Aurora and the Canonicity Boogeyman

[Peppermint]

12 minutes ago, Omicega said:

I think it's dreadfully disappointing that staff apparently feel like they're being browbeaten into coming along with such a problematic proposal. Aurora's character turnover and collective/collaborative approach to crediting the playerbase with coming through canon events is a strength, not a weakness. The absolute last thing I would want to see is any kind of system that, indirectly or not, feels like it's geared towards rewarding a combination of veterancy/old guard status, good RNG on event rolls (look at me, I'm the canonical guy who did X lore thing because I outrolled someone!), or even simply having the timezone/motivation/leisure time to attend the events at all in the first place. Just because the community wants it doesn't mean it's any good for the server; I really don't think we're going to benefit from allowing collective story progression on behalf of 'the crew of the Horizon' to be replaced with specific individuals in some kind of clout-farming exercise. I already find interacting with 'louder' established characters to be an exercise in frustration -- the strength of this server and the setting is in the more minor and grounded 'slice of life' roleplay, not in hearing about how John Fiveyearveteran killed 500 hivebots on Konyang and survived a Tajara tank battalion landing on the old Aurora.

Matt summed up my concerns pretty well:

I could hardly be more opposed to anything like this as I feel it encourages single-character maining (which is something I really just don't like and don't really understand the fixation with. Spread your wings a bit, try other origins/species/whatever, and get more out of the server), further demonises character alting/turnover in general as some kind of anti-roleplay stream of thought, and will overall just entrench the same old established character clique/elitism problem that all environments like Aurora have grappled with in the past.

Part of the issue is that every major lore arc seems to be trying to one-up the one that came before it or something -- I didn't play for any of the Konyang arc because I'm kind of off my Aurora game right now for a variety of reasons, but apparently the whole thing built up to some kind of mega hivebot horde shootathon or something? It's like there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes Aurora so enticing going on somewhere within the lore team or even in the newer sections of the playerbase at large; to me, the server was always at its best the more it promoted the more 'mundane' and corporate angle of its setting and roleplay opportunities. Bigger, more bombastic events are a cheap way to sell out authenticity in exchange for playerbase hype and short to mid-term enthusiasm, but the fallout is that you then have 1000 veterans of The Hivebot War and The Assault On The SAV Whatever walking around completely undermining the believability of the otherwise low-intensity corporate setting. Doubling down on that by now allowing those specific people to flash their shiny official accolade around in addition to the above is not really something I relish seeing.

The biggest takeaway from all of this for me is that @Sniblet kind of hit on the head is about micro-events. This system would actually be fine for me if Aurora was capable of limiting its event arcs in scope and scale, but I think any hope I had of the server heading in that direction started to die the moment we moved to the Horizon to begin with, and then had its coffin nailed shut when the ship had guns welded onto it overnight. I guess maybe that's what the majority want after all? All I know is I'd really like to see more low-key, slower-paced events that cater to something other than gearing up for an ultra death battle where people madly in love with their own OCs slaver and drool over the idea of getting CM-style medals of honour.

Thing is, I agree with basically everything here in the sense that I'd really adore a return to the smaller stuff we used to have. The stakes are now so high and it's that disconnect between 'this weak we're raiding a Konyang powerplant with zombie IPCs' to 'We're boarding a solarian battleship' with what the actual main server and rounds are like. If we can go back to that background setting of more gentle, slower paced events I'd be really happy and probably play a lot more. Problem is, we don't seem to be. Pretty much all the event arcs since the Horizon (I think? I'm probably missing one?) have been either very lethal or very combat driven so losing a character with no potential upsides and the same SCC indifference just feels weird as well as a little OOCLy unfair.

A return to that kind of thing could absolutely do away with stuff like this as it just wouldn't be needed, albeit outside of lore mentions would be nice. But that's not the aurora we have now and I'm not sure there's enough community interest in it going back.

[Susan]

34 minutes ago, Omicega said:

The absolute last thing I would want to see is any kind of system that, indirectly or not, feels like it's geared towards rewarding a combination of veterancy/old guard status, good RNG on event rolls (look at me, I'm the canonical guy who did X lore thing because I outrolled someone!), or even simply having the timezone/motivation/leisure time to attend the events at all in the first place.

I think this is a sort of watering down of the main purpose of this topic.. First and foremost, though not directly quoted, the supposition that acknowledging any individual character at all is going to completely and utterly replace any recognition of the Horizon in totality (it is not) is a strawman in of itself and a gross misrepresentation of what is being asked here. Most modern Aurora events, from what I can see anyway, are geared in such a way to inhibit or prevent individual characters from directly changing anything in lieu of group tactics, for better or worse.

This is not to say individuals could not reasonably alter things or have a profound impact, but it is very clear the staff team are taking steps to purposely limit the ways anyone but the group can affect the narrative, at least in recent scenarios. But even in those cases, I think it is inherently disrespectful to the involved people to imply that if they did do anything to positively alter an event on their own recognizance that their investment and quick thinking should be poo-poo'd or watered down to it being 'pure luck'. Other people put effort into their characters and roleplay, too.

