Opinion Inquest: Character Legacy & Lore Impact

[MonMarty]

I'm going to keep the preface and the questions super short, because I'd also like to see super short answers. This is not about /how/ to bring players into the fold of feeling their characters have made an impact on the world, this is really easy and has been done numerous times. There are two different ways of player impacts, there are cases of for example a player gaining a "I contributed to this piece of lore or this event, and I am mostly responsible for this" through staff written progressions, earning these things through rolls & such, and then there is for example a player saying the same thing, but they worked for it, and could only achieve it because they managed to galvanize the support of other players to recognize them as this leading figure in this event or piece of lore, and then the server management recognized them after.

This is not a thread asking how to do this, we've already had plenty of experience with that. This is a thread picking at brains for the validity and fairness of it all. Please if you reply, answer the following questions honestly and as concisely as you can, but don't just offer yes/no answers without a piece of why:

1. Do you think it is feasibly possible or reasonable of players to expect complete fairness and equal right to become a part of influencing the server lore, knowing that there are at least 300+ active players.
2. Do you think staff should only allow players to impact lore when they are able to mobilize other players to support them, or should staff always apply equal footing with other players, and assist everyone in affecting lore.
3. Do you think if a player has affected a piece of lore or became central to it, that new players who come after and did not experience it, should be expected to respect that piece of lore and the affect of the player (their character) also? and not just throw their own view on top of it which ignores that established lore or notion?
4. Are progressions a suitable manner for players to engage in a way to affect the lore, or should all of it occur solely in game through events or IRP progression? And if so, do you think staff should run DM characters to assist to this effect?
5. Do you think Staff should set about to record these major impacts on some sort of Wiki article for future reference
6. Do you think legacy should also include massive embarrassments and humiliations, or only feel good moments where characters left a positive (to them) impact on the world?

Examples of affecting lore:

Being responsible for a war being won or lost
Being responsible for the emancipation of a race, gender or religion
Being responsible for a major culture or fashion shift in society
Being responsible for a major turn in racial or societal history
Being responsible for a massive magical event
Being responsible for the death of a notable NPC character
Being responsible for a major political upheaval
Etc

 

[Conflee]

Do you think it is feasibly possible or reasonable of players to expect complete fairness and equal right to become a part of influencing the server lore, knowing that there are at least 300+ active players.

Click to shrink...

Anything is possible, it will likely be a pain to figure out solidly and there will be drama on occasion as with anything, but I believe its possible.

Do you think staff should only allow players to impact lore when they are able to mobilize other players to support them, or should staff always apply equal footing with other players, and assist everyone in affecting lore.

Click to shrink...

I would argue, case by case. Most things that impact the world enough to warrant canonization would likely involve a player getting a number of others involved anyway just because the nature of things, but if an individual manages to arrange / work something out then they shouldn't be forced to shoe-horn in a couple friends to get the wiki recognition.

Do you think if a player has affected a piece of lore or became central to it, that new players who come after and did not experience it, should be expected to respect that piece of lore and the affect of the player (their character) also? and not just throw their own view on top of it which ignores that established lore or notion?

Click to shrink...

Consistency is everything. Working other people in where applicable is fine but people shouldn't be allowed to just just in and usurp things without warrant.

Are progressions a suitable manner for players to engage in a way to affect the lore, or should all of it occur solely in game through events or IRP progression? And if so, do you think staff should run DM characters to assist to this effect?

Click to shrink...

Yes, yes, and yes. Progressions let players do things that are unfeasible in game such as traveling to other continents and interacting with NPCs. In-game events should hold a special significance though, given they involved player interaction, usually to a large degree. And DMs make things run smoother in general, as long as the system doesn't get wiped because one or two bad apples which I think personally happens too often.

Do you think Staff should set about to record these major impacts on some sort of Wiki article for future reference

Click to shrink...

Something like "Events of Proposed Importance" as a catch-all place to record these events, to be filtered out for lore-page worthy stories eventually would be a decent way of doing it I think.

Do you think legacy should also include massive embarrassments and humiliations, or only feel good moments where characters left a positive (to them) impact on the world?

Click to shrink...

It depends on how bad the humiliation or failure was, and if its a failure to impact or an impact from failure. A Noble losing a battle due to a miscalculation is as important as one winning the battle in a master stroke. Alternatively an attempt so set up something which failed for various reasons to impact at all, not note-worthy. Consideration for OOC drama is important too, stuff like the Castle Crash (Collapse of Greygate) were really OOCly muddled so it would be a bit meh to do more than reference it in lore.

 

[InDogsWeTrust]

