A reasoned discussion of the current state of Armageddon vis-a-vis Olden Times

[Dresan]

Moving away from mundane vs mages threads....

You know for a while now the only time we seem to these visible plot lines when the staff want to make some major upcoming changes to the game and want it to make sense IC. The last HRPT brought in alot of changes, the same for the closing of tuluk, and the opening of claypits.

This isn't a bad thing but I think the game could benefit from some more storyline, that maybe only bring virtual changes.

I'll give you an example off the top of my head:

ACT 1: The fall of Sorcerer King of Allanak. (Would take about two months or so to complete in RL)

It would all start with a large explosion that originates at the top Tek's tower. The sound would be deafening and it would signal the end of the Tek.

Rumours begin trickling down that the black robes banded together to bring down the sorcerer king, the death of the sorcerer king and the release of all that power brings fluctuations in the world. The story-tellers are given a bit more freedom to make things spooky and strange for a week or two.

Time passes and everything calms down but it seems that the black robes are beginning to fight against each other politically, two councils are formed and a civil war breaks out between them. The red robes are split forcing the miltia to do the same. The nobility must choose sides and need to win the support of not only merchant houses but also civilians, since its a numbers game and they might need large armies in case civial war does break out. The more numbers the less likely the militia on the side of the opposing council will do something rash or attack.

More time passes and we are starting to see the city and its population practically begin splitting in two. Kurac has made some deals with some templar and nobility, allowing them to push spice on the street again, much to the displeasure of the opposing council. As soldiers begin watching each other crime increases, and it isn't uncommon to see opposing units fighting against each other. Not only militia but neighbor against neighbor, even brother agaisnt brother.

Finally in a spectacular show of force one side wins, and a new council is formed. This could have gone either way, but it could be mostly dependant on what the players might have been doing to help their faction while weakening the other, causing demoralization on one side for example and given the other a slight edge.  The nobility on the losing side would lose prestige and fall in status a bit, while the winning side would increase in status and rank. The red robes would be brought in line and everything would go back to normal for a little bit. Until its discovered that Tuluk has been trying to take advantage of the situation, and there are several thousand soldiers camped out in the salt flats....

ACT2: Tuluk attempts to attack a disorganized allanak(another two months to complete)

....to be continued...


And the stories continue, with players getting involved directly with them, or plotting around them trying to accomplish their own goals, or getting tramped as they try to just live their lives. No grand changes code-wise since the changes that occur would be virtual, but still very profound in terms of setting, it just needs just some creativing global emotes here and there as a story is told. Again this is just a quick example, with much more brainstorming I'm sure a better narrative can be created, that doesn't need too much coded work, just some creative minds to tell a story.

[wizturbo]

On topic I miss plotlines that included mage pcs. I also miss having more plots going on over all. Staff has picked back up and its gotten better but I would like to see more. I do not miss the magickal reach/item give aways or the PC Vampires that couldn't be killed without staff even you were the one class that should have been able to burn/dispel them into bits. I do wish we had some more interesting or perhaps darker bad guys out there again though. Never anything as op as some of the stuff we used to have running around but I think some more highly intelligent threats would be interesting. They provide realistic villain support as well.

I also miss halflings...I never will forget the first time I met a Templar in game and he had some rabid Halfling slave on leash. Pretty sure it was a pc slave and it totally tried to bite my face off until the Templar emoted yanking the leash back and sending the halfling flying. I wish we had more races.  

I agree with all of this, except I personally would like to see more of the esoteric parts of the magick code be unlocked in rare circumstances.   If it's done properly, it only adds to the setting.  Magick goes all the way from starting spells (1) to Sorcerer-King level (1000).  If the PC magick cap without staff intervention is about 30 right now, I don't see why we can't let it go to 35 or 40 once in a while.

[BadSkeelz]

I want more magick plots that end in me smashing magickers' fingers with a hammer for like 2 RL hours. Good times.

[Jave]

Sorry, this kept bothering me.