Whether or not the repeated high stakes events are out of pocket - that is not the purpose of this discussion. No matter the hand-wringing or arguing about them, the fact remains unchanged that they have happened. And as I said at the start, what is the point of being involved in these arcs, if any accomplishment or participation or actions you've undertaken are going to be swept collectively under the rug? Why should I let anyone in the lore team decide if they should be able to canon kill my character(s), character(s) I may or may not have sunk a significant amount of time and energy into for participating in these events, when anything that was done is going to be obliquely swept away with a flick of the wrist?

The reward for canon events is clearly not the roleplay. Because as you said yourself, Omicega,

43 minutes ago, Omicega said:

 I already find interacting with 'louder' established characters to be an exercise in frustration -- the strength of this server and the setting is in the more minor and grounded 'slice of life' roleplay, not in hearing about how John Fiveyearveteran killed 500 hivebots on Konyang and survived a Tajara tank battalion landing on the old Aurora.

In a few months, you'll find it frustrating to interact with the people who were there for the current lore arcs. And you are not the only one who has this opinion. Time and time again, both in IC channels and OOC channels - views espoused by members of the lore team themselves! - the response to any character who was present talking about past events is dismissive, rude, or they just blatantly come out and say, 'old lore, don't care'. So in a system where nothing anyone does is recognized on a canon level, where some players and some staff members purposely disdain individuals from sharing stories from previous roleplay, where you get your kicks in a little 4-week event arc and then are browbeaten into silence about it from reasons varying from 'old lore, don't care' to 'the environment',

why should I bother to participate in any canon event whatsoever?

why should staff be given carte blanche to tell me I'm dead when it's my time and energy invested and not theirs?

why should we have canon event arcs at all?

It is inviably disrespectful to me, in the end, this viewpoint - shared by many people. Old lore arcs were crafted by lore team members who had to take time to write them, coders, spriters, mappers, and developers, the players who participated in them - weekslong affairs that kept people engaged and were the lifeblood of Aurora. And then after a few months pass, the further and further we get away from them, it seems the fact they happened at all is disdained by so many people. They may as well have not happened. And as someone who did spend a lot of time in very dangerous arcs and tried to bring in as many people as I could to all have a good time together, it is just astounding to see it resented so thoroughly.

At the end of the day, it is a matter of respect for players. If there is not going to be acknowledgment of people or arcs in a few weeks, then nobody on the staff team is going to have the authority to tell me when I need to stop playing my character because I died on a meaningless event. It is infinitely disappointing especially to see @NG+7 Gael talk about losing Aurelien and having absolutely nothing whatsoever come of it. When you die in a tabletop game there is an onus on your DM to make it both fulfilling and to make you feel somewhat accomplished for it. This is no different.

[Fluffy]

I would be fine with more gentle, slower paced event, but as an addition, not substitution

I like high intensity, high stakes events, as I think that's where the RP and the entertainment value peaks, and I would not trade them for "it's like the QBR meeting you dread to do at your workplace for how bored out of your mind you get, but in space" kind of things

The idea of mini events sprinkled around is fine, it's basically just getting an "extended+" round, but it would not be good for me if we have to sacrifice high intensity events to do that, hence: I would be fine with them as an addition, not substitution

 

I wonder if we could maybe implement some sort of policy where admin+lore can use (secret?) extended rounds to do just that, organize something small and generally inconsequential with whoever is around at that given time?

[GeneralCamo]

1 hour ago, Omicega said:

Part of the issue is that every major lore arc seems to be trying to one-up the one that came before it or something -- I didn't play for any of the Konyang arc because I'm kind of off my Aurora game right now for a variety of reasons, but apparently the whole thing built up to some kind of mega hivebot horde shootathon or something?

I've had a similar concern for a while now. I've also been off my Aurora game, but I did participate in the last event. It felt more like Colonial Marines at some points than corporate roleplay. Which is fine if they're rare, and sporadic... But considering the prior events we've come off of? It feels like all we are is an Elite Combat Team for the SCC. We're called that ICly even! So why aren't we allowed to go kill pirates in cold blood if we're this elite team that is better equipped than the army? 

People love to bring up Star Trek, so I'll bring it up here. It feels like every event is a season finale, a huge deal. Which is fine... But we don't have any filler episodes. The idea of a glass bottle episode is completely lost. And honestly? With the amount of work that it took to get here, we need more bottle episodes.

Many of you know I was in support of Botanist for the human lore team. Primarily because they had an excellent idea for a world building event that took a few weeks and needed little to no development resources. I'm very surprised, considering the amount of support for them, that this never was considered! In-fact, according to dreamy, there is this idea that it is unwanted! 

So I see Sue's point about it being disrespectful to players to not have their accomplishments considered, when we're at risk of dying every basically every event. But while one solution might be to reward players more, perhaps we need to also take a step back and ask ourselves if this is really the right direction for the server? Should all events have a risk of death attached to it?

[OolongCow]

On 05/04/2024 at 11:25, Omicega said:

The biggest takeaway from all of this for me is that @Sniblet kind of hit on the head is about micro-events. This system would actually be fine for me if Aurora was capable of limiting its event arcs in scope and scale, but I think any hope I had of the server heading in that direction started to die the moment we moved to the Horizon to begin with, and then had its coffin nailed shut when the ship had guns welded onto it overnight. I guess maybe that's what the majority want after all? All I know is I'd really like to see more low-key, slower-paced events that cater to something other than gearing up for an ultra death battle where people madly in love with their own OCs slaver and drool over the idea of getting CM-style medals of honour.