back at it with the opinions again

1. Do you think it is feasibly possible or reasonable of players to expect complete fairness and equal right to become a part of influencing the server lore, knowing that there are at least 300+ active players. No, but it's what we should be striving for. There should be equal opportunity for those bold enough to seize it.
2. Do you think staff should only allow players to impact lore when they are able to mobilize other players to support them, or should staff always apply equal footing with other players, and assist everyone in affecting lore. Encourage groups but don't rule out single players. Everyone would love to have their character turn the tide on a war, singlehandedly, but single-person-heroism can detract from the fun of group roleplay. We're a community. Why should our character's successes be any different?
3. Do you think if a player has affected a piece of lore or became central to it, that new players who come after and did not experience it, should be expected to respect that piece of lore and the affect of the player (their character) also? and not just throw their own view on top of it which ignores that established lore or notion? I don't really understand the question here. Lore should always be open to interpretation where possible, I think.
4. Are progressions a suitable manner for players to engage in a way to affect the lore, or should all of it occur solely in game through events or IRP progression? And if so, do you think staff should run DM characters to assist to this effect? I like progression posts AND in-game dm'ing. They have their pros and cons, both. In game dm'ing can be a struggle for larger amounts of characters. It's harder to form a cohesive, controlled narrative. It also tends to encourage that single-chatacter heroism thing because there's not tons of time to coordinate. However, they also allow for a lot more player creativity and input. Roleplayers tend to know their characters better than staff equipped only with character applications.
5. Do you think Staff should set about to record these major impacts on some sort of Wiki article for future reference? Depends. How much does it rock the server lore? Like, the Lo arch deserved a page, but most of the Arken stuff doesn't. Ask: Is it relevant to the average player and has it changed the course of lore. Then spend time writing.
6. Do you think legacy should also include massive embarrassments and humiliations, or only feel good moments where characters left a positive (to them) impact on the world? So complicated. It can be gut-wrenching to watch your character fail, even a little. This should be up to the player. More risk, more reward. Like, the opportunity for a "legendary" success should come with one for a legendary failure.

 

[Conflee]

Roleplayers tend to know their characters better than staff equipped only with character applications.

Click to shrink...

I want to snip this out real quick an comment: Progression Post events that result in a lore impact that can be boiled down to a couple players should get insight from the players themselves before its made into a Wiki page or put on the wiki. There might be slight tweaks they can suggest that adds in elements of the personality staff didn't pick up on.

 

[Timisc]

1. Do you think it is feasibly possible or reasonable of players to expect complete fairness and equal right to become a part of influencing the server lore, knowing that there are at least 300+ active players. Yes and no. Players need to have patience when it comes to lore recognition, but shouldn't be afraid to ask if they made an impact or if staff has noticed.
   
   
2. Do you think staff should only allow players to impact lore when they are able to mobilize other players to support them, or should staff always apply equal footing with other players, and assist everyone in affecting lore. This entirely depends on the lore. If say a single person such as an inventor had a good, feasible, idea for some sort of technology why would they need an entire base behind them? However, if a single drunkard is standing in the Willow shouting about how Altalar are actually aliens then that doesn't exactly strike me as an impact.
   
   
3. Do you think if a player has affected a piece of lore or became central to it, that new players who come after and did not experience it, should be expected to respect that piece of lore and the affect of the player (their character) also? and not just throw their own view on top of it which ignores that established lore or notion? OOC players should respect lore but everyone is allowed an opinion. IC, however, players are allowed to control their characters how they wish and if one perhaps doesn't agree with what a noble did then they do not need to respect them. If I'm understanding this question correctly.
   
   
4. Are progressions a suitable manner for players to engage in a way to affect the lore, or should all of it occur solely in game through events or IRP progression? And if so, do you think staff should run DM characters to assist to this effect? Keeping it short best I can, this also depends. Things in other regions should be progressions (and player quests would be nice again, perhaps with stricter rules so it isn't just OP treasure hunting spam), but things such as bounty hunting would be nice to have a staff member playing a DM char.
   
   
5. Do you think Staff should set about to record these major impacts on some sort of Wiki article for future reference No opinion, really. Guess that'd be useful if nothing else.
   
   
6. Do you think legacy should also include massive embarrassments and humiliations, or only feel good moments where characters left a positive (to them) impact on the world? Again, no real opinion. I can see both sides, but would have to go more in depth.

 

[LumosJared]

1. Do you think it is feasibly possible or reasonable of players to expect complete fairness and equal right to become a part of influencing the server lore, knowing that there are at least 300+ active players.
   No. Some people are going to get closer to "influencing server lore" via virtue of associating with those who are or have influenced server lore. If they stay within separate circles, even if it's a lot of people, they will not see that same recognition, and that's unfair, yet not impossible to overcome.
   
2. Do you think staff should only allow players to impact lore when they are able to mobilize other players to support them, or should staff always apply equal footing with other players, and assist everyone in affecting lore.
   First one; if you can't mobilize others and get support for things you want to do, you shouldn't then expect to get to affect server lore.
3. Do you think if a player has affected a piece of lore or became central to it, that new players who come after and did not experience it, should be expected to respect that piece of lore and the affect of the player (their character) also? and not just throw their own view on top of it which ignores that established lore or notion?
   Yes. Part of going into this world is accepting it is larger than how anyone person viewed it, even for someone who's been here since the start. You don't ignore contributions because they came before.
4. Are progressions a suitable manner for players to engage in a way to affect the lore, or should all of it occur solely in game through events or IRP progression? And if so, do you think staff should run DM characters to assist to this effect?
   It should be both; they both have their places in impacting the world. I think the DM character can't work for everyone given sheer lack of manpower, so having progressions to ensure people get a chance to have a greater impact is crucial -while also- doing occasional in-game events and dm assisted progression.
5. Do you think Staff should set about to record these major impacts on some sort of Wiki article for future reference
   Yes. For a while, we resisted that to avoid hero-worship, but I think we can walk the line between acknowledging the accomplishments and dedications of players, while not overhyping them; it creates more incentive for those roleplaying right now.
6. Do you think legacy should also include massive embarrassments and humiliations, or only feel good moments where characters left a positive (to them) impact on the world?
   Good and bad both should be there. Though ideally it should be policy to brief the person who's getting their screw-ups immortalized, in case they have particular objections.

