Voting is open for the next 2 days, 6 hours
Why is it my job? Why shouldn't the players do it?
Why is it considered a "job" at all, beyond all the other awesome and tireless work the three of you already put in I mean. I mean, as you read the plan you automatically already evaluate how sensible it seems to you. Else you couldn't write a chapter in which it immediately leads to obvious disaster. The work this would require is that, instead of writing said disaster, you chime in and ask us if something that definitely will lead to some form of disaster is really what we want.

And as to why people hope to make it your job, it's because none of the players, even collectively, can have a better idea than the QMs regarding how the world looks through Hazō's eyes.
 
Hivemind and Character Improvement Initiative: A list of proposals for implementing anti-frustration features and better performance by both hivemind and MC according to a naked mole rat.

Hazo:
* Greater autonomy. Hazo will be able to develop and do things on his own without needing the hivemind help. This benefit us by smoothing over "bumpy" parts of social and political interaction, while the hivemind focus on strategic direction. This required changes to gameplay that may never be implemented.
* Better politician: He should be able to react and understand the political environment better. Solution: Accompany Mari on business. May required the 'Greater autonomy' upgrade. It will also free us from the constraint of having to talk to our teammates before making moves.
* Multiple choices: Outline a set of actions Hazo would consider 'reasonable'. These would be something the hivemind could actually vote on.

Hivemind:
* Character analysis incentive: Good analysis let us place into the context of target characters we may need to interact with. To make the hivemind do this consistently, 1 XP for such effort every update may motivate such effort.
* Character analysis: We need to do them.
* Short, usable, constantly updated checklists. We need to start using them more.
* Early planning: Getting more plans out and early let us focus on improving them instead of panicking.
* More plans: Diversity prevents us from pigeonholing into one plan.
* Veto vote: Use in case of emergency. A veto vote have extra weighted consideration, like three times the normal weight of a vote. Can only be used every five-ten updates or so.

Added multiple choices to the list of reforms we could do.

Your analogy with planes is a very flawed one. In it, the negative consequence is "people literally die"; in our case, it's "fictional characters suffer and 20-30 people have mildly upsetting afternoons". This is sensible to spend enormous amounts of effort on fixing the former, maybe even make planes more expensive and less available, because the negative consequence is almost infinitely bad compared to the inconveniences that would need to be endured to fix it. In the latter case, I suspect that all possible solutions would make the questing experience overall worse, either because it'll make all instances of planmaking from that point onward more difficult/time-consuming, or because it'll take away some important part of the experience.

It is enough to feel gut punch, stopped me from editing the wiki, even unwatched and unnotified, and make me feel really stressed out. So yes, I am willing to contribute effort to find ways to ameliorate this aspect of the quest. It took forever for me to fully recover from the Minami incident.

If there's a way to increase outcome performance without compromising what the QMs think is important, that's great. If not, I have a growing list we could implement should people ever change their mind or spend more effort on quality control.
 
Last edited:
We should just rip a hole into the Out and shunt ourselves into a parallel universe in which the QMs decided to write a story with some player ideas implemented instead of a quest. Then shove anyone who prefers that to this quest through it.

This is a genius idea that has no negative consequences whatsoever.
 
I mostly read just the story updates so there is always a chance I missed something but I do remember the QM shooting down @Sentient Tree's battle optimizations for Walpurgisnacht - which, supposedly, is the endgame of the quest. And even though a lot of the conflict does in fact revolve around hostilities, combat is pretty much always guaranteed to go in the player character's favor because her team is just ridiculously OP. The QM asserts that combat power isn't the driving force in the quest but when a lot of the angst is whether the characters will survive Walpurgisnacht this time around rings somewhat hollow.

But the worst part is that things the players post outside of votes actually makes it into the player character's head. Why is this bad? Maybe pointing out that I only found about this after reading the Staff Posts moderating players blaming each other for putting the wrong thoughts into the PCs head even though those happened outside of votes would help show why.
*PMAS*
Yeah, I'm taking a break from reading it after that. I think part of the problem there was that the QM is much more subtle about things than they think they are. As you said, it's not obvious at all from just reading that combat power isn't a driving force of the quest, but when I suggested that they be more obvious about for the more casual readers the QM said that they believed they were extremely obvious about it and cited the (admittedly numerous) times they implied that social is the only important thing. The problem is that while the regular posters all delve super deep into the hidden meanings of every word in the quest and every spin off of the source material, casual readers like me generally can't spend the time to do that, and aren't following the discussion where everything is analyzed to that degree. So casual readers miss the hints about social being all-important because every hint is buried under about 2-3 layers of subtlety. Even when the QM basically came out and said it to me, they said it subtly enough that I wasn't completely sure that I was interpreting it correctly until he confirmed. Until they said how blatant they thought they were being, I was half convinced that I was overstating things and would get corrected.
PMAS is kind of the exact opposite of Clear Communication Technique. That's a valid way to run a quest and obviously interesting to the right people, but it does not make it easy for people like me to figure out what is and is not a good thing to talk about.

