Re-Opening the Mesa Gith Tribe to Play

[gfair]

I'd enjoy playing a Gith just for the pure enjoyment of seeing what they are actually like as a culture. With that said, I don't see any opportunity for them to become more socialized such that any gathering place in its right mind would tolerate them so quickly.

A counterpoint to this is that we also don't really have a truly "lawless" city / town / village, there is a heavy NPC guard presence in every gathering place that heavily favours common races and will kill Gith or casting magickers on site. The Rinth already exists in a city where all high-traffic gates are heavily guarded. Where's the Mos Eisley of Arm?

The other thing we could look at is ways to ease the burden of staff. If we trust players with karma for races and guilds, why not also give that trust for some of the more straightforward tribes / starting locations that right now require a special app?

If given the choice, I'd rather have more playable race options than less, but it is clear that the staff are correct about the high churn, I've seen it first-hand. Perhaps the ideas above can help expand options for the lone-Gortoks of Arm and allow staff to devote energy to the longer-term tasks of the game at the same time.

[Red Ranger]

The Mos Eisley of Arm is Luir's Outpost.

I'm against re-opening the gith mainly because of the playerbase dilution argument.  From this perspective if the gith are opened (which was ruled out earlier in this thread), then a d-elf clan would have to be closed.  But I happen to like the two open d-elf clans.  Furthermore, if a player currently wants to delve into an isolated and violent Tablelands culture, they can already make a d-elf in one of those two open clans and try to shift the clan's outlook to being more stridently violent through IC means.

More generally, if we players want more "harshness" and "danger" in the wilds, and we prefer to have our PCs die to other PCs rather than to NPCs, I posit that we players have the means necessary to make this happen ourselves.  Make a PC and make it happen.  It won't be easy.  You'll need to do your homework, you'll need to build up your own fighty PC base, you'll need to build up your own political base wherever you call home, you might want to find your own powerful patron, and you'll need some luck.  But it can be done.

Be the change, etc. etc.

Edit: link added.

[Bacon]

D-elf and gith are not the same thing man. It's not that people just wanted to play an isolated tribal role. Some of us want to get the chance to play this completely different one.

I personally -hate- the only d-elf options left available to us. The only ones I liked never got coded and then were made unavailable to play. Since then, I haven't played a d-elf nor do I have any desire to as long as these options are the only ones available to us.

[Delirium]

I agree with Red Ranger.

I also don't understand why y'all can't take no for an answer. The playerbase doesn't need further dilution, and there's plenty of indie options.

If you want to find out about gith culture that bad, then roll up a character with the reason/means to do so...

[Celest]

We do not see a niche for a clan/tribe that focuses on pure violent antagonism being open to the playerbase.

I actually feel like the wilderness is way too safe these days, unless you happen to be a member of one of 3ish clans in a certain region, and they're only really tense with each other. The reason I brought up the RF comparison earlier is because I'm finding myself missing that sort of presence in the wilderness, where there is an organized force dedicated to taking your lunch money, and can find you anywhere in the known. As it is now, I know almost exactly what sort of dangers are going to be in each region so there's no surprise or worry other than not being able to see diagonal directions. The likeliness of any of those 3 aforementioned clans encountering me in say, the salt flats or on the way to Red Storm is pretty much nil, where as the Red Fang would steal your lunch money no matter where you went. In fact, the first time I encountered them was in Red Storm, and they beat up my PCs friend, threatened to rape my PC, smacked her, and then robbed him when he left Storm and left him to die by a beetle.

Gith probably wouldn't really help much in that regard, because they would only PK and not raid really, and maybe the lack of danger is just that I've gotten to know the game better as I play more and have a rough idea of what goes where and how to avoid it, but it feels like that aspect to Armageddon is lacking.

And to be entirely honest, I would not be surprised if the wilderness being so safe also causes a thinning or dilution of the population as people can go virtually anywhere at any time and not worry about being raided or caught. I know there have been nights where 30 people are on, no one is in cities, but when I go into the wilderness I see 4 or 5 different people on their own just hunting and relaxing. So, while the dilution argument is a real concern, I think that the dilution of having the wilderness be such a safe zone from oppressive city PCs (like militias and templars) can be just as harmful to condensing player populations, and I hope that's something that staff is taking into consideration.

Disclaimer: The previous statement is not meant to say "staff is wrong" or "staff should do this anyway" but is merely a personal opinion which the quoted statement made me think about. Please don't hurt me.

I also don't understand why y'all can't take no for an answer.

I don't think that most of the comments in this thread are saying, "You're wrong Staff, you have to do this," or are refusing to acknowledge a no. They're just trying to be helpful and think of ways to make it work. I don't understand why people are so adamant against discussion taking place.