Eyeball's claim was that:

(a) "I've heard, for example, of a Vivaduan who couldn't get approval to plant a seedling agafari in an empty pot in the Vivaduan plaza [recently]."

which sounds the same as:

(b) "I've heard, for example, of a Vivaduan who couldn't get approval to plant a pymlithe tree in an empty pot in the Vivaduan plaza [recently]."

The bit that you appended to (b) about the riots and whatnot to make it look like he was getting it all wrong and being way off base actually could be appended to (a) as well.

I suppose you could fight the merits of agafari vs. pymlithe in the rarities department, but, yeah - (a) and (b) are prrrrretty similar.

Anyway, I've always been fine with the decision itself -- I guess I'm just pointing out that you were being a bit unfair there to Eyeball.

Maybe I'm not grokking this correctly but I'm confused by what you wrote. I'm not sure in what way you think I was being unfair.

[manonfire]

Look at all this red-tape bureaucratic bullshit over a player trying to add something simple to the game.

[Jingo]

I want more magick plots that end in me smashing magickers' fingers with a hammer for like 2 RL hours. Good times.

With magick hammers?

[Malken]

Look at all this red-tape bureaucratic bullshit over a player trying to add something simple to the game.

Player Dude just wants to try and grow a fucking tree. Instead of just telling them "no!", Newbie Staff #51512412 tries to confuse poor Player Dude until they drop the idea and go back to mudsexxxing the fine ladies of the Gaj and leave Staff alone heheh

[manonfire]

[Malken]

If Player Dude's Armageddon dream is to try and grow a tree, just let them do it! That's what Armageddon used to be all about.

Now how society reacts to that tree growing up in the middle of the Viv temple is Staff's job and they get to decide if that tree will end up causing massive population riots or will just die three weeks later because it's an exotic seed missing some sort of key nutrients. Or maybe a Templar will just walk in and take out his frustration on that poor little tree.

But trying to convince a player that his idea is not a good one because this and that MIGHT happen, or because it "doesn't fit" or isn't "realistic" is a big bummer - Don't tell players what they can or cannot do (unless it's really out of this world retarded), just let them do what they want and then REACT to it.

I mean, come on!

[Bast]

On topic I miss plotlines that included mage pcs. I also miss having more plots going on over all. Staff has picked back up and its gotten better but I would like to see more. I do not miss the magickal reach/item give aways or the PC Vampires that couldn't be killed without staff even you were the one class that should have been able to burn/dispel them into bits. I do wish we had some more interesting or perhaps darker bad guys out there again though. Never anything as op as some of the stuff we used to have running around but I think some more highly intelligent threats would be interesting. They provide realistic villain support as well.

I also miss halflings...I never will forget the first time I met a Templar in game and he had some rabid Halfling slave on leash. Pretty sure it was a pc slave and it totally tried to bite my face off until the Templar emoted yanking the leash back and sending the halfling flying. I wish we had more races.  

I agree with all of this, except I personally would like to see more of the esoteric parts of the magick code be unlocked in rare circumstances.   If it's done properly, it only adds to the setting.  Magick goes all the way from starting spells (1) to Sorcerer-King level (1000).  If the PC magick cap without staff intervention is about 30 right now, I don't see why we can't let it go to 35 or 40 once in a while.

Some of the Reaches aren't that game breaking in my opinion but I don't think everyone would agree with me. I would like to see one them pop up once in while but you really can't conversation about it without getting too much into the realm of game things that should stay IC knowledge.

[Delirium]

If Player Dude's Armageddon dream is to try and grow a tree, just let them do it! That's what Armageddon used to be all about.

Now how society reacts to that tree growing up in the middle of the Viv temple is Staff's job and they get to decide if that tree will end up causing massive population riots or will just die three weeks later because it's an exotic seed missing some sort of key nutrients. Or maybe a Templar will just walk in and take out his frustration on that poor little tree.

But trying to convince a player that his idea is not a good one because this and that MIGHT happen, or because it "doesn't fit" or isn't "realistic" is a big bummer - Don't tell players what they can or cannot do (unless it's really out of this world retarded), just let them do what they want and then REACT to it.