I hadn't actually thought much about how the thread directly affects Sabrina's thoughts, but that would certainly explain some of the regular posters' attitudes towards casual posters and certain ideas.



As far as write ins go, I would suggest that it's a matter of how much preparation the QMs want to do and what kind. The MfD QMs have created a large world with many different things going on in it, so if we go way off the rails they still have some idea of what is happening wherever we go. A lot of QMs probably focus more on the events/locations directly in contact with the player character, which allows them to make a detailed story for less effort. They don't have to think about how anything effects the wider world, because the wider world isn't particularly fleshed out except where they expect the players to interact with it. This means however that if the players go off the rails, the QM doesn't have a clue what should happen.
For example, in a quest where the players are facing an important yakuza boss and need to get a rare scroll from him. They are given the option to bribe him or try and steal the scroll without him knowing. The QM then wants this boss to be a major player for the next arc in the quest, where he will hire the players to go on some quest in a foreign land that the QM spent a lot of time fleshing out. In a hypothetical situation where the players get a write in, if they instead kill the boss, grab the scroll, and escape after getting their face seen, the QM now has no clue what happens next. The entire next arc is now gone because there's no one to hire the PC for the quest, and they are now a wanted criminal so no one will hire them anyway. This wastes large amounts of time for the QM and forces them to spend more time to try and figure out what happens next.
In contrast, MfD is (I assume) somewhat more fleshed out as a world. The QMs put in tons of effort already to decide that the yakuza boss was an important henchman for the Village Hidden in the Beef, and so they know that now Beef ninja will be coming after the PC to kill them. This means that they know that the next arc now suddenly becomes a survival arc where the PC needs to escape their pursuers. Much work is wasted, but at least the quest still has a direction to go in.
That's my interpretation, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Added multiple choices to the list of reforms we could do.
Okay, let's go through that.
Hazo:
* Greater autonomy. Hazo will be able to develop and do things on his own without needing the hivemind help. This benefit us by smoothing over "bumpy" parts of social and political interaction, while the hivemind focus on strategic direction. This required changes to gameplay that may never be implemented.
* Better politician: He should be able to react and understand the political environment better. Solution: Accompany Mari on business. May required the 'Greater autonomy' upgrade. It will also free us from the constraint of having to talk to our teammates before making moves.
* Multiple choices: Outline a set of actions Hazo would consider 'reasonable'. These would be something the hivemind could actually vote on.

Hivemind:
* Character analysis incentive: Good analysis let us place into the context of target characters we may need to interact with. To make the hivemind do this consistently, 1 XP for such effort every update may motivate such effort.
* Character analysis: We need to do them.
* Short, usable, constantly updated checklists. We need to start using them more.
* Early planning: Getting more plans out and early let us focus on improving them instead of panicking.
* More plans: Diversity prevents us from pigeonholing into one plan.
* Veto vote: Use in case of emergency. A veto vote have extra weighted consideration, like three times the normal weight of a vote. Can only be used every five-ten updates or so.
  • Greater autonomy: Severely reduces player agency, probably not something the QMs would accept.
  • Better politician: We're already working on that. Unless you're suggesting he discontinuously becomes better by next update due to an OOC intervention, it won't fix the problem; and if you do, it's not something the QMs would accept.
  • Multiple choices: Reduces player agency, definitely not something the QMs would accept.
  • Character analysis incentive: It will work to make the hivemind do character analyses, but...
  • Character analysis: ... character analyses themselves wouldn't have fixed the problem, since a) during the Hugs for Snakes cycle, most of the active players, i. e. the ones who would have written the analyses, weren't present; b) the disaster happened because Naruto behaved wildly outside our consensus expectations, and I'm not convinced any of us could have reliably predicted that.
  • Short, usable, constantly updated checklists: They either won't work, or will be excessively restrictive.
    • No-one writes plans they expect to fail. If the checklist mostly consists of things like "make sure you're not committing a faux pas" or "execute the plan as safely as possible", this will have minimal effect on planmaking, since most of us are already running all of these checks on the fly; the trick is catching when our predictions are wrong, and that's unlikely to be accomplished by just reminding us to make good plans.
    • The checklist could also consist of arbitrary rules like "don't ever threaten anyone", to which we'll need to adhere even if we don't think it makes sense in-context (and I assure you, the people who wrote Hugs for Snakes didn't think that the threat didn't make sense). This would've prevented the last disaster, but it would've also ensured we wouldn't have succeeded at, e. g., strong-arming Kabuto in "Futures Bright and Dark". Dubious value.
  • Early planmaking & More plans: Could only work if you force people to participate against their will, somehow. Isn't worth it, by definition.
  • Veto vote: Do you mean, like, people voting "[x] Veto" if there aren't any plans they like? That wouldn't have worked because, again, most of the regulars were absent during that cycle.
 
