Why 'gickers are players' preferred guilds

[Furious George]

If it gets bad again, make a player driven RPT where you gather up everyone on and form a torch brandishing lynch mob.


To not derail and stay on topic:  I don't really play mages because they really bore me.  And the reasoning is precisely what was quoted just above, you don't really have to do anything and go anywhere, once you find your 'spot'...and everyone finds the same spots.  It feels dirty to just end up emoting and exploring the depths of your plane until you're confident enough to go out and either stir some trouble or...*yawn* delve deeper.  Bleh.

Gimme a sword, a beetle and a skin of water and I can make my enjoyment for days.

[palomar]

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.

From what I have seen, a lot of the magicker PCs live fast and die young. I would not be surprised if the turnaround rate for magickers is just as high as it is for mundanes. Clans, organizations and sometimes tribes tend to promote longevity, of course.
As for casting for real every time... You'd either see magickers teaming up more often to practice on eachother where possible, or you'd see them direct their play towards hunting. Personally, I'd rather run into a fairly strong Krathi who's been able to practice in his temple than discover the trail of burninated scrabs in the sands. Also, I believe it took a very very long time to become a skilled magicker in the past and IMHO I would not prefer to see a return to that. It is a different discussion though.

[Ender]

Also, I believe it took a very very long time to become a skilled magicker in the past and IMHO I would not prefer to see a return to that. It is a different discussion though.

I would.

They're karma classes for a reason, they're supposed to be challenging roles and require a ton of patience and maturity both ICly and OOCly.

It's been a few years since last I played a magicker, but I remember it being very difficult to survive with my first one, even as a gemmed mage, so when I did finally manage to become successful it felt very rewarding.


I remember one of the main reasons people didn't play mages as much in the past was because they were such hard characters to play, and only the really patient and intelligent could survive to the point they became something to be feared.

[jhunter]

Also, I believe it took a very very long time to become a skilled magicker in the past and IMHO I would not prefer to see a return to that. It is a different discussion though.

I would.

They're karma classes for a reason, they're supposed to be challenging roles and require a ton of patience and maturity both ICly and OOCly.

It's been a few years since last I played a magicker, but I remember it being very difficult to survive with my first one, even as a gemmed mage, so when I did finally manage to become successful it felt very rewarding.

I would hate for it to go back to being that difficult. It was so difficult it wasn't even fun IMO. Unless I played gemmed (and sat in a temple bored for RL hours, days, weeks, on end, mine were always killed by some dickwad who wanted to lord the fact that I was a pathetically weak mage over me and kill my pc. I personally would rather be able to get somewhat decently skilled without having to hide out by myself and be bored forever to keep my pc from behing killed by the first asshole that comes along.

[Malken]

From what I have seen, a lot of the magicker PCs live fast and die young. I would not be surprised if the turnaround rate for magickers is just as high as it is for mundanes. Clans, organizations and sometimes tribes tend to promote longevity, of course.
As for casting for real every time... You'd either see magickers teaming up more often to practice on eachother where possible, or you'd see them direct their play towards hunting. Personally, I'd rather run into a fairly strong Krathi who's been able to practice in his temple than discover the trail of burninated scrabs in the sands. Also, I believe it took a very very long time to become a skilled magicker in the past and IMHO I would not prefer to see a return to that. It is a different discussion though.

But why is it fair that a magicker can cast and train hostile spells without the need of a target, even a dummy target, and then say that assassins should not be able to train backstab on other players, not even dummies?

If you think about it, an assassin who would spend his whole life training in his 'temple' and then go forth and bring destruction to the world with his newly twinked up backstab skill isn't so different than a magicker is allowed to do right now..

[Ender]

Also, I believe it took a very very long time to become a skilled magicker in the past and IMHO I would not prefer to see a return to that. It is a different discussion though.

I would.

They're karma classes for a reason, they're supposed to be challenging roles and require a ton of patience and maturity both ICly and OOCly.

It's been a few years since last I played a magicker, but I remember it being very difficult to survive with my first one, even as a gemmed mage, so when I did finally manage to become successful it felt very rewarding.