I mean, come on!

Yes. I remember trying to plant a tree as part of a minor plot to try and impress the Akei for Reasons, (in a much more reasonable location, I admit) with a PC way back in... 2003? 2004? and was told "sure, just keep us updated with some logs!" Nothing about whether I would succeed or fail, but I was at least allowed to try, gosh darn it. I mean, I'm pretty sure the whole thing was just because the elf was testing my PC and/or trying to get my PC killed, but that's beside the point.... the point is, my character was allowed to try.

Unfortunately I got pulled into other plots and had to drop the whole tree idea, but being told "it won't work" from the get-go would have just been discouraging.

[Nergal]

I'm a little sad (but not surprised) that it needs to be said, but the player attempting to grow a tree wasn't explicitly told no. There was still room to make the attempt to try - however, staff told them what the PC might expect to happen if they did try. I will not get into it further since this only happened 6 months ago, but I will reiterate that the PC was never prevented from attempting to do this, and if the player went to re-read the response they got from staff at the time, they would see that. Staff exist to support the players, and sometimes that involves a little foreshadowing. And within reason, it almost never involves outright rejection. Staff respond to reports in the context of a higher power, a vNPC or NPC that the PC reports to. Listening to this higher power or not is the PC's choice, always.

The reason why I'm not surprised is because discontented players over the years have spent their time poisoning the well, and unfortunately it has grown and grown. It started with private forms of communication and culminated with places like jcarter's board, which allows for one-sided storytelling in an echo chamber and no room for a defense of or response from staff. The end result is that some people read into a staff response and read what they want to see - red tape, rejection, hostility - when it isn't always, and is in fact almost never there. While some of the criticism is fair and we work to build off of that criticism and improve from it, a lot of it (as well as the sudden assumptions, the attempts at reading between the lines of staff responses, the blanket attacks on staff) is unfair and untrue. More players would see that if they judged staff on their own experiences rather than what someone else has to say about their own.

[Desertman]

When I DM I always look at my player's requests from the vantage point of:

"How can I make this happen for them?"

That's the very first thing I consider.

If my answer is ever:

"No, you can't do that."

Then I feel like I have failed them as a creative and fun DM.

That doesn't mean I don't turn right around if what they have done is silly or stupid and come back the next gaming session with:

"Ok, you wanted to plant a rare ironwood tree in the magical soil you brought back from the shore of a nymph's pond to try and make a super ironwood tree? Well I have bad news for you my man. The seed did grow...it grew super fast...also, the tree is now sentient and is terrorizing the town where you have your little home...and the town blames you. Now you have some issues to deal with...."

I know staffing things in Armageddon is a million times more difficult than me DM'ing a tabletop campaign, but I think they should both be done within the same spirit of fun.

If at any time you get told, "No, that is impossible for you to even attempt.", whatever you are attempting had better be on par with trying to summon comets of steel out of space to crush Tek's tower.

The other end of that I suppose is, "Do we have enough staff with enough "at the ready power" (meaning they don't need four levels of approval to make minor reactions to people's actions happen in game) to make things happen like this more easily."?

Maybe we need to see about putting more power in the hands of the Storytellers if that is the case. If they have to go to a Producer to get approval to have three thugs steal some magicker's rare tree seedling out of his pot in his temple...I think we have an issue there.

Or...

Maybe we give the guy his little tree seedling. Nobody gives a shit. Someone makes a note somewhere saying that there is now a little tree in this pot....and life goes on with one player feeling awesome about himself over something that...let's be realistic here...doesn't make any difference to anyone but that player in the gameworld. Then when the player dies...his tree dies because nobody is there taking special care of it. End storyline. End tree. End the existence of butthurt over nothing-plots.

I feel like personally a lot of efforts are taken at times by staff to squish the motivations and attempts of players on a staff level. I don't think they do it in the spirit of, "We hate the players don't let them do anything.". I think we have a sort of social disease here where we equate, "Armageddon is Hardcore!!!" to "How do I put obstacles and hurdles in your path!" instead of "How do I help you build ladders to success?".