That won't happen. Read up in the thread. People crave violence and killing as the only form of canon since nobody will ever remember anything you did except die or kill. I've suggested on multiple occasions an event about the Horizon helping build a small colony on a planet, accomplishing objectives week to week as every event it gets larger and larger, more and more resembling a town, only to get shot down with "that's boring nobody would play that" as if sheer player count is the only qualifier for whether something was successful or not, and not whether the people participating enjoyed it.

CM is the most populated server on the hub at any given time. Are we going to say that CM is more successful than us and we should start acting like CM to get our player count up? Is an event with multiple problems, failures in planning, and 150 players because it emphasizes combat over rp a success while a small, tight event with 40 people is a failure? Because that's the direction it feels like events are going. I want smaller events made in a shorter amount of time by fewer people with lower playercounts, and I'm not joking.

Edited June 5 by OolongCow

[Desven]

Regarding smaller events, I’m gonna give my two cents: I’ve always liked tiny, low intensity stuff, but the player interest of the last Vaurca arc was so low we actually scrapped two mini events. I wish I could say that players will react with interest to tiny low impact events, but it hasn’t worked at all and it makes us at lore feel like we need higher intensity to engage with the community.

[NothingNew]

Personally, I don't necessarily mind there being high-intensity events, I just wouldn't want every one of them to involve a round of TGMC - You could just as equally have some event based around survival, or working together towards a common goal. Something more than going from point A to point B with guns - While I really did enjoy the previous arc, it's not always easy to justify such events within the corporate setting.

[ReadThisNamePlz]

I’ve read most of the thread. Goodness, what a hot topic.

My view on big events is this - We are a server on a video game. Majority of players like to see big crazy elaborate events because it breaks up the monotony of our normal round to round formula. There’s a reason our player count spikes to 100+ during events. 
 

With that said, someone asked if seeing a “40 player turnout” is so bad. And frankly, I kinda think it is. Lore devs take a lot of time planning events and working on making sure things are going well and that an arc is engaging. So a low turnout means that (generally) people aren’t interested. So why keep going if people aren’t interested?
 

I’ve ran a couple small canon events with lore and with CCIA. Out of all the ones I’ve done, the “Steel on the Horizon” was the most popular one. It featured combat, continuity between events, and some other elements that aren’t seen much. 
Most of the feedback was great for this. 
 

If you compare it to the Halloween and Christmas parties we threw, most players left by the 1 hour mark because not nearly as many people like to chair-rp. Hell, most people left the first Steel event because it wasn’t very engaging (as most first events in an arc are)

Just keep that in mind. 
 

I am all for more small scale events, and I’m still not sure how I feel about specific recognition in events, but I’m willing to see how the things Matt brought up work. 

[Faye <3]

If I had to like, throw my hat into the ring here, I think that the reason why these sorts of high intensity gigafuck hell destruction EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION DEAD MARINES KILL EM ALL canon events, the bragging (real or imagined) etc leave such a bad taste in the mouths of others is because, for the longest time, the average Aurora character as an individual did not matter in the slightest. When I first joined the server right around KOTW, one of the first themes I internalized about the lore and server structure is that you are much more of a spectator looking outwards to the goings-on of the Spur rather than an active participant. Things happen around you, and rarely, to you. It felt very reactive, rather than proactive. This is quite opposed to the average RP set up, which is much more of a power fantasy (see, DnD). These recent high intensity events, and some of the ones in the past, have sort of flipped this perspective that I, and perhaps others, internalized and honestly came to enjoy. We just stopped a robot apocalypse on the robot planet. 

And by 'we', I of course mean everyone who got their command role, was in the right place at the right time, etc. Which leads me to the source of the - I believe - biggest strain, and why people leave with such sour tastes in their mouth. Everyone wants to get the frag on the hellbot beacon, or kill the marine, or be important, and I think anyone who says otherwise maybe isn't being honest with themselves. Everyone wants to feel important, and have their moment in the limelight. And the recent ability to have your character have a part in things like stopping the literal fucking robot zombie apocalypse is an absolute total reversal of the previously stated 'you are largely a spectator on the spur, and you watch things happen' thought process. 

The server's culture is changing for better or for worse, and never has the player-character mattered more, or had more of an opportunity to be relevant than now. Everyone wants to feel relevant, and no one wants to feel like they're not as important as someone else. This wasn't an issue before when your opportunities to be Relevant were few and far between, but hell, look at the relay. People were constantly chatting about how they were geared up for the power plant raid, or how they got chopped in twain by a rogue G2, or whatever. It feels bad to feel like you're not part of something, or not feel as relevant as any other character. For my part, I don't attend canon events because they're usually quite laggy and messy, but I also really don't like loosing my OCs.  I understand I'm not the kind of person who handles that sort of thing very well, so I don't put myself in those situations. I can fully admit that I am much happier as a chair RP'er / low stakes, but with the server transitioning to a much more 'you can be the guy', wide-reaching arcs, it sort of leaves me wondering if there's still space for that sort of player. Those events are your only chance to do something meaningful within the setting on your character, given the average round is largely non-canon, and if every event is extremely high-stakes and violent, then what can the players / characters who do not fit or enjoy those events do to give their characters a bit more 'oomph' in the setting? I do not want my character to die in an event, and have absolutely nothing come of it, so I do not play them. Maybe the answer is to make PC deaths matter more, but does that just not ratchet up the stakes even more? I don't know, to be honest. Is the cost of relevancy risking your OC? Is it fair to want to be relevant if you haven't risked anything? I don't know that, either. 

