Open Letter | To Team and All Pt. 2
-
@unholycalls
The short answer is we don't have that fully defined yet. We want the community to weigh in on this, However, we're going to put out to the community the concept of "majority votes" which pass with 50% +1 and "super majority votes" which only pass with something like 70% of the votes. In addition, we have drafted some rules (subject to community approval) on who gets to vote. We're creating the concept of an "active player" which is a player who has played X hours in the last Y months (X and Y to be voted on). These will form the voting community. We're hoping to get some devs to help the elected "Community Leader" (and admin function for running votes, etc.) by creating some tools for voter validation. Finally, the votes will last a period of time (periods 1 week or 1 month) again depending upon what the community wants.As you can see there are a lot of decisions to make at the first "Town Hall", another decision is should the DM term be 6 months or 12? (DMs can be voted back in when there term expires of course) For initial voting we'd like to let anyone who plans to play in the Community vote as a lot of people have left Narfell but would like to come back given certain changes and their input is needed to shape the community.
I have a lot more documented (but again concepts as the community needs to weigh in) as we've been working on this for a while now.
By the way, we don't want to prevent anyone who's enjoying Narfell "as is" from doing so in the future. We're just a community that have lobbied for changes for years and not been able to effect change so now we'd like to have the opportunity to take a copy of the server and run it ourselves. We believe the server is community property as many of us have shaped it throughout the years.
I'm sure each individual "priority" we've listed can be nitpicked here and there (e.g. DM applications or DM activity, etc.), but I think you need to take our vision and priorities into account as a whole and recognize that this "movement" wasn't done in haste, we feel this is our only course of action now (unless the DMs wish to change Narfell the way we've listed, but I don't think they do).
-
What is a DM? An enabler.
What should they do? Enhance the world that the Dev's have created. A good one will suck players in, sometimes without them knowing it.
To be honest the most memorable "event" in my recollection was an ogre with a wasp nest. It was at the end of two players exploring and took about 5 minutes of Dm time and led to 20 minutes of player RP.
-
To answer Seisan on my thought of what a DM should be.
1- A DM is a storyteller, not a politician. Their focus should be on players, as many as possible.
2- I hold a strong feeling that DMs should not be worried about "server policy" they should be focused on engaging players in a meaningful way. This is not only telling their stories, but engaging with characters backgrounds and helping them fulfill their stories as well.
3- They should be active. A DM who is not active and serving the community in a broad sense, has no business being a DM.
4- A DM should not only be accountable to the "Staff code of conduct", but support and understand the intent behind such a thing. Abuse of power harms a community as a whole. Punishment for such should be fair for infractions, but real in scope.
5- An exceptionally strong sense of "Fair play" as well as the ability to understand intent of "Rule of fun" and be capable of balancing it with fairness.
6- An understanding that stories and actions outside set server rules can have a dramatic effect on the community they play in. Both positively and negatively, they should be mindful of their impact beyond the scope of their immediate story, psychic, no, but nothing travels in a small community faster then the speed of light then gossip, both good and bad. Make your gossip good.
-
I've provided my answers to your questions below. I admit, my views on DMship did change during my tenure, as I went into the DM team having had little to no DM experience and learned a great deal during my time on the other side of the curtain.
- definitions of what is Dungeon Master
In my eyes, a Dungeon Master is a storyteller. That's their purpose, that's the role. To me, a Dungeon Master is not, by definition, a mediator, a politician, an administrator, or anything else. It's nice to have DMs with those qualities at times, but I do not think any of them is a qualifying or disqualifying attribute by itself. Storyteller first, though they need to possess basic social skills that foster inclusive environments and allow for pleasant interactions between diverse groups of players. In Narfell, DMs, with their IG powers, are needed to serve certain administrative functions, such as importing items or fixing minor bugs/issues players find.
- What should a Dungeon Master do.
I believe that DMs exist to facilitate the telling of a story. This doesn't mean they tell a story and let players plug in at times, but rather they provide players with tools the players can then use to tell their own stories. These tools are things the players cannot access by themselves, such as but not limited to effects, map changes, possessed NPCs, etc. DMs can't go into a story with one specific outcome in mind; instead, they need to set up scenarios that players are encouraged to participate in and encourage players to make decisions that shape the rest of this now-shared story. DMs must be versatile to continue to facilitate this seemingly seamless story on the fly as unexpected actions occur. The DMs job in this role of facilitation is to really provide players with options and opportunities for growth, RP, and decision making. And to make sure that these opportunities (for that's really what they are, and they're coveted) are shared. Some players are more timid or standoffish than others, just as some PCs are, and it's an integral part of the DM job to ensure each player is feeling recognized, appreciated, and contributing to the story in the way they wish to be. At the end of the day, the DM exists to serve the players and foster their combined shaping of the shared world, and they do this by creating unique, open-ended experiences.