I would hate for it to go back to being that difficult. It was so difficult it wasn't even fun IMO. Unless I played gemmed (and sat in a temple bored for RL hours, days, weeks, on end, mine were always killed by some dickwad who wanted to lord the fact that I was a pathetically weak mage over me and kill my pc. I personally would rather be able to get somewhat decently skilled without having to hide out by myself and be bored forever to keep my pc from behing killed by the first asshole that comes along.

That's where the issue of balance comes from.  Do we want magickers to be easier or do we want them to be rare?

The desired 1-10% of the game population of magickers would easily return to that if it went back to the way it was, because not many people would find them fun.  I have a type of personality that allows me to patiently play those kinda PCs, so it wouldn't really be something I would mind.

[Sephiroto]

But why is it fair that a magicker can cast and train hostile spells without the need of a target, even a dummy target, and then say that assassins should not be able to train backstab on other players, not even dummies?

If you think about it, an assassin who would spend his whole life training in his 'temple' and then go forth and bring destruction to the world with his newly twinked up backstab skill isn't so different than a magicker is allowed to do right now..

The laws of magick are not as restrictive as Zalanthan physics.  Backstabbing is a feat of athleticism while magick is an act of conjuration and allows practicing without real world effects.  Information supporting this can be found in the magick FAQ's, particularly the reach helpfile, which is accessable by anyone.  Practicing magick without a target demands creativity but is possible.  Practicing backstab (in the physical sense) without a target is not possible.

Now, back to the argument about magickers being difficult: 

Magickers are just as hard to advance now as they were in the past, in my opinion.  Surviving with a magicker is not as difficult.  Why?  Because of the generally lower fear given to magickers there is a greater acceptance and an overall negligence toward rogue magickers.

[jhunter]

Also, I believe it took a very very long time to become a skilled magicker in the past and IMHO I would not prefer to see a return to that. It is a different discussion though.

I would.

They're karma classes for a reason, they're supposed to be challenging roles and require a ton of patience and maturity both ICly and OOCly.

It's been a few years since last I played a magicker, but I remember it being very difficult to survive with my first one, even as a gemmed mage, so when I did finally manage to become successful it felt very rewarding.

I would hate for it to go back to being that difficult. It was so difficult it wasn't even fun IMO. Unless I played gemmed (and sat in a temple bored for RL hours, days, weeks, on end, mine were always killed by some dickwad who wanted to lord the fact that I was a pathetically weak mage over me and kill my pc. I personally would rather be able to get somewhat decently skilled without having to hide out by myself and be bored forever to keep my pc from behing killed by the first asshole that comes along.

That's where the issue of balance comes from.  Do we want magickers to be easier or do we want them to be rare?

The desired 1-10% of the game population of magickers would easily return to that if it went back to the way it was, because not many people would find them fun.  I have a type of personality that allows me to patiently play those kinda PCs, so it wouldn't really be something I would mind.

Not desired by me. I have no problems and have never had any problems with too many magickers. I'm fine with 25%-30% of the pc population being magickers. (If that were the case, which it isn't and I highly doubt has ever really reached such percentages for any length of time.)

[Sephiroto]

Not desired by me. I have no problems and have never had any problems with too many magickers. I'm fine with 25%-30% of the pc population being magickers. (If that were the case, which it isn't and I highly doubt has ever really reached such percentages for any length of time.)

There's a schism of older and newer players here.  The new guys frankly don't seem to care about the current magicker population, because they haven't known Arm for what it can be when the playerbase is 10% or less magickers.  A lot of people plainly can't comprehend it.

At the current ratio there are many loose cannons running around.  I'm fine with the current balance of magickers only if there are more clear and strict guidelines about interactions between magicker and non-magicker classes.  I'm particularly refering to confrontational scenes where combat is going to occurr.  The non-magicker can't resist the urge (I've done this too) to walk in and smash the magicker because the magicker usually insta-flees or insta-deathspells you.

If the game isn't going to go back to the old ways I want some reform.  I want reform.

[Lakota]

Agreed Seph. I personally think the idea of a mage hunter is, quite frankly, rediculous. I know of one individual who hunted only a certain type of mage because his class was better suited to hunt them. He knew their ooc weaknesses and capitalized on them. I find that bad form.

Leave the mage hunting to templars and, well, other mages.

[NoteworthyFellow]

Agreed Seph. I personally think the idea of a mage hunter is, quite frankly, rediculous. I know of one individual who hunted only a certain type of mage because his class was better suited to hunt them. He knew their ooc weaknesses and capitalized on them. I find that bad form.

