+- NEUS Projects (https://neus-projects.net/forums)
+-- Forum: Sigrogana Legend 2 (OOC) (https://neus-projects.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://neus-projects.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Conflict and GM Intervention (/showthread.php?tid=9694)
RE: Conflict and GM Intervention - lordpidey - 10-21-2022
(10-21-2022, 03:47 PM)Lolzytripd Wrote:(10-21-2022, 03:17 PM)lordpidey Wrote: --snipped for brevity--I really understand where you're coming from about the artillery, it was Originally supposed to be placed on the hill north of fairview on the main meiaquar map.
It was Gm intervention that placed on the southern hill, for convenience of anyone at fairview wanting to interact/attack it during the course of the siege, to my own understanding that was a mechanics interpretation, not the actual location of the artillery. even though its pretty much a shorter distance from the main meiaquar map grid wise, it requires traversing two maps to get to.
I'm not blaming them for the retcon.
I understand WHY it was done, though I think a partial retcon would facilitate better RP.
My concern is that there was no announcement about the retcon, and I only knew about it from the word of a player. And I am -extremely- hesitant to take the word of a player (Even if they are the leader of a nation) to say that something that a GM said is retconned.
(10-21-2022, 03:49 PM)Snake Wrote: I think my only personal chin rub is why there were no mechanical advantages for a roleplay-set ambush/siege.
Nor were there any mechanical advantages for laying down traps to slow down the march of Meiaquar.
Further, the traps at least had some sort of mechanical cost to lay down (Granted, it wasn't very high). Is that true for the artillery?
RE: Conflict and GM Intervention - Snake - 10-21-2022
No no, you're right, it should go both ways. I just feel this should've been better agreed between players and GMs too, while at it.
So far the most ugly thing I saw were people godmodding through the traps/artillery because 'I control my char, and I am also the protag so I got plot armor'. The usual bad roleplaying we'd expect in those scenarios.
RE: Conflict and GM Intervention - Illumi - 10-21-2022
So, uh. We actually asked about the traps but got zero response on what they were. They eventually just got Magaisendo'd away.
In fact as far as I'm away and saw (Unless I missed messages that is, very possible.) they were claiming they did not even PLACE said traps.
Which, mind you should not even be there. Fairview should not have known about the attack, but arrived with a group, AND there were traps placed.
That metagaming aside- Yeah, ignoring the gas and having it do nothing was kinda silly, but, serious fight, so, people'll take what they can get.
I'm just salty that ICs just straight up didn't matter due entirely to ooc things.
There were no consequences coming from this, whatever the reasons.
Hopefully ''''large scale'''' conflicts are handled much better in the future, but the countless issues here have me pretty wary.
RE: Conflict and GM Intervention - Maksimum_Fire - 10-21-2022
Sounds like the biggest issue was the leaders of Meiaquar and Fairview getting a whole lot of nothing done in planning their mutual event. If that's due to stonewalling from any one side, that's probably something to be dealt with. Illumi's mention of no discussion re: traps definitely doesn't paint a pretty picture.
Thanks GMs for the hard work here, sounds like it was- and probably will continue to be- a real trial.
RE: Conflict and GM Intervention - Dystopia - 10-21-2022
(10-21-2022, 03:17 PM)lordpidey Wrote: Hello,
While we are discussing Fairview and it's siege, I have a few concerns, and areas to suggest improvement on, which have NOT been touched on so far.
1) There needs to be more GM involvement in scheduling these attacks. Make a public announcement maybe 24 hours ahead of time, so that people can schedule what time they play in order to participate, incase they aren't notified by the other players. People have lives outside of the game, and can't be online 24/7.
2) The confusion over the scene lock was unfortunate. I would have liked if a GM restated earlier that there was a scene lock, to alleviate confusion. Ultimately however, this is relatively minor compared to my other complaints.
3) I feel that the artillery location retcon was executed poorly. Perhaps partially retcon it, and say that some artillery was mistakenly setup on the wrong hill. That would lead to some interesting RP between Telegrad and Meiaquar. I also would have preferred it if the retcon were announced through an official channel, as for a WHILE all the word I had on it was another player's say-so, and it is poor precident to simply accept a player's word for retcons of items stated by a GM.
4) Perhaps after the battle there should be special placeables (Like a signpost, but with an icon that says OOC INFO), to inform players who just wander up and have no idea about the current situation is. A new player who just started and wandered into Fairview would have NO IDEA that something is going on, unless another player happened to be there at the time. I have seen one such new player wander up like this.
