PC / DM Availability - Open discussion

[kluu]

During chat it was suggested that wiht the lack of available DMs for Thardferr that experienced Thardferr PC be able to become DMs without forgoing play.  This is not allowing a PC to DM sessions (as is possible now with the PCDM rules)  but  actually allow a curent PC to become a registered DM with DM board access and retain their character for play.

Basically the PC could continue in the group they are in now or another they are able to find int he ruture but become a full fledged DM as well and run their own group.

The arguement is that there is no real persuasive reason that a trusted and known PC who has been around Thardferr for a while coudlnt be a DM and still remain a player without it caueing problems.

The only one I can think of is that of a DM for which they are playign under would not be able to freely post info about the group wihtout the PC/DM being able to read it and so know the DMS plans for the group. If we are to allow this then, any DM that wishes to be a PC must not be abale to read certain DM posts. This causes a slight complicatoin with the DM posts where certain group boards would need by created for ifo dealing with things that the PC/DM should not read and so have them unavaliable to read them or soemthing like that. There isalso the problem with their character being involved in world and multi player group events where they would not be able to ibe part of the planning if they were going to play in them as a character.

THe only solutionis to either set up some way of segregating the non pc DM boards from the PC DM baords or only allow those PC that area believed to be able to keep their in out of character knowledge away fromtheir PC. This last would be very difficult but not impossible. Many PC now have inside info or have had DM informatoinin the past and have ben able to not use it or disclose it as a PC.

I personally would not mind some PCs, those that have a great deal of knowledge of Thardferr and a will to be a DM but have only held off because they did not wish to stop playing, becoming DMs and still remain a PC. There would have to be an agreement, perhaps unanimous, of all currnt DMs to the trustworthiness of the PC to be a DM and theywould have to have been a PC actively in game for a certain determined amount of time.

I suggest that any PC that would like to be a DM and reamin a PC as well, that has been around actively inThardferr for over two years or has played a character to have achieved at least 150.000 experience points, approx. 8th to 9th level (or in the possibility of having had multiple or multi-class characters, have achieved equivelent xp with all ingame activities) could apply to become a DM. They will be reviewed by the DMs and then voted to either be allowed to become one or not. If it is felt that they have not shown enough active aid in building the Thardferr community or a lack of activity such as posting and submitting suggestions or interaction with the rest of the world then they may be recommended to do so and reapply in six months.

Those that are felt trustworthy, contributory, actively part of the community with a good understanding and grasp of Thardferr setting would be able to become a DM and recreiut a group for play.

Before this happens we would have to decide if it is full access or only p[artial DM access and a provision for secure boarsds withint he DM sectoin be created for posts that may need to be kept form PC/DMs.

This addition to the Thardferr community would also allow thsoe DMs now to create and play characters within other gorups as well if they find they have the time. It ishighly recomended that in either case, that being a DM is tthe priority over being a PC and no one should ever ignore their DM duties inorder to play or for the advantage of their personal character.

Please discuss this idea and make contructive criticism and suggestions.

[Lalina]

As the person who brought this idea to kluu, I am of course in support of it.

A simple solution is to create a series of forums which every DM has access to except for one (the one being someone who has a player in a group).  That would allow the DMs to discuss something without getting that individual person involved.

As Thardferr cannot really support more than 10 group-running DMs (without their being serious complex and logistical nightmares -- also, I would propose limiting the amount of active, group-running DMs to about 10) and considering not every DM may create a character, this actually would not be *that* many forums.

[DarkRayden]

I suppose after/if this new feature is aproved ... I feel it will also drag to another discussion about a player running 2 PCs under different DMs. I.E seeing some community members enjoying 'both worlds' it could set up some flaming over 'why can he, bot I cannot' things ...

dunno, kinda a possible side effect to this one.

[kluu]

even if at soem point players were allowed multiple pc, which I am not in favor of at all, I think the DMs would be restricted to having only one. This is mainly because ahving the one shuts them out od osme posts dealing with their character and if they had two it would shut them out of more making them an even less useful part of the DM body.