I don't think everyone should just have everything handed to them with no effort. But, I do think some animations sometimes could be geared towards helping PC's with their goals instead of them seemingly always being about presenting an obstacle, hurdle, or roadblock.

Maybe that's just my own experience. I have gotten a lot of staff animations over the years and they are always fun, but there is no denying the majority of them have been geared towards presenting me with problems, hurdles, and obstacles with many of them being no-win situations. I'm trying to think of one where an animation happened where someone came to me and said, "Here, I'm on your side and I'm going to help you make this happen."...I can't really think of one. The best I can do on that front is present a couple of instances where at BEST the animation wasn't about stopping me or harming my progress and was neutral in nature with no tangible meaningful assistance being offered either.

It has somewhat made me terrified of getting staff animations because I've got a trigger-reflex in regards to them now that says, "Ok, how am I going to be dicked this time.".

For some levity, I can count four times I've been shit on...I mean that literally...shit on by creatures or people. Puked on twice.

[Nergal]

Again, the player wasn't told "No, you can't do that". There was also no need for a Storyteller to have to go to a Producer to get approval for something in this case. This was a case of the Storyteller giving a warning about the thugs, so to speak, rather than saying no explicitly.

[Desertman]

Again, the player wasn't told "No, you can't do that". There was also no need for a Storyteller to have to go to a Producer to get approval for something in this case. This was a case of the Storyteller giving a warning about the thugs, so to speak, rather than saying no explicitly.

I'm just using it as an example. I don't really care about that specific instance. Replace "growing a tree" with "building a mud hut" and the point of my overall post is the same.

Also, I edited it. (Sorry for the ghost-edit, I did it while you were writing this message.)

But for this specific instance...why don't we let the guy grow his tree and let the thugs come after with zero warning?

A staffer telling me, "Yeah you can try that but just so you know...if you try it...well, you might not like what happens."

Unfortunately for most players translates into:

"You can try this but staff is going to squash it on you so don't even try.".

I see the difference, but that doesn't change the reality. Perhaps there should be a change in policy that negative foreshadowing be avoided where at all possible and instead negative consequences only present themselves when they do in fact present themselves.

I know if I try something and a staffer tells me, "Yeah, you could try that, but just so you know...if you try it...bad things and failure loom with a wave of my omnipotent staff-hand."....I would also feel like I was being told by staff, "We will kill this before you even get it off the ground. You will fail because you can't fight staff.".

[Delirium]

It's less whether you're allowed to even attempt it (well, ain't nobody can stop you from trying) and more the context of the response.

"Sure, go ahead and keep us updated!" sounds a lot better than "Sure, but it probably won't work because of x and y and we'll be enforcing the gamworld" has two very different messages. One is supportive, the other comes across like you're lecturing the player and preparing them for the inevitable failure of what they're trying to do.

Which kills enthusiasm from the start.

It's a lot more fun to try and do something, and run into some staff-enforced hijinks along the way, but feel as if you do have a chance at succeeding (as long as what you're attempting is reasonable) than to feel like no matter what you do, you're doomed to failure, and the cake is and always will be a lie.

make sense?

edit: I see this was already touched on in the posts above. So yeah, the point is - if it's not a wildly unreasonable request, letting the players win now and then would be nice. So often, what you run into is "if I involve staff in this, I am going to suffer horribly and everything I try to do will have huge consequences, and I will not win." And that's not from OOC gossip or listening to other people talk, it's from my own personal experience. Staff are eager to jump in and that's cool, but when it's largely negative, it's hard to keep trying.

I think if staff looked on themselves as "plot supporters" more so than "world enforcers", that perspective tweak might help regain the trust of much-burned players.

[Desertman]

It's less whether you're allowed to even attempt it (well, ain't nobody can stop you from trying) and more the context of the response.

"Sure, go ahead and keep us updated!" sounds a lot better than "Sure, but it probably won't work because of x and y and we'll be enforcing the gamworld" has two very different messages. One is supportive, the other comes across like you're lecturing the player and preparing them for the inevitable failure of what they're trying to do.