Last edited:
Veto vote: Do you mean, like, people voting "[x] Veto" if there aren't any plans they like? That wouldn't have worked because, again, most of the regulars were absent during that cycle.
I'll also note that a veto vote won't actually stop anything. If a few people pull out the Vetos and leave us spinning our wheels for an update, then next cycle all the people on-board with the veto'd plan will just vote for that plan again. To stop people from voting in a plan when it has majority support requires either that you convince them the plan is bad (and thus remove majority support) or excise player freedom by disallowing it as even an option in the first place.

At best, a veto vote buys time to discuss, but is that not equivalent to asking for a Lore Update?
 
I think allowing "I vote to not do Thing so please essentially count this as negative votes for Thing." is just bad practice in multiple ways, and the other interpretation is just [X] Lore Update.
 
Okay, let's go through that.

  • Greater autonomy: Severely reduces player agency, probably not something the QMs would accept.
  • Better politician: We're already working on that. Unless you're suggesting he discontinuously becomes better by next update due to an OOC intervention, it won't fix the problem; and if you do, it's not something the QMs would accept.
  • Multiple choices: Reduces player agency, definitely not something the QMs would accept.
  • Character analysis incentive: It will work to make the hivemind do character analyses, but...
  • Character analysis: ... character analyses themselves wouldn't have fixed the problem, since a) during the Hugs for Snakes cycle, most of the active players, i. e. the ones who would have written the analyses, weren't present; b) the disaster happened because Naruto behaved wildly outside our consensus expectations, and I'm not convinced any of us could have reliably predicted that.
  • Short, usable, constantly updated checklists: They either won't work, or will be excessively restrictive.
    • No-one writes plans they expect to fail. If the checklist mostly consists of things like "make sure you're not committing a faux pas" or "execute the plan as safely as possible", this will have minimal effect on planmaking, since most of us are already running all of these checks on the fly; the trick is catching when our predictions are wrong, and that's unlikely to be accomplished by just reminding us to make good plans.
    • The checklist could also consist of arbitrary rules like "don't ever threaten anyone", to which we'll need to adhere even if we don't think it makes sense in-context (and I assure you, the people who wrote Hugs for Snakes didn't think that the threat didn't make sense). This would've prevented the last disaster, but it would've also ensured we wouldn't have succeeded at, e. g., strong-arming Kabuto in "Futures Bright and Dark". Dubious value.
  • Early planmaking & More plans: Could only work if you force people to participate against their will, somehow. Isn't worth it, by definition.
  • Veto vote: Do you mean, like, people voting "[x] Veto" if there aren't any plans they like? That wouldn't have worked because, again, most of the regulars were absent during that cycle.

Some rebuttal:

A checklist is a continuous evolving document fitted to our needs, much like a pilot's checklist. It needs to be short and to the point and be something we actually followed. The problem is that nobody bothered to go through the effort of actually using them so that we can refine them over time. I know in my life where checklists woulda saved my ass, and I used them and saved my ass. My problem is that I dropped the habit.

Multiple choices needed not reduce player agency. It only needs to present broad enough options. We could also keep write-in, but we may need to consider whether micromanagement is actually detrimental to outcome.

We could improve better politician trait through more effort. But I am not quite certain how much the QM allowed character development WRT to this trait, especially after they made their statement on the autonomy feature.

Early planmaking, I made some effort to remind people to make plans.

Also, I considered not making rebuttal due to how much effort it takes....Yeah, I should incorporate the feedback and response.

I'll also note that a veto vote won't actually stop anything. If a few people pull out the Vetos and leave us spinning our wheels for an update, then next cycle all the people on-board with the veto'd plan will just vote for that plan again. To stop people from voting in a plan when it has majority support requires either that you convince them the plan is bad (and thus remove majority support) or excise player freedom by disallowing it as even an option in the first place.