The unfortunate result of this when every event is such high stakes, one tends to really feel left out. I think low to medium intensity events are very important for the server, and to maintain whatever semblance of the old 'you don't matter very much' Aurora there is left. 

Edited April 6 by Faye <3

[Sniblet]

 

10 hours ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

With that said, someone asked if seeing a “40 player turnout” is so bad. And frankly, I kinda think it is. Lore devs take a lot of time planning events and working on making sure things are going well and that an arc is engaging. So a low turnout means that (generally) people aren’t interested. So why keep going if people aren’t interested?

Turnout can be a measure of an event’s success, but it’s not THE measure unless you’re charging for admission. Since we’re not, hallelujah, turnout is a measure of how good your hook is. Retention is a measure of how much novel, fun content you can give people throughout the round. If Halloween was a failure, and I think I’ll remember it more fondly than the warehouse assault, then you can pin that on it being a static map with no particularly unique NPCs outside of the haunted house that was progressing in secret. Low-intensity doesn’t have to be non-interactive.

A mini-event can also be low-effort, which helps to mitigate the creators’ disappointment if the player response doesn’t meet their standards. A small group of outsiders visiting the Horizon like peacemerc, even as part of a forgettable arc or no arc at all, would still qualify as an event, if it were played by people who don’t compulsively open fire by 1:40 and could explain their character’s lore off the top of their head for a change and everyone was allowed to remember it the next day. I remember those diona wildlife traders. There’s no harm in doing that at least as often as we play Galactic Civil War, is there?

You won’t pull in 100% of event enjoyers every time. Your work can be no less appreciated by those who do show up.

Edited April 6 by Sniblet

[OolongCow]

17 hours ago, Desven said:

Regarding smaller events, I’m gonna give my two cents: I’ve always liked tiny, low intensity stuff, but the player interest of the last Vaurca arc was so low we actually scrapped two mini events. I wish I could say that players will react with interest to tiny low impact events, but it hasn’t worked at all and it makes us at lore feel like we need higher intensity to engage with the community.

It's really a fight of effort vs engagement. Balancing how much effort you put in vs player enjoyment and your own satisfaction (because you guys feeling proud DOES matter) that comes from it. I think there's plenty of room below gigakillmurder events with months of planning we aren't capitalizing on. At risk of sounding too much like a Gamer, we have a saturated AAA market and an underserved AA or A title market.

Edited April 6 by OolongCow

[OolongCow]

10 hours ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

I’ve read most of the thread. Goodness, what a hot topic.

My view on big events is this - We are a server on a video game. Majority of players like to see big crazy elaborate events because it breaks up the monotony of our normal round to round formula. There’s a reason our player count spikes to 100+ during events. 
 

With that said, someone asked if seeing a “40 player turnout” is so bad. And frankly, I kinda think it is. Lore devs take a lot of time planning events and working on making sure things are going well and that an arc is engaging. So a low turnout means that (generally) people aren’t interested. So why keep going if people aren’t interested?

My "40 player turnout" point was contingent on those 40 people showing up for an event planned over a single week that only needs one or two admins. Of course something as complicated as Silicon Nightmares only drawing 40 people would hurt and I genuinely empathize with and understand that fear. I was making the point that there's room for more frequent, less intense, less-planned-out events, and that we shouldn't judge them by the standards of major event arcs. It's okay if those events aren't pulling massive numbers, they weren't meant to.

[Carver]

I’ll be pretty honest, I’m more disincentivized to play events that draw 100+ people. It becomes a difficult to control (and difficult to read the radio lol) mess where I can generally expect 5 or more people are just there to start shit because a server is at the top of the hub. Oh, and the game will usually begin to break under the weight of the player count at 3 digits (just look at recent lighting complaints).

40 players is only bad if the scope of the event needed 60 for the progression of the event to flow smoothly, imo. But that’s in the context that not all 40 are playing, if 40 are in the round it’s perfect. Taking into account lobby sitters and observers, 60-80 is the real sweet spot that any event should be very happy to pull. 

Edited April 7 by Carver
Forgot about the lag.

[wowzewow]

Well, a lot of the things I've really wanted to say have been already iterated on in the thread, like giving special treatment to those who are able to play for a specific 3 hours in a day (while other people have to wake up for work tommorow morning are given the shaft...)

Hopefully, I think the Cold War and Konyang arcs are the exception, not the rule for events going forward.

My general thoughts are that I simply think the server simply hasn't had enough time to settle properly. With the old Aurora Station, events were very much large and bombastic, but still generally contained within the confines of the station, which helped ground them a whole bunch.

Post-NBT however, the scope has practically increased by orders of magnitude overnight. Which I feel has alienated a whole lot more people, and magnified my feelings about how impersonal old Lore was on the Aurora as well. Why should I care about happenings across the galaxy if it isn't going to affect my life on the station right here, right now? Why should I bother reading paragraphs upon paragraphs of a planet I'm never going to see, with people I'm never going to meet? Which goes into my next point.

Direction and Ambition.

