I've talked to a few people about this recently. I've promised not to use any names, and I'd appreciate it if anyone who thinks they can guess who is being referred to at any given point in my post keeps it to themselves! It will of course be blatantly obvious given recent discussion in some places but there are other people who I'm sure would quite like to remain anonymous, so let's try and keep this civil.

As most people who read the forums are aware, there are always lots of accusations of people "griefing" in one way or another. The main one being focused on now is, of course, repeatedly raiding and killing people and denizens. In and of itself raiding and killing people is not a problem, I think everyone accepts this. I think most people also accept that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. Of course, if there is a line there at all, it's going to be crossed anyway because some people either argue that it doesn't exist, that it's misplaced, or they don't care at all. Some of these reasons are more or less valid than others, of course, but let's argue for the moment that this line is being crossed.

Whose job is it to fix it? The admin? Maybe: but they've said themselves they don't have time and shouldn't be made to step in to sort out things like this. (I'm sure I can quote at least one Divine saying the latter, at any rate.) The people crossing the line? Well that's hardly going to work if they don't believe they're doing it or if they believe they're justified in doing it. The leaders of the organisation the person crossing the line belongs to? As several people have pointed out, yes, I think leaders have to be at least partly responsible for what their community the person crossing the line belongs to - within reason, of course.

Assuming that since no one else is readily able to fix a problem it IS the leaders' responsibility, we then run into another problem. Quite often, the person crossing the line is perfectly justified IC. This is fairly hard to argue in any case because people take their bias OOC as well quite a bit (I had an OOC conversation with a Shadowdancer recently who responded to my point that he was being biased about how the Fae see Glomdoring by noting how I as a person act as if the Wyrd is the Taint: as we both eventually concluded there isn't sufficient evidence to point at it either way from an OOC perspective, and if there were people would deny it anyway.) For want of an immediately apparent compromise there is then a choice between essentially ignoring the problem because your character doesn't see it, and approaching the matter with an OOC mindset and then formulating your characters' beliefs around that. I want to note at this point that though this may seem like an obvious choice to those who've recently been suffering stress due to the actions being referred to, it's not always that simple. Remember that leaders occasionally disagree with each other on the right way of handling any given matter, and the opinions of any Divine involved further muddle the mixture; it isn't always as easy for some organisations to say "we will be doing this because I say so and there will be no arguments" as for others.

Getting back to the topic, opinion is actually more divided than I would have thought on the matter of which approach should (generally) be taken. Some argue that staying IC should take precedent over intervening "giving people a break" - others have posed that this is the easy way out, and that even if it causes a certain level of dispute in ones organisation leaders should intervene when they see a problem.

As a reminder, if anyone actually replies to this I'd like to keep names and situations hypothetical only, and discussion polite, please!

If the leaders of a certain organization feels it is being harassed nonstop but is unable to seek a method to deter the raiders then said leaders should attempt to seek out a political negotiation with the other. Okay, this is getting confusing.

If Glomdoring feels like Narsrim is being a royal pain in the ass its leaders should talk to Serenwilde's and attempt to seek an IC resolution. The constant barrage of verbal assaults on the Forums solve nothing except further fuel the hatred.

Incidentally, this was meant to be a poll but I forgot how. It didn't come up with the list of options like it used to.

EDIT: So uh, if anyone can work out how to do it please tell me! All the buttons are just coming up as "x"s to me.

That's part of the problem.

As I too have been contacted OOC, I have come to understand the root of the problem to be this: it isn't "fun" to constantly lose. Specifically, Glomdoring is faced against not just me, but I am, as I understand it, enough of a hassle to rival an entire other organization. They maintain no daughters of night, no fae, no villages, no nothing. What small things they do have such as spiders, I can waltz right in and steal with 15 of them around and almost always get away unscratched and them upset... and they want me to stop. They want a chance (or so the two people I have spoke with claim).

I honestly don't know how to regard this. Narsrim is the guild champion of the Moondancers. His job is to protect the Fae. Mother Moon herself has become irritated lately when people trying to "compromise" because honestly, it isn't the position the Moondancers maintain whatsoever. To say I should simply just not collect Fae or slay Daughters of Night is an intertesting notion by some, but there are just as many people from Serenwilde saying I should. When I was gone for over spring break and returned, I had about 25 messages from people (as I did not announce my departure) begging me to come back and help.

I maintain and have always maintained it is the responsibility of each player to make Lusternai fun for him or herself. I find notions of people being "stressed to the point of crying OOC" scary - because while I have been in similiar situations - that's the point where you say to yourself as a person that Lusternia is more than a game. It isn't. It is easy to lose touch and think it is - but that's when you need a break.

The experience I've had with several muds over the years have all had a few things in common.

Lusternia is the first truly RP mud I have played but I still think it applies.