 

[BRBKing]

1. No, it's not feasible for all 300+ players to get equal chance
2. Yes and no, I believe you should give those with the followers more attention
3. Split on this, I mean, not every game developer just copies myths, they put spins on them to make them unique
   
4. DM characters are a great thing, allows us to play an RPG on this MMORPG server
5. Yes, to keep a record that's less easily changed than a forum cleanup
6. Yes, always need to show the uglier side of things.

 

[AtticCat]

• Do you think it is feasibly possible or reasonable of players to expect complete fairness and equal right to become a part of influencing the server lore, knowing that there are at least 300+ active players.

I don't think people should expect complete fairness and equal right if they're doing nothing, instead they should strive to earn it- if they're doing nothing to help others (OOCly, it's a whole other thing for the character to be self-centered) on the server, they shouldn't be very included.

• Do you think staff should only allow players to impact lore when they are able to mobilize other players to support them, or should staff always apply equal footing with other players, and assist everyone in affecting lore.

I think it depends on the situation, most of situations are likely going to take a team of people- but things such as medicinal discoveries, inventions, etc should be taken as a single person success if they did alone.

• Do you think if a player has affected a piece of lore or became central to it, that new players who come after and did not experience it, should be expected to respect that piece of lore and the affect of the player (their character) also? and not just throw their own view on top of it which ignores that established lore or notion?

I think that people should generally have to respect the affect of that person on the lore, at least on an OOC level. Icly, though, you can't really force anyone opinion on an event in history.

• Are progressions a suitable manner for players to engage in a way to affect the lore, or should all of it occur solely in game through events or IRP progression? And if so, do you think staff should run DM characters to assist to this effect?

I think that progressions are a good way for players to affect lore, though not 24/7! I like progressions via forums and IG events. Progression events allow more people to be involved because not everyone can be on at once, while IG events allow people to better show how their character would react rather than a staff's interpretation or guess from their character Application.

• Do you think Staff should set about to record these major impacts on some sort of Wiki article for future reference

Yes! Please, this would help for figuring out timelines and keeping track of all the events that have happened in Regalia.

• Do you think legacy should also include massive embarrassments and humiliations, or only feel good moments where characters left a positive (to them) impact on the world?

I think it should include everything, like in the real world. We talk about the mistakes and the achievements of people, and it also allows more interesting roleplay because who doesn't like saying they've got dirt on your name?

 

[Last_Link]

• Do you think it is feasibly possible or reasonable of players to expect complete fairness and equal right to become a part of influencing the server lore, knowing that there are at least 300+ active players: No, of course not, thats silly. There will always be a little favoritism for those who have already played a large role before because they have established that their character is reliable, so it only makes sense that they have a larger impact. But that doesn't mean that an attempt shouldn't be made to make things more equal.

• Do you think staff should only allow players to impact lore when they are able to mobilize other players to support them, or should staff always apply equal footing with other players, and assist everyone in affecting lore: Having players backing you is important as it normally shows that you have done something right. However this does not mean that the players are beyond mob mentality and just blindly following someone because thats what everyone else is doing. To a certain degree you should have some people backing you to be able to affect the lore but ultimately if what you are doing seems plausible IC then they should be able to do whatever that is.

• Do you think if a player has affected a piece of lore or became central to it, that new players who come after and did not experience it, should be expected to respect that piece of lore and the affect of the player (their character) also? and not just throw their own view on top of it which ignores that established lore or notion?: Of course. Our actions wouldn't really matter if they were just wiped away later, would they?

• Are progressions a suitable manner for players to engage in a way to affect the lore, or should all of it occur solely in game through events or IRP progression? And if so, do you think staff should run DM characters to assist to this effect?: They are, but the way they are currently done is flawed I would say, too many people crammed into progressions with their actions ultimately being not all that important. I guess what im trying to say is they are made to kinda please everyone but end up pleasing nobody. If billy bob stabs an elf it won't matter because twenty other people also stabbed elves in that progression. Having a few characters be temporary protagonists for a progression is better then having 40 people get one line mentions.

• Do you think Staff should set about to record these major impacts on some sort of Wiki article for future reference: Yeah. It shows that people have an impact on things.

• Do you think legacy should also include massive embarrassments and humiliations, or only feel good moments where characters left a positive (to them) impact on the world?: Both. Having legacy only being good things just makes the older characters way more influential then the new ones. Having bad things be remembered is realistic and encourages people to be smart and not rush into thing because they think messing up won't matter.

 

[Razrei]

1. Those who have the capability of influencing the server lore will almost always find a way. Not everyone can be expected to fulfill this, because not everyone is able to. Making one's mark on the world should be something people work to, not something that is given as charity.
2. Manpower, in my opinion, is a key of influence. If someone doesn't have the manpower, they shouldn't be given that influence freely.
3. We can't expect everybody to be aware of our recent history immediately upon joining, but I think players should always endeavor to continue the narrative that others have instigated or forwarded, even if the plot in question has been abandoned. IE, I'd hope the Daens of our coming years will use the Anaheras as backstory and policy, and not just ignore they ever happened. Separate unintentional ignorance from avoiding recognition of past narratives, though.
4. I am of the opinion that, whenever possible, things should be kept onscreen. We're here to roleplay, and while offscreen progressions contribute to roleplay, flat out generating it within the city itself is the most effective route.
5. I'd advise restricting it to things that are of the highest severity, and realistically would stand out in the pretend-history of Regalia when comparing with anything else.
6. I believe major mess-ups that qualify on the opposite end of the spectrum should be included in the annal, but not much else.

 

[Jonificus]

1. I don't think its possible, or reasonable to expect complete fairness in such a thing. However, it is still possible for everyone to accomplish something worthwhile by putting in the required effort. You can't expect to be treated with respect without earning it, and the same should be for becoming part of the wider world's legacy.

