Author Topic: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play  (Read 3569 times)

Is Friday

  • Posts: 6327
Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« on: April 11, 2018, 09:38:00 PM »
I think the game's power dynamics would be more interesting if HGs didn't exist as PCs. I believe they stifle conflict and I've noticed the HG Cold War since I started playing. All relevant clans have HG loyalists or try to attain one ASAP. It'd be more interesting if leaders had humanoid combat PCs instead of going out of their way to claim the next available HG in the queue.


Discuss.
And then I sat there going "really? that was it? that's so stupid."

I still think the best closure you get in Armageddon is just moving on to the next character.

cnemus

  • Posts: 79
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2018, 10:02:17 PM »
tl;dr Nooooo~oooooooo!

I would join a discussion about rebalancing stats, but removing a race [any race] entirely, no, no, no. If I want to kill Biggy the Big, or BigBuddy the Big-Friend, or BigClanBuddy the Clannie with BigFriends, I do not care. I will kill them or die trying. I love HG RP. Variety and race conflict is a vital part of the richness of the Armageddon landscape. I am lighting my pitchfork and chucking my melonkart at this thread.

I respect your opinion OP and do not think less of you for starting this riot, but I shall stand firmly against. Now and forever. Insert Gandalf meme.

#BringBackMantis


BadSkeelz

  • Posts: 8335
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #2 on: April 11, 2018, 10:07:14 PM »
If it were up to me I would remove them. But I would want to see human-sized combatants get a bit of a boost to compensate, so long as we're still restricted to engaging dinosaurs with pointy sticks. That boost can be to combat ability or additional tools. The only role I really appreciate half-giants in is for being able to actually hurt a mekillot or other megafauna quickly in close-combat.

Otherwise they're just super-strong clowns when they're not just chosen for the stat boost. I wish they had stronger penalties, but they're too useful to discriminate against and it takes a LOT of player discipline to stick to their intelligence docs in the face of danger.
janeshephard: You really think BadSkeelz understands the concept of Wine In Front of me? This guy shot me as a townie when he felt threatened. The man's a neandrathal.

Miradus: He's not some weird mental abomination. He's just a guy on the internet.

boog

  • Posts: 10668
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2018, 10:10:16 PM »
Muls kinda have the same issue. They're just used for their power. Sure, they can offer some conflict, moreso than half giants, but everyone knows they're recruited for their smashing abilities.
Case: he's more likely to shoot up a mcdonalds for selling secret obama sauce on its big macs
Kismet: didn't see you in GQ homey
BadSkeelz: Whatever you say, Kim Jong Boog
Quote from: Tuannon
There is only one boog.

Large Hero

  • Posts: 587
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2018, 10:16:25 PM »
HGs would be balanced if more players RPed their low intelligence and likelihood to mess up complex instructions.

As it stands, many (not all, of course) HGs are played as cunning super-soldiers, decked out in precious gems and horror-plate, who will say a wrong word or fart sometimes, but never kill the wrong target or otherwise mess up when it counts. They limit their fuckups to comedy relief, because as BadSkeelz says, it takes a lot of discipline to do otherwise when the chips are down.

I'd like to see staff put out very clear expectations for the spectrum of HG intelligence. I don't think it's very clear at the moment. As it stands, some people play their HG as "can't do more than walk and talk at the same time" and some people play their HG as "only slightly less intelligent than a human".

For example, HGs in their help-file are said to have loyalties that shift very frequently, due to their low intelligence. However, in game, we have HGs staying loyal to the same people for several years.

I'm sensitive to the concept of removing yet more powerful options from players. I think we should try to enforce a stricter standard of HG intelligence, first, before removing them.

They're a 2 karma race now, out of 3 karma. Hold them to a high standard.
It is said that things coming in through the gate can never be your own treasures. What is gained from external circumstances will perish in the end.
- the Mumonkan

BadSkeelz

  • Posts: 8335
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #5 on: April 11, 2018, 10:17:36 PM »
Muls kinda have the same issue. They're just used for their power. Sure, they can offer some conflict, moreso than half giants, but everyone knows they're recruited for their smashing abilities.

I feel like muls are held to a much higher roleplay bar. Maybe the higher karma tier helps. I definitely feel that mul characters are a lot more dangerous and risky to be around. I've yet to run in to a disappointing mul.

The ultimate stat pick for cost-effectiveness and low burden of responsibility are dwarves.
janeshephard: You really think BadSkeelz understands the concept of Wine In Front of me? This guy shot me as a townie when he felt threatened. The man's a neandrathal.

Miradus: He's not some weird mental abomination. He's just a guy on the internet.

