Greetings Explorer, Navigate into the Lobby!
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Be sure to "Get Whitelisted" to join the community on server!
I'd never said everything be up to the players. The system is not cohesive to the events. A one-way narrative has the road paved while anything straying is rocky terrain, but it is being shown off as a road that heads anywhere. A choice needs to be made between freedom and narrative if this was the intent.
I understand that, as I said:
Everything is up to the players, there are divergent paths available. But there is enough control to prevent a small group from running away with the whole show.
What I'm saying is the "control" is ruining the narrative of the event, and restricting players to the background whilst Clain progresses.
The plot does not hinge on Clain, but what the player base decides to do with him.
I don't think Staff would be particularly happy if the player base killed Clain off and took the stones for themselves.
The plot hinges on him so long as he holds the mystical macguffin. Any attempts to retrieve it from him have been met with hinderance from the events team's OOC unwillingness to allow him into conflict. If you're going to argue the other direction, that it needs be given peacefully in alliance, then not only is that restricting, but it is as well hindered by lack of playing the character. If he has not handed the stone off after two months of little progression beyond his taking it himself, then it seems a stretch to assume he shall without a player push. The campaign does in fact hinge on him otherwise.
Attempts to retrieve it from him? Did this happen during a public event where the whole player base has a say? Because this sounds like a small group trying to steal the show.
The whole playerbase does not have a say during a public event. It is too crowded to act in any capacity without your "showstealing" argument being applicable.
If a small group takes the stone, and then some other small group takes another stone and they don't want to work together, then we get that whole chaos thing I was talking about where the server catches fire and everything is ruined.
Yeah, we have to meta it if we want the player base as a whole to decide the server's fate and not a small group of players.
Another group can't procure a stone without the first one, simple as that. The server won't catch fire or be ruined, the Event Coordinators are only now in a position to progress the story differently.
The whole of players aren't making this decision, though. It is limited only to the small group that sides with the event character.
Lets follow this through: Let's say the stone is given to a small group of players, what then?
Ideally, they progress the plot. If they know where to head, which a few groups do by now, they can open the next dungeon. If it does require larger help than offered, they can branch out. It at least focuses on players rather than no one at all.
Disobeying your own rules to restrict others does not seem to solve much. It leads a poor example.
Ideally, they progress the plot, yes. But they could just destroy it, always possible. What then? What if they just destroy the stone?