2. I'd say this completely depends on the situation. Some actions worthy of legacy requires the support of groups to be legitimized, others require far less. Ex: An alchemist discovering a revolutionary new method of experimentation merely needs lore staff's approval to acknowledge its legitimacy. Meanwhile, to say your character was the best ___ in Regalia wouldn't be valid unless other characters viewed said character as such.

3. Of course. Legacy actions and events should be common knowledge for all characters, and should be treated as such by players.

4. Both are legitimate paths towards legacy actions and events. Certain actions we simply cannot accomplish in-game such as winning wars, yet behind every progression there is plenty of RP that has been played out by multiple characters through all kinds of intermingling storylines. As a RP purist for the most part I do find the best roleplay the situations that are caused entirely by player instigation rather than DM characters, but as I'm not the only guy on the server I do acknowledge the importance that they can play out for other corners of the roleplay scene.

5. We definitely should. Receiving acknowledgement for your accomplishments and knowing your character has made an impact is one of the most satisfying things about roleplay. If it ends up with characters worshipping an event or other character then so be it, it is history to those other characters. Legacy events, actions and characters mean much more to players as they know they've walked the same path as everyone else, it is something they can relate to far more than a long dead Emperor or wizard.

6. Good or bad should all be remembered. I'm sure people can relate to most often remembering awful moments, such as dwelling on cringeworthy things that have been said in the past by yourself. But as Jared said, let us notify the player responsible beforehand as players do have a tendency to take IC things OOC and it could hurt a player's reputation unless ofc that player is willing to take the risk.

 

[MrH_]

1. Do you think it is feasibly possible or reasonable of players to expect complete fairness and equal right to become a part of influencing the server lore, knowing that there are at least 300+ active players.
   It's likely not possible to give complete fairness to every player, but perhaps locking it behind a trustee-like permission, or simply limiting it to approved characters would make it somewhat more feasible. Even then, players who don't take the initiative to step up and contribute should not expect fairness with those who do.
2. Do you think staff should only allow players to impact lore when they are able to mobilize other players to support them, or should staff always apply equal footing with other players, and assist everyone in affecting lore.
   In a vast majority of cases, a large group of characters should realistically be required to affect lore in any way, but one qualified character could probably manage to influence it in a minor way, in some cases.
3. Do you think if a player has affected a piece of lore or became central to it, that new players who come after and did not experience it, should be expected to respect that piece of lore and the affect of the player (their character) also? and not just throw their own view on top of it which ignores that established lore or notion?
   I think that players should always respect established lore under every circumstance.
4. Are progressions a suitable manner for players to engage in a way to affect the lore, or should all of it occur solely in game through events or IRP progression? And if so, do you think staff should run DM characters to assist to this effect?
   A mix of both. Progressions and player quests are a good way to have it accomplished, but DMed events and IRP progression are a lot of fun in their own regard. Of course, each has its own challenges, so a good balance would work fine.
5. Do you think Staff should set about to record these major impacts on some sort of Wiki article for future reference
   A very brief report of each would suffice, really. There's no need for anything more.
6. Do you think legacy should also include massive embarrassments and humiliations, or only feel good moments where characters left a positive (to them) impact on the world?
   If the embarrassments are relevant to be included, they should be included. A player should know the risks before getting a character involved.

 

[TalkChat]

• Do you think it is feasibly possible or reasonable of players to expect complete fairness and equal right to become a part of influencing the server lore, knowing that there are at least 300+ active players?
  • No. Though, I believe we need a balance of the old and new players who both equally can influence progressions.
• Do you think staff should only allow players to impact lore when they are able to mobilize other players to support them, or should staff always apply equal footing with other players, and assist everyone in affecting lore.
  • To put it plainly people who want to be 'recognized' on the server need to step up, focus, and really pry at their ambition. Staff should be nit-picky about who is an influential player within Regalia, but the standards should be kept quite simple and possibilities need to be kept open at all times for everyone.
• Do you think if a player has affected a piece of lore or became central to it, that new players who come after and did not experience it, should be expected to respect that piece of lore and the effect of the player (their character) also? and not just throw their own view on top of it which ignores that established lore or notion?
  • Everyone needs to respect each other's achievements, of course, characters will gain or lose reputation based on what exactly they influenced but it should always be apparent to the whole of the community.
• Are progressions a suitable manner for players to engage in a way to affect the lore, or should all of it occur solely in the game through events or IRP progression? And if so, do you think staff should run DM characters to assist to this effect?
  • I think we need more IRP events, Gelle was cool, all the staff-run events have been alright. Just try to focus less on the more apparent powers in RP and let things take their course.
• Do you think Staff should set about to record these major impacts on some sort of Wiki article for future reference
  • Yeah. Only for record keeping sake, a way to refer back to an event.
• Do you think legacy should also include massive embarrassments and humiliations, or only feel good moments where characters left a positive (to them) impact on the world?
  • Let players interpret the stories their own way IRP. You don't need to constantly update a list of everything that happens.

 

[G0atfather]

1. Do you think it is feasibly possible or reasonable of players to expect complete fairness and equal right to become a part of influencing the server lore, knowing that there are at least 300+ active players.
   
   complete fairness? probably not but I think it could be achieved quite closely and that everyone who wants to could influence something.
   
   
2. Do you think staff should only allow players to impact lore when they are able to mobilize other players to support them, or should staff always apply equal footing with other players, and assist everyone in affecting lore.
   
