Why 'gickers are players' preferred guilds

[Myrdryn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LeLAELIxKY

It's not a rick roll.  Though someone was asking for a re-roll and we thought about sending them a rickroll url.

[number13]

I totally understand the appeal of playing a magicker, for all of the reasons the OP listed, and a couple more.  I'm jealous that I don't have the karma options to play one myself.  But a large aspect of a magicker's appeal should be the special-ness -- which ceases to be quite so special when everyone and their brother is a magicker.

The D-elves and muls actually seem more special to me, because both races seem to require extra steps and legwork to get apps approved.

In my ideal Armageddon, magickers would be apped in the same way as Templars and nobles, with the same kind of responsibly to the player-base.  I've seen a few badly RPed non-mundanes, with sparse knowledge of the gameworld. I've seen many more magickers who are merely average players, without an extraordinary quality to their RP or an dedication to assisting other players in having fun. I do begrudge them their right to play non-mundanes, because they've made it impossible for me to think of non-mundanes as the Big Scary at this point.

On an OOC level, I find myself thinking of them as I would a guy running an Aim-bot in a first-person shooter. Magick/psionics as a cheat-code.

In contrast, it's really easy for me to react to Templars and nobles as the Big Scary, because the players behind these roles are, with very rare exceptions, recruited from the ranks of the 'best' players in the game.

[mansa]

I think that the issuing of karma characters through the automated system should be refreshed in a different way.  It'll help with the issue where the same characters apply for the same class(es) again and again and again.  Besides, you can always special app for a psi after your sorcerer died.

I'm partial to a system that refreshes 1 karma point per 2~6 weeks.  But, that's a different thread for a different time.

[flurry]

Very often, on these forums, when we are arguing about mundanes and magickers, players attempt to categorize those who choose to play magickers as if this is a MORAL (ethical) choice; the choice to play a non-mundane is stigmatized. Those who choose to play magickers are "bad" players and deserve to be PKed because they are "bad" for the game.

However, I very strongly believe that this choice is not moral or ethical at all, but rather can be explained by the interaction of the particular guild system of ARM and basic human nature. The problem lies in the system, not in the moral failings of the players.

I totally agree with this. There's nothing wrong with choosing to player a magicker. I know I feel no guilt in doing so (although personally I enjoy playing mundane characters more).

Having said that, I think it's counter-productive to play magickers repeatedly while wishing magick were more rare. That doesn't make it "bad" or "wrong" to play them, it just means they won't be as rare.

I think the reaction to the great karma take-back in Random Thoughts was not so much about people playing magickers again. I think that was more about a perception, fair or unfair, that it was somewhat hypocritical.

More closely on-topic, I'm not sure if you're suggesting that most people with the option prefer to play non-mundanes.  Some do, of course.  I'm not sure if most do. I don't. At the same time, I don't play mundanes exclusively, and I intend to try out some of the magicker options I haven't yet tried (which is most of them).

The four reasons make a lot of sense to me. The biggest draw for me, by far, is variety. I don't care as much about a quick road to coded advancement, or plots (which I think are pretty equally open to both mundane and others). I think there are some definite positives to playing mundanes instead, though. You're always going to have some people who prefer that, too.

Is the system such that most people prefer to play magickers?  I don't know. I kind of doubt it. Maybe the staff can weigh in with some numbers. But definitely some do, for the reasons given in the first post.

[Synthesis]

As far as advancement goes:

If you spam-play an assassin, pickpocket, burglar, ranger, or warrior in about the same way you would spam-cast with a magicker, the time differences in advancement really aren't that much different.  The only difference is that it's probably a lot more dangerous to do so with mundane characters.  (However, I'm pretty sure the danger level for a rogue, non-gemmed, non-tribal mage is pretty damn high.)

