Why 'gickers are players' preferred guilds

[jhunter]

I disagree with the idea that in order to be involved in major plots one should be playing a magicker. I think that those who believe this is are fooling themselves. I've only ever been involved in the major stuff with non-magicker pcs.
My personal attraction to playing a magicker is that when playing a magicker pc you can do things that noone else can do, Armaggedon's magick system is without a doubt the coolest one I've ever experienced, I generally play magick-using pcs in other roleplaying games, 3rd Edition D&D sorcerors are my favorite. That said, there are only a couple of the magicker classes that I've played that I personally enjoy, whirans and drovians are more my style than alot of the others. Even though those are two of my favorites, I really haven't played that many of them. Most of my roles have been warriors and rangers.

If there were any adjustment to be made and I'm not saying that I believe there should be, I think progression in non-magicker classes should be sped up a bit if anything.

[Malken]

That's it, you guys have convinced me, I'm storing my mundane guy and going to play that Whiran concept I had months ago.

[ale six]

Plotlines run by players in particular seem almost dependent on mages.  Mundanes, in many scenarios, become almost like tag-alongs.  Plots are routinely -based- around the presence of mages, and the mundanes become little more than glorified bodyguards.  I've seen it many...many...many times, and when trying to show the displeasure that most common folk would likely feel at that, was harassed and looked down on.  Multiple characters were treated in this way by multiple other characters.
        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.

As long as mages are plentiful, powerful, and carrying no social drawback in their use...I'll always gripe about it.

As a noble, you yourself can create those social drawbacks, Armaddict. I've seen it done and did it myself, and it does work. As soon as we throw our hands up as players and stop enforcing those social drawbacks ourselves, they start to disappear. Staff don't have time to constantly reinforce them on their own.

Plenty of plots revolve around magick. When they do, I think it's natural that magickers are going to be the solution to the problem. Just as you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, you don't send Bynners against a sorcerer or whatever the Big Magick Meanie du jour is. You CAN, but it'll be harder to get efficient results.... and most PCs are more concerned with the ends than the means.

On the other hand, there are plenty of plots where magick isn't needed and can be excluded. For example, take a major event I had a chance to influence (and this happened over a year ago, I believe, but I'll still be vague)...

House Borsail wanted a certain group of bandits in the desert to be slaughtered, as proof of its might, power, etc etc. These bandits were pretty tough cookies, and had themselves a nice hideout. Borsail needed to enlist the help of a templar to bring them down. I'm sure that the templar could have used some of his mages to totally pwnz0r the rogue bandits, and indeed he even suggested that. It would have been a lot easier and more expedient, and perhaps ensured the absolute and total destruction of the rogues better than mundanes could have.

But as Borsails, we absolutely forbid it. There would be NO use of magickers in defending the House's honor, no matter what. House Borsail would never rely on such foul, disgusting creatures. The templar would have lost our support if they'd been used.

End result: the gemmed stayed home, a nice sized army of mundanes rode out, and heads were stomped -- a major plot conducted completely mundane.

This can happen again in Allanak - it just requires the right PCs to exert the right pressure in the right situation. You can also have major RPTs without magick in Tuluk...... always.

[Armaddict]

Uh...actually, ale-six...if that's the one I'm thinking of...we used all sorts of mages for it, against my wishes as well.

I -did- try and make the social drawback, and as mentioned, it was disregarded and talked about as foolish.  The templarate has not -needed- noble backing for a long time, at least not from PC nobles.  Which very much does put a lot of it into the hands of clan immortals.  Not solely, but at least some reinforcement for good behavior regarding it, a few guidelines, and some urging for some sort of plot where mages don't overshadow everyone else would be awesome.  Along with somehow fixing this status quo problem where PC nobles, and their money, are not particularly needed by templars at all.  I won't go into it here...but the justification that templars don't need to oblige to nobles in return for funding  (as it says in documentation) because they are templars who serve Tek and nobles are just nobles is being overdone, from any of my more recent observations.

Granted, it was not always this way.  But it was disturbing, to see just how much of everything required mages, and how much of everything that didn't -require- them have it justified solely by the tactical advantage with no thought given to the social outlook of things at all...a social outlook that has been allowed to morph and change drastically from where it was.



Edit:  Er, whoops, no...I remember the event you're talking about now.  I was thinking of another group of bandits, heh.

Edited again:  Southern perspective.  Just perspective of a player, not any definitive, researched thing, I don't know all going on everywhere...so don't get to uppity against me if you disagree

[Janna]

Gimf's points are likely pretty accurate. That -is- what the thread was about, right?

[solera]

4. Players want to feel special and different

Sort of.  I want to play a magicker sometime for the "underdog" possibilities. An Amos who flees from who he is.
And to have a peek at that side of mud.

[ale six]

1. Magicker guilds advance and branch skills more quickly than mundanes, and achievement is a powerful motivator to the majority of players.

Yup. Also, there are more skills to branch with magickal classes than mundane classes (except possibly merchant.) On the other hand, magickers "max out" faster and leave less options open for long-term development. I always respect the maxxed warriors a lot more than maxxed mages, because it's a lot harder to get that good.

1. Players want to feel like they will have a chance to participate in a meaningful way in the big plots of the game.

Again, if we want to encourage players to choose to play mundanes, we have to collectively create plots that are mundane in nature and big enough to be interesting and involving to many. And leaders must choose more frequently to engage mundanes in their plots in meaningful ways, rather than going the easy way and just using the nearest non-mundane.