   I think everyone should be able to assist in affecting the lore but if something or someone has more support, it should get more weight.
   
   
3. Do you think if a player has affected a piece of lore or became central to it, that new players who come after and did not experience it, should be expected to respect that piece of lore and the affect of the player (their character) also? and not just throw their own view on top of it which ignores that established lore or notion?
   
   To a degree. It shouldn't be changed or ignore the established lore.
   
4. Are progressions a suitable manner for players to engage in a way to affect the lore, or should all of it occur solely in game through events or IRP progression? And if so, do you think staff should run DM characters to assist to this effect?
   
   Not really. I think more In game roleplay progression is needed and staff should run as dm's to help.
   
   
5. Do you think Staff should set about to record these major impacts on some sort of Wiki article for future reference
   
   Indeed. Record keeping is good
   
   
6. Do you think legacy should also include massive embarrassments and humiliations, or only feel good moments where characters left a positive (to them) impact on the world?
   
   Don't need to update the list constantly but of course it should include embarrassments and failures as those are often more important to character development than victories.

 

[Bertramqaz]

No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

 

[Film_Noir]

Do you think it is feasibly possible or reasonable of players to expect complete fairness and equal right to become a part of influencing the server lore, knowing that there are at least 300+ active players.

Click to shrink...

No, but feeling included and a part of things is probably a #1 reason why people want to come to the server to RP. Some players might be natural "leaders", while others might be content to follow along with certain stories, which is fine, but regardless, RP is a very social game and feeling included (regardless of whether currently leading or following) is really key. So, special events like end of year blowout progressions, and war sign-ups, and including all players who want to be a part of things in in-game events, are good things to continue to keep doing, I think.

Do you think staff should only allow players to impact lore when they are able to mobilize other players to support them, or should staff always apply equal footing with other players, and assist everyone in affecting lore.

Click to shrink...

I think the important thing is that the server should always give players the opportunity to access the TOOLS needed to create their own stories and to make global impacts with these stories. Local and global events and lore arising from player-driven stories, is very important in adding an organic feel to Aloria, to ensure that it doesn't all always feel scripted. Players want to be able to influence the world around them; not just look at it. Things like the noble system, the crime system, the Synod community, player quests (currently accessible through the voucher system), are all great examples of such tools that allow us to do these things. Then, it's up to each individual player whether they try to access and use these tools, or not.

Do you think if a player has affected a piece of lore or became central to it, that new players who come after and did not experience it, should be expected to respect that piece of lore and the affect of the player (their character) also? and not just throw their own view on top of it which ignores that established lore or notion?

Click to shrink...

I think that the point of RP and the world building that we're doing on the server, is to build on top of what has come before us. So new players should be expected to respect what has come before them, yes. Very much so.

Are progressions a suitable manner for players to engage in a way to affect the lore, or should all of it occur solely in game through events or IRP progression? And if so, do you think staff should run DM characters to assist to this effect?

Click to shrink...

A mix: it's not really viable to conduct large-scale wars and naval fleet battles in-game, for example. Smaller-scale visits to foreign rulers could be conducted in-game, however.

Do you think Staff should set about to record these major impacts on some sort of Wiki article for future reference?

Click to shrink...

Yes. I've never really liked the disconnect, between what players achieve in-game or in progressions, versus what is then recorded about the event as "lore" on the Wiki. The Wiki can feel a bit sterile if you know that players contributed to a certain event, and then the facts are left entirely out of the article write-up on the Wiki.

Do you think legacy should also include massive embarrassments and humiliations, or only feel good moments where characters left a positive (to them) impact on the world?

Click to shrink...

Massive embarrassments and humiliations should also be included, yes. (It's these moments that often make characters feel more real, and can even provide humour if written about in the right way.)

 

[FireFan96]

Do you think it is feasibly possible or reasonable of players to expect complete fairness and equal right to become a part of influencing the server lore, knowing that there are at least 300+ active players.

No, because complete fairness makes everything boring. Some bias, while unintended, gives a small drive to be noticed more.
​

Do you think staff should only allow players to impact lore when they are able to mobilize other players to support them, or should staff always apply equal footing with other players, and assist everyone in affecting lore.

There should be preference to those who can mobilize other players, but there are benefits to "lone wolves" making an impact without being noticed.
​

Do you think if a player has affected a piece of lore or became central to it, that new players who come after and did not experience it, should be expected to respect that piece of lore and the affect of the player (their character) also? and not just throw their own view on top of it which ignores that established lore or notion?

Yes, players should acknowledge that certain characters made large strides in lore, and recognize the glory of those veterans. Legacies make great stories to tell, even when the person in question is nowhere around the rp.
​

Are progressions a suitable manner for players to engage in a way to affect the lore, or should all of it occur solely in game through events or IRP progression? And if so, do you think staff should run DM characters to assist to this effect?

Progressions are necessary for some larger plots to succeed, and have the benefit of being independent of timezones or player rp ability. An equalizer, so to say.
​

Do you think Staff should set about to record these major impacts on some sort of Wiki article for future reference

Yes, as it allows players to have a quick glance of events and read who did what. Reading over 10,000 word progression posts for a single name is good when the thread is posted, but two years down the road it is pointless.​

Do you think legacy should also include massive embarrassments and humiliations, or only feel good moments where characters left a positive (to them) impact on the world?