EDIT: It wasn't asked, but I'm adding it anyways. My worst Narfell experiences as a PC were in the form of DM inattention. Seeing other players get 'attention' and opportunities from DMs that I did not see myself getting. This often came in the form of events I participated in as a seemingly one-off character, rather than an integral part of the party.
My most difficult experiences as a DM was definitely the need to mediate between grieved parties, remain impartial, and then turn around and try to provide a fun, inclusive environment for all those same players while remaining cognizant of their OOC grievances. It sounds silly, but juggling OOC toxicity and IC fun became very exhausting. To the point where I felt I spent a solid 50% of my playtime mediating or trying to handle OOC stuff when really, I just wanted to play or tell a story. It's a necessary role, but it contributed to my own DM burnout immensely. Logging in as a DM to do XYZ ICly, only to get pulled four directions OOCly by four players with very real, very OOC concerns that, in my eyes, took precedent over playing really impacted how much fun I myself could have. DMs, while serving players, are also playing a game and need to have their own fun. If anyone, DM or player, isn't having fun anymore, it's time for a change.
-
INDIVIDUALLY
What is a Dungeon Master: For me, a Dungeon Master should first and foremost be a story teller and scene-setter. Whether on the fly or for a long-term plot, their presence on the server should be primarily to enhance the player experience through interaction. Its like the little butter spreading robot from Rick and Morty asking what its purpose is. If you look at it from the wrong angle it sucks, but DMs and Players should exist in a state of symbiosis where both parties play in harmony to tell a story, be it an epic tale, a tragedy, or something whimsical just 'cause. A DM should someone who has had fun as a player and now wants to share their creation with their friends. I do not believe that DMs should not play as characters. While this might be awkward at a PnP table, Narfell is an online system and this should never be a problem. A DM should know that their PC isn't expected to drive their DM plot or benefit from a story they're telling.What should a Dungeon Master do?: Enjoy the role. If it's something you can't commit to it, or are no longer enjoying - step down and reapply later. Your role should be to engage the player, use the tools that are available to us all to make your intentions as a DM known - to show that there's an active plot, to entice players to come and roll dice at your digital table. These Forums are a great place to get the word out. Leaving notes and breadcrumbs in game. I'd encourage throwing the hook out and seeing who bites over dangling carrots in front of familiar faces.
IN A GROUP
As a part of the overall DM team, every DM should be prepared to explain their actions and to challenge the actions of others without fear of repercussion or retaliation. If something is seen to be unfair it should be raised as a concern immediately and perhaps not even exclusively within the DM's forums, but with the involvement of the PL/PGs (if reinstated). Transparency, moving forward. No-one should feel discouraged from having an opinion. As part of the DM team a DM should be capable of working together, or at least well enough with others that the ultimate goal can be met - which is to have fun.
-
The best thing to take away from this is that there aren't a lot of applications, the community as a whole will have to step up. If no-one wants to apply to be a DM it's difficult to justify any complaints against the current team.
If the team is in fact sitting on and blocking applications, this trend will change with the proposed rotation and reapplication procedure. If no-one else applies and the rotating DM has reapplied they're obviously the first, and next best candidate and will likely be voted straight back in without spending any time at all out of their role unless their application is rejected for some reason, those reasons might be worth discussing (if this is a direction worth discussing) within the team.
-
@darkspyr That's because we are discussing as a team, althought no official post has been made (take this as an official one).
But first we need info to work with, otherwise we are just going aimlessly as usual. Specially since what we've seen and read here and what @Dorakhan pointed out: suggestions/solutions are diametrical opposed from player to player.
Would you be willing to respond to the two questions I made in my previous post, though?
-
Karnivor has a point. We have a bunch of people that have left jumping and piling on with all their personal input/opinions. Justified or not all these feelings are being aired, sometime for the hundreth time through the years.
I would like to hear a lot more from existing players, Devs and DM's, that are happy with the status quo. Do you see any issues? Is this where the server needs to be? You must have opinions on this post. I do not want to see people tear into each other, we have heard a lot from some individuals but little or nothing from active server people.
-
I would like to briefly chime in here to point out the notion that the DM Team is sitting on a mountain of blocked DM applications in order to stagnate the server is demonstrably untrue.
Here are some stats from the 7 year period since I rejoined the DM team:
-
28 total DM applications
-
Of the above applications most were in fact successful (64%)
-
Of the remaining 36%, when we had an active PG team the majority of "almost" candidates were invited to join that team first; many of these then successfully reapplied in time
Also before CB interjects to complain most of the above stats are from the earlier portion of this 7-year period, the acceptance stat is largely the same in the last 2 years (62%).
-
-
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.