Players will usually have the tendency to lean towards the excessive on whatever features, skills, conduct or whatever it is they can find to do. Not all players, but a lot.

Admins/Coders/Imms will often see what has/is happening and make changes/tweaks to game mechanics/skills/features/rules they deem are too easily exploited/used etc.(Botting, Goldrunning and PStealing on other muds comes to mind).

Conduct a lot of times is reigned in or moderated by the player base through basic peer pressure, clan/guild rules and ingame means etc.(spamkilling noobs espec. on a low playerbase mud or screwing over a group aq that your fellow clannies are running cause you don't like someone in the group would be examples).

Some of the time it is a mixture of both.

I'm not a big fan of too many stringent controls placed into a game by the Imp's either, sometimes tweaks work, but too many coded controls can strangle gameplay into a generic experience.

Not the most clear answer, I know, but something I have noticed from many years of mudding.

Actually, since I can't the polling thing to work, I'm just going to move this to general discussion.

It is the administration's responsibility to make sure that a good portion of the playerbase is enjoying the game. I do believe that if, say, a player has managed to abuse the game to a point where a substantial portion of the players are complaining or leaving, the administration should first try to figure out why a single player can even have that much effect on the game's enjoyment, and then correct that. Stepping in directly (By peacing, shrubbing, and so on) is to be used exclusively on very extreme cases or policy issues.

It is the player's responsibility to mantain coherent roleplay and try to make sure everyone is enjoying the game. Because, you see, if your opponents all bugger off to play WoW, it's not much of a game. This is called good sportsmanship. In general we don't have to call it good sportsmanship because, to most people, it's just common sense.

Also, note that just because the game allows something to happen, that doesn't mean you can do it. This is a roleplaying game. Just because you can go and raid someplace knowing full well that there'll be no resistance whatsoever because all the apt fighters are offline doesn't mean you can. In some cases this is just commitment to competing in a real competitive environment, and not in a game of whack-the-Supernal. In other cases it's a matter of roleplay; you can steal, but you don't because it brings (Or, at least, is supposed to bring) serious IC repercussion.

It's the leader's responsility to make sure that IC consequences for IC actions happen. Thieves should find themselves kicked out, or at least branded as thieves - Roleplay should reflect the fact that someone stole. Would you vote for a thief? Would you allow a notorious thief to join your guild? This is valid for any kind of IC behaviour. Would you vote for a notorious pacifist? Would you trust someone married to a Tainted woman? Would you let someone who has been involved with prostitution join your guild?

It's up to every last player to ensure that IC action brings realistic and proper IC consequence. A thief should be shunned and distrusted, even if he gets away with it.

An organisation can't be expected to grow if, off the bat, its unable to fight back effectively and will always lose. Glomdoring will always lose against Serenwilde. There's a small group of Serenwilde fighters who have raiding forests down to an art and Glomdoring doesn't have the fighters to mount an effective defence enough of the time. Any actual offence will lead credence to the notion that they're "able to defend themselves" and will only result in increased raids and decreased enjoying for those in Glomdoring.

Here's Morik's opinion: stop. Hit back when they hit you: little bit here, little bit there. Don't do what I've heard players do OOC and specifically aim to "win" - if you do this you'll just be making the game miserable for everyone. Give Lusternia another year or so to grow and will hopefully find Glomdoring in a similar boat to Celest: not always winning, not always losing, but able to participate. This is a far cry from 12 months ago when we always lost.

As an addendum to my previous post now that Morik mentioned it:

There is no 'winning'. This is not the kind of game where you can 'win'. If you want a game where you can win and maybe gloat like an arse over your fallen adversaries to the point where they tell you to bugger off and stop answering your calls, try any CS variant, Quake deathmatches, Monopoly, Risk and Chess. Sorry to disappoint you.

I disagree. There is no "game over." You can win - it just isn't the end-all, be-all nor is it a permanent, finite victory.

Mrmm.

From observing some of the more heated forum posts, and my experiences in game, I'd like to tenatively form a theory about where the majority of the trouble that spawns unenjoyment and angry forum posts comes from.

When players feel powerless. Helpless to affect change. A feeling I believe I observed within Celest when I first started playing here, and a feeling I believe has been with Glomdoring all along. One may argue that they can bring change in the game environment, and they certainly aren't powerless, but... I'm not talking about actual ability. I'm talking about the feeling that is generated in situations I believe this topic is discussing.

How does this theory tie into the subject of this topic? From what I could gather, the problem this topic seeks to address is enjoyment of the players behind the characters. And I believe the root of the problem boils down to what is above.

So we go unto giving my view of how to fix the problem, and who's responsibility it is (read: who is to blame).. hmm... not a simple answer.

