direction/hide your true intentions. I can tell you right now you could make a level 4 character and have more social intrigue from skills no one else uses through Bluff/Persuade/Intimidate/etc to make yourself a VERY important part of any political structure of power without any want or desire to kill things. And you should be handsomely rewarded with EXP when you do. Jimbo got 1200 exp hunting fire giants? That's excellent Karen just secured the vote of the coin master for her political campaign through XYZ means +1500 exp.
TLDR Conflict is fun and engageing. Narfell is an excellent place for that due to how it's situated on the map.
-
I have deliberated over how to respond to this post for a few days now because while I'm hardly an active player, I routinely read the forums and discord in hopes of seeing a server that can once again captivate my time and imagination. I agree that first and foremost, deciding server direction is necessary, and that decision should be made swiftly and include input from all players, both those with admin positions and those who 'just' play. I fully anticipate that either way this determination is going to have an impact on player numbers, and that either way, some players will likely leave, and some will likely resurface.
I believe that once the server direction is decided, be it a high-magic PvE grind server ruled by one omnipotent figure or a low-magic PvPvE RP server ruled by the Communist masses, the best way to initiate the new direction is with a complete reset, so everybody starts off with new PCs, new gear, and no 'power' or influence in the world. I know it's not a popular opinion, nor has it ever been, but I think there's too much discontent for anything less than a complete wipe to succeed in placating the masses and giving the server and pent-up tensions a collective sigh of relief. I personally favor a server with a lower average level than Narfell currently has, with much more focus on the level 5-10 range of PC because it's easier to contribute to that level range as both a DM and a player. I find as a DM, it's easier to create a variety of unique challenges for the PCs in that level range both because combat is easier to balance with plenty of spawns to choose from on existing maps, and also because skill checks don't become obscene and complicate things unnecessarily. As a player, it's easier to make a fun character that isn't meta-combat focused feel meaningful in lower-level events, and I think low level events are uniquely positioned to allow more players/characters feel inclusive with their contributions and decisions. Each of these points is something I struggled with, both as a player and a DM.
Another benefit of this reset is it would allow all players to begin carving 'their' piece of the server anew, and potential new players (while few and far between) may be inclined to stay if they feel they, too, can have a lasting impact on a blank canvas. Current Narfell is very established, with a history that can (and has) filled books, and while that's fantastic and a testament to the energy poured into it, it does not welcome new players, and can often do the opposite as it generates the feeling of cliqueness. With a few rules changes, a blank slate, and a whole world to build up (or burn down), I believe player numbers would trend upward. After all, who wouldn't want the chance to get in at the ground floor of a new (yet familiar) PW that has an active and established playerbase?
The arguments against a wipe are plentiful and valid. I understand that many players would flat out leave the server if their hard-earned characters, gear, and influence were all wiped, and that's just as damaging to Narfell as the schism of two servers. However, those who are dissatisfied with power creep and allegations of favoritism will never be placated as long as there are characters walking around the server that are perceived to have gotten their influence, status, powers, or items from DM intervention that is seen as unfair. This thread has shown that it isn't just fringe groups of players feeling ostracized by these allegations, either. And if we are to treat all players equally, their departure should be seen as just as severe. In my eyes, that's all there is to it. The circumstances behind many of the allegations are unknown to the general Narfell playerbase and very well could be entirely valid, but the perception of them is very real, and very much in need of address before it fosters even more toxicity among the playerbase. I would hope that all the players here value the server and the world they've created together above their individual PCs, and if a complete wipe were proposed, they would at least give it a chance. It's a scary change, but it hasn't been done yet, and perhaps it's time to try something new.
-
An Olive Branch to Current Staff
We welcome the existing staff to join our new version of Narfell and even stand for election as a DM or Community Leader or PG. However, we also understand and respect that the current team may wish to maintain their vision of Narfell and continue on with their PnP style weekend game. If they choose to keep going as they have, we propose duplicating the server, allowing both visions to coexist, one for this select group to run as they wish without our interference or influence and one guided by the community. This way, those who enjoy the current state can continue to do so, while our community can forge a new path.Why can't it be a companion server? Would it be so obscene to instead pool your Dev resources and create something independent of, but sharing the story of Narfell? Where is the roadblock that stops a creative team from expanding fresh ideas from a fresh DM team into a Narfell: Lands Beyond the Lake setting? Why not make your copy of Narfell and have OG Narfell move off instead - but together (at least from a Dev stance).
Its easy to recognize that much of what has caused a rift within the current player-base stems from the perspective that there are DMs who will only log in, exclusively, for one party. So in the expanded Narfell setting have your own DMs that won't cross servers, but allow players to do so seamlessly. If the Narfell staff are already splitting down the middle, do so with a handshake and commit to making the entire thing better with different artistic focuses.
Clone-of-Narfell sounds redundant and irrelevant.
-
@its_a_fire said in Open Letter | To Team and All Pt. 2:
I see a lot of people quick to propose mechanical solutions, but I would like to highlight what @digit wrote, because there's no sense debating item properties, level caps, or resets if we don't have a clear answer to the following.
@digit said in Open Letter | To Team and All:
Form follows function. [...]
Because all of our decisions and changes should be made on, and solutions reveal themselves, on that principle. Our mech and map layout should follow the wants of our players. Stories should follow the wants and comfort levels of our players. Policy should follow the wants of our players. Who do we want to attract and what is our end goal? Because it’s completely fine to not be the target audience, even the suggestions I vehemently disagree with personally can come from a valid place based on a perceived identity and direction- but stagnating in the middle like we are now isn’t sustainable if I’m understanding the vibes correctly.If there are to be polls, this should come first. We need to agree on the problem (beyond low numbers) before we can agree on a solution.