Which kills enthusiasm from the start.

It's a lot more fun to try and do something, and run into some staff-enforced hijinks along the way, but feel as if you do have a chance at succeeding (as long as what you're attempting is reasonable) than to feel like no matter what you do, you're doomed to failure, and the cake is and always will be a lie.

make sense?

Yeah, this is what I meant. She just said my thing with less rambling.

[Nergal]

Sure, but the flip-side of that is the player making the attempt to plot after being told "go ahead and keep us updated!" and then becoming disappointed when it fails without warning after a staff animation. It seems like, in an attempt to avoid disappointing players in the future, staff could take the road of foreshadowing and having the player keep the possible threat to the plot in mind... which could kill a player's enthusiasm for the plot in the first place.

Seems like a lose-lose situation no matter how you look at it. I'm sure some players would prefer to be encouraged from the start and others would prefer we don't pull their leg and waste their time. Is it better to be honest about the challenge the PC faces ahead - or to be encouraging, potentially falsely so? I don't really know. Both have the same potential for PCs to succeed or not, or to have fun or not.

[Desertman]

Sure, but the flip-side of that is the player making the attempt to plot after being told "go ahead and keep us updated!" and then becoming disappointed when it fails without warning after a staff animation. It seems like, in an attempt to avoid disappointing players in the future, staff could take the road of foreshadowing and having the player keep the possible threat to the plot in mind... which could kill a player's enthusiasm for the plot in the first place.

Seems like a lose-lose situation no matter how you look at it. I'm sure some players would prefer to be encouraged from the start and others would prefer we don't pull their leg and waste their time. Is it better to be honest about the challenge the PC faces ahead - or to be encouraging, potentially falsely so? I don't really know. Both have the same potential for PCs to succeed or not, or to have fun or not.

That's a fair point I suppose.

I personally think one equates to playing the game however, and the other equates to being demotivated to even attempt to play the game.

Maybe people would be 100 times more pissy about getting crushed after the fact...I don't know. I do know they are pissy now about being crushed out of even making an attempt.

We KNOW one way people don't like it. We know they don't like being discouraged out of even making an attempt.

Do we have any specific examples of people coming in and saying, "Man, I wish they would have never even let me try now because it didn't work out."? I can't think of any.

[wizturbo]

Here's a suggestion, perhaps change the phrasing of your responses in the request tool to something like this:  

Player,

The request has been approved. You're free to pursue this in-game.

With that said...  Your character has overheard conversations from some of the old timers at the Temple of Vivadu about why their previous temple was burned down.  They blame it on the opulent garden they kept on the roof.

[nauta]

I'm a little sad (but not surprised) that it needs to be said, but the player attempting to grow a tree wasn't explicitly told no. There was still room to make the attempt to try - however, staff told them what the PC might expect to happen if they did try. I will not get into it further since this only happened 6 months ago, but I will reiterate that the PC was never prevented from attempting to do this, and if the player went to re-read the response they got from staff at the time, they would see that. Staff exist to support the players, and sometimes that involves a little foreshadowing. And within reason, it almost never involves outright rejection. Staff respond to reports in the context of a higher power, a vNPC or NPC that the PC reports to. Listening to this higher power or not is the PC's choice, always.

The reason why I'm not surprised is because discontented players over the years have spent their time poisoning the well, and unfortunately it has grown and grown. It started with private forms of communication and culminated with places like jcarter's board, which allows for one-sided storytelling in an echo chamber and no room for a defense of or response from staff. The end result is that some people read into a staff response and read what they want to see - red tape, rejection, hostility - when it isn't always, and is in fact almost never there. While some of the criticism is fair and we work to build off of that criticism and improve from it, a lot of it (as well as the sudden assumptions, the attempts at reading between the lines of staff responses, the blanket attacks on staff) is unfair and untrue. More players would see that if they judged staff on their own experiences rather than what someone else has to say about their own.