I mean, I've had a flash-in-the-pan 2-day d-elf ranger with a PK count in the double digits, being hunted the world over, known as a notorious raider.  I've had a pickpocket that had fully branched his skill tree in 6-8 days.  I've had a merchant who was almost fully branched and was banking HUGE amounts in under 10 days.  I've had an assassin that could almost one-shot fools in under 5 days.

Of course, you won't necessarily be playing -well- in either case--mundane or magicker.  I think the perception of magickers being easier to advance comes from the fact that often, magickers are bored and lonely, and thus spend a lot of time just doing skill-related stuff.  Mundane characters often spend a -lot- of time just sitting around shooting the breeze, not doing anything in particular. 

Sure, there's still a hard cap on how fast you can advance with either a mundane or a magicker (skill timers), but it's pretty amazing how fast you -can- advance with a mundane, should you choose to press the envelope.

Edit:  I'm not suggesting you go out and try it.  My point is that the perceived differences are somewhat larger than the reality of the situation.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

/agrees with Synthesis.
Also, I've played magickers who basically did nothing but practice their spells all day. It was a simple eat/sleep/chat with an aquaintance/cast cycle. I should, by all accounts, have been a terrifying master of the arcane by the end of this. But I've played more than a few magickers to the 10-day mark like this, and they all died to the first angry PC/cilops/four-room fall that came their way.
Either I suck at this game, or the power of arcanes has been somewhat exaggerated on this board. People who are playing magickers in hopes of being extremely powerful, extremely fast, are probably playing them for the wrong reasons.

[flurry]

I mean, I've had a flash-in-the-pan 2-day d-elf ranger with a PK count in the double digits, being hunted the world over, known as a notorious raider.  I've had a pickpocket that had fully branched his skill tree in 6-8 days.  I've had a merchant who was almost fully branched and was banking HUGE amounts in under 10 days.  I've had an assassin that could almost one-shot fools in under 5 days.

I realize the point you're trying to make, but there's a good reason things like there aren't supposed to be posted on the GDB.

[Synthesis]

I mean, I've had a flash-in-the-pan 2-day d-elf ranger with a PK count in the double digits, being hunted the world over, known as a notorious raider.  I've had a pickpocket that had fully branched his skill tree in 6-8 days.  I've had a merchant who was almost fully branched and was banking HUGE amounts in under 10 days.  I've had an assassin that could almost one-shot fools in under 5 days.

I don't think this is anything to brag about.

Edit:  I'm not bragging...I'm just giving examples of how fast you can advance your skills, should you have a good IC reason to do so.

[a strange shadow]

Edit: Wow, that was fast.


On topic:
If I enjoyed playing mages, I would. I don't. Not everyone prefers supernatural RP.

[X-D]

The biggest draw for me, by far, is variety. I don't care as much about a quick road to coded advancement, or plots (which I think are pretty equally open to both mundane and others). I think there are some definite positives to playing mundanes instead, though. You're always going to have some people who prefer that, too.

This goes for me as well, specialy the bolded part.  Also, almost the only time I will play 2 mages in a row is if the first one dies under 10days played (which for me is like 3 hours played to many) But mundanes I will often play two, three four in a row no matter how long they lived.

[Dalmeth]

The biggest draw for me, by far, is variety. I don't care as much about a quick road to coded advancement, or plots (which I think are pretty equally open to both mundane and others).

Could you elaborate on this?  Why is there more variety in magicker play?  I'm inclined to think there is no real variety that doesn't have to do directly with coded power.

[X-D]

No variety in mage play...Huh, if that was the case I could say the same for mundane.

[Malken]

The biggest draw for me, by far, is variety. I don't care as much about a quick road to coded advancement, or plots (which I think are pretty equally open to both mundane and others).

Could you elaborate on this?  Why is there more variety in magicker play?  I'm inclined to think there is no real variety that doesn't have to do directly with coded power.

What's wrong with coded power? I think that by variety she meant that every magicker classes can develop 10+ spells that are totally different from one another. I don't think it's possible to elaborate without revealing said spells, though.

