Fragmentation of the playerbase, staying true to the campaign setting and keeping Lower populated

[GoldLover]

I was inspired by ShadowCharlatan's listening tour post to raise an issue which has been bothering me for a while and which I think is worth its own thread.  EFU is a great deal of fun.  That is why we all love it, care about it and play here.  I would like to discuss an issue of frustration and hope for input from other players and to hear the views of the DMs.  I am hoping we can have an honest and open discussion about something which is bothering me and which effects most of the server.

EFU has a limited player-base and at times a divided player-base, split between people with various loyalties, allegiances and locations.  DM time is limited and the how complex the module can be is also limited, which means that EFU depends on players action driving plots and players making their own fun.  Players making their own fun is pretty much the "engine" which runs the server, the DMs add fuel with DM quests and scripting new areas and changes to the module but DM time is limited so out of necessity, players are expected to keep things moving.

This is good and works well for the server and is very fun.

There is a general consensus that player conflict is good.  I agree, it makes EFU very fun.  But not all conflict is good conflict.  We have rules about fair play and guidance about conflict.  For example, it is considered very poor form to mug new, low level characters as a high level character.  Why?  It causes conflict?  Isn't all conflict all good?  Well.  Because it is seen as unfair and stifles future interaction between players.  If high levels routinely mugged or killed new low levels, the server would be a ghosttown.  There are rules about it being considered poor form to invis-perma-kill other PCs with no prior interaction.  Why?  Again, it breeds hostile feelings, it is not fair and it may be "conflict" but it is not the kind of conflict the server wants.

We are in round three of a division which I think is bad for the server as a whole and does not make the kind of "conflict" we really want.  This is the third time a powerful upper PC, absent any act of the Directorate have in effect, successfully banned travel to Lower.  There have been times when Lower has been a ghostyard and it has been better than usual as of late... but if this ban stays in place, I expect that trend will reverse and we will again have lots of bored PCs sitting idle in upper and Lower will again empty.  I think that is a bad thing.  I am afraid some may say in response "Well, if you do not like it, handle it in game".  Please, hear me out and keep reading.

This post is a description of the region profile of Sanctuary, written by the creator of most of the current module and the newly returned Great One, ShadowCharlatan(praise be upon his name):  www.efupw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81205

It describes Sanctuary as authoritarian and orderly.  An authoritarian and orderly society does not let the equivalent of the local police sergeant, county judge or FBI agent write new laws.  Three times players, without a vote of the Directorate have managed to successfully ban travel to Lower.  Each time very well played, but ruthless PCs managed to do so basically by bullying others in a manner which would be illegal by the laws of Sanctuary.  I have no criticism for those players at all, none, they all played very interesting characters and were very nice and friendly players I rather like!  However, I think this is bad for the server because it causes the population to sit idle in Sanctuary and kills conflict and plotting and intrigue.  I also think that it means we are deviating wildly from the campaign setting because the NPCs seem to... disappear.

Sanctuary is not Orderly and Authoritarian if NPCs simply ignore subordinates acting illegally and enforcing laws which do not exist.  I am not accusing any DM or the DMs of doing something wrong.  My assumption is that, desiring to give players a sense of agency and control, decided not to have NPCs intervene.  I think it is also likely that the DMs are swamped doing really fun and awesome things like running quests, helping players with intrigues and plots and doing other great and awesome things that they do every day and so this issue may just sort of... not make it onto DM radar?  Players basically wrote a new law each time they made a travel ban and each time they did so, flagrantly violated the laws of the city.  From my perspective, it is as if a sheriff in your local city posted a sign on a street saying "ROAD PERMANENTLY CLOSED - PASS ON PAIN OF EXILE".  I do not know where most of my fellow players live, but I imagine your local city government would PROBABLY do something about a city official openly challenging the authority of the state?  That is what the travel ban does each time, because it has no legal basis it lets a PC openly challenge the authority of the city of Sanctuary and they got away with each other time.  If Sanctuary is Orderly and Authoritarian as described, higher level NPCs would intervene and stop their subordinates, or lower ranking PCs in other organizations from acting illegally by trying to enforce laws which do not exist.  When I see players openly and obviously defy the power structure and laws of the city with no apparent NPC response, it breaks my sense of immersion because I feel as if NPCs would intervene.  The fact that they do not intervene makes the setting seem less real to me, it is like a light switch is turned off and instead of struggling to survive in a post apocalyptic horror story, I feel like everything is static and less real.  I am afraid that this may be met with a response of "If you don't like it, change it!" I have two responses to that.  First, as explained above, it should not be something PCs have to change because allowing this sort of illegal action breaks the realism of the campaign setting.  Second,  this issue is too difficult for any single PC to change, short of assassinating other PCs which is a rather silly way to achieve this goal.

I am asking the DMs to intervene and not let the third round of the travel ban to Lower turn it into a ghost town again and I am asking for other players to give their input and for DMs to share their views on this.

[Spiffy Has]

Maybe they are acting with NPC approval? Maybe the Directorate gave a nod of approval?

[GoldLover]

That is a plausible explanation, but I do not believe that is actually true.  I know the first two times, that was not the case and I do not know for sure, but am pretty sure that is not the case for this time.  Ambitious, very well played PCs managed to do it by using the power of their office to enforce it by punishing those who defied them, along with persuading other PCs to follow along or at least not challenge them.   If the Directorate wanted to ban travel to Lower, they just would, they have the power after all.

The travel ban openly defies the power of the state and is not the sort of thing I think would be allowed in an orderly, authoritarian society.  When it happens, I feel like the NPCs have just... disappeared, it really breaks the sense of immersion.  Sanctuary does not HAVE to be Orderly and Authoritarian of course, there is no reason it cant change, things happen, places change, but if the city is still Orderly and Authoritarian, I feel like the NPCs should intervene.

[Holy Hand Grenade]

To me, this really seems like something that would be best handled in-game!

[GoldLover]

To me, this really seems like something that would be best handled in-game!

I am afraid that this may be met with a  response of "If you don't like it, change it!" I have two responses to  that.  First, as explained above, it should not be something PCs have to  change because allowing this sort of illegal action breaks the realism  of the campaign setting.  Second,  this issue is too difficult for any  single PC to change, short of assassinating other PCs which is a rather  silly way to achieve this goal.

I am taking it as a given that NPCs should intervene if PCs openly defy the authority of the state, which I am suggesting is what has happened with each travel ban.

Given that, I do not see this as a "handle it in game" issue.  The DMs are busy doing awesome things like running quests, player plots and intrigues and I fear this has fallen off the radar.  I believe the NPCs should intervene and have not, so it is not a "handle in game" issue.  I am hoping that by highlighting the issue, it may raise its important on the DM radar, so the NPCs may intervene?

[Blue41]

You probably would have been better off putting this in the private DM discussion forum if you believe it's something that DM's/NPC's should handle. I personally don't, because I don't believe the word of one PC is enough to keep other PC's from doing whatever they want to do, law or not. Of all the reasons Lower has emptied out over the last year, it being against the law isn't one of them.