5) Regarding item 1 on Pandos's post for "Please understand the following": This seems to have been flagrantly violated, as NPCs were firing gasious artillery into the village. Hardly what I would call minimal, or defensive.
----
Here is my analysis of the events, in as objective of a form as I can have.
I was in the process of writing a similar thread to this one, and double checking facts, etc....
Quote:Fairview is a town on the border between Telegrad and Meiaquar. It is on the Meiaquar side.
There are hostilities between Fairview and Meiaquar for IC reasons.
An event started where Meiaquar attacked Fairview. Quite a few players were there. I'd estimate... 25-35? This occurred on OCT-17
I was notified OOCly about the time of the attack by a Fairview player, so that I could plan my RL schedule around being able to attend. However, as far as I know, there was no public announcement over the scheduled time, so people not in the OOC friend circle would not be able to schedule themselves accordingly.
The leadership of Meiaquar and Fairview were talking OOCly about how they wanted it to go down. Ultimately, they wanted some sort of long siege that lasts multiple OOC days, and thus not have a scene lock on it.
Come the day of the attack, GMs were there, and posted some narrates. The GMs decided to lock the scene. There was confusion over whether or not the GMs knew the leaders of Meiaquar/Fairview wanted a scene lock. The IC reason for the scene lock is NPC soldiers from Meiaquar circling the town.
IC events happened, people's allegiances changed on the battlefield. That's all fine. That's purely IC actions, and good RP.
A narration was posted, that indicated that Meiaquar was using siege weaponry located on a hill to the south. This was confirmed in LOOC. According to the border map that was released literally the day before, that hill is actually on Telegrad soil.
I performed IC actions to attempt to inform Telegrad leadership that Meiaquar's military was using their land to position siege weapons.
Here's where the events get a bit hazy. I am only posting what I have witnessed, seen, or was told.
Later, the leadership of Telegrad and Meiaquar spoke OOCly about the weaponry being placed on Telegrad soil. I do not know if GMs were involved in this conversation.
Ultimately, it was decided that the artillery was stationed to the west, rather than the south. I do not know who suggested this, or decided this.
No public announcement was made for this. I was first informed of the retcon by the player of Telegrad's leadership. The first I heard any GM even mention it was over 48 hours after the event, in discord chat.
Now that I'm awake again, I'll try to pick up some slack here and answer what I can.
1) It is really unfortunate that communication crumbled so badly here. We were told things that turned out to be either entirely false or greatly exaggerated and neither were very helpful as you can imagine, but we didn't know that they were false/exaggerated until much later in the process. I think we did the best we could with a shitty situation and a pair of truly unruly players, and afforded them a little good faith that they clearly didn't deserve. We all sort of thought that at the very least, they'd keep their side in the loop because presumably they weren't as angry at their fellow players as they were at us.
It's also important to note that there were roughly at least four OOC days before the conflict even started, for these discussions to take place and the stream of communication to flow, and that still didn't work out. Time was given, they just didn't take advantage of it communication-wise.
I'm sure this is a pitfall we'll likely fall into again, because we try to give players the benefit of the doubt and part of the responsibility of being the leader of a group of other players is y'know, communication with them and informing them of what goes on during any discussion between leaders. Though I also think that in this case the lot of us were exhausted from dealing with utter belligerence and metaphorical kicking and screaming to make doubly, triply certain that they'd actually done right by the Fairview folk.
I think the only way it might have gone better on our end is if we'd assumed the worst and been as biased against them as they like to claim we are.
But we afforded them basic courtesy instead.
In most cases, this is not how it usually goes.
2) Truth be told, I don't know why there was confusion over the scene lock barring what I've said in the first point. We'd stated that the scene lock would be in effect in order to keep tangential folk out of the conflict that didn't really need to be there/weren't involved. I'm not entirely sure where it got muddled during the discussion, but simultaneously I'm not surprised and honestly I don't blame anyone for losing track of it in any of that. It was messy.
3) I don't think it's fair to call it a retcon when...clearly it was a miscommunication between players in the moment and the only reason it wasn't caught sooner is because nobody asked before taking it and running with it ICly.
Which I also don't blame anyone for, it was reasonable to assume that was the case when they were visibly in that spot.