In the end, I'm going to defer to Verithrax's well-written post upon the matter, with one caveat; I do not believe this is a problem that can truely -be- solved, not with the variety of personalities involved in a online game such as this.

Good sportsmanship and the like (in other words, empathy for the players behind the enemy characters, rather than total... er... ICness), would work well, but considering that that's something that cannot, (and probably should not), be enforced... well... I personally see no end to things.

My, that was wordier than I expected. Take it as you may.

No other kind of victory. You can tip things pretty far into your organization's favour, but everything is much too volatile for that to last without constant sustained effort. You can win battles, but you can't win the game....

However, that is not the point of the game. The point of the game is politics, PvP, trading, hunting, questing, and roleplay - different things for different people, but the common thing is that fun is derived from sustained effort, from struggle, from an ongoing story, rather than trying to reach some final 'goal' and then starting over.

(Damn, where are those papers written by Greg Costykan on game design when you need them...)

Also, Narsrim, you can "win", but you'd be foolish to think the admin will ever let you reduce Glomdoring or Magnagora to zero power. I suspect that Viravain takes more action in Glomdoring that Lisaera does in Serenwilde simply because the odds are more in favor of the former. (I could be wrong though)

When I made the suggest of one org dying to allow one of the missing ones to rise, the admin said they would never let an organization die because of all the hard work the players put into it. So I also suspect they will never let this place become like another IRE game where a city was reduced to zero, or even get totally imbalanced.

I suspect there will also be divine intervention of some sort to keep the cities and communes from ever becoming to "imbalanced", mostly because all four sides need to have fun. It's not a pen and paper game where you just have 6 players and the DM can customize to desirers. Here, those on the other side also need the loving care from the gods.

So, what's the answer? Well, I've noticed the admin really working hard to end tensions between Serenwilde and Glomdoring, both with the Wyrd, then with the fae event. But some players still don't take the hint into consideration. I can understand the frustration of the players in having RP sort of forced, but I think they've been trying to lessen tensions by presenting alternate options.

I think ultimately you have to use some OOC awareness and tone down the IC RP, simply 'cause the ultimate goal of Lusternia is to be a game all players can enjoy. In this sense, the sportsmanship trumps the role-play, if only so the game can survive.

It isnt fun to get killed as a novice, it isnt fun to get constantly hunted when your a lowbie just because you particapated in a defence once.

It isnt fun to get locked and left waiting until someone has to come and kill you

It isnt fun to get threatened with ic actions because someone pointed out how foolish you are ooc.

It isnt fun to constantly whore out a cheap tatic to kill someone just because you can.

As long as everyone stops doing these actions I think the game would be more enjoyable for everyone. If everyone lernt some common sence, self restraint and decency then I would also think the game would be improved a lot, but until they do then the game will remain unfun for quite a lot of people.

I think that is incredibly perceptive, and very true. I know that the most oocly upset over playing Lusternia I have become was when my character was made utterly helpless to effect anything.

I also would agree that it is part of the reason Glomdoring has become demoralized as an organization, though I'm not sure if it is the only part.

I know this is a horrible thought, but I am almost glad that recent events have shown even the top combatants are not immune to the consequences of their actions - something I had previously thought was not the case.

I will try and do what I'm really bad at, be brief. Mainly because I think that, while this topic seems like it begs an elaborate debate about game philosophy, it doesn't really, but boils down to a small number of essential and simple points.

Regarding the OOC/IC question:

Lusternia, at the end of the day, is a game, dependant on the players that play it, the people who run it, and the money that pays the bills.

Everything happening in Lusternia is entirely virtual and has no physical effects on the real world. It does have psychological effects however, affecting the motivation of players and admins alike to keep playing, running and financing the game.

This results in two conclusions:
- There is no objective reason why "x" cannot happen in game, because the standards and environment against which IC matters must be judged are entirely in the hands of players and admins.
- There is no higher consideration to be applied to whether "x" should happen than its effect on the gaming experience of the players and the work reward for the admins.

Having established this, the rule of thumb to be devised seems easy to me:
If you feel that an action required if you stick to your roleplay will cause genuine OOC damage due to ruining other players' motivation to keep playing, then preventing this effect must be more important than keeping your roleplay consistent.

--------------------------------

In concrete terms, this means that even though Lomdomian as an ex-forestal corrupted and bound by the taint hates the forests very much and feels justified in causing as much damage as he can, in his function as a blacksmith for example able to take, say, Diamante's swords and melt them down, I as a player know this may cause serious distress for the player who invested time in producing these swords. Thus, while this action would be definitely justifiable, desireable and consistent from an IC perspective, I decide against it from an OOC perspective.

To put this into perspective for Narsrim's case, seeing how you (I think) more or less asked what to do:
There is no doubt that Narsrim's duties include fighting the Glomdoring. However, if you as the player see that doing this to the extent Narsrim is justified and capable of would seriously grief the players whose characters inhabit Glomdoring, then the answer is simple, really - don't do it. Or rather, find a way to do it that will not grief them.

