New Sub-Topic: No more PC / DM Divide.

[Gibreel]

I am not sure what I think of this yet, beyond it needs its own thread. I will cut and paste what this came from....

The DM or PC only rule is an antique. It's possible to organize a system so that people can be both PC's and DM's, without having an overlap of information on motives, etc. so that they have an unfair advantage. The only difficulty, is that this system involves lots of organization, a fair bit of trust, and a level of maturity from individuals.

Does the DMs can't play harm more than help?

[Nyrhtlyk the Dark]

I'll hold off my comments until there are at least 15 posts on this thread.  :)

[Lalina]

I think so, Gibreel.

I've argued for this, on other threads.  I won't go into my reasons as I've already stated them several times and I am feeling Gibreel's desire to not repeat oneself a dozen times.

Briefly, I think we need to move from the governing principle being mistrust to the governing principle being trust.  A simple shift like that clears up the following problems:

Lack of desire to become a DM, since one can no longer player.

Implementation of 3e.  If people are trusting that others are not going to throw everything out of whack, then there is little need for a bazillion rules to govern how 3e is introduced.

Community atmosphere.  Trust breeds at least a sense of friendliness that will make current players more likely to stay and new players more likely to join.

Building on a community of trust, there does not need to be a bazillion rules to govern how the various subsectors of the community (DMs, players, TC?) etc. operate.

Countless other little things.


Will someone likely come along and abuse a community of trust?  Probably.  But people have broken rules and cheated with a community of distrust and gotten away with it -- so abuse is inherent, it always happens and there is very little in the way of stopping it entirely.  For a lot of other reasons, a community of trust would be better than one of distrust.

[Gibreel]

Concerning you comments on trust---We have never agreed so closely on something before.

[Feff]

My only issue on this one besides what you have already listed is the population of Thardferr, at the moment. If you have a small DM population and a small PC population, then by all rights you should be about equal as far as player to DM ratio goes. If you give DM's the ability to play a character as well, then you might create the problem of a sudden influx of PC's becoming DM's, wherein a small population it could cause more trouble than what it is worth at this time.

Given a larger population, where you have more PC's than you can begin to even out between the DM's, then I wouldn't have so much of a problem with this.


And if you think we have too few DM's right now, take a look at the General Chats, you'll see that Nikhir is recruiting and so far I have only seen 2 replies or so. DM Cleo will be making a return eventually and she runs a group, I am running a group right now, Kluu will be coming back to full time, not sure if Dalan will be running a group in the near future....We have DM's out here for people, and we have PCDM's that can run things for a bit more. Instead of figuring out some rules due to a small population, we should begin the process of opening up Thardferr and bringing more and more people in, then I think we would/should revisit this topic.

[Dalan]

I have a few problems with this, but they could probably be resolved.

First of all, if DM A is PCing in DM B's group, he shouldn't have access to DM B's campaign material.  Yet DMs C, D, and E should be able to have access to it.  How could DMs seperate the knowledge?

Second, at this time, there are a few world effecting plots that I would like to get finished within a couple of months.


Suggested solution:

Unlike Gathis, Thardferr is played within a relatively small area.  We could instead open up DMing for certain continents.  For example, DM a may DM on Thardferr, and may play on a different continent.

Then you could have seperate DM forums for seperate continents.

Otherwise, I suppose you could set up private campaign boards and then invite all DMs but the one you are playing with.  I think that would be a bit harder.  Maybe others have better ideas?

[Nyrhtlyk the Dark]

Easier Solution using phpbb board technology.


Each DM is given a Campaign Board.  Where the information for their campaign is posted, along with plotlines that they will be dealing with.  Thanks to the phpbb board technology, you can determine who has access to that board and can select amongst the DM's who has access and who doesn't.

So, if DM A plays in DM B's campaign.  He doesn't have access to DM B's, DM Campaign board.  He can't see what DM B is planning, nor be part of the discussions that revolve around that material.  So DM A can have an enjoyable PC experience without having access to DM B's campaign materials.