I heard about this a bit after the conflict while some more things were being discussed in the backend and had to make clear with Telegrad's duke that no, nobody would have dipped their toe into Telegrad territory during something like that. It's a limit of the map OOCly, for the most part.
The reasons I didn't make an announcement on it to clarify are twofold; one, I was at that moment caught up in the aftermath and the ensuing issues of trying to broach any kind of discussion between the two factions' leaders, and two, I assumed the communication would trickle down naturally and things would be fine after clarifying it as I had.
I'll admit that in the moment I had a thought of doing a quick PSA just to make sure everyone was on the same page but my hands were full at the time and I forgot beyond that. My bad, on that one.
I don't think it's particularly fair to Meiaquar to claim it was accidentally set up that way, despite the IC already made on it, because reasonably they wouldn't want to start shit with Telegrad and wouldn't have done that when the borders had been determined very recently just prior. No nation would have done that willy nilly, that's how you start wars.
4) I agree, and the placeables of the troops should have been set to persistent because they died on reboot and that was an oversight. I don't really blame Zerg for that one, things were very chaotic and it's very easy to forget to set that option since when you put a placeable down you have to then touch it and specify 'please don't vanish on reboot' and when you're putting multiple down it's even more tedious. The process itself is a meticulous one and he was also narrating things and it's just a lot to keep track of. We were very appreciative for his help in general during that mess.
But even if they had persisted, an OOC sign would have helped + some kind of announcement made somewhere and we probably should have done that to alleviate some confusion/let people know.
5) So this one I think got confused somewhere. Here's the narrates that were given:
First: Dust rises and the sounds of heavy footfalls and clanking metal fills the shores and the grasslands of an otherise sleepy nation of Meiaquar. These sounds seemingly filling the air all around the village, causing some villagers to stir, and others to become alarmed. Ships sail just off the coast, boats with more sailors making landfall before continuing to approach. These faceless men and women, numbering to quite a large amount all gather around one central point. Fairview.
Second: Among the nameless, notable faces stand with them, marching along. Members of the Astrals, both students and teachers, Meiaquar families, and even the Don and Donna themselves, accompanied by loyal guard and protectors. Soldiers file in, and weapons drawn, as those within the village would find themselves almost entirely surrounded. It seemed that, bar a miracle, there would be no escape past this wall of iron.
Third: With a subtle twitch of her fingers, the Donna would have evoked the void, allowing a tube shaped device to appear in her grasp. Acting swiftly, she had raised it up, pointing the barrel directly into the sky before firing off something that was familiar to some. Those that had attended the Fireworks Festival would recall it was what she used to signal the start of the show, and as the brilliant light sailed into the sky, the show would begin.
A handful of glass payloads soar through the sky from the nearby hill south of the graveyard, a volley of projectiles on course for those that had gathered in the village. The containers smash against the roofs and ground of Fairview, cracking open as a deep, dark gas is released over those present.
I don't know why it wasn't something that the Donna RPed themselves since they were doing it, but I'd assumed in the moment that it was just to make sure that everyone saw it and was aware since even lemotes are limited in range, moreso than the narrates are. We'd told Meiaquar that they couldn't have the NPCs douse the place in gas, so this is what happened instead. [To note, I bolded that there to help with indicating what spot is important. It wasn't bolded in the original but even if it had been it likely would have been missed and that's perfectly understandable.]
As for the timeline, you're more or less right with some things not quite right but hopefully what I've outlined above should help clear up some of it. I will say on the scene lock bit, it was purely to keep uninvolved others out, not anyone that would have helped either side during the multiple day siege. It wasn't with the intention to bar anyone meaningfully involved on either side of the conflict, and in part was mostly to secure the land around Fairview in general and prevent anyone from within it to escape before the conflict concluded.
I.E. this is a lot of words that can be boiled down to simply 'Tangential, unaffiliated people wandering in and out of a besieged area doesn't make sense and Meiaquar's forces would ICly keep them out. Exceptions are made for people enmeshed in the conflict itself so OOCly everyone involved can participate without concern that they're going to be locked out.'
Scene locks are common for conflicts, if not almost mandatory to keep them flowing smoothly without a lot of chaos beyond what's already happening in the conflict itself.
It lessens the noise, or at least that's the intent.
I'm gonna reply to the rest of the posts that followed here in little quote bubbles from them as needed but I don't think there's too much more to touch on, and correct me if I'm wrong of course.