Leave the mage hunting to templars and, well, other mages.

I think a well-played mage hunter/witch hunter is just fine; hell, a PC clan made entirely for the purpose of being witch hunters would be pretty fun.  In a world where magick is hated and feared, it makes sense that someone would want to wipe out as much of it as possible--and after someone realizes that a magicker dies just as dead as a real person (see what I did there?), they're going to want to kill them to just that level of dead.

However, the story of the mage hunter who only hunted the mages his guild could easily kill is pretty much shitty, yeah.

[jhunter]

Not desired by me. I have no problems and have never had any problems with too many magickers. I'm fine with 25%-30% of the pc population being magickers. (If that were the case, which it isn't and I highly doubt has ever really reached such percentages for any length of time.)

There's a schism of older and newer players here.  The new guys frankly don't seem to care about the current magicker population, because they haven't known Arm for what it can be when the playerbase is 10% or less magickers.  A lot of people plainly can't comprehend it.

At the current ratio there are many loose cannons running around.  I'm fine with the current balance of magickers only if there are more clear and strict guidelines about interactions between magicker and non-magicker classes.  I'm particularly refering to confrontational scenes where combat is going to occurr.  The non-magicker can't resist the urge (I've done this too) to walk in and smash the magicker because the magicker usually insta-flees or insta-deathspells you.

If the game isn't going to go back to the old ways I want some reform.  I want reform.

I'm hardly a new player.  I personally think the changes regarding magickers and magick were a huge improvement to the game. Lack of magick and magicker characters were never one of my reasons for playing Armageddon. I absolutely hated trying to play a magicker pc before and have mundane pc players show no fear and pk almost all of mine. At least now, they have a fucking reason to really be afraid.

[a strange shadow]

Yes, but the pendulum has swung too far in the "making mundanes obsolete" direction.

We don't have to go back to what was, but we do need something.

[ale six]

KARMAGEDDON: SERIOUS BUSINESS ^.^

[Gimfalisette]

The conversation seems to have devolved to the level of "what I want/prefer versus what you want/prefer." jhunter (and others) wants magick to be easier to skill up and doesn't mind lots of magicker characters and likes the game better since changes to the magick system were made; Ender (and others) wants magick to be harder to skill up and does mind lots of magicker characters and thinks the game was harmed by changes to the magick system. Who is right? No one, because the discussion is about personal preference.

System design should never be done based on personal preference, unless the system is being designed for only one user.

System design should be done by looking at the desired end results, and building components of the system which are calculated to create those results.

Currently we have a magick system (taking into account both code and roleplaying to docs) that is designed to do the following:
-- Produce rapid, non-risky gains in achievement and accomplishment for magicker characters, which is minimally perceived by the playerbase to make these guilds desirable for "achievement play" above mundane guilds.
-- Make magicker characters more useful, and sometimes solely useful, for certain types of tasks in the game world.
-- Require roleplay to be the only cap on usefulness or involvement of magicker characters. (There is no coded enforcement of these things.)
-- Produce proportionately greater numbers of non-mundane characters over time, as newer players acquire the karma to play them. (The rate of karma gain is undoubtedly greater than the rate of new players entering the game.)

And so forth. The system we currently have does not produce results that are in keeping with the docs' mantra of "rare, special, feared."

My preference would be to see the system re-designed (or designed anew in 2.ARM) to introduce non-punitive changes that would move our results back toward keeping with the docs.

[Medena]

The conversation always was about what people prefer.

I know that the OP was attempting to make a positive discussion which did not leave room for the usual finger pointing about how other people play things wrong. The discussion was directed at the reasons for people choosing to play magickers so instead of making people feel defensive about their choices we could, instead, find other sorts of solutions -- eg. making mundane guild's branching be faster, stimulating more mundane-only plots, or making karma guilds feel less special. 

However the whole thing assumes that there is some problem to be solved and I, personally, don't believe there is a problem.  Consequently, this thread looks like just another one of the anti-magicker flavour to me.

Gimfalisette, it is clear that you prefer there to be far fewer magickers or you would not be suggesting things that would increase the number of non-magickers.