[some guy]

I wouldn't mind if mundane skills increased a little faster than they do now when employed responsibly. It's easy enough to powergame up at a fast pace, but for those doing it the "right" way, it's a long road. Desiring a highly-skilled character is okay, especially considering that interesting things tend to come to such characters more often than they do to Amos Streetsweeper who's a burglar with skills sitting at the starting base. Interesting stuff can happen to him as well, but I bet Malik the Fully Branched Ranger has more to pick and choose from, all else being equal.

[flurry]

The biggest draw for me, by far, is variety. I don't care as much about a quick road to coded advancement, or plots (which I think are pretty equally open to both mundane and others).

Could you elaborate on this?  Why is there more variety in magicker play?  I'm inclined to think there is no real variety that doesn't have to do directly with coded power.

Sorry, what I meant is that I like playing a variety of roles. So I play magickers sometimes because it's different. I like trying all sorts of different things.

[Dalmeth]

What's wrong with coded power? I think that by variety she meant that every magicker classes can develop 10+ spells that are totally different from one another. I don't think it's possible to elaborate without revealing said spells, though.

There's nothing wrong with coded power, it's just that she mentioned she didn't care about a quick rode to coded advancement, which is synonymous to coded power.  As Synthesis stated before, skill advancement is entirely a matter of how much time you put into it, so the rate of progress really isn't that much of an issue.

No variety in mage play...Huh, if that was the case I could say the same for mundane.

I didn't say that.  I meant to say there was no variety separate from that of non-magickers.  The primary difference is that magicker spells give instant gratification where non-magickers take a bit more planning and quite a few more supplies.  I'm still sticking to the point that time efficiency is a key factor in the player trend toward magickers.

[Angela Christine]

The title is silly, because everyone knows that Rangers are players' preferred guild.    Every time I've seen an imm say how many of each guild there are logged in right at the moment, there have always been more rangers than anything else.  More rangers than all the karma guilds combined.

Even in today's wild and woolly End Times, I'm sure that karma guilds make up much less than half of all active PCs.  So I'd say that players prefer non-gickers to gickers.

Personally, I play supernaturally gifted characters about 40% of the time.  Certainly not because they are more powerful, because mine never live long enough to get powerful -- I'm much more likely to branch as a Ranger or a Merchant than as any kind of Elementalist, Templar, or Sorcerer.



I think that the problem is mainly one of perception.  People that have the karma to play karma guilds may think they are being very responsible if they only play magickers 20% to 50% of the time -- the majority of their characters are not magickers.  However, most players also perceive the setting as one where magickers should make up 10%, 5% or even just 1% of the population.  Nobody wants to play 99 mundane characters before getting a chance to try a magicker though.  If players perceived the setting as one where it was reasonable for 30% of the population to have some crazy magickal or psionic potential, there wouldn't be a problem.




===>  Karma restrictions may actually inflate the number of unnatural characters, by making them seem more powerful and more special than they really are.  Out of the box the most powerful commoners are Warriors, the most versatile are Rangers, and the wealthiest are (northern) Merchants.  It takes time for a mage to actually be useful, and for most practicing is still going to be a lonely and boring time -- most of the time they will be much more isolated than other guilds while practicing their craft.

In MUDs without karma restrictions, the (mostly) non-magical guilds like warriors, rangers, thieves, merchants, and so on have no problems recruiting new members.  There isn't a shortage of mages, psions, clerics and druids either, but the "mostly magical" don't seem to out number the "mostly non-magical".

===>  The sharp division between magickal and non-magickal guilds may also inflate the the number of primarily magickal PCs, or at least the perception of their numbers. It is very hard to "dabble" in magic in this game.  If you try to be a regular guy who knows or does a little magick or hedge magick on the side, you are going to suck -- you are going to suck at being a regular guy and also suck at doing magick.  You just can't be a wise woman or a hedge mage who is mostly one thing, but also knows a few useful spells or charms.