I also see no comparison between playing multiple characters and being a dm. Being a DM is a wholly different thing than taking up more space inthe wrold of pc in the limited DMed groups or dealing with playing multiple characters and not having one be less developed, etc...  

We are not having a crisis of lack of players.

[Endel]

I would be totally against this concept. The level confusion this would create would be the biggest problem to me. I mean how would we even begin to separate the world effecting plotline stuff? As a DM they would need to know about it or at elast have access to it so they could run a game effectively. What happens if there is an IC reason for the DM's PC to interact with the DM's group? Does he get XP for it? How do you plan such a thing and keep the one DM in the dark? I think that this opens up too many things. Plus as DR mentioned there is sensitive information that other players shouldn't see that the DM body would discuss. Internal issues with DMs, issues with PCs. Other PCs' information. Where hidden items and spells are located. I can go on and on.

[Lalina]

To be honest, I would not be against allowing people to play multiple characters on a case-by-case basis.

But, there is a difference.

The rule of only 1 PC is made because of the following reason:

There are a limited number of DMs and games, and we want everyone to be involved.

We do not want a shared world with 5 DMs and 7 players playing a different character in each one.  Not that that would be bad in and of itself.  However, we'd have dozens of players not being able to find games at all.

So, the spirit of the 1 PC per player rule is to provide the most opportunities for the most people to get involved.

And, actually, opening up being a DM and Player would mean that we'd have more sessions, meaning more people can get involved -- so would actually increase the opportunities for people to play.

[Lalina]

There are other shared worlds that allow you to be both player and DM, and it seems to work out just fine.  I know Archian allows it and perhaps Nyr can illuminate any problems or solutions he has had with that.

I don't really see a problem.  There are potential problems, if people abuse OOC information -- but that is always an issue, and secondly, you just don't let people you'd suspect would abuse OOC information to be both DM and PC.  And if they do, then you void their sessions or something along those lines to correct the problem.  Thardferr is caddy enough that if someone was using their DM status to help their own PC, I am sure everyone would know about it.

DMs can simply avoid situations where their PC would be involved in their own story in some capacity -- it's relatively easy for take of a specific PC if need be.  And, in multi-DM sessions, the DM with a player can just defer to the DM who does not have one, etc.

Are there possibilities of potential abuse?  Certainly.  But they are easy corrected.  Might be as easy as simply killing or forcing retirement on a character who benefitted from abuse.  You can always not allow a person to continue to operate as DM and PC, or you can remove them from the shared world entirely.

However, if you have an application process, and let the TC decide, and restrict it to valued, trusted and interested people.  I don't see a problem.

Case in point, is there potential for abuse that a player oversees these boards? Certainly.  Is it a problem? No.

[DarkRayden]

Another thing, after seeing what Endel objected against, how does the forementioned come to realization if we cant even agree on whether the players should see others' private boards or not, should all DMs be allowed to view those or not when and how is a TT should be posted and who is to read/aprove it... etc...

Basically info sharing related discussion... Some objected the players cannot be trusted for not using the OOC info into their games , and yet a DM who is also a player will possess this info...

So you say choosing those that can be trusted for not misusing the OOC part of things for their PC's ... but who would be those to vote on him/her? the TC?
I just feel some old grunges and bigger rifts created in the community...IMHO

[Nyrhtlyk the Dark]

I've always felt the DM or PC rule was somewhat Archaic and as Lalina suggested, I've addressed this in my personal campaign setting by letting it go either way.

Basically, what I allow is simple.  If you want to be a DM, and a PC, you let the person whose DMing you be aware of your dual role. This sets in action a chain of events for how things are handled. The DM who PC is also a DM no longer needs to actively post his plotlines, etc. for the whole DM body. We keep a second active board for Admins only where such information can get placed for referencing.

Now, I know you can raise a question about whether the Admins are also doing PC events and how they can be involved. But honestly, the only way a system like this works is through trust. You have to have a line and allow people who can keep OOC & IC information separate to let them cross this line.

