PK poll one

[My 2 sids]

I think Ridan has hit the mark:  People should keep in mind murder isn't a casual thing for most people.   We know it isn't casual for most people because although it's perfectly legal to pass a begger on the street without feeding them (death by starvation) it isn't legal for people to walk around gutting other people... that's why law says you can't do it. 

Dresan also made a great point:  staying alive gives PC's great stories! 

Dakurus,   you start by saying you're not sure how much killing is an every-day occurance   but end by saying killing is ICly the most realistic.  How?  How is it realistic ICly if most people don't consider murder an easy or standarad occurance?

[Cerelum]

Dakurus,   you start by saying you're not sure how much killing is an every-day occurance   but end by saying killing is ICly the most realistic.  How?  How is it realistic ICly if most people don't consider murder an easy or standarad occurance?

I took him to being say that because all of us, pcs, are not your typical zalanthan that we can be bloodthirsty and all that shit.

I personally don't like that assumption cause it's like saying that none of us could be a normal guy and we are all just capable of murder for little things like insults just cause we aren't npcs.

J-Rod

[Dalmeth]

Dakurus,   you start by saying you're not sure how much killing is an every-day occurance   but end by saying killing is ICly the most realistic.  How?  How is it realistic ICly if most people don't consider murder an easy or standarad occurance?

It's quite simple.  He gave a thorough analysis of the situation.  Normal people simply don't have much reason to murder others.  Particularly in civilized society, there's just too much to lose.  People still do, though.  That's because it is very effective at resolving conflicts.  Half the point of playing this game is to stir up conflict.  So it's no wonder that our players might find murder to be a common option within the game.  It might not be the most fun solution for all parties involved, but it is the most effective.

[touringCompl3t3]

I really like the way that Dakarus expressed it above.

[My 2 sids]

There is a difference between revenge and conflict.

Revenge is about retaliation:  make someone suffer the same or greater pain as a result of whatever perceived wrongdoing they caused.  Dakurus is correct that murder is an efficient way to insure 'winning' and seek revenge.  Example:  Suzy Commoner pisses off Noble Fancy.  For two OOC days Noble Fancy doesn't speak to or acknowledges Suzy, on the third day an elf simply murders her.

On the other hand, conflict is more about building tension and conflict.   It requires a good protagonist and antagonist to build it correctly and can take awhile to obtain (in a writing sort of way).  However, quick and sudden death (without any other build up) often hinders conflict building.    Example:  Suzy Commoner pisses off Noble Fancy.  For the next OOC month Suzy and Noble exchange glares, hushed insults, and humiliation... drawing others into their web of revenge (even if so subtle so as only they notice... maybe Suzy spits in his food, maybe he makes it a habit to always take over whatever table she was sitting)

And maybe that is what I'm really asking.  Do more people play Arm to 'win' (where revenge would be well suited)  or would more people think of Arm as more a writing project where there are an array of complex emotions and character-interaction.  (where sustained conflict is better suited). 

Perhaps neither way is bad per say, but they are different and I think if we knew how our fellow players viewed the game we may role-play things a bit differently.

[Jherlen]

Do more people play Arm to 'win' (where revenge would be well suited)  or would more people think of Arm as more a writing project where there are an array of complex emotions and character-interaction.  (where sustained conflict is better suited).

I think most people play to 'win'. I disagree (and I think it's silly, playing to win a game you can never really win), but it seems like that's how most people play. And if you are playing to win, then I guess Ghost is exactly right - kill everybody who could ever possibly be a threat to you. You never know who might come back to screw you over. The safest way to be is to eliminate any character who poses a danger, never leaving anyone alive with a reason or will to do yours harm. It's definitely a harsh and brutal way to play, and those are the words it seems like everyone gets off to while we play this game. I'm not such a fan, though. I've seen phases of the game where powerful characters put that theory into practice, and it never seemed that great to me. It can very easily suck the fun out of the game and replace it with paranoia, stress, and OOC bickering on the GDB and elsewhere.