History is objective, and our lore should be able to reflect that. Some of the greatest failures can lead to the best successes.​

 

[essentialess]

• Do you think it is feasibly possible or reasonable of players to expect complete fairness and equal right to become a part of influencing the server lore, knowing that there are at least 300+ active players?
  • No, you can't expect complete fairness, at least when it comes to the deeper lore. Though, active players of a certain quality (some veterans/trustees for example) should be able to have some influence. This shouldn't just be given to them, however. An amount of effort, communication, and initiative should be promised if a player is seeking to make an impact on server lore in an extreme way. In my opinion, allowing anyone and everyone to make large strides like that would decrease Massive's quality as a community.

• Do you think staff should only allow players to impact lore when they are able to mobilize other players to support them, or should staff always apply equal footing with other players, and assist everyone in affecting lore.
  • Again, if a player wants to impact the lore they need to be up to the task. If a player is able to mobilize other players to support them, it's likely for a good reason and when it comes to affecting the lore, staff should assist those who are meeting a certain standard. That's not to gatekeep, however, and there should be resources in showing new or struggling players how to meet said standard... like we already have now.

• Do you think if a player has affected a piece of lore or became central to it, that new players who come after and did not experience it, should be expected to respect that piece of lore and the effect of the player (their character) also? and not just throw their own view on top of it which ignores that established lore or notion?
  
  • If a player has affected a piece of lore, then new players should be expected to respect this, whether they experienced it or not-- that's just how this community is. There's no reason for a player to refuse to recognize the contributions another player has made in lore. ICly of course, characters are free to interact with the lore how they want, to an extent.

• Are progressions a suitable manner for players to engage in a way to affect the lore, or should all of it occur solely in-game through events or IRP progression? And if so, do you think staff should run DM characters to assist to this effect?
  
  • World events on a massive scale should be done via progression, but others could be done in-game on a case by case basis. I'd like to see more staff run events where they run DM! Those are fun and usually play out pretty well!

• Do you think Staff should set about to record these major impacts on some sort of Wiki article for future reference?
  
  • Absolutely! It brings life to the Wiki, and its something to look forward to if you do succeed in making an impact. Even if its just in the trivia! It also serves as a proper way to record these progressions in lieu of scouring the forums.

• Do you think legacy should also include massive embarrassments and humiliations, or only feel good moments where characters left a positive (to them) impact on the world?
  • There is no reason for legacy to leave out character failures and humiliation so long as it is plot-relevant and its inclusion is completely devoid of OOC malicious intent. Let other players learn from their mistakes IRP. It might be wise to notify the player of a progression's outcome beforehand in any situation, though.

 

[Legoclub22]

• Do you think it is feasibly possible or reasonable of players to expect complete fairness and equal right to become a part of influencing the server lore, knowing that there are at least 300+ active players.

There's a difference between equality and equal opportunity. I think that as many people as possible should have the opportunity to impact the lore, what should matter is if they are willing to do what is required of them to see a return.

• Do you think staff should only allow players to impact lore when they are able to mobilize other players to support them, or should staff always apply equal footing with other players, and assist everyone in affecting lore.

I think it would be unfair in some scenarios to say that a player must have the backing of 5, 10 or 15 people to affect the lore at all. Obviously, individuals can't make the same impact as a group, but they can still make an impact.

• Do you think if a player has affected a piece of lore or became central to it, that new players who come after and did not experience it, should be expected to respect that piece of lore and the affect of the player (their character) also? and not just throw their own view on top of it which ignores that established lore or notion?

Yes. Lore is lore, you can't pick and choose what lore you want to follow.

• Are progressions a suitable manner for players to engage in a way to affect the lore, or should all of it occur solely in game through events or IRP progression? And if so, do you think staff should run DM characters to assist to this effect?

Progressions are good for larger-scale things, but for smaller things IRP progression is far better. Reading about what you did doesn't compare to actually doing it. Staff DM characters would be a very nice thing to have in a lot of situations.

• Do you think Staff should set about to record these major impacts on some sort of Wiki article for future reference

To a degree, yes. A small footnote here or there, maybe a page every now and then. They should at least be hinted at, acknowledged or mentioned on the wiki.

• Do you think legacy should also include massive embarrassments and humiliations, or only feel good moments where characters left a positive (to them) impact on the world?

If it's public knowledge...

 

[Reaganism]

1. No. Circlejerks have too much influence. I have been rather straight-up to you about this in the past and highlighted the lack of interactions you yourself provided towards players if you simply didn't enjoy RP with them. The ability of a character to influence lore and the environment shouldn't hinge on your own enjoyment and take on RP.
2. No. The whole manpower idea is a downwards spiral counter-productive to RP and further encouraging circlejerks. Although, it /is/ good to promote server numbers.
3. Leave that up to the players in RP. But can you give an example for this, @MonMarty?
4. Do not abandon RP progressions. It is a failure on another server limiting conflict to player VS player which escalates toxicity.
5. Yes, but have someone write it who wasn't involved.
6. Only include humiliations & negatives if positives are mentioned on the same page.

It may be tempting to lift ideas over from the Old Country, but it's such a toxic cesspool of unwanted human garbage that it's a wonder how it can even exist as a server. Massivecraft already lost a good portion of its appeal to me by trying to imitate it, I honestly do not think it is the right decision to take.

 

[MonMarty]

No. Circlejerks have too much influence.

Click to shrink...

I think you misunderstood the question. It asks whether players believe the server should try to pander to the right of 300+ players to each leave a mark on the lore equally with equal opportunity, or whether the players believe this is impossible, and are willing to accept that fact. You should remove any context from your train of thought before answering.