The sole sticky point for this is Large Scale events, that effect things across the board. In these events, is where one would like a controlling set of DM's (The DMC fits this bill perfectly) that organize the information across campaigns to fulfill the outcome of the events.  Each DM is given his own little portion of the event to play out and it's placed on their private boards for discussion, so again, other DM's that are PC's can not access the part of the game that they will be playing as PC's in.  

*********************************

This works quite well and I've been playtesting this on my own phpbb boards for quite some time. It's easy to control and manipulate, but my community isn't as large as Thardferr, so I have lots of time to do the admin functions and check individual access and other things to make the boards more organized and user-friendly.

[kluu]

It doe'snt really matter to me if a DM is also a PC in another group other than his own. As long as they show no misuse of the info at hand and do not share anything out of character as a PC and as long as a DM does not displace a PC only to be able to get into a group, it is all good.

[Dalan]

I don't think that would work necessarily, because having 6+ Campaign boards to read is somewhat taxing.  Though I suppose it could work, if a thread is adopted on the general DM forum with a link to all the campaign forums.

Yes, I do suppose that could indeed work.  I think I could support something like that.

[Aeron Tevesh]

I believe there are some people who are capable of seperating IC and OOC information.  Meaning that there are some people who could handle being DM's and PC's at the same time.

But

There are also an equal number of people that cannot handle such a burdon and we've seen plenty of them here in Thardferr.

The rule is in place to protect us from these second type of people and to protect them from being idiots

The rule needs to stay in place, now perhaps the rule could be modified?  Dont know.

[kluu]

Aeron makes a good point.

We aren't wanting to disinfrangize anyone but we have to protect against those that aren't capable of handling it. That is why most rules are created, not for those that can normally function without harming others but to stop those that can't.  Int this case harming the game setting and DM privacy.

[Lalina]

Once again a case of if you make a community based on trust or distrust.

Trust would mean you'd likely allow it and then do something when it's abused.

Distrust means you disallow everyone because you fear the actions of a few.

Anyway.

[Gibreel]

That does seem the primary motivation around all our problems.

[Dalan]

"Yes, you's nasties playersss you wonts gets accesss to my preciousss boardses."

[kluu]

Lalina, it has been abused in the past, which proved the need for such a rule to be in place. There has been people who have became DMs to never run a game, read everything and then disappear to come back to become a PC. There has been DMs that have made PC and played them all the while knowing and playing on the OOC info they had and running a separate game. THe rule has been broken. Without it I'm sure it would have been far more often.

Trust is fine, but there is always going to be cheaters. I'm not sure what you are proposing, That we trust no one will cheat when we have seen it already and know it happens, either by disign or accident or ignore it and only punish it when it is a problem. Even with setting up multiple DM boards, there wil lbe those that cheat. I'd preffer to make it more simple for us all and jsut turst they won't read the boards they shouldn't and not make a bunch of priority boards locking some out, etc...

Personally I ignore the fact that a PC may have availability to DM info they shouldn't as long as I see no sign of them using it to their advantage or sharing it with those that might. But I also realize there are others that would not do this and could ruin the game for those that would not like to kow that informatoin or have others with that advantage.

A simple rule to help avoid this seems preferrable to ignoring it until it blows up in our face. I'm not sure trust is as much a factor as inevitablity and based on past situations that it wil be a problem. I trust 99% of the PC that gain DM info to do nothing innappropriate with it, but I also can trust that 1% would do the wrong thing with it. Isn't this close to true with any laws or rules? Why shouln't we at least have a rule that would help to stop those 1% and jsut ignore the others?

I think the solutoin may be letting PC be DMs in other continents of Kyranath when they are opened. And DM be PC on those contenents. The different continents could then have separate boards that only the DMs running their games there can access or that are denied to DM that have a PC they are running there.

As I have said befero I'd love to get some PC to help to detail another continent so it can be opened for play with them as DMs.