Quote:Why didn't the enemy at least get inflicted with Confusion for a few rounds during that fight?
What was the point of Iggy's Intoxicating Mist gas attack?
Honestly that's a good point and nobody thought of it in the moment. Would have made things more interesting, for certain.
Quote:My overall point here is that I think the GM staff could have more leeway and room to arbiter this, even if it ended unfair. (Which even then, it'd not be as unfair given the amount of people who were left on the 'defending' side.) It is what it is. Deeds beckon consequences and all of that. There shouldn't be fear when trying to justify yourselves that much or trying to damage control it. In the end it'll always be the losing side that will go 'gms korrup' anyway, no matter if you present a ten-page essay detailing how it came to that decision.
I fully support the staff and their decision making in situations where they need to be more strict, because getting to the point of staff intervention should already be more than the melting point in most scenarios.
Thank you. I don't blame anyone for being upset and feeling that they were left hanging, but please know that we're not just sitting around doing nothing when there's any large amount of silence for a bit. It's usually because we have our hands full with something or other.
Quote:I just want to add that, being someone who has their character living literally next to Fairview, it was only due to being in a chat that was actively discussing what was going on that I knew when the attack on Oct 17th was even happening and was able to at least be present before it was scene-locked for the chance to participate/observe at all ICly.
I understand not wanting everyone to metagame their way over there when it happens and make a mess of it, but there should be some courtesy given to others to be informed if major IC events are going to be happening quite literally on their doorstep, so they can react appropriately. This sentiment also applies for ongoing events like the siege where as stated earlier players passing by would be entirely unaware of what's even happening if no players were around to tell them, as outside of those present for the start of the siege there was zero announcement or information that the siege was even happening at Fairview, when it's something that post scene-lock anyone passing by would be subject to.
Fair point, and honestly we should have thought to give you a heads up in particular since you're literally in the area and would obviously notice.
Some announcements in the proper channels would have done a lot to help there, but as said above I think everyone spaced on it because things were so exhausting in the backend of things.
This was wildly irregular and usually things would have gone more smoothly, so hopefully the next one will be better.
Quote:I'm not blaming them for the retcon.
I understand WHY it was done, though I think a partial retcon would facilitate better RP.
My concern is that there was no announcement about the retcon, and I only knew about it from the word of a player. And I am -extremely- hesitant to take the word of a player (Even if they are the leader of a nation) to say that something that a GM said is retconned.
That's honestly probably a good take in most cases, can't blame you there. In future instances, feel free to ping one of us and we'll probably be able to answer more promptly.
Let me know if I've forgotten anything/missed touching on anything that wasn't clarified in my post or Pandos' above, and I'll do my best to answer it.
RE: Conflict and GM Intervention - Croakie - 10-21-2022
(10-21-2022, 03:17 PM)lordpidey Wrote: 5) Regarding item 1 on Pandos's post for "Please understand the following": This seems to have been flagrantly violated, as NPCs were firing gasious artillery into the village. Hardly what I would call minimal, or defensiveMade a forum account just to clear a little up.
NPCs were not firing gasious artillery. Players were. I had 2 players set up on the lighthouse hill, then, 5 minutes before the narrate is posted, gms tell me having long rang siege weaponry off screen was too far away, and that it would only work if it was on the same map, and on the hill south of graveyard.
Also it seemed to be minimal when it wasn't able to have any mechanical effect and was ignored by half the participants, but at least it was approved by gms, had IC prep and players behind it, and was achknowledged by the eventmin that wasn't told very much at all, bless his heart.
The traps though, we asked about them, the eventmin nor any Fairview players mentioned them, and I even asked if we're supposed to get hurt by these, fully ready to rp it.
Otherwise, Anhita hit the nail on the head for most of my feelings. This whole thing pretty much killed my motivation to rp on korvara.
RE: Conflict and GM Intervention - Bylamir - 10-21-2022
(10-21-2022, 10:27 AM)DerpyMcPandos Wrote: Due to complications, this withdrawal did not occur in any timely way, and was eventually forced to be done via GM intervention.
I would like to clarify something on this matter. There was no GM intervention in terms of the fight. It ended due to a successful flee attempt after a while of trying to get GM attention in LOOC to end the fight but recieving nothing and having to move to the edge of the arena for it.
Not a massive thing but I'm not sure where this misconception came from.