 

[Reaganism]

I think you misunderstood the question. It asks whether players believe the server should try to pander to the right of 300+ players to each leave a mark on the lore equally with equal opportunity, or whether the players believe this is impossible, and are willing to accept that fact. You should remove any context from your train of thought before answering.

Click to shrink...

You are right in the regards that I stepped over the answer and explained a further stance. I do not think the server is capable of pandering to the right of 300+ players, because the more players are served the more diluted / less prestige there'll be in it, while staff workload increases. Diminishing individual return on a sum increase in staff workload isn't feasible.

However, catering for a select few, whether that be 10, 30 or 50 characters, will bring up the circlejerk / highlight issue which I went into detail about.

 

[SnashuuPomaymay]

1. Do you think it is feasibly possible or reasonable of players to expect complete fairness and equal right to become a part of influencing the server lore, knowing that there are at least 300+ active players. I think it's possible within reason. Perhaps just players with a certain amount of experience and time on massive.
2. Do you think staff should only allow players to impact lore when they are able to mobilize other players to support them, or should staff always apply equal footing with other players, and assist everyone in affecting lore. If someone wants to impact lore, they must work for it. If they can't rally enough players to properly meet requirements, they should keep trying until they do.
3. Do you think if a player has affected a piece of lore or became central to it, that new players who come after and did not experience it, should be expected to respect that piece of lore and the affect of the player (their character) also? and not just throw their own view on top of it which ignores that established lore or notion? Yes, they should respect that time in lore. Just because they weren't there does not mean it didn't happen.
4. Are progressions a suitable manner for players to engage in a way to affect the lore, or should all of it occur solely in game through events or IRP progression? And if so, do you think staff should run DM characters to assist to this effect? Progressions are fine! I think it's proved to be a very nice way of getting involved for players. Of course, the occasional in game event is wonderful too.
5. Do you think Staff should set about to record these major impacts on some sort of Wiki article for future reference? I'd prefer it was recorded, however it would also be a lot of work, so I am neutral on the subject.
6. Do you think legacy should also include massive embarrassments and humiliations, or only feel good moments where characters left a positive (to them) impact on the world? With the permission of the person who plays the character, I think it'd be nice to have massive humiliations involved in a chatacter's legacy.

 

[Magivore]

• Do you think it is feasibly possible or reasonable of players to expect complete fairness and equal right to become a part of influencing the server lore, knowing that there are at least 300+ active players.

Click to shrink...

No. Without relying purely off of rolls, which is very limited in what it can represent, there will always be a bias (even if only slight) toward certain characters or individuals due to their community presence / reputation / characters, whether it be good or bad.

• Do you think staff should only allow players to impact lore when they are able to mobilize other players to support them, or should staff always apply equal footing with other players, and assist everyone in affecting lore.

Click to shrink...

Equal footing is best. When considering characters and what they are capable of doing, impacting large groups seems to often come from one person making a decision that everyone else doesn't make. While it should be expecting players amassing large groups are more capable of affecting the lore, we can all agree that there have been some massive groups that have left an impact, but they ended up becoming very toxic environments or allowed behavior that shouldn't be encouraged.

• Do you think if a player has affected a piece of lore or became central to it, that new players who come after and did not experience it, should be expected to respect that piece of lore and the affect of the player (their character) also? and not just throw their own view on top of it which ignores that established lore or notion?

Click to shrink...

It should be heavily encouraged, but not 100% expected. While the wiki is supposed to be the 'go-to' for new players, I will admit that the size of some of the pages and how many different branches that are significant to them are absolutely horrifying to look at right away. Not only would they be forced to read racial pages, religious pages, and the proficiency page, but they would also be forced to comb through every effect someone had in the blind hopes to find an event that only might change their character's personality or backstory. It would be a nightmare to be a 2 week old player at aged 15, forced to comb through the Orc race page, Knight Schools page, Unionism page, the Bone Horror Crisis, and the Heroes of The Bone Horror Crisis all at once if I just wanted to be a Orcish paladin who came out of the most recent war.

• Are progressions a suitable manner for players to engage in a way to affect the lore, or should all of it occur solely in game through events or IRP progression? And if so, do you think staff should run DM characters to assist to this effect?

Click to shrink...

Progressions are the best of the two. IRP progressions would definitely be far more memorable, but I've found most lore-affecting events tend to be in massive groups in strange lands. Perhaps a nice split could be made, such as a 'small' 10v10 skirmish in the countryside, or a World Department built village for a diplomatic mission, but primarily, the success of characters are made through events that don't require NPCs/DMs or through large-scale situations that the game chat couldn't handle.

• Do you think Staff should set about to record these major impacts on some sort of Wiki article for future reference

Click to shrink...

For the sake of organization, yes, but in brief explanations. Creating a 1,000 word wiki page for the time a Skagger warrior who got 30 kills saved a Kade commander would be just unnecessary, but putting it that curtly certainly would devalue the effect someone might feel they had. Even just making someone's character a trivia point on the page itself could suffice.

• Do you think legacy should also include massive embarrassments and humiliations, or only feel good moments where characters left a positive (to them) impact on the world?

Click to shrink...

Embarrassments would be interesting to have, but I would ask the player themselves. I take it that some people wouldn't want their characters to be remembered with something like that.

 

[RedSentinel]

1. Yes, I believe it is not only feasible but essential. Without equal opportunity, the server loses any sense of a meritocratic system, as well as the ability for role players to influence the world around them rather than being locked in a box on the principal of inexperience. A player should be able to jump into world-level situations if they are responsible and competent, not by having friends or allies within the existing system or by playing for x number of hours. While every player will not and should not be able to become State Minister, they should have the opportunity to be apart of the world-wide rp experience without having a sticker of approval to be allowed to do so.