[Morrolan]

I'm hardly a new player.  I personally think the changes regarding magickers and magick were a huge improvement to the game. Lack of magick and magicker characters were never one of my reasons for playing Armageddon.

I'm not really new here, either.  I don't think there are too many magickers.  I do think there is too much of a culture of "tell players how to play their mages" on the GDB.  It's as old as "raider" threads, and about as exciting in general.

I look forward to the changes coming in Armageddon Reborn which I think will (over time) solve many of the "magicker" problems.  The only one I think it can't solve is "get your stinky magicker out of my game."

I expects that when players discover that A) Playing a half-magicker doesn't make you very powerful, and B) Playing a full magicker doesn't make you special because the half-magickers are taking your business (half-warrior, half-magicker acting a magick support for 2.byn, for example), then only people with a really good reason to be powerful mages will bother.  I think over time, the number of mages will go down.

As someone else said, Rangers are the preferred class.  As has been said before in this thread, mages are only the preferred class of some players.  And of those players, only some of them do so because nuking your character is fun.

[derail]There's been a lot of discussion about how to make magickers more feared.  The solution is simple.  Remove all karma restrictions on them.  Give new players krathis and elkrosians and sorcerers.  Quickly, very quickly, mages will be feared.[/derail]

Morrolan

[Gimfalisette]

The conversation always was about what people prefer.

I know that the OP was attempting to make a positive discussion which did not leave room for the usual finger pointing about how other people play things wrong. The discussion was directed at the reasons for people choosing to play magickers so instead of making people feel defensive about their choices we could, instead, find other sorts of solutions -- eg. making mundane guild's branching be faster, stimulating more mundane-only plots, or making karma guilds feel less special. 

However the whole thing assumes that there is some problem to be solved and I, personally, don't believe there is a problem.  Consequently, this thread looks like just another one of the anti-magicker flavour to me.

Gimfalisette, it is clear that you prefer there to be far fewer magickers or you would not be suggesting things that would increase the number of non-magickers.

I'm not sure if you missed that I'm the OP or not.

My true personal preference is that we do either of two things:

-- Change the documentation and the world so that magick is not supposed to be rare / hated / feared in order to align it with the system we now have which produces large numbers of non-mundane PCs.

OR

-- Change the system we have in order to align it with the documentation and the world so that it produces many fewer numbers of non-mundane PCs.

Currently we are just schizophrenic about the issue, and our insanity causes us to point the finger of blame at other players. We have the constant dissonance of attempting to play by the docs (and wanting others to play by the docs, so we can retain immersion), while we're trying to do this inside a system that doesn't produce the result the docs say we should see.

[Archbaron]

I'm personally sickened by the influx of magick in some parts of the world. It really ruins the atmosphere and makes your mundane feel outnumbered.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

Gimf, preferences are always going to play a very large part in who picks what class. While the points you outline in your OP are all true, there's really no way of telling if those factors are more important than personal preference. Some people might play 'gickers regardless of the game, some people might refrain from playing magickers because they don't like them in their incarnation, some people might play them only because they like the current incarnation. Some people might love the fact that tons of magickers are running around, while some might refrain from playing for precisely that reason.
The reasons you list for playing magickers are, in my opinion, not very good reasons. There's a great line in the elf docs:
Desert Elf Misconceptions wrote:

Play a desert elf if you want to explore the world: No. This is wrong. This is like playing a mul, because you want to have a badass warrior; sure, the race enables you to do that, but you're missing the whole point of it.

Similarly, I'd say that if you playing a magicker to A) run rough-shod over mundane characters or B) because you think you'll be able to get involved with more plots as a magicker or C) because you're bored of mundanes, then you're similarly missing the whole point of it. These reasons might get you to play one or two magickers, but the 'serial magicker players', the 'problem players' (like me), probably play magickers for some other reason. For reasons that rooted in personal preference.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, or that you don't have a valid point. The reason this conversation keeps drifting toward personal preference is because matters of personal preference are equally valid. I suspect they might have an even greater impact on the number of magickers than the 'system' in place.

[Rahnevyn]

I have had to delete IC information twice now in this same thread. Watch what you post. If this continues, I'm locking the discussion.

[Marauder Moe]

Come on, Gimf.