[Bacon]

I don't understand why people are so adamant against discussion taking place.

[Bacon]

I also don't understand this myth of diluting the player base. If I feel like playing that sort of role, I'm going to play one or another. Gith would just be another option for that. If I feel like playing a non-city char, I'm going to play a non-city char.
Just because that option isn't there, doesn't mean I'm going to go: "Well, I can't play that so I'm going to go play a noble/bard/some other city-based role instead." I'll likely go play a magicker, or tribal human, or grebber, etc.
I don't know where people get this idea that: If gith were open people who were going to play in the more concentrated areas will suddenly abandon them. It's a totally silly notion, imo. People will play what they want out of the options available to them, city or non-city as they feel like.

[EldritchOrigins]

Since someone brought up Mos Eisley, I can't help by be reminded of the tusken raiders/sand people of Tattooine when I think about gith.  The purpose of gith are to be generic bad guys (of sorts).  They are a group that -everyone- can be united against.  They can't be generic bad guys if players are playing them.  If players were playing gith, they'd eventually (if not immediately) become an important faction as soon as some leader PC negotiated some kind of treaty with them.  The gith should remain an area that staff have complete control over, and players have little to no influence over.

[Talia]

And to be entirely honest, I would not be surprised if the wilderness being so safe also causes a thinning or dilution of the population as people can go virtually anywhere at any time and not worry about being raided or caught. I know there have been nights where 30 people are on, no one is in cities, but when I go into the wilderness I see 4 or 5 different people on their own just hunting and relaxing. So, while the dilution argument is a real concern, I think that the dilution of having the wilderness be such a safe zone from oppressive city PCs (like militias and templars) can be just as harmful to condensing player populations, and I hope that's something that staff is taking into consideration.

I'm going to dispute your assertion that there is "no one" in the cities when you don't see them. They might not be in taverns; but yes, there are players in the cities as well as in the wilderness. The numbers fluctuate as to who is where, between Allanak and Tuluk and the wilderness and less-popular destinations (Luir's, the Labyrinth, Red Storm), but the playerbase isn't abandoning the cities and fleeing to the wilderness because it's "safe" (since there are no PC raiders...that you know about). (How do I know this? Because I frequently check who is where, because it is interesting to me to watch the patterns of play.)

If we suddenly began to see that "HOLY SHIT THERE IS NO ONE IN ANY CITY ANYWHERE," then yes we would probably investigate why that was. But it's not the case. So we don't need to consider it.

Players will always wander the wilderness, whether this is perceived as "safe from other PCs" or not, because players enjoy this activity. Players are not wandering the wilderness more now in response to "no PC raiders" (which, really, find out IC). They are going to do it anyways; exploration, hunting, and gathering are major activities of the playerbase because players love these activities, not because they're not dangerous (which again, heh, find out IC).

About the general "hey why can't we just discuss this" remarks: It's fine for you to discuss it. As a staffer, I think it's helpful if we tell you that we are not going to do something and why, otherwise it's just wheel-spinning and unproductive activity. We're not trying to extinguish the fires of your roleplay, we're trying to point you in productive directions. Personally, I don't think fantasizing out loud about things that are never going to happen is that helpful to anyone, but you know...go for it, if you want to.

[Nyr]

I don't understand why people are so adamant against discussion taking place.

We appreciate the ideas and suggestions.  We like that players like to pursue things.  Sometimes we agree with those things.  However, we don't agree with this, and we are the staff.  This is not a democracy.  Who else are you trying to convince?  As Talia puts it, go ahead and keep talking about it but it's been made clear over and over (and recently) that we aren't doing this.  Hopefully that is apparent now if it was not before.

[Hot_Dancer]

Ooh, I didn't know Halflings no longer existed.

[Lizzie]

As to the whole "people are wandering because it's safe" - obviously it's not true, since Talia has already informed us of the staff observations.

But even if Talia hadn't said anything...I'd say - meh. Not really. I for one, don't go out -nearly- as often as I usually do with my PCs, *because* I perceive it to be "safe." There's not much thrill in avoiding/killing raptor #972. The excitement wanes, when you've bypassed your 27th duplicate mekillot 2 rooms away from its spawn spot on your way from point A to point B.

I'd love to see more non-npc thrills outside city walls. Random whiran spookiness, the rare pile of ash, a masked highwayman whispering to me from the shadows, demanding my sids or my life...

But no, it's just another carru, or another raptor, or another mekillot, or another gith.

How about, players of the -existing- "potentially deadly and life-threatening" characters come out more and be just a little more visibly deadly and life-threatening. Not "bang, you're dead" but "I need a finger for my latest experiment and you get to be the lucky donor!"