Hauwke

  • Posts: 1490
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #6 on: April 11, 2018, 10:20:57 PM »
They are restricted behind a wall of karma, and they offer a lot of roleplay when done properly I feel, yes, you see them in combat clans almost exclusively, but that is because they are really not very well suited (mentally) to being a merchant or a doctor. If the gameworld can have loyal HGs in their armies, I dont see why the Byn cant keep a HG as well when thats what the character wants to do for that PC.

As for removing them, nope. If you did, people would just twink their humans further so that they can kill a mekillot, or just order an NPC HG to follow them around and be entirely loyal, unfeeling murder-hobos.

Molten Heart

  • Posts: 1924
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #7 on: April 11, 2018, 10:21:25 PM »
I like half-giants and that we as players can play them. It makes the game more interesting, offering more broad and dynamic character choices. I think to remove them would be a mistake and have the opposite effect of the intended purpose (of levelling the playing field? if I understand correctly).

Is the issue less with the half-giant race and maybe more a disagreement with the way some half-giants are played?

Eyeball

  • Posts: 783
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #8 on: April 11, 2018, 10:36:14 PM »
There should be a rule, that if proposing to remove something from the game, should have to propose something be added at the same time.

CodeMaster

  • Posts: 1064
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #9 on: April 11, 2018, 10:43:52 PM »
There's a potential for unique roleplay with half-giants and I'd be sad if they went.  But I agree with Large Hero - I think their limitations are underplayed.  Remember Sanvean's story, the templar's sons?

As a half-giant player I'd try to dig deep and think about situations that should be catastrophic (or a "serious detriment" to quote the help file) for my character and his friends:
  • Literally any unsupervised interaction with an elf or merchant - think about what would really happen if your half-giant went to the bazaar alone
  • Learning to skin, cook, or craft anything beyond the lowest quality improvisations on their own
  • "Please pass the following message on to Amos"
  • "Don't forget your bag!"
  • "Lead the group to Red Storm."
  • "Don't forget to bring water when you travel!"
  • "Watch out for thieves!"
  • "Stay on your feet and keep your weapon ready."
  • "Don't forget to pay your rent or you'll lose everything inside!"
  • "Remember to get back inside before the gates close!"
The neat, clean-shaven man sends you a telepathic message:
     "I tried hairy...Im sorry"

CodeMaster

  • Posts: 1064
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #10 on: April 11, 2018, 10:49:57 PM »
Also, to add:

HG loyalists

This is the problem.  Really there's no such thing, or there shouldn't be
The neat, clean-shaven man sends you a telepathic message:
     "I tried hairy...Im sorry"

Grapes

  • Posts: 398
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #11 on: April 11, 2018, 10:56:56 PM »
I have yet to be dissappointed by a mul. They tend to be very well and thoughtfully played.

HGs though, have, MASSIVE strength, and while we've all, at some point or other, run into a big buddy we love playing with, few may realize the dark side of the equation. Have you ever accidently pissed off a HG that will never forget? And then, you're that one guy, and not only do they have super-strength, but they have friends all over the place who they've already told that you're a bad guy.

I played ONE HG, I don't think I did it exactly right, try as hard as I might... and even when I tried to do stupid things to get out of the role, 9/10 my PC was damn near invulnerable. I enjoyed the PC but the RP constraints were near intolerable, and no matter how you play a HG, everyone is going to think you're somehow "too smart". It's a very difficult role. I would prefer they not be removed from play, but scaled back to Dark Sun HGs, that would be easier for people to play, and not have the absolutely colossal strength factor, though I agree if such adjustments are made, then other humanoid PCs should get a boost to compensate for the lack of overall unit strength.

My opinion? It is far too hard to play HGs as documented. You might try one, and realize just how incredibly difficult it can be to keep up with everyone else's expectations. My IC stance has always been that, they are not "big friends", that they are giant monsters, and are barely tolerated. If they act out, they get put down, except, no one else plays along with my expectations so the point is unfounded. At least with Dark Sun guidelines, HGs are still able to function somewhat like people. Under Arm guidelines, it's like choosing Drill Sergeant as a career, it's a career ending job.

ETA: When I DID manage to get my HG killed, I got slapped for karma, I checked my account notes, a lot of people said a lot of mean things when, all I was trying to do was to help people have fun. What I learned from all that is, it wasn't the role for me.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2018, 11:07:03 PM by Grapes »
Quote from: Is Friday
If you ever hassle me IC for not playing much that means that I'm going to play even less or I'll forever write you off as a neckbeard chained to his computer. So don't be a dick.

Dar

  • Posts: 1209
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #12 on: April 11, 2018, 11:00:45 PM »
While I totally Loathe HGs and havent played a single one, after trying it out once many years ago. I severely disagree with a notion of their removal. They play an integral part in the game's society and ability for combat clans to function. It's true, sometimes it feels jarring when an HG displays intelligence well beyond that of an HG. But in the end, their main 'shtick' about RP is not the complete idiocy. But the complete inability to run complicated thought processes. They are followers and minions, not leaders. Some clans though 'require' HGs to be operational, when they're not stuffed to the brim with other long lived characters.