At best, a veto vote buys time to discuss, but is that not equivalent to asking for a Lore Update?

Note that the veto vote have extra weights in consideration. So they count for more.
 
Note that the veto vote have extra weights in consideration. So they count for more.
This turns voting into a game theoretic hellpit. Its already fucked enough to get involved in the vote periods unless you've been doing this stuff for a while.
 
This turns voting into a game theoretic hellpit. Its already fucked enough to get involved in the vote periods unless you've been doing this stuff for a while.

That's why it's denoted for emergency use only, and only activated between a couple of updates.

Which is why people should actually read more carefully, because I already thought of this.
 
That's why it's denoted for emergency use only, and only activated between a couple of updates.

Which is why people should actually read more carefully, because I already thought of this.
This doesn't solve the issue though, it just pushes it somewhere else in practice in the best case scenario.
 
If it keeps happening again, then it's a problem to be solved, not something we can just take it to heart to the point that we will basically never repeat the mistake.

I have seen nothing to change that other than a pinky promise swear to ourselves we will never ever repeat the mistake, which is not a real solution.
Really? I think y'all have improved tremendously.

It will also become less of an issue as you get more powerful. There are fewer consequences to social faux pas when everyone around you knows that you can kill them. It's why Orochimaru can get away with being so creepy.

Would I give all the information needed to survive a life and death situation and then deal with the outcome later?
"Life or death situation"? You were ambushing a bunch of civilians. Hazō could have done the entire thing on his own without breaking a sweat.

would like to propose the veto vote rather than resorting to something drastic as rollback.
What is the veto vote?

as you read the plan you automatically already evaluate how sensible it seems to you
Yes. *When I'm writing it.* You were asking for me to do that while it was still being voted on. I generally don't take the time to read plans during voting. It's effort, and I'm already putting in 10-15 hours per week on this quest.

Multiple choices: Reduces player agency, definitely not something the QMs would accept.
I strongly agree with everything else you said, but on this point... Well, I'm not completely opposed. I know I said above that I have concerns because this reduces player agency and implicitly promises no major bad outcomes, but OTOH it also provides an option to steer things in directions I find interesting. The major problem will be that soometimes (often) I don't have the energy to make suggestions after writing the update, but when I do it seems not completely unreasonable. I'm not promising to do it, but I won't rule it out either.
 
Note that the veto vote have extra weights in consideration. So they count for more.
I am accounting for that. Their extra weight means that a veto vote can win with minority support, and stop the majority-approval plan from winning. My point is that that doesn't solve anything, because next cycle the same people will still be convinced to vote for that plan.

Suppose 8 people vote for a plan that has us adopt Lee, and 3 people veto that because they don't want to adopt Lee. Veto wins with 9 effective votes and the QMs do nothing for an update. Next cycle, the same 8 people vote for the same plan that has us adopt Lee. Why would they give up on adopting Lee just because 3 players threw a veto down?

That's why I said the best it does is buy time to discuss. Given a full extra cycle the 3 people can try and make the case against adopting Lee, so that hopefully they can sway people away and win properly, but it doesn't in and of itself stop any plans from going into motion, just delays them.
 
At best, a veto vote buys time to discuss, but is that not equivalent to asking for a Lore Update
Technically, no. @Kiba is suggesting that (a) veto votes are binding on the QMs and also that they count for more than one vote, so a minority of players can stop the majority from doing something.

For the record, if I have any say then this is never happening. Even if @Velorien and @OliWhail thought that it was the best idea since raisin bread grilled cheese sandwiches, I cannot imagine what they could say that would convince me to go along.


But I am not quite certain how much the QM allowed character development WRT to this trait, especially after they made their statement on the autonomy feature.
Hazō has demonstrably improved over where he started. Other people have commented on this, recently even. I'm not sure why you don't see it.
 
So... I'd like to preface this with the acknowledgement that I'm relatively new to participating in this quest. I've read everything up to the current point on Reader Mode, so I'm a still a little new to how this all works. Knowing that, please be understanding if what I'm about to say is wrong, misguided, or is otherwise built upon a foundational misunderstanding of the rules of this quest.

I like the current system. From what I've had the chance to observe, it's resulted in great successes and interesting failures --both of which shape the story as a whole in new and intriguing ways. A "rewind" system would undercut the value of the vote. It would --at least passively --encourage less well-thought out plans, since the knowledge that our actions have either have no consequences, or vastly reduced consequences. It would be like quicksaving in Skyrim to slaughter Whiterun. Unless you're doing a specific type of playthrough, it's not an action that you would seriously consider, let alone carry out.