Aurora has very much been a loosely held together conglomerate of passion projects, all with different loose threads of people tugging in different directions of their ambitions. With NBT everyone's been practically cut loose on what they want to do, and it's going to take a while to reign everyone in a certain direction. For me, I hope it is the "small-medium event, personal slice-of-life" kind, but I cannot definitively say for sure.

In conclusion, I think we still need time to settle down post-NBT. Server culture, organization, development, lore just needs time to catch-up. It's a very much wild-west at the moment, and I feel it's going to be hard to exactly lock down canonicity when, say, the layout of the Horizon could change tomorrow, or sections of lore getting retconned and rewritten.

Which I suppose is both a blessing and a curse that Aurora is one of the last HRP servers with continuous development.

Hard to leave a mark on something's that always changing.

Edited April 7 by wowzewow

[MattAtlas]

On 05/04/2024 at 19:17, Susan said:

 

This is not to say individuals could not reasonably alter things or have a profound impact, but it is very clear the staff team are taking steps to purposely limit the ways anyone but the group can affect the narrative, at least in recent scenarios. But even in those cases, I think it is inherently disrespectful to the involved people to imply that if they did do anything to positively alter an event on their own recognizance that their investment and quick thinking should be poo-poo'd or watered down to it being 'pure luck'. Other people put effort into their characters and roleplay, too.

Here is a question - if you know you affected something as part of a group, and an article acknowledges it (thus it's in the lore and you can bring it up with a reference) without naming a specific name, why does that to you count as being "watered down" and "shit on"? You did affect the lore, you did affect the outcome of the event, why is not being specifically named and elevated over others the problem?

On 05/04/2024 at 19:17, Susan said:

Whether or not the repeated high stakes events are out of pocket - that is not the purpose of this discussion. No matter the hand-wringing or arguing about them, the fact remains unchanged that they have happened. And as I said at the start, what is the point of being involved in these arcs, if any accomplishment or participation or actions you've undertaken are going to be swept collectively under the rug? Why should I let anyone in the lore team decide if they should be able to canon kill my character(s), character(s) I may or may not have sunk a significant amount of time and energy into for participating in these events, when anything that was done is going to be obliquely swept away with a flick of the wrist?

Again you're equating not being named in a group effort to being "swept under the rug". This is only true if you think you only had an impact on the event if you were directly and explicitly named in an article or on the wiki. Which is not true - your contributions remain, you can still talk about them (as you often do on the Discord...), how exactly is your involvement being swept under the rug?

Lastly, I hope you never come to me telling me that I can't canon kill your character if you do something stupid. This is weird grandstanding that you can't possibly think would work or do anything constructive. It just poisons the discourse by targeting us as your enemies - and I have enough self respect to stand up for myself. You do not want to poison this well more than you already have by opening up the post with "Aurora doesn't value my time".

On 05/04/2024 at 19:17, Susan said:

When you die in a tabletop game there is an onus on your DM to make it both fulfilling and to make you feel somewhat accomplished for it. This is no different.

This equation is what lies at the heart of this problem because it is wrong. Aurora is not a tabletop game. Your characters are not tabletop characters and this is written very explicitly (the rules don't allow you to be a protagonist, neither do the events, neither does any existing mechanism in lore - just look at how Eternia or Verdict handle canon arcs). This kind of analogy creates unreasonable expectations that should be quashed, because group efforts are at the base of normal people succeeding in things. Your characters are normal people at the end of the day - slightly better than normal because they landed a really good job, but not protagonist-like.

Before anyone says "this is actually inconsistent with the big shootout events", I have a big issue with them (I intentionally never participated in any, other than the warehouse assault where I spent most of my time fixing people's problems!) and I directly proposed heavily, heavily cutting down the scale and their presence in lore arcs.

[Peppermint]

After thinking about it some more and looking at the arguments, kind of coming around to that this could indeed be a pretty bad idea in execution. I think the only thing I'd like is the recognition tokens and things like IC interviews to form parts of articles.

Right now it'd def be nice to get more recognition but that is only if the server keeps pushing for these big, explosive events. If it doesn't, kind of starting to agree with the consensus that it might be pretty bad.

The one exception to this being the memorial. Which I think should add some nice RP.

Edited April 8 by Peppermint

[Susan]

5 hours ago, MattAtlas said:

Here is a question - if you know you affected something as part of a group, and an article acknowledges it (thus it's in the lore and you can bring it up with a reference) without naming a specific name, why does that to you count as being "watered down" and "shit on"? You did affect the lore, you did affect the outcome of the event, why is not being specifically named and elevated over others the problem?

That's not what I am saying. I am responding to Omicega suggesting that if anyone does do something positively in an event as a single person it is somehow less valuable because they 'didn't have to work' or were just 'in the right place at the right time', et al. That is watering down people's contributions. I don't know where you picked up the idea I was talking about article acknowledgment here when I directly quoted them: 'good RNG on event rolls (look at me, I'm the canonical guy who did X lore thing because I outrolled someone!), or even simply having the timezone/motivation/leisure time to attend the events at all in the first place'.

5 hours ago, MattAtlas said:

Again you're equating not being named in a group effort to being "swept under the rug". This is only true if you think you only had an impact on the event if you were directly and explicitly named in an article or on the wiki. Which is not true - your contributions remain, you can still talk about them (as you often do on the Discord...), how exactly is your involvement being swept under the rug?