In many other MUDs, there are semi-magickal guilds like bards, paladins, monks, etc., who are mostly non-magickal, but do know a few spells or have some mystical abilities. They pull away some players that might otherwise choose fully magickal guilds like mages, clerics and psions.

===>The enforced ignorance of the setting means Magick is the only obvious way for a commoner to be a Sage, Scholar or Philosopher.  (Advanced Merchants can get fairly scholarly when they get past tinkering and into engineering, but that takes a very long time.)  Dirt poor commoners simply aren't supposed to have time to wonder why the world works the way it does, but most magickers do spend time thinking about it, because they have to figure out how to use their own abilities with limited instruction.  A good portion of players are nerds, and sometimes nerds want to be nerdy.  Being a mage is the closest an illiterate character can come to being a nerd.    



I hope that A2 will solve some of the current problems.  Karma will be gone, at least for a while, so new players won't have the perception that playing mages is a reward.  Magickal subguilds may allow people to play characters that have a touch of magick without needing to be a full wizard.  De-criminalizing literacy could allow scribes and historians to exist and be nerdy, without needing to be noble or magickal.  Perhaps the setting will even make allowances for a larger number of people have magical abilities, which would narrow the gap between how many mages people think there are, and how many mages people think there ought to be.

[number13]

Nobody wants to play 99 mundane characters before getting a chance to try a magicker though.

*sob*

If players perceived the setting as one where it was reasonable for 30% of the population to have some crazy magickal or psionic potential, there wouldn't be a problem.

Sure. But part of the appeal of this setting is the scarcity of overt magic effects.  Mainstream fantasy games have gone in the opposite direction -- more magic, flashier magic. It's nice to see a fantasy game that takes a more subdued approach.

More of a thing for Arm.2: I would be satisfied with a Mystic class that had very subdued magic.  They can perform a ritual to make a character heal a little faster, fight a little better (or worse), send messages through the Way a longer distance. Simple things, subtle effects. Anyone can make a Mystic, but only the rare individual is allowed to make a full on flashy fire-ball tossing magicker.

[X-D]

I don't agree that time factor has anything to do with it Dalmeth...at least for myself and pretty much anybody I know. Most of us can power up a mundane as fast or faster then a mage, assuming the need is there. Cept the mundane has a much better chance to survive to become powerful. No matter what many believe, most people go through MANY mages before they get one of any real power.

Also, as AC stated, Rangers and warriors are easily the most populus class IG and you might be suprised how many people with 7 or 8 karma still play mostly rangers and warriors.

[Bogre]

This is how it's intended.  However, this is also why it becomes a problem when there are too many.  It changes the status quo.

        Not only that, but as a leader PC, a noble to be more precise...I actively tried discouraging the use of mages over mundanes.  I didn't rule it out, but tried to keep it low profile...and was scoffed at, ignored, and 'corrected' by templars running missions.

Changing the status quo is a big one. Players feel they need to compete or do whatever. I also liked that the aforementioned noble disliked mundanes, but it seemed to me the templars used them out of sheer pragmatism.

[Dalmeth]

Just a few things to comment on :

In MUDs without karma restrictions, the (mostly) non-magical guilds like warriors, rangers, thieves, merchants, and so on have no problems recruiting new members.  There isn't a shortage of mages, psions, clerics and druids either, but the "mostly magical" don't seem to out number the "mostly non-magical".

In other MUDs, magickal classes are typically have some sort of competitive balance with other classes.  I don't really think this example  applies.

===>  The sharp division between magickal and non-magickal guilds may also inflate the the number of primarily magickal PCs, or at least the perception of their numbers. It is very hard to "dabble" in magic in this game.  If you try to be a regular guy who knows or does a little magick or hedge magick on the side, you are going to suck -- you are going to suck at being a regular guy and also suck at doing magick.  You just can't be a wise woman or a hedge mage who is mostly one thing, but also knows a few useful spells or charms.