I agree with the politician idea in general, though I don't know how we would go about it in-game. Either it would demand time to learn from Mari (time we really can't spare right now), or it would require learning via trial and error --which we've pretty much been doing already. So, while I think it's a sound idea --Hanzou would genuinely want to fix his Foot in Mouth habit --I don't see how it's a viable path right now, with the state of Konoha --and the clan --being as it is.

I'm not sure that I'm okay with the veto system. For reasons already discussed, it would simply kick the stone down the road and waste time. Rather, why not simply discuss the pros and cons amongst ourselves? Isn't that what collaborative storytelling is all about? No one gets all their ideas through, but everyone at least has a voice? Sometimes your counterargument might be implemented, sometimes it might not. But, whichever the case, it'll at least be considered.

As for the Multiple Choice... I like the concept, but I'm not sure that it's fair to place that responsibility on the writers. Maybe they could be a resource to "tap" while in the planning stages? Instead, maybe we could @ them and ask "hey, would Hanzou be okay with [blank]?" It still places a bit more of a burden on the writers' shoulders than I'm completely comfortable with, though. I could also see that player agency might be reduced if the writers aren't careful with their language when providing choices or when replying to questions. Purposefully or not, it could lead to guiding the voters a certain way.

Edit: Minor alterations for clarity of thought/intent
 
Last edited:
Hazō has demonstrably improved over where he started. Other people have commented on this, recently even. I'm not sure why you don't see it.

I am a bit uncertain how far character development goes before it starts taking away player agency.

As for the Multiple Choice... I like the concept, but I'm not sure that it's fair to place that responsibility on the writers. Maybe they could be a resource to "tap" while in the planning stages? Instead, maybe we could @ them and ask "hey, would Hanzou be okay with [blank]?" It still places a bit more of a burden on the writers' shoulders than I'm completely comfortable with, though. I could also see that player agency might be reduced if the writers aren't careful with their language when providing choices or when replying to questions. Purposefully or not, it could lead to guiding the voters a certain way.

It is my understanding that most QMs considered write-in only a crazy idea, and in one case a QM punished the players for doing a write-in option.

Multiple choices is actually the norm. I also never really considered it a loss of agency. If the choices are broad enough, it should account for all the options.
 
Last edited:
Channeling my inner @Vecht, here's a better alternative to the veto vote:

When you observe someone raising a concern about a plan, vote against that plan in proportion to how much you trust that person's judgement generally, and how much you agree with the idea of the veto vote, until there has been an amount of push-back proportional to that metric.

If the majority agrees with the veto vote, this scheme is the veto vote. However, it is less biased, competes fairly with other players, and allows the voters to ignore it in cases where it would otherwise be harmful, eg. overuse.
 
I've never found the argumentum ad populum terribly convincing.

I am not quite sure why would you focus on that.

Anyway, I used both in quest mastering and in quests before. Write-in takes more work and more effort which leads to death of the quest. Meanwhile, multiple choices doesn't really take away player agency that you're concerned about. You're also relying on the context embedded within the multiple choices as opposed to forcing the players to make their own, which can totally be utterly wrong.
 
Write-in takes more work and more effort which leads to death of the quest.

Who are you referring to here? From the previous sentence it seems you are talking about the QMs but the person you quoted said earlier that coming up with multiple choices takes more energy than not doing it.

So that leaves that write-in kills player participation and ultimately the quest? I'll grant you that voter turn out is relatively low for a quest this size/age but it's active and doesn't look like it's going to die any time soon from a player standpoint. I am also unsure that not having write-ins is the reason for this; the quest is just pretty high stakes in general so voting isn't for everyone.
 
Who are you referring to here? From the previous sentence it seems you are talking about the QMs but the person you quoted said earlier that coming up with multiple choices takes more energy than not doing it.

So that leaves that write-in kills player participation and ultimately the quest? I'll grant you that voter turn out is relatively low for a quest this size/age but it's active and doesn't look like it's going to die any time soon from a player standpoint. I am also unsure that not having write-ins is the reason for this; the quest is just pretty high stakes in general so voting isn't for everyone.

I was talking about quests in general. Most players aren't willing to put in the work, so quests dies via lack of momentum. Otherwise, the second or first biggest killer of quests are authors' loss of interest.
 
Voting is open for the next 2 days, 6 hours
Back
Top