Lastly, I hope you never come to me telling me that I can't canon kill your character if you do something stupid. This is weird grandstanding that you can't possibly think would work or do anything constructive. It just poisons the discourse by targeting us as your enemies - and I have enough self respect to stand up for myself. You do not want to poison this well more than you already have by opening up the post with "Aurora doesn't value my time".

And as I mentioned to Omicega, it is a fundamental issue with Aurora in that whatever contributions are there are sidelined. Yes, I've talked about them in Discord, and beyond basically Alberyk reminiscing about the old events it has always led to people - staff members, again, as I mentioned to Omicega, as well as normal players - responding with derision. 'Old lore, don't care'. Said accomplishments might as well mean nothing, or any involvement or enjoyment in past arcs, because time and time again both in Discord and in IC channels I am basically told to shut up. It's old, we don't care. And sure, maybe it is old, but that always leads back to the problem I've been pointing out, the problem that you say is 'grandstanding'.

If the players of Aurora stop caring about events a few months after they happened, then what does that mean for the people who died on them? For the people who put the time and effort and energy into them? All this hand-wringing about shoot-em-up events is pointless when discussing what has already happened, because they have, in fact, happened. And if few people on the server are going to care about the Konyang arc in less than a year when we cycle back to it being 'old lore' and you talking about anything you did during it is equated to being egotistical, then how are people like @NG+7 Gael going to feel? Aurelien is dead, for seemingly no actual significant purpose, just so the server can conveniently move on and forget. We don't want to acknowledge people, and we want to forget about events after they happen.

I just don't see the point in doing them at all, if that's the prevailing opinion, nor why I should accept a death when it is handled in such a way that says the staff don't care about you, whether or not that is true - it is the optics of it.

5 hours ago, MattAtlas said:

This equation is what lies at the heart of this problem because it is wrong. Aurora is not a tabletop game. Your characters are not tabletop characters and this is written very explicitly (the rules don't allow you to be a protagonist, neither do the events, neither does any existing mechanism in lore - just look at how Eternia or Verdict handle canon arcs). This kind of analogy creates unreasonable expectations that should be quashed, because group efforts are at the base of normal people succeeding in things. Your characters are normal people at the end of the day - slightly better than normal because they landed a really good job, but not protagonist-like.

And this is why I started this topic with the line that 'Aurora doesn't value my time'.

This policy outlook doesn't.

The DM comparison has nothing to do with protagonism. That is why it is pretty explicitly prefaced with the line [when you die]. It has to do with respect for your players. Respect for the time and energy that they invest into this narrative worldbuilding experience. I don't think it is unreasonable at all to expect the staff members of a roleplaying game to respect the time and energy their players invest in their characters to the point where when they are canon killed it is acknowledged in some capacity. Aurelien's death during the Konyang arc is the prime example of this, and how Duck themselves felt about it - it led to nothing, amounted to nothing, and less than a few weeks later everyone might as well have moved on. And in six months when the 'old lore don't care' diatribe is wheeled out again, I cannot imagine how that would feel as a person who has managed to lose their character in the same event. They didn't even do anything 'stupid', they got a mob of NPCs spawned by them.

In totality, my response to Omicega is entirely about Aurora's culture war on old events. And every new arc will eventually become an old arc where it is passive-aggressively denigrated because it is 'old lore'. It means they have no staying power.

[Dreamix]

But why does a death have to amount to something? Why specifically deaths? Why the focus on deaths, and players of characters who have died?

 

It was now decided we will get the memorial thingy, okay. So if my character died, they get put in the memorial, with some text about how they died, and a neat custom message. Is that meaningful? Maybe.

But if my character did not die, and they were not exceptional enough to get a medal, then I sort of get nothing then? Is that fair? Not sure.

Well, I guess, they get to stay alive and participate in future events and roleplay, I guess, but that's kinda close to just saying that participating in events is the "thing" you get out of them in on itself (and I think that's fine). But like, if I stop playing them anyway then I get nothing still. Or if I decide to stop their arc or kill them offscreen or whatever else. Other people are going to forget about my character in weeks if not days, no matter if they died in a event, or if I simply just lost interest and stopped playing them.

 

I said before, I wish instead of a memorial that shows deaths, there was instead a terminal thing that showed everyone participating in the events, their roles and jobs, and not just specifically and only people who died.

 

Quote

If the players of Aurora stop caring about events a few months after they happened, then what does that mean for the people who died on them?

If the players of Aurora stop caring about events a few months after they happened, then... what does that mean for the people who did not die on them?

 

I do think it's disrespectful and shitty to dismiss people with the whole "old lore don't care", but... Our server and its lore has been going for a long time now, so it's not really feasible to expect people to care about old events. Should we keep all the events and event arcs relevant like, forever? Like if people talk about for example Konyang for a few months and then it stops being relevant then like, that sounds good enough for me, we are going to get more event arcs in the future, new players, new characters, so it just can't be relevant and important forever, and it's natural at some point attention and focus will shift to something else.

[NG+7 Gael]

If I could've kept Aurelien alive and received nothing in exchange for his participation in the event, I'd take that over him dying and his name being in a memorial.

What I want is for his death- which again served zero purpose in the event and was not at all a consequence of my own action- to have some sort of meaning.

A memorial with his name mentioned is barely anything, but it at least means that my character that I spent nearly a year playing exclusively wouldn't have a meaningless death followed by being forgotten in a week.