2. Absolutely, the purpose of staff on any server is to benefit the player community and provide the opportunity for a fun, healthy, and ultimately positive experience for the player community, and since the lore is a key part of the community, the playerbase should be allowed to participate in that.

3. I believe that this standard should be expected. Players who come are already expected to respect the lore of the wiki, and the progressions of the world of Aloria.

4. Progressions are certainly the best of that option, as they allow the staff to moderate the actions of the players involved without restricting or regulating them too harshly. Expecting otherwise with this addendum of player interaction would invite chaos.

5. I certainly believe these should be recorded in some manner or form. While they may seem little to some players, these minor impacts are often great sources of pride and excitement to the people who made these impacts. Many of us join Massive with the wondrous idea of shifting or changing the remarkable fantasy world around us that has been built through the passionate work of the lore staff. As such, many would like to think that even though it may be little, we made some impact on the world of Regalia while we played in it. While these impacts don't need a page of 5,000 words, a small sentence where credit is due would not only give great satisfaction to players, but give incentive to the player base to create characters who are more involved in the rest of Regalia, and indeed the rest of Aloria.

6. While setbacks and defeats are key to a good rp, I would highly caution in the department of player embarrassments and humiliations. I have faced a number of these in the past which did leave a negative impression of my view of server roleplay. Many players are willing to detach entirely from a character and play out a scenario of humiliation to the effect of realism, there are still many players who put a great deal of time, care, and love into their characters, and the lasting humiliation on a character's reputation can be taken to heart out of character. While every interaction should not be hugs and kisses, for the sake of continuing a postie and happy player base, I would keep character humiliation moderate and measured, though not entirely lax.

 

[Kibaa]

1. Do you think it is feasibly possible or reasonable of players to expect complete fairness and equal right to become a part of influencing the server lore, knowing that there are at least 300+ active players.

• Currently I find that it is not very feasible due to the ratio of lore staff to players, but that inherently isn't a problem. In my opinion it is not reasonable for players to expect complete fairness at all times, but it is definitely reasonable to expect equal rights and opportunity as long as they're putting in the work. Any player who is actively striving to impact the roleplay community, and is working towards becoming a big factor in roleplay, should expect equal consideration among similar peers.

1. Do you think staff should only allow players to impact lore when they are able to mobilize other players to support them, or should staff always apply equal footing with other players, and assist everyone in affecting lore.

• I think staff should allow anyone to impact lore. Not all roleplay endeavors will involve groups of players, and many players have ambitions for their characters which consist of individual progress. A player's ability to mobilize others for support should not directly affect their capacity to impact lore when it comes to staff consideration if their ambition isn't to do so in the first place. Aside from that, though, I'm all for staff giving extra support to players who consistently mobilize and unite large roleplay groups.

1. Do you think if a player has affected a piece of lore or became central to it, that new players who come after and did not experience it, should be expected to respect that piece of lore and the affect of the player (their character) also? and not just throw their own view on top of it which ignores that established lore or notion?

• Out of character, sure. It's important to recognize the foundations of lore and information so that we're well informed. In character however, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Maybe Jerry Smith doesn't care that Piper Holly did XYZ thing, and unless it's illegal to have a different opinion IC, we shouldn't be ostracizing players OOCly for what their characters believe.

1. Are progressions a suitable manner for players to engage in a way to affect the lore, or should all of it occur solely in game through events or IRP progression? And if so, do you think staff should run DM characters to assist to this effect?

• Spoiler: Long answer, don't read it if you don't want to. I went a little overboard.

  Are they suitable? I guess you could say that. Are they effective and/or a good way to do so? In my opinion, no. Because of the huge size of the player base, it is impossible for players to effectively impact the lore by simply signing their name on a progression, because everyone can only end up getting a name mention. It's impossible to allow everyone to impact the lore in this way, although I'm sure Staff of all people know this better than anyone. However what I'm getting at is that there is no real effective way for players to affect the lore through progressions, because big ones don't rend any actual lore-impacting results for anyone except a select few who get good rolls, and small or player run progressions can only be created by a select few characters, namely high nobility or charter owners. There also isn't a player quest system anymore, which severely limits a character's capacity to affect roleplay outside of main roleplay spots like main street, the tavern, events, the sewers, etc. I'm all for IRP progression and DM aspects, and events are always a great way to progress things, but there comes a point where doors need to be opened to allow players to actively impact lore in a way that isn't just everyday server roleplay. Lately I've been really enjoying some of the player progressions and events being hosted by Billy Jared and Percuriam (namely expeditions or other shenanigans along those lines), because they allow players to impact certain things, and they also only call for a select group of characters with a select pool of skills, meaning not everyone can simply hop their character onto the bandwagon for glory. Events like these in my opinion are great for progressing roleplay, but I also believe players with otherwise more common character should be allowed to submit large player interactions which aren't just a gathering event in regalia or a sewer flashpoint.

1. Do you think Staff should set about to record these major impacts on some sort of Wiki article for future reference

• If they impact all of Aloria or Regalian History significantly, yes. Kind of like the wiki page made which holds all of the important world progressions in regalian history.

1. Do you think legacy should also include massive embarrassments and humiliations, or only feel good moments where characters left a positive (to them) impact on the world?

• Yes. Embarassment and loss is a massive part of character and world development. Progressions are run with rolls for a reason. Bad rolls and failures do exist, and should be recorded as such because they are very important to growth and understanding mistakes.

[/spoiler]