What I 'would' do crack down on is independent HGs. Basically. Right now, if a sorc/psi is in play, but hasnt been using their non-mundane abilities for too long, the staff would address this. Why play a super dangerous role, when you're not playing the super dangerous sides of it.  I would suggest the same thing of HGs. If an HG stays independent and without 'someone' to latch on and take motivation/leadership from, they should eventually be stored. But if an HG does find someone who could sway them into their wake, then they're fine.

HG loyalists. I can imagine those, as long as they're loyal to people. To specific characters instead of clans, or doctrines. Though things get difficult with AoD/Legion, since their service is a lifesworn one.

Large Hero

  • Posts: 587
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #13 on: April 11, 2018, 11:03:33 PM »

HG loyalists. I can imagine those, as long as they're loyal to people. To specific characters instead of clans, or doctrines. Though things get difficult with AoD/Legion, since their service is a lifesworn one.

I don't think the helpfile jives with this interpretation.

And yes, it's true that the AoD half-giant NPCs go against the helpfile, too.

Which is why I think the problem is that players are confused about how intelligent and loyal half-giants can be, or are supposed to be.

I think it would be a great help if staff put out a very clear set of guidelines for that.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2018, 11:14:28 PM by Large Hero »
It is said that things coming in through the gate can never be your own treasures. What is gained from external circumstances will perish in the end.
- the Mumonkan

gotdamnmiracle

  • Posts: 536
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #14 on: April 11, 2018, 11:34:35 PM »
If a horrible plague rolled through the Known killing off all half-giants (or severely reducing their numbers to relative rarity) I wouldn’t shed a tear. I think it could be an interesting change that would require a reshuffling of power in the citystates.

To clarify, I would like to see far fewer half-giant NPCs. I have mext to no issue with the PCs and staff animations however. I do think that there are alternatives to the “required HG” for any big game hunting trip like dwarves, muls, gickers (if you’re desperate).
He is an individual cool cat. A cat who has taken more than nine lives.

Dar

  • Posts: 1209
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #15 on: April 11, 2018, 11:35:30 PM »

HG loyalists. I can imagine those, as long as they're loyal to people. To specific characters instead of clans, or doctrines. Though things get difficult with AoD/Legion, since their service is a lifesworn one.

I don't think the helpfile jives with this interpretation.

It jives with psychology of the curious, unintelligent children that lack critical thinking.  Children get attached. Sometimes fiercely. Sometimes less so. It all depends on the strength of personality. You can imagine an HG wondering away from a clan, because the leadership is weak and simply does not provide the content/interaction an unintelligent curious HG would need to keep involved. So they get attracted by whatever else that 'is' involving. But if the leader involves the HG heavily, they can win the loyalty of the HG proper. 

Onr shouldnt think that an HG is playing incorrectly, just because one offered him cake and he didnt suddenly switch clans. 

Large Hero

  • Posts: 587
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #16 on: April 11, 2018, 11:55:58 PM »
It jives with psychology of the curious, unintelligent children that lack critical thinking.  Children get attached. Sometimes fiercely. Sometimes less so. It all depends on the strength of personality. You can imagine an HG wondering away from a clan, because the leadership is weak and simply does not provide the content/interaction an unintelligent curious HG would need to keep involved. So they get attracted by whatever else that 'is' involving. But if the leader involves the HG heavily, they can win the loyalty of the HG proper. 

Onr shouldnt think that an HG is playing incorrectly, just because one offered him cake and he didnt suddenly switch clans.

I don't necessarily disagree with your statements, but the problem is they are basically just your opinions. Players often have different opinions on what is 'good' or 'correct' roleplay. An issue with half-giants is that players seem to be interpreting an appropriate spectrum of roleplay in wildly different ways, and I think that's what contributes to the rise of a thread like this one.
It is said that things coming in through the gate can never be your own treasures. What is gained from external circumstances will perish in the end.
- the Mumonkan

Kankfly

  • Posts: 1218
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #17 on: April 12, 2018, 12:02:43 AM »
I don't agree with removing anything from play unless it's as a very last, unfixable resort.

I think if something is wrong with either the play, the docs, etc. Then what should be done is to find ways to fix it: Either to tweak the docs to add more playability, flesh out some guidelines so everyone understands the mindset (in this case, a half-giant's), or, as players, strive to become better at it - after all, practice makes perfect.