Just speaking for myself, the most intense conflicts my characters have had have been ones where the parties on both sides DIDN'T go and immediately kill each other or each other's subordinates or friends. There was certainly plotting to do this on both sides, and murders did happen, but they weren't hair-trigger "you spit on my friend, I kill your aide" type situations. The conflict built up and built up and built up, but as long as both parties were playing fairly, conflict like that made me want to play more. Conflict where people go off killing everyone doesn't get to build or get interesting and often pushes me away from the game.

When it comes to the reverse situation, with a noble deciding if he should smack the crap out of a commoner or kill him, I think nobles should generally show some level of restrain and quickly escalate to murder.  A commoner shows disrespect should probably be humiliated in some non-lethal way.  A commoner who persists in showing disrespect after "corrective measures" have been taken should probably be disposed of and be made an example of.  You do this not because you fear that particular commoner.  You do this to drive home the point that disrespecting your betters is a very bad idea.  You are instructing ALL commoners why it is a bad idea to be disrespectful, not showing that one commoner why it is a bad idea.

I agree with this, and I'd like to take it further and say it doesn't just apply to nobility or templars, but anybody in a position of power that commands respect out of fear. Crime lords, powerful rogue mages, and on the smaller scale, even characters in positions of power inside organisations shouldn't always go off and immediately kill somebody for disrespect. A good part of these people's reputations relies on fear of force rather than force itself, in the esteemed words of Grand Moff Tarkin. In other words, if you go around blowing up everyone who disrespects you with your Death Star, who's left to bow down and do your bidding?

The art is knowing when killing someone to make an example of them is the best course of action (for your character, as well as the game) and when it isn't. All I can say is that the characters in the game that I've feared most have shared a couple characteristics: they've appeared powerful enough to kill nearly whoever they pleased, while also appearing restrained and calculating enough to know when to leave someone trembling alive instead.

[Barzalene]

I don't disagree with what the op is asking for. What pisses me off, (maybe I'm drinking too much caffeine is it over the top to get pissed?) is that the implication is that this is currently not happening, that people are being killed willy-nilly. I don' think it's so. I'm not perceiving a problem.

Last year my pc was killed for reason that seemed very silly to me, but there were reasons. The upside was that she got to be worried and paranoid and taken in. And in the end flattered that all those people had gone to all that trouble. And it was likely they might have even had reasons that made sense.

The best part is that now, with each pc I worry. And I think that's fun. I like having to look over my shoulder. If everyone is going out of their way to avoid killing everyone else, then I might still die, but I won't be able to enjoy being tense before I die. I'd miss that.

Mostly, I think people play well. I think that there's no surfeit of crazed killers to complain about. Things are working.

[X-D]

There is not nearly enough PK going on right now...DAMM the end of the world and people trying to keep a PC alive to see it(me included)

[naatok]

Just to qualify my 'yes' vote on this:
First, not every one of my characters would or would not seek revenge/escape/justice/etc. for harsh treatment from other characters.
Some of them would probably do so immediately and with predictable deadly results.
Some of them might bide their time and wait for the perfect moment, or attempt to 'arrange' the perfect moment for revenge/escape.
Some of them would simply take the abuse as part of harsh life.

I do not play the same character concept over and over again.  Each of my characters is unique, although I must say I do gravitate toward certain personality 'types'.
Doesn't mean I always play those types.  For instance, my current character is VASTLY different from any character I've ever played before.

[Troicha]

I do not play the same character concept over and over again.  Each of my characters is unique, although I must say I do gravitate toward certain personality 'types'.

Sacrilege!

These polls make me giggle inside for just that reason.

[Malken]

I just want to know who is the other player that voted like me that he/she doesn't trust any of you Armageddon players.

That, right there, beats any E-harmony compatibility tests.

[Yam]

Me.

[Supreme Allah]

And maybe that is what I'm really asking.  Do more people play Arm to 'win' (where revenge would be well suited)  or would more people think of Arm as more a writing project where there are an array of complex emotions and character-interaction.  (where sustained conflict is better suited). 