*************
Now, as to being a DM and DMing your own group, that's a nasty bit of fluff. I personally don't allow it, since it's a pain.  When I PCDM in Thardferr my group, my own character's role is severely reduced since I know how badly I can coax and force events since I know the outcome and even subconsciously I can influence things. :)

However, I wouldn't be adverse to DMing another person's group and keeping my PC separate elsewhere.  Though, I don't believe I need access to the DM boards to do that. In fact, I'd rather not have access to the Thardferr DM's boards.   All I really need is the OOC information from the group and a plotline guide from the DM's on my private boards about where the group is going, etc. and I'm good to go.

[Endel]

Could you imagine if soemone wanted to be a PC and a DM and we denied him. Then the DMs are saying to that person: "We don't trust you." Then that PC in turn says: "Well screw you guys!" Then we have a messy situation on our hands.

Archian is not a good example as there is only like three games going on there and none of them interact. Also Archian has a much smaller user base; meaning there is less people to muck things up and everyone knows one another. as far as I know Archian doesn't have any such thing as a world effecting plot or the massive political interactions.

This is also contingent on all the DM approving this person to PC and DM. Now that would almost take a miracle.

[Nyrhtlyk the Dark]

Actually, there are a lot of interconnecting plotlines, being played out in different areas, but the groups are unaware of each other, or the extent. ;)   So it's not really an addressed issue at this time. :)

[Lalina]

To be honest, I just think everyone needs to take a chill pill and trust other people.  Since we rarely have new players, most people here have been involved in the shared world for a considerable period of time and have proven their trust, in my opinion.  Perhaps there is a rotten apple here or there, but that is the rare exception rather than the rule.

Maybe it's just my nature.  I trust people until they prove they can be trusted, not the other way around.  Considering this is just a game and we are all here for fun -- meaning, the stakes are not high, indeed, they barely exist at all -- I don't see why this attitude is a bad one.

By this logic, people who know each other or are friends OOC should also have to become either both just players or DMs.  Can't have DM X tell his friend player Y all the secrets of Thardferr.  And think about that when the point of AD&D is to sit down with friends and have fun.

On another point, keep in mind, that shortly there is only going to be about 2-4 DMs running groups.  That is very few and places a huge burden on those few generous people to give up their time and try to operate a shared world with a lot of active players.  Further, just a few people's OOC situation changes, or they burn out on DMing and well, it does not matter what the community thinks, there won't be a community -- because there won't be games and sessions.

[Gibreel]

I can't say it is easy for me to decide on which way to go on this, as it sounds so good in theory but may be so bad in reality. Like DarkRayden I think it might bring up "old grunges" and create "bigger rifts" than we already have in the community. It is the simple truth that if you ask two people about almost any player in Thardferr you will get often completely opposite answers.

That aside I think there is an easier solution to the DM problem than allowing players to do both in a full capacity. I think changing how PCDMs work would be a better solution. Do a few things like:

-Two Years playing to become a PCDM.
-Make it a TC Vote to become a PCDM.
-Create a PCDM Board where these PCDMs can ask questions dealing with their adventures and post outlines--don't give them full access.
-Get approval from another Full DM for treasure.  
-Let PCDMs run unlimited games outside (but possibly connected)  the Main Storylines. There are plenty of things that can be run without DM Board access.
-Assign PCDMs to run Guild Adventures to make Guilds more alive in Thardferr.

[Lalina]

I'd be in support of that as well, Gibreel.

I am just trying to find a way to increase the games and sessions, so that more players can get involved -- and to take some of the burden off the few remaining DMs.

[Lalina]

Only thing about your proposal would be the time-limit.  I think a time-limit is a bad measure (said this in my conversation with kluu about the other idea proposed above).

For example:

Player X plays for a few months, then takes a leave of absence.  Posts on the boards maybe once every 3 months.  In two years -- can become a PCDM.

Player Y has been playing for 6 months, has regular sessions every week, checks the boards daily, etc.

Who do people know more, who has invested more time and energy, etc.

Maybe 2 years, but make exceptions depending on involvement.  I just think a flat time limit is not really the best way to go about restricting it.

Another way to ask the question:  What does having a character registered/played for two years tell you about the player?

Furthermore, if treasure has to be approved by a full DM, sessions cannot affect main storylines, the person does not have access to the DM boards, etc. I don't see why you'd have to restrict to at all.