Um, (a) I didn't bring it up and (b) Jave, staff, is the one who formulated it as a rejection.  All I did is give Jave the Character Report #.  Sheesh.

[Beethoven]

I am also in the camp of letting players try risky things, and letting them see what the consequences are afterwards. If they as a player or as a PC are not aware of the potential consequences, they shouldn't miraculously become aware of them because of a discouraging (or supposedly discouraging) OOC character report. Wizturbo's suggestion is a nice happy medium; giving a "hint" of what their PC might know that could warn them about the consequences, without saying what sounds to a lot of player ears like "you're doomed to failure." If they wouldn't have any way of knowing what the consequences might be, I say leave the hint out and just let them find out the hard way.

[Lizzie]

Sure, but the flip-side of that is the player making the attempt to plot after being told "go ahead and keep us updated!" and then becoming disappointed when it fails without warning after a staff animation. It seems like, in an attempt to avoid disappointing players in the future, staff could take the road of foreshadowing and having the player keep the possible threat to the plot in mind... which could kill a player's enthusiasm for the plot in the first place.

Seems like a lose-lose situation no matter how you look at it. I'm sure some players would prefer to be encouraged from the start and others would prefer we don't pull their leg and waste their time. Is it better to be honest about the challenge the PC faces ahead - or to be encouraging, potentially falsely so? I don't really know. Both have the same potential for PCs to succeed or not, or to have fun or not.

When I read "this might come with unintended results" from a staffer, I think it means "this might come with unintended results." I know there are people who will think it means "you can't do it, the staff will make it fail." But I'm not one of those people. I accept that this means it -might- fail. Or it might succeed, but with consequences I hadn't thought of at the time. Or it might result in my character getting assassinated and not being able to complete the project, thus never finding out whether or not it would have succeeded or failed at all.

When I see "go ahead and keep us updated" I take that to mean "you have our blessing to try, no guarantees on the outcome one way or another" and that keeping them updated is likely to be helpful in achieving the goal - or getting assassinated. Either way, it's a win-win because it means an interesting conclusion.

When I see "if you try this, you might end up with the templarate coming down on your ass because reason #1, reason #2, and then this or that might happen" - that's when I get annoyed. Why? Because it looks like the staff is playing Armageddon in my e-mail instead of in the game. I'd rather find all this stuff out in game. And by that, I mean - I would really like to find out IC. I don't want it to be a mystery. I want to succeed in learning, through roleplay, why something will fail. I'm fine with the failure. And I'm fine with knowing why it failed. I just really want to find out through the course of play, and not via the request tool.

[wizturbo]

Um, (a) I didn't bring it up and (b) Jave, staff, is the one who formulated it as a rejection.  All I did is give Jave the Character Report #.  Sheesh.

Shhhh, Nauta...  No one is blaming you.  Your request is just being used as a platform to discuss how requests are handled in general.  Your little tree has grown into something all together different.  

[nauta]

If Player Dude's Armageddon dream is to try and grow a tree, just let them do it! That's what Armageddon used to be all about.

Now how society reacts to that tree growing up in the middle of the Viv temple is Staff's job and they get to decide if that tree will end up causing massive population riots or will just die three weeks later because it's an exotic seed missing some sort of key nutrients. Or maybe a Templar will just walk in and take out his frustration on that poor little tree.

But trying to convince a player that his idea is not a good one because this and that MIGHT happen, or because it "doesn't fit" or isn't "realistic" is a big bummer - Don't tell players what they can or cannot do (unless it's really out of this world retarded), just let them do what they want and then REACT to it.

I mean, come on!

I'm stepping out of this one, but let me just say that's not at all what happened in the staff report.  I'm pretty sure I can't say what happened in the staff report, but the gist of it was:

Hi, I got something, and I wanted to plant it somewhere.  Reply: You'd learn that the City Ministry (blah blah, basically what Jave said).  There was no 'no', there was no 'yes'.  Staff just told me the relevant bit of history and lore and their take on it.  It was fine, Malken.

Of course, IG that was a rejection, and likely Eyeball heard about it IG.