Perhaps neither way is bad per say, but they are different and I think if we knew how our fellow players viewed the game we may role-play things a bit differently.

I wouldn't hesitate at all in saying that playing Arm 'to win' is bad. I think it's the reverse of what Arm is about: roleplay, and being a part of a compelling story that engages and stimulates the creative parts in all of us.

Really, people that seem to me like they are just trying to get their character(s) to be the "best" are the only negative parts of my experience here on Arm.

[Dalmeth]

I wouldn't hesitate at all in saying that playing Arm 'to win' is bad. I think it's the reverse of what Arm is about: roleplay, and being a part of a compelling story that engages and stimulates the creative parts in all of us.

Really, people that seem to me like they are just trying to get their character(s) to be the "best" are the only negative parts of my experience here on Arm.

How many characters in the game shouldn't be motivated to be the best at what they do?  Is it the player simply wanting to lord his or her power over players, or is the player merely acting on the goals and interests of the character?

[LoD]

Early in Armageddon's history, there was a different feel to the game.  Many of the same components existed, but they were shallow versions of themselves and much of the gameplay was largely superficial.  The lack of convenient OOC forums cut down on the widespread nature of OOC communication and limited it largely to small groups of friends.  It was much more difficult to know what other people were doing because players were either solo or working with 1-5 personal friends with no contact outside of their intimate island.  This meant you had less of a chance to know the other characters you encountered in-game, and certainly had less of a chance of communicating with them outside of it.

Imms were also fewer and farther between, I believe 100% male, and likely much younger than the median age we find in the Immortal Staff these days.  There was a sense of danger in playing the game that was as attractive as it was frustrating.  Pair all of this with the fact that Armageddon was lacking many of the qualities which non-combat characters appreciate today such as crafting skills, a wide variety of city-based clans with rich documentation and ages of IC development, hosts of emoting and communicative tools (i.e. tell, talk, emote targets), and you have a much different atmosphere.

There were many people playing the game "to win" back then because of this environment.  You also had people that wanted to develop the story, or realized there was a story to be told, but were forced to learn as much about the hard coded nature of the game (or more) than the powergamers in order to survive and succeed.  So out came this hybrid player that was simultaneously capable of driving plots and creating a breathing character with short-term and long-term goals while advancing their hard coded skills and ultimate coded power.

Then things began to change.  Channels of OOC communication were much improved with instant messaging, IRC chat rooms, and the emergence of the internet itself.  Friends brought more friends into the game and began to network with other players, share knowledge, and even keep opens lines of communication while they played.  New Imms and players joined the game with a different vision, lending touches of depth and sophistication to what was possible through crafting skills, advance in-game communication skills, and an emphasis on strong RP.

People with traits common to the "old game" soon found themselves occasionally on the bad end of the RP stick for continuing habits they'd formed out of necessity with regards to keeping their characters both skilled AND involved, at least at the same rate of growth.  New players joined that were capable of playing without lending any thought whatsoever to learning combat skills in order to succeed.  Some of them likely never had to branch a skill in order to be successful, because there were now checks and balances that kept some of the "coded crazies" from as easily dominating the game play.

And now I do feel as if a certain sense of that danger is gone.  That we have a large group of players who were never forced to learn how to survive in an environment with that level of unpredictability and danger lurking around every encounters.  And while there are still plenty of people that do silly things, it's more difficult to do them as often or as consistently without being reprimanded, punished, or eventually disallowed from doing them.

All in all, I feel that this has been a good thing for the game, but I'd be lying if I said there weren't elements that got lost in the transition which lent the game a much more dangerous and unpredictable feel.  So I understand what people mean when they complain about players that seem to be focused on "winning" the game, but that largely exists because of what the game has become and some of the people you speak of may have simply learned to play prior to this transition and were forced to play a certain way in order to reach their goals and be successful.