RE: Conflict and GM Intervention - lordpidey - 10-21-2022
(10-21-2022, 06:43 PM)Illumi Wrote: So, uh. We actually asked about the traps but got zero response on what they were. They eventually just got Magaisendo'd away.
In fact as far as I'm away and saw (Unless I missed messages that is, very possible.) they were claiming they did not even PLACE said traps.
Which, mind you should not even be there.
To clarify: I am the one that placed the traps.
Yes, I did ICly deny placing the traps.
I did specify in LOOC what they were.
23:46 - Masked Samurai said in LOOC: The traps are actual pit traps/bear traps.
I probably should have reiterated that point.
Quote:Fairview should not have known about the attack, but arrived with a group, AND there were traps placed.
That metagaming aside- Yeah, ignoring the gas and having it do nothing was kinda silly, but, serious fight, so, people'll take what they can get.
Fairview DID get IC information to be on high alert.
---------------------------------------------------------
(10-21-2022, 07:18 PM)Tana Wrote: I just want to add that very specifically the gas/bombardment was not NPC handled. There were multiple players there, and basically only ever one person even walked by during the first day, and it never came up again because... Well, things ground to a standstill for OOC reasons.
I know this because I was one of the people handling the bombardment, ICly, and was in fact standing in place for hours, even before things 'started'. Even before we were told to mechanically move elsewhere for the sake of 'fairness', even though we were still, not even once, in position to so much as hear a single narrate. Leading to hours of mechanically standing on a random-ass hill with no feedback of any sort or RP.
(10-21-2022, 07:46 PM)Croakie Wrote: Made a forum account just to clear a little up.
NPCs were not firing gasious artillery. Players were. I had 2 players set up on the lighthouse hill, then, 5 minutes before the narrate is posted, gms tell me having long rang siege weaponry off screen was too far away, and that it would only work if it was on the same map, and on the hill south of graveyard.
My apologies. I made a wrong assumption. Thank you for the clarification.
RE: Conflict and GM Intervention - FaeLenx - 10-21-2022
I don't really like the idea that people are looking to change the mechanics of a combat with prior RP. First of all, it makes combat seem like the important thing we do all RP for. Second off, it encourages people to get clever and quite frankly when people are encouraged to get clever rather than just doing it on their own time, they're usually not but very insistent that whatever they did was the smartest thing that should have the biggest impact. Third, things like mass bombardment can just be used to help steer the RP over why and how fights happen as long as there's a bit of conversation about it beforehand. Like...
"If there's anyone who really doesn't want to fight but their character would, you can just say you got goofied up by our funny mist that we're gonna throw right before the attack."
Or...
"If you just want to come watch but don't have a build and you feel like someone might ask why you didn't come help the Donna, just blow up on a mine and someone can screw your leg back on while you watch whatever fights are happening. We'll have them out."
I value a 'gotcha' moment as much as the next guy, though, and the gas attack emote does look pretty fun and impressive. I think it would have been more impressive if people would have been ready and willing to bite that bullet. At least for the people present who wouldn't have been as much in the know.
RE: Conflict and GM Intervention - Imotepchief - 10-21-2022
I don't really want to touch the origin of this thread in an excessive manner, mainly because I understand how difficult it is to make a convincing and compelling narrative, while also trying to take into account people's emotions on events. Though there have been a number of statements, admittance and the like prior to my posting here, I do think that the GMs have attempted to be as fair and light handed as they could, being placed in a situation which was uncomfortable, no matter the approach.
The main reason I'm posting right now, is to address the traps around Fairview, being the person who Magaisendo'd a small portion of them away. If I remember my chain of events correctly, a character had just fallen into another section of said traps, maybe after the information of their detail was posted in looc, a post I didn't catch, though ran with the idea of them being pitfalls, after the fall.
It wasn't an attempt to god mod, I kept said removal to quite literally the traps in my direct proximity, as I don't believe, even as a geomancer, it would be reasonable to be able to pin point all those nearby and the main intent was for ic purposes of "The evidence of traps are right here and you say you didn't know anyone was coming?"
Really this whole event has been a bit of a mess for a number of reason and I would hope that it can be taken as a learning experience, 'growing pains', from a new way of handling the narrative. I'm sure that as a result of all of the issue brought up here, weaknesses in the process have been identified and will be adapted to better suit conflict in the future.
That is provided none of us push our head into the sand about things.