[Nyr]

Moderated a post.  If you have staff criticism over tone (and also have nothing else to contribute to the thread other than that), file a staff complaint.  Do not flame or troll your way onto the GDB about it, please.

edited to clarify that this was in fact trolling rather than concern trolling, and also delved into this other GDB rule regarding flaming (criticism/baiting of staff, rule 1).  My apologies on the mistake there.

[DustMight]

I'm very strongly of the opinion that we do not need more ways for players to isolate themselves from the rest of the playerbase.

QFT!

[Bogre]

The problem I foresee is that raiding to begin with usually turns into PK without good play on the part of BOTH parties. Either a raider is forced to gank or otherwise oblit a potential target because targets autoflee or spam away, or they get brutally hunted down themselves for disrupting the status quo. And it does dilute the playerbase unless another outdoors tribe is closed. Human and elf tribals already struggle with numbers.

Gith would be a fantastic culture to play, but there is essentially no way that they can interact in a non-hostile way to other PC's. Imagine Kuraci- they attack gith that prey upon the roads, so what are they going to have to do when they see a PC gith raiding them? Exactly what they do for an NPC gith. A gith tribe would only work if they were heavily isolated from the rest of the playerbase, and again, that's something that isn't exactly the goal.

However, as player levels rise, perhaps a tribe could be tried, at least for a short-term plot kind of thing.

[Ktavialt]

I got a couple points to add:

(a) The people that want the gith back may like it because of the vicious culture, but also for the overt PC vs. PC violence, and to make the outdoors scary, i.e. put some human intelligence behind some of the desert critters.  If we had some form of overt PC violence going on, presumably like the copper wars (I was a rogue magicker at the time, mostly uninvolved), then maybe it would reduce our want for gith PCs?

(b) At risk of returning to a topic which has been discussed to death in the past and more or less rejected by staff, i.e. adding/changing code that affects raiding... well, yeah, that.  At the present time its immediately butcher/completely incapacitate or else risk auto-flee and a person being 4+ rooms away by the time you recover from attack lag (if you managed to attack in the first place).  The new change to flee adds a little penalty to fleeing from combat, which is helpful but won't completely do it.  The current "reels from the blow" effect also helps a little.  As for new code, a "waylay" style skill which causes you to attack if an opponent tries to leave the room could help.  An in-combat "guard" type skill that simply has a chance to prevent fleeing may help.  Reducing the attack lag could do it.  A setting where you automatically try to chase your fleeing opponent could work.  Basically, anything to make a raider not be penalized for using emote rather than "kill" would do it.

Anyways, I know its been discussed to death re: raiding and so forth.  But, it does relate to the whole "raiders cause our pbase to complain so lets not throw in a race designed specifically to do that" argument.  With some of these changes, it would make a raider-style character more apt to emote and make it more fun.  Also, insert here re: mdesc-concealing objects argument.  On a related note, running/riding fast while hooded should make the hood fall off. "The tall figure in a durrit-hide cloak runs eastwards with weapons in his hands but somehow still manages to keep his hood up."  Wow did I go on a tangent here.

Edit: Lets close d-elves entirely and open gith, practicing skills by clearing out NPC Soh Lanoh Kah elves instead, woohoo

[Booya]

What i'd be more worried about is a gith player getting bored and/or lonely and trying to chat!

While it would be kinda cool to play one, on the flip side I like them being faceless bastards.

[Kronibas]

If gith were reopened, then I think a maximum of three or four players with high karma would make for an interesting experiment.

The last time the gith were open, not just anybody could apply through the standard application process; instead, there was a "call" for them, just as there are frequently calls for gypsies.

Yes, it could be boring and lonesome, but there are players out there who make it a point of pride to do things that most other players aren't willing/capable of pulling off.  Kudos to people who aren't down for anything but city roles with limited traveling, but kudos also to players who never enter city states or otherwise live on the edge, out in the badlands with barely anyone to turn to.

I do not think that a very small PC-based gith clan would be detrimental to the game in any significant manner.  I do think there would probably be violence, but for the most part this violence would be limited to the Pah -- if the gith players are adhering to their clan docs, anyway.  It might cause players who frequently travel heavily gith-infested areas to think twice about the risk they're taking and roleplay accordingly.


And I don't think that looking at, discussing, or tossing around "fantasies" like this is a waste of players' time.  After all, this game is about murder, corruption, betrayal, but it's also about imagination, fantasy, and creativity.  

Players and staff alike taking the initiative to imaginatively explore possibilities of (currently) unplayable races should not, in the humble opinion of just some guy who has played the game for nearly half his life, be discouraged or talked down to.  Creativity, imagination, and outside-of-the-box thinking should be encouraged, but unfortunately the opposite has been true in this thread.