People should feel free to pursue a realistic progression of their character, and to strive to be the best in what they do -- but they should also realize that there's something larger than themselves here to be experienced, and that sometimes restraint and patience will be more rewarding than ruthless efficiency to everyone involved.  That lesson is learned differently dependent upon the environment in which you must learn.  My time was different than your time, which was probably different than someone coming into the game for the very first time today.

And the mere fact that we have players at different stages in development leads to this frustration we see when one player feels their storytelling efforts are being trumped by someone trying to "win".

Sorry, this was a bit of a derailment -- but I think it can be a helpful perspective.

-LoD

[jhunter]

On the "playing to win" subject...

I don't think it has anything to do with anything negative on the player's part -most- of the time. I consider each of my pcs as their own individual entity, for the most part (like -any- living creature) they intend to "win" at life. Some of them might be held back by their own addictions/disabilities/peronality flaws, etc. I think it's unrealistic to believe that it's wrong for any living creature (especially those of any sort of human intelligence) to want to live life to "win". Most people don't wake up each day and think to themselves: "I'm gonna go out there and lose today, yay me!" "I'm gonna go do shitty and fail on purpose because that's what I want out of life."

The difference between your pc trying to "win" at life (which is 100% realistic and acceptable) and the player attempting to "win" at the game is if they are ignoring the setting or any flaws their character might have in order to get ahead when realistically, those things would hold them back.

[Salt Merchant]

I personally see it as something that add to the RP value, but I know with my currently Character... he'd go to the ends of the world to try to get back at the person that did it to him... hence my choice.  But he'd probably end up dead...  or beaten again.. hehe.

I see this as a very natural reaction.

Who wouldn't resent serious abuse and revenge themselves if possible?

Most of my characters aren't so enamored of the nobility that if they piss in her face, she'll thank them and ask for more. Even nobles had better be careful who they abuse. If a character doesn't have might of arm on her side, the influence of coin in the right pocket can be very dangerous.

[Vessol]

In general I love PKs. It adds a lot of dramatic roleplay to the game WHEN DONE RIGHT.

The generic, non-emote, ride in, kill and not emote a damn thing is no fun.

[psionic fungus]

I just skimmed over this thread, but I have a few things I'd like to comment on.

But you don't see people shooting each other or stabbing each other very often, except in the movies.  Most of the time that two dudes get into a scuffle with each other, they might throw a few punches to let their aggression out, but after that they will want to back down and try to save some face.

I've read a couple of studies that indicate these types of actions are happening more frequently.  In the 1990s, more violent crime and murder surrounded gang and illicit drug activity.  In the 2000s, a higher percentage of murders in the U.S. are happening over things like "disrespect".  It's sad, but true.  We are a culture that is being desensitized to violence.  Children are killing hundreds to thousands of virtual people in high-def environments, and every time it becomes easier to pull a real trigger (that's based on some studies too).

With that said... Zalanthas is supposed to be a world that is more harsh than our own.  If anything the denizens should be more desensitized to violence and therefor more willing to make use of it.

Secondly...

The lack of convenient OOC forums cut down on the widespread nature of OOC communication and limited it largely to small groups of friends.  It was much more difficult to know what other people were doing because players were either solo or working with 1-5 personal friends with no contact outside of their intimate island.  This meant you had less of a chance to know the other characters you encountered in-game, and certainly had less of a chance of communicating with them outside of it.

My experience was different.  ISCA BBS and the IRC channel were around since damn near the beginning.  When I began playing (1994, I believe) the amount of OOC communication was -at least- as bad as it is now.  I know LoD knows what I'm talking about, because I used to exchange information with him as well. For me personally, there was much -more- OOC communication back then.  I used to have various Staffers telling me all kinds of IC information on a daily basis.  ICQ and various other IM clients have not increased the amount of OOC communication in my experience, they have just decentralized the player-base...

I encounter the same issues with cliques and other OOC bullshit infiltrating the game today as I did then, which is also sad... But I don't think there is any way to ever stop it...