I am, and I have always been, pro-more contents. Removing something from the game in order to 'fix' it has always been silly in my mind.
I ruin immershunz.

ghanima

  • Posts: 73
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2018, 12:55:42 AM »
Whether true or imagined, the game suffers from a reputation of removing too much content. I'm totally shocked you would recommend removing one of the game's core foundations, in this case half-giants. And purely because, what? Many clans covet them since they're powerful? Should we remove weapons next?

Where does this obsession with equalizing everything in game so that every single PC is on equal footing with the other come from?

It reminds me of the time Ath proposed nobles and templars only being allowed 6 months to play their role, completely looking past the fact that 6 months isn't even enough time for most sponsored roles to accomplish a single goal. Look, guys. Some things in game are more powerful than others. A hierarchy makes things more interesting and fun, not less.

Namino

  • Posts: 163
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2018, 01:32:49 AM »
The issue with Half Giants is that the benefits of the race are hard-coded into them. Their enormous strength, stamina, HP pool, the benefits of being really big on stride length and bashing, ect.

The limitations of the race are not hard coded into them, to my knowledge. Their skill caps are just as high. The main drawback for all those phenomenal coded strength is that you have to be mentally stunted, which is handled almost entirely through roleplay.

This gets dangerously close to 'Roleplay Police' territory, but when you get massive tangible gains for the cost of restricted RP, then someone does have to police to make sure you adhere to those restrictions, otherwise you're just doing the cafeteria thing where you take all the benefits and leave the rest.

I don't see this about HG loyalists as much as I do about HG drawbacks being on an honor system when the benefits are assured.

Potaje

  • Posts: 2283
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2018, 02:28:22 AM »
I have never experience Half giants being anymore op than any other race. I have as other races beaten down well trained and long lived H.G's.  Having played H.G's they are codedly not smart, which goes into a conversation about code that is frowned upon so I will not elaborate. But they have just as high a contrition as any other race in the world of Z. There is no real reason to remove them from game play. As for Role play, its a karma race for a reason, you have to prove you can rp at least at a moderate level. I believe more in self policing than I do removing something from game because someone feels others can not rp a race, which in my opinion is often the case for all races, especially dwarves.
The funny little foreign man

I often hear the jingle to -Riunite on ice- when I read the estate name Reynolte, eve though there ain't no ice in Zalanthas.

Grapes

  • Posts: 398
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2018, 04:02:00 AM »
EDIT: Deleted to remove snark.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2018, 07:41:00 PM by Grapes »
Quote from: Is Friday
If you ever hassle me IC for not playing much that means that I'm going to play even less or I'll forever write you off as a neckbeard chained to his computer. So don't be a dick.

seidhr

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 487
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #22 on: April 12, 2018, 04:58:16 AM »
You can make an argument that any role that has documentation should be removed because (some) people play them terribly, per the docs.

Yes, there are absolutely HGs that are not played according to docs.
Yes, there are absolutely dwarves that are not played according to the docs.
Yes, there are absolutely elves (of both varieties) that are not played according to the docs.
Magickers?  Check.
Half-elves?  Check.
Human tribals?  Yup.
Muls too.

I'm sure there are more.  I think half-giants are just the most obvious, because they are so glaringly powerful.

Cind

  • Posts: 1410
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2018, 05:41:28 AM »
Trying to play a dwarf merchant with above average wisdom was bad enough. I don't blame 99% of half-giants for going into combat-heavy roles.

I thought maybe removing half-giants was a good idea before I read this thread, but at this rate in a few years we'll only be able to play humans. Even the elf docs, dwarf and half-elf docs have tidbits and brief mentions in them that are worth reading before you play one, even if you've been playing for years. For example, an elf would not think of stealing from their own tribe and do not know what disloyalty is. You cannot try to frighten a dwarf into doing something they otherwise would not. Just a thought.
Look, a petting tregil.  So silky...Feel him.

Is Friday

  • Posts: 6327
Re: Staff And Player Consensus? Remove HGs from play
« Reply #24 on: April 12, 2018, 06:08:28 AM »
You can make an argument that any role that has documentation should be removed because (some) people play them terribly, per the docs.

Yes, there are absolutely HGs that are not played according to docs.
Yes, there are absolutely dwarves that are not played according to the docs.
Yes, there are absolutely elves (of both varieties) that are not played according to the docs.
Magickers?  Check.
Half-elves?  Check.
Human tribals?  Yup.
Muls too.

I'm sure there are more.  I think half-giants are just the most obvious, because they are so glaringly powerful.
I don't think that's my suggestion (or the rationale behind it,) although that's stated above by other posters.

I don't believe they add anything to politics, military clans, or anywhere else that couldn't be done better or in a more interesting way by humanoid PCs. And they take away options from the dynamics of such by their existence.
And then I sat there going "really? that was it? that's so stupid."

I still think the best closure you get in Armageddon is just moving on to the next character.