Edited April 9 by NG+7 Gael

[Duthco]

There have been many very good and thoughtful points made throughout this discourse, and to many of them, I've not much of substance to add at this time. Instead, I've a few comments on some different ideas mentioned. They are unfortunately rather longwinded and disparate thoughts that don't have good segues among them. 

But, as an overall sentiment, I think it would be nice to see other means to give characters a greater depth of canonical presence beyond a death notice or the rare commendation.

 

On 03/04/2024 at 16:50, Peppermint said:

For increasing the staying power of events, Rusting suggested a section in the library be used to show off bits and pierces [sic] from past arcs. If that's something lore was interested in, small stuff like that could really help imo. As could someone else's suggestion here of smaller things happening here and there at the conclusion but, again, this stuff has happened before so it may just be it's been less possible lately given the work and time involved.

I think this kind of thing, something like an exhibit in the library that a curator/librarian could use as a prop to tell the canonical stories of the Horizon to players/characters who weren't around for them, but live amid the consequences, (and might rather learn about ICly), would be pretty neat.

 

On 08/04/2024 at 14:06, Dreamix said:

But why does a death have to amount to something? Why specifically deaths? Why the focus on deaths, and players of characters who have died?

On 03/04/2024 at 17:07, Evandorf said:

To be fair to most players, I think people get excited over the negative interactions because of the canonicity issue. The negative consequences are usually the only ones that are observable, i.e. character death. Change in the game universe and especially agency over that change is the dopamine we're all looking for.

I think what's said above gets at something deeper and more foundational than what is directly touched on in this thread and in the request for a "Crew Memorial", while they are both indirectly yet intrinsically tied to it. Most certainly this is but a piece of the broader picture, but one underlying theme is a desire for player self-efficacy and/or agency, in change in the game universe, as Evandorf said above. (Note: self-efficacy is one's perceived agency.)

Moreover, the thread I see underlying the desire for recognition of either death or achievement is the desire to observe the ripples of a character's impact on this great semi-persistent improvisational work to which we all contribute, and moreover, a desire that those ripples be allowed to propagate as far as their momentum would naturally carry them, rather than see them dampened after ~2 canonical-hours or when the next arc starts.

This self-efficacy is most easily observed in CM-style combat-heavy rounds, where characters "kill the bad guy(s)", leaving in their wake very obvious consequences to their personal intervention. I think this may be a contributing factor to why these sorts of events are very popular; you readily feel like you've made a difference.

However, I don't think that kind of dopamine hit from perceiving one's own agency in the setting necessarily demands winning the day in a high violence situation or personally "saving the entire Spur" as much as it demands, more broadly, the world reflect the fact that the character lives in it. It is reflected in mundane things perhaps more so than the extraordinary: a character's reputation among their colleagues, authoring a text submitted to the library, creating a drink that others will remember, and perhaps even make and teach to others (a meme in the semantic sense), etc. 

I think it also means to find a meaningful death. To have one's story be told, staving off that second death, and chase immortality in the little ways... I might be romanticizing it a little more than many might be thinking of it, if character agency is a direct concern at all. At the same time, from my armchair, it really looks to me like a significant piece of the puzzle.

Others, who have been around far longer than I, have discussed at length throughout this thread that it has not historically been the desire that individual players have significant agency over the outcome of canon events, which is the prerogative of the showrunners. But what is ultimately being asked, it seems to me, is only something for which that provides a great example, but is not in and of itself, it, that which is I argue, a more foundational desire for a character leaving the world a little different for having lived in it.

Actualizing this in high-stakes/high-violence events, I don't think necessarily precludes the preference for group activity out of anti-desire for individual event-protagonists. As was said by others, I think just naming names of participants in an article/SCC Bulletin, not even hailing them as heroes per se, but noting them as people who were there, might help to that end.

 

On 03/04/2024 at 19:13, Dreamix said:

I wish we had events that are more mundane and calm, and affect some local space, and not the whole spur, or even a nation, faction, planet.
I wish we had smaller events, that require less work and preparation, but also were more frequent and common.
I wish we had more canon presence on Horizon, in and out of arcs, more visitors and other mini-events.

Every time I mention the things above, I am being told by staff that it is unwanted.
I genuinely think the above would help with character retention, and would be more healthy for the server.

If events were to be more mundane, that would help to change the perception about events being deadly, and deaths being the only lasting impact on anything.
If events were to be smaller and more frequent, that means more people have a greater chance to do something meaningful.
If we were to have more canon presence on horizon, it would let people outside of command and security jobs to interact with the arc.

And like about any potential problem or issue of characters changing or affecting the world simply just completely disappears.
We don't want people doing stupid things and affecting stuff, or bad actors derailing, with negative consequences for the whole event arc and spur.
But if the events are smaller and less grand, all these risks are just gone.
If we are helping just one ship or city or outpost, and we fail, we just move on and continue as before, or if we succeed, it's some locals being grateful.

If I haven't said elsewhere, I would add my voice to the chorus indicating that I like small-scale things, especially ones that need not necessarily turn violent, as long as the situation has the potential to matter at some point in the future. It doesn't even have to, but I would want it on the ever-growing list of things that a storyteller, be they an antag, a writer, or participant in the proposed Mission Briefing, could use moving forward.

All that being said, sometimes a bit of a bottle episode, or something very low-scale that the participants will remember, but the broader Spur won't notice, would also be nice.