What about the whole issue that the playerbase will never be a correct reflection of the actual world demographics?  PC's are special.  They are more likely to be free citizens rather than slaves.  They are more likely to be human, half-elven, dwarven, half-giant, or mulish (realistically, about half of the population should be elven).  They are more likely to be wealthy nobles' servants.  They are more likely to leave their home cities.  They are more likely to die young and violently.

And, of course, they are more likely to encounter supernatural beings or to actually be such things.

Instead of calling the "reality" of Armageddon vs the "reality" of Zalanthas "unrealistic" or "inconsistent", why can't we just call it "interesting"?


EDIT: And instead of believing that the docs describe Armageddon, just read them as describing Zalanthas.

[Sokotra]

Come on, Gimf.

What about the whole issue that the playerbase will never be a correct reflection of the actual world demographics?  PC's are special.  They are more likely to be free citizens rather than slaves.  They are more likely to be human, half-elven, dwarven, half-giant, or mulish (realistically, about half of the population should be elven).  They are more likely to be wealthy nobles' servants.  They are more likely to leave their home cities.  They are more likely to die young and violently.

And, of course, they are more likely to encounter supernatural beings or to actually be such things.

Instead of calling the "reality" of Armageddon vs the "reality" of Zalanthas "unrealistic" or "inconsistent", why can't we just call it "interesting"?


EDIT: And instead of believing that the docs describe Armageddon, just read them as describing Zalanthas.

I have to agree with this.  Of course, there still has to be some balance.. but I'm probably not going to play a commoner that does common stuff all the common time.  I don't think I've ever done that.. yeah, I probably should try it occasionally, but let's not go too far in the 'mundane' direction either.  And when I say mundane, I mean commoners who do nothing but sweep poop all day as opposed to a commoner that travels or fights or whatever... you know, the 'fun' stuff. 

[Armaddict]

However the whole thing assumes that there is some problem to be solved and I, personally, don't believe there is a problem.

Please refer back to the documentation and compare it to how things actually go, without using such justifications as "Players enjoy this or that and this is a game." or "Players don't represent the NPC population; all the players could be mages and the documentation would still be accurate."

You've been around for awhile.  You know how this goes.

What about the whole issue that the playerbase will never be a correct reflection of the actual world demographics?  PC's are special.

There is also the factor of 'the exception'.  And by this I mean playing against the Zalanthan norm. Generally when you play the exception to the rule, it is not good and in the end can change the perception of the game.

Now, that quote from Myrdryn is reply is out of context a bit, but if you have not, I'd suggest rereading his post.  It does not go for one side or the other, but it does bring into play something that is important.  If people continue to assume that 'PC's are special' and that documentation and cultural aspects can continue to be removed or taken out at a whim because it's not an aspect you particularly like as a player...you are doing your own part towards removing the flavor of the game.  "Well it's -only- me, it's not that big of an impact."  It is.  You support doing it further.  I don't mind exceptions either, but when it's getting to the point that you're justifying it, instead of saying, "Yeah, this one is different, not normal.  I'll go back to the normal state of the game after this one dies.", you are creating your own little trend to follow.

Instead of calling the "reality" of Armageddon vs the "reality" of Zalanthas "unrealistic" or "inconsistent", why can't we just call it "interesting"?

Because if you're taking 'interesting' and making it overrule 'somewhat real', 'consistent', 'long-lived', 'well-managed', 'well-documented', 'role-play intensive'....don't you end up with an interesting game that is -not- exactly Armageddon?

[Gimfalisette]

Instead of calling the "reality" of Armageddon vs the "reality" of Zalanthas "unrealistic" or "inconsistent", why can't we just call it "interesting"?

EDIT: And instead of believing that the docs describe Armageddon, just read them as describing Zalanthas.

I don't really have an adequate way to respond to this...don't have the words exactly, because the feeling is so deep. Yet another noble's aide, or well-off indie hunter, doesn't break my immersion; yet another mindbender intrusion, or abduction by a sorceror, or magickal attack by a powerful being, does break my immersion. Also, when I think of character concepts, even though I am naturally drawn to playing mundanes, my primary thought/feeling about playing them anymore is: "But mundanes are helpless and irrelevant." And pretty often, the thought occurs to me, "If I can't play mundanes and not feel helpless and irrelevant, then maybe I should quit playing ARM."