There is no objective, OOC, reason, why Narsrim needs to go after Glomdoring everytime you as the player see an opportunity, nor a reason why he needs to be as effective at it as he could be. Ultimately you will benefit more from giving Glomdoring's players the opportunity to grow into worthwhile opponents than will keeping Narsrim's roleplay perfectly consistent. In fact, you don't even have to make his roleplay inconsistent. Simply find other things to do, reasons why Narsrim at a given moment just can't go raid yet again, or go after a character you know won't be able to defend himself sufficiently even though he has been involved in some misdeed you should punish him for. I'm sure you already do both to some extent.

None of us will call and nag you if Narsrim tones down a bit. Promise.

(Someone give me his phone number)

But some think those things are fun to do so I can only dream.

Lusternia thrives on conflict. However, we can't limit that conflict too much. RP is all well and good, but except for the communes, it either consists of Cybering in Celest or dicking around and having pissing contests on BS in Magnagora. We need to find a way to limit conflict so it isn't incredibly demoralizing, as it currently is, and the "griefing" quests. While conflict is great - it makes lUsternia fun, as it does to all the IRE games, which is why Achaea is so effin' terrible - there is a line. Except that line is vomitted on, danced over, defecated on, and in some cases, taken and moved forward a mew kilometres simply so people can cross it there. Without a reliable method to limit conflict that doesn't hinder players (which seems impossible), things will continue to go the way they have been and slowly degenerate. To that end, I propose mud wrestling. Pinky and Elaria shall begin.

(Okay, I just want to breed Shiri and Elaria for their love child. Is that so wrong?)

I have played other muds as well. I have been on both the "winning" side and the "losing" side. I have been rogue and neutral. I'll be honest, as a player, I -enjoy- the challenges of being the underdog. I like conflict. I like working to improve things that need improving. I think I'm pretty good at it, and it is these kinds of challenges that keep me playing muds in the first place. To be fair, I am not a child. I am quite old compared to most of the player-base. What I am looking for when I play Lusternia is definitely different than others. For me, it is the strategy, the problem-solving, and the ability to make real changes to things that seem beyond help.

This being said, I have been a player in Glomdoring since about....1 or 1 1/2 months after it opened. When I arrived in Lusty, Glom's nexus was at like....60K. There were a handful of people who had come from other orgs with decent skills, but for the most part, it was a lot of young, inexperienced, and unskilled players. From the moment I graduated novicehood, Shayle was involved in the constant, relentless raids from countless places. It was a good reason to learn how to defend myself. It was a strong motivation to learn -something- about fighting (I have never participated in combat at all prior to coming to Lusty--it's fun, and hard!). It was hard and frustrating. I think Shayle died (no joke) 15-20 times a day trying in vain to defend against raids (go go vines!). I watched a lot of people give up early on.

It's been many IC years since then. Glom's nexus is comparable to that of the other nations. There are a lot of players now with high skills (like me), even if we aren't all the best at using them. I think we're talking close to 25 IC years, and still I am part of the constant, relentless raids. No I don't die as much. Yes, I still suck at fighting. Yes, it's still frustrating. And yes, I'm still watching people give up...fast.

I want to beg people OOC--don't give up! I know it's frustrating! RP it if you can! I understand....there is only so much rping the battered, hardened, ever-determined underdog before it seems futile. I've been doing it for 23 IC years....nearly a full rl year now. I understand the desire for others to "stay true to their rp," but wouldn't it be nice to have some competition? Wouldn't people enjoy things more if Glom COULD fight back? IC Shayle and the rest of the leadership don't encourage retaliation very often. The reason being---we can't really handle the backlash. Sure would be great if we could send a few off to kill two or three Seren guards, but we'll lose 40 in return....yeah....not worth it.

I know this is a long post, and I apologize for that, but as a player I feel things have reached a point where something needs to give. I'm not quitting. It's a game I manage to enjoy despite how frustrating it can be--I love the rp, and I'm sticking to it....but.....Please think about laying off a bit, anyone who feels the need to jab at Glomdoring. I'd like to keep some young people. I'd like to be able to have (and give) a reason to feel like it's not totally futile to keep trying. There isn't one right now. I do hope you all understand that. The way things are, it really is futile.

Err... sure... point me to Pinky then

But on a more serious note, I agree that I don't like seeing an org be stomped upon. Sure, Elaria could go and kill things in Glom left and right probably with little challenge, what's the point? Sure you're going over there and challenging a whole commune by yourself, but since there's no-one there on-par skillwise all it amounts to is bullying those weaker than you. Give some people leeway in their enjoyment of the game too.