I second this, too. The rest of discussions should only happen after we're clear on that.
-
In light of Jazz's recent post, I think polling is likely going to be far too indirect to impact (OG) Narfell's future. I'd instead propose using this line of discussion to determine what exactly is needed, and to commit to real-time changes as necessary.
Polling has been a failure in the past because there is no decisive direction, a scatter-shot mixture of opinions that the team has elected to simply not adopt due to the lack of cohesion in what has been reckoned through historical polls.
In the first round of this open letter an expectation was put forward that the community as a whole would receive some form of road-map outlining what would be coming next, and how the changes that are being requested might be put into action - and when.
With an apparent number of the current Dev team as well as current/ex-DMs throwing in with Narfell 2: Attack of The Cloned Server, I think its forgivable to anticipate no such response until the very end of the 'end of year' that was suggested.
I think it would be practical if at all possible to avoid polling and to perhaps instead take this discussion to some kind of town hall meeting event, either in game or right here on the forums.
-
Introducing a New Era for Narfell: Our Vision for a Community-Driven Experience
Hello all,
We've all spent countless hours in the world of Narfell, making it a part of our lives. It's a result of over two decades of collaboration between players, DMs, Devs, PGs, and the original founder. We respect and celebrate that history. Yet, the time has come for a change—a significant one.Why Change?
I represent a group of over 30 current and ex-Narfers (players, DM's, and DEVs) who want to see Narfell return to a much more community-driven server. Narfell has unfortunately become a server primarily servicing the needs of a small group of DMs and players more aligned to a weekend PnP group whereby rules are different from the rest of the server population and significant events and rewards are typically handed out to a small group of players (many of whom are current DMs).Our aim is to initiate a significant shift towards a more transparent, community-driven, and inclusive experience.
Our Vision
“We are a community of current and ex-Narfell players that believe in initiating significant change in the Narfell world. Our focus includes community-run governance via public voting, open and transparent communication, fairness to all, active and inclusive DMs."Core Principles:
- Public Voting on Community Decisions
- Term-limited, Player-Elected DMs (DMs can get voted back in)
- Transparency on Rules and Server Processes
- Reinstating Player Guides
- Elected Community Leader(s) Role for Oversight and Fairness
An Olive Branch to Current Staff
We welcome the existing staff to join our new version of Narfell and even stand for election as a DM or Community Leader or PG. However, we also understand and respect that the current team may wish to maintain their vision of Narfell and continue on with their PnP style weekend game. If they choose to keep going as they have, we propose duplicating the server, allowing both visions to coexist, one for this select group to run as they wish without our interference or influence and one guided by the community. This way, those who enjoy the current state can continue to do so, while our community can forge a new path.Next Steps?
We are waiting on feedback from the current staff on our approach and their interest in changing the current server to be inline with the community views or to bless a split in player-base with the current team maintaining the current Narfell, where our community of previous and current players restart a new "Narfell" using a copy of the current world as a starting place.You may have noticed a few old time players logging into Narfell as of late. As noted above, we've found many players (including former DMs, PGs and DEVs) are anxious to return to a new Narfell. Everyone is welcome, we hope you join us!
Cheers,
The New Era Narfell Community
-
@its_a_fire said in Open Letter | To Team and All Pt. 2:
I see a lot of people quick to propose mechanical solutions, but I would like to highlight what @digit wrote, because there's no sense debating item properties, level caps, or resets if we don't have a clear answer to the following.
@digit said in Open Letter | To Team and All:
Form follows function. [...]
Because all of our decisions and changes should be made on, and solutions reveal themselves, on that principle. Our mech and map layout should follow the wants of our players. Stories should follow the wants and comfort levels of our players. Policy should follow the wants of our players. Who do we want to attract and what is our end goal? Because it’s completely fine to not be the target audience, even the suggestions I vehemently disagree with personally can come from a valid place based on a perceived identity and direction- but stagnating in the middle like we are now isn’t sustainable if I’m understanding the vibes correctly.If there are to be polls, this should come first. We need to agree on the problem (beyond low numbers) before we can agree on a solution.
Seconded - especially since a lot of mechanical proposals are diametrically opposed.
-
I see a lot of people quick to propose mechanical solutions, but I would like to highlight what @digit wrote, because there's no sense debating item properties, level caps, or resets if we don't have a clear answer to the following.
@digit said in Open Letter | To Team and All:
Form follows function. [...]
Because all of our decisions and changes should be made on, and solutions reveal themselves, on that principle. Our mech and map layout should follow the wants of our players. Stories should follow the wants and comfort levels of our players. Policy should follow the wants of our players. Who do we want to attract and what is our end goal? Because it’s completely fine to not be the target audience, even the suggestions I vehemently disagree with personally can come from a valid place based on a perceived identity and direction- but stagnating in the middle like we are now isn’t sustainable if I’m understanding the vibes correctly.If there are to be polls, this should come first. We need to agree on the problem (beyond low numbers) before we can agree on a solution.
-
Questions: If a hard reset is enacted, does it wipe existing institutions? If not, do those institutions retain their storage, and/or special privileges?
As an example, I know that the Druids have a large institutional storage with equipment and consumables. Would all of that go away?
If they do not, anyone with access has an immediate way to empower themselves.