Regarding low intensity events, violence is not the only source of conflict that I find compelling. I don't personally need violence in every scene to find a story engaging. At the same time, there is much to be said for a credible threat of violence as a storytelling tool.

 

On 08/04/2024 at 14:06, Dreamix said:

I do think it's disrespectful and shitty to dismiss people with the whole "old lore don't care", but... Our server and its lore has been going for a long time now, so it's not really feasible to expect people to care about old events. Should we keep all the events and event arcs relevant like, forever? Like if people talk about for example Konyang for a few months and then it stops being relevant then like, that sounds good enough for me, we are going to get more event arcs in the future, new players, new characters, so it just can't be relevant and important forever, and it's natural at some point attention and focus will shift to something else.

I've yet to encounter anyone of mind with "Old Lore; Don't Care" or similar sentiment, but since it is mentioned as a concern by several here, I am left to assume it is a sentiment held by at least some. I rather wish this weren't a sentiment held, or if it must be, one not expressed. It's callous and disrespectful to the writers and characters for whom that lore is relevant. 

Regarding events and arc continued relevancy, I think they should be relevant for characters and situations for which they're relevant. E.g., I can't really fathom how folks from Konyang and IPCs are going to forget this arc, and while the Horizon will eventually be many lightyears away from Konyang, and the events aren't immediately relevant anymore, those present would generally remember and reference it as necessary, I would think.

Also, who can say what the future holds? This arc, with the involvement of Purpose, made direct reference to another, older arc, which, reading up a little, helped inform how I wanted to play my relevant character's orientation to Purpose. 

I think people's attention regarding something like this has a natural tendency to attenuate inversely with proximity, especially when something else captures the public imagination. I think it's natural and expected. I don't see how that could be reasonably used as justification to be a dick to people who still remember or want to talk about older arcs, that, as I understand, remain canon history. 

(I realize this was the third discrete post I've quoted by the same author. I promise I'm not trying to pick on you, Dreamix, you just said a lot of thought-provoking stuff.)

 

Thanks for your time.

Edited April 9 by Duthco
didn't actually complete a thought w.r.t. "Bottle episode"

[Boggle08]

On 03/04/2024 at 20:13, Dreamix said:

I've been saying this for a while now:

I wish we had events that are more mundane and calm, and affect some local space, and not the whole spur, or even a nation, faction, planet.
I wish we had smaller events, that require less work and preparation, but also were more frequent and common.
I wish we had more canon presence on Horizon, in and out of arcs, more visitors and other mini-events.

Every time I mention the things above, I am being told by staff that it is unwanted.
I genuinely think the above would help with character retention, and would be more healthy for the server.

If events were to be more mundane, that would help to change the perception about events being deadly, and deaths being the only lasting impact on anything.
If events were to be smaller and more frequent, that means more people have a greater chance to do something meaningful.
If we were to have more canon presence on horizon, it would let people outside of command and security jobs to interact with the arc.

And like about any potential problem or issue of characters changing or affecting the world simply just completely disappears.
We don't want people doing stupid things and affecting stuff, or bad actors derailing, with negative consequences for the whole event arc and spur.
But if the events are smaller and less grand, all these risks are just gone.
If we are helping just one ship or city or outpost, and we fail, we just move on and continue as before, or if we succeed, it's some locals being grateful.

 

A large part of the issue is that we can only design events with the mechanics each department has. Those are the tools we use to conceive of activities for events. The problem is that the departments that could enable low stakes, non-combative events are too lacking in mechanics or purpose to have any staying power.

Combat has the lion's share of complexity and engagement, medicine follows as a consequence of combat, and the fact that accidents are inevitable (Looking at you, person who drinks themselves to death during party events). Engineering has mechanics that are literally baked into the design of every single map. Command is self-evidently involved. Bridge crew are conditionally important, only if there is ship combat.

That leaves cargo, service, and science. Hangar technicians are the weakest link, as their job encompasses three activities that are completely optional in the operation of the ship. You naturally cannot involve service unless you drop a kitchen down or make them cater for something. Science has the most potential on paper to contribute to rounds narratively, but they purposefully designed to contribute nothing but research levels, and lack any way to advise the crew on a given area of expertise. Because that isn't defined.

 

I enjoyed silicon nightmares, but that arc was where we got to see all these design problems hit their absolute zenith. Engineering? Medical? Security? Command? There was plenty of work to go around. Everyone else? Cargo technicians had their shuttle break down on them, their one purpose nullified. Scientists did absolutely nothing to help in the crisis, any intelligence they could have helped acquire was instead fed through to us by Purpose and reports by the Konyang government. They did get the wreckage from the secondary transmitter to... doo... sciencey.... things.... with? But in reality it was just a paperweight. Service? It's not like it makes any narrative sense whatsoever for them to serve the hivebot beacon spaghetti or whatever.

Since all we have to work with is combat and its consequences, it naturally followed that each event just ramped up in stakes and violence, until the last event where we gave everyone a gun and had them save the planet. 

 

So I agree with you 100%: Lore in the future should consider arcs or events that are less resource intensive and lower stakes. Events getting bigger and more violent are a consequence of regular gameplay in other departments lacking. Operations, Science, and BC's need more attention in order to move away from how we current design major events. The new round structure Matt announced is a colossal step in the right direction.