[X-D]

I'm very strongly of the opinion that we do not need more ways for players to isolate themselves from the rest of the playerbase. A gith tribe would have exactly one option for interacting with the playerbase: Violence. So on the one side you end up with boredom (the gith), and on the other side you'd have whining (the rest of the players). Sure, it's plenty cool as a concept, but it's not a formula for fun.

Unless the docs have been drastically changed since I last played a gith, I'd have to say you are wrong. They are technically less violent then even the open delf tribes. They just have a certain culture that looks a certain way to outsiders. But that is no different then how elf culture revers theft while the rest of the world thinks it is a horrible thing.

At least Gith have a mindset that can be understood by others and not totally alien like mantis or nearly alien like halfling.

Gith have been known to trade as well, something stated in the docs to more then one tribe and other places.

I say yes to opening them for at least limited engagement...assuming a staffer could be found willing to oversee them.

I love playing gith culture and mindset even more then I like elf mindset.

As to the whining of the other players, Man, I think the old complaints of unfairness should be updated to include whining and put on the front page of the page in 20 point bold print.

And somebody else said the problem with PC gith is that then, to the rest of the world "the hunt is on" This is true, But I say the answer to that is for staff to make sure that the spots go to those of us who answer with "BRING IT FOOL"



As to player dilution...Oh come on, Like 4-6 players would even be noticed, and the players who would take such roles are likely already playing something mostly isolated from the rest of the playerbase anyway.

And for the record, I also agree, Both the current options for delf blow (IMO).

Oh, and as to raiding....
Some people seem to think that raiding is non-viable because of twinking, spamming etc.

Let me tell you, as the player of a certain VERY well known RF...

Out of the HUNDREDS if not thousands of raids he was involved in, Less then 10 went into spam/twinkness, A full 50% were ran with emotes/say/tell only.

And I have been meaning to just post a MAD MASS kudos to all you player who were raided by or interacted with Lash/Slinks/Howls and crew....Almost all of you rocked, Thanks for playing along and setting awesome believable scenes more then 99% of the time. The playerbase has grown up alot over the years and I was quite impressed with the caliber of players during my year++ with him.

[gfair]

To the Staff I would say that the reason there is discussion about this issue is because the staff consensus has not always been "closed" with regards to the Gith option. Before something is done, there is usually talk of doing it, this is simply one of the low-level wishlists of some Arm players that comes up from time to time. Switch the Gith with any other closed clan, I'm sure the same discussion comes up. BTW how about ATV? *ducks*

I also really like the idea of trying to step things up through IC means with some of the other desert tribes, trying to create more aggression. But hasn't the staff stomped on even modest levels of raiding ever since Blackwing? That's the impression I get, though it's not based on first-hand knowledge.

[Kronibas]

At least Gith have a mindset that can be understood by others and not totally alien like mantis or nearly alien like halfling.

You know, I had never thought about it like that, but yes -- gith actually do seem more humanesque than halflings.

Moreover, halflings were brought back into the fold despite the fact that they, well, were arguably as PK-oriented as gith.  Not only did they kill you, but also they ate you. Enter the woods, and you're a halfling's prey.  Enter the lower Pah, and you're a gith's prey.  There isn't too much of a difference between the two; furthermore, I argue that gith would be a lot easier for players to groove into than halflings.

[Nyr]

To the Staff I would say that the reason there is discussion about this issue is because the staff consensus has not always been "closed" with regards to the Gith option. Before something is done, there is usually talk of doing it, this is simply one of the low-level wishlists of some Arm players that comes up from time to time.

It came up a month and a half ago.  Stuff may recycle on the GDB on a regular basis, and things can/have/do change--but the recent answer was "no."

I also really like the idea of trying to step things up through IC means with some of the other desert tribes, trying to create more aggression.

I like this too.

But hasn't the staff stomped on even modest levels of raiding ever since Blackwing?

I like raiding, and promoting well-done raiding is something I think is pretty important.  I don't think that we have stomped down on raiding, though.

[Jeshin]

Players have stomped out raiding and the staff has accomadated IC actions

[HavokBlue]

Players get buttmangled when raiding happens. In my experience, Nyr and the other staffers have been pretty cool and supportive of it as long as you aren't doing things your PC shouldn't be.

[Gunnerblaster]

Personally, I wouldn't care to play a Gith but what I would like is to have more history on the gith, just out of curiosity.

I suppose when ARM 2.0 comes out and races, such as the gith, are (assumed) wiped out, we'll have access to their histories, etc.