I have consistently been in favor of the magickal world being open to more than just magickal guilds.  A few specially crafted charms, maybe a hallucinogen that also lets you see a few real things, these sorts of things where while they are magickal, they aren't very magickal, and they allow you to approach the magickal world without a magicker class.

In many other MUDs, there are semi-magickal guilds like bards, paladins, monks, etc., who are mostly non-magickal, but do know a few spells or have some mystical abilities. They pull away some players that might otherwise choose fully magickal guilds like mages, clerics and psions.

Armageddon isn't like many other MUDs.  Magic and insane non-magical maneuvers are considered from a perspective of play style, not so much as it relates to your character's place in the physical and social structure of the world.  It's not that they are magical or not, but that they play differently that really draws people.

===>The enforced ignorance of the setting means Magick is the only obvious way for a commoner to be a Sage, Scholar or Philosopher.  (Advanced Merchants can get fairly scholarly when they get past tinkering and into engineering, but that takes a very long time.)  Dirt poor commoners simply aren't supposed to have time to wonder why the world works the way it does, but most magickers do spend time thinking about it, because they have to figure out how to use their own abilities with limited instruction.  A good portion of players are nerds, and sometimes nerds want to be nerdy.  Being a mage is the closest an illiterate character can come to being a nerd.    

I disagree entirely with this.  There is a complete lack of philosophical authority on Zalanthas, which makes it ripe for anyone to come up with just about anything.  Rangers with all their skills have the capability to become the nerdiest of all in areas of geography, geology (all that foraging), and anatomy (skinning, bandaging).  I honestly don't know why more people don't do that sort of thing.  It's great material to play out a teaching scene.

Honestly, the first benefit to being a magickal sage over a non-magickal one is the greater ability to lord it over everyone else through fear.  It may be pessimistic, but you can't ignore the effect of  social position of magickers on your play.

[roughneck]

Synthesis had a great post.

I think the fact that you can play a magicker while your idling appeals to a lot of people too.  Try using backstab and only be half-paying attention to what you're doing, or any of the combat skills for that matter - you'll be dead pretty fast.  A magicker character can sit in his temple while his player is at work and just cast without worrying about any consequences and think up a bit of a plot or develop his character with a 'think' every ten or twenty minutes.

Magickers are a good fit for people who play at odd times or idle a lot, mundanes just can't train or develop without the player paying attention and interacting with other people.  Rangers have difficulty just marching out and hacking out a life from the very start on their own without getting killed by their prey, especially in the southlands and assassins and warriors have a very tough, dangerous time as well at the beginning unless they're part of a clan.

As far as skill advancement, I've never understand why a magicker can practice his magick skills in an empty room but I can't practice backstab on a dead body or throw on a fence post.  But I prefer it that way, it makes for more excitement.  If magickers had to advance that way as well there would be -a lot- less around as they would actually be found out before they are titans.

[a strange shadow]

As far as skill advancement, I've never understand why a magicker can practice his magick skills in an empty room but I can't practice backstab on a dead body or throw on a fence post.  But I prefer it that way, it makes for more excitement.  If magickers had to advance that way as well there would be -a lot- less around as they would actually be found out before they are titans.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

On the downside, you'd see a lot more rogue magickers wandering about, casting on the roads, casting in view of the gates, being more 'visible' in general...
And isn't that what's pissing people off? Too much magick?

[roughneck]

Nobody minds casting outside the gates and getting their ass kicked for it.

People are sick of seeing demi-gods roaming everywhere.

Aside from that even, if they had to cast for real all the time it means for the spells they needed a target for, we'd weed a lot out of them as their target turns around and whops their ass and people would switch to mundanes because it's frustrating and we'd be back to the docs.  As far as magickers go I'm all for a 'survival of the fittest' approach rather than the current where we bottle feed them to power.