I think this is doable, and being done.

[Gimfalisette]

Yup. Also, there are more skills to branch with magickal classes than mundane classes (except possibly merchant.) On the other hand, magickers "max out" faster and leave less options open for long-term development.

I'm sure that's true, however I don't think it's a major positive motivator for people to play mundanes when the average life expectancy of characters is so low. Given the choice of playing 10 days and not making much progress, or playing 10 days and making a LOT of progress, I think most players would (and do) choose the quicker-advancement route.

I think this is doable, and being done.

I hope so. I haven't seen it, but I'm not omniscient. I don't want to talk about plots a ton here (how to run them and involve people--community brainstorming), because it's not really the point of the thread, so I will probably start a different thread for that.

I have to admit, I've been actively avoiding playing a magicker, no matter how much I want to, because I feel like all the mundane players are going to see me and go, "Oh God, not another magicker here to ruin our atmosphere."  Personally, I'm not bothered at all by the current amount of magickers--I just don't want to add to it because I honestly feel like I'd be inconveniencing a good portion of our playerbase by doing so.

I don't really like that feeling, but what can I do?

I've sometimes considered playing magickers and had that same feeling. Others I know have told me they feel it too. I have a real problem with any segment of the playerbase being demonized, or feeling like they need to apologize, merely for trying out something different.

What I'd really like to see, ultimately, is playing mundanes made much more attractive. I'm not interested in nerfing magickers, and clearly the "social stigma" control can't fully work in a world where the PC populace is 50% magicker. (Social stigma works on the premise that a PC magicker is a lonely outcast magicker...but it's plenty easy to find other outcasts and hang out now.)

Problem #1, the fact that mundanes are more difficult and less rewarding to play from a coded perspective, players can't solve that. It's a code issue. IMO, mundanes need more skills, more interesting skills, and more rewarding branching patterns.

Problem #2, plot involvement for mundanes, players can at least partly solve that by running more mundane plots and requesting mundane plots from the imms.

Problem #3, players wanting variety. Of the 15 guilds commonly known to be available to players through karma or special app (not counting apped leader roles), 6 are mundane. That's only 40%. Add in the fact that many of these guilds share skills, and that's even less variety in mundane guilds. It's inevitable that players will chafe at this small selection and want to try other things. There's nothing really that players can do to resolve this--except possibly instead of special-apping non-mundanes, we should be more frequently special-apping interesting mixes of mundane skills.

Problem #4, players wanting to feel special. If mundanes had more mundane-only plots, that would help. As I've said, in 2.ARM, if players can be only half-magicker, and magickers are more accepted in society, then non-mundanes will be less "special" and I think that will be helpful. Jhunter previoiusly stated (in another thread) an opinion that this would make those who are fully magickers rather than hybrids even MORE special, and I think that's OK too. (Assuming we don't then have a world that's again full of magickers.)

[Archbaron]

1. Magicker guilds advance and branch skills more quickly than mundanes, and achievement is a powerful motivator to the majority of players.

I feel like this is one of the hugest problems related to magickers. Magickers will often spam-cast over and over again just to see the new power level appear in their stat list. As a result, most magickers have branched all their spells within a month or so of existence (not playtime). I think a way to correct this would to remove the power level on the skill list (after all, us mundanes don't get percentages, why should they get the closest thing to it?) and randomly saying words of power to find the combination to your new spell should have some sort of drawback. That'll hinder someone from branching and immediately learning the new words of power.

2. Players want to feel like they will have a chance to participate in a meaningful way in the big plots of the game.

I often find that even when playing a magicker, the mundanes still control a lot of everything. Some people get the wrong idea and make magickers for this purpose, however. Maybe if more clans would opt less to use them, that'd be better.

3. Players get tired of playing the same old guilds all the time, and want to try new things.

I'm guilty of this as much as everyone else here. There's not much to say about this one.

4. Players want to feel special and different.

I think this is one of the biggest reasons people play magickers. They ride on the fact that it's "rare" and ends up turning it into anything but.

[Salt Merchant]

I feel like this is one of the hugest problems related to magickers. Magickers will often spam-cast over and over again just to see the new power level appear in their stat list. As a result, most magickers have branched all their spells within a month or so of existence (not playtime).

As opposed to those training fighting skills, who only have to type one command and then sit back while the character does all the work? That's somehow just better?

As for speed of advancement, I have to wonder if you've ever played an elementalist after a claim like this. Some of the second tier magicks come in quickly. That's about it.

And, in fact, spam casting is not necessarily rewarded in terms of advancement either.

[Is Friday]

Since I can't really elaborate with IC details, I'll just tell you Archbaron, you're very inaccurate with how long it takes. It's a very broad range, and seemed almost random at times.

The biggest difference in variables that people are forgetting is that you can train magick just about anytime you are alone, without any danger. For mundane skills, you have to be risking your life against npc's, using supplies, or finding other pc's to spar with.

In my opinion, magick doesn't branch faster than mundane, maybe faster than it did since the fix.... It just appears as though it does, because it has less requirements to train. Also keeping in mind the wisdom difference makes, and that I bet most people do not prioritize wisdom with their non-magicker roles.

[Archbaron]

Since I can't really elaborate with IC details, I'll just tell you Archbaron, you're very inaccurate with how long it takes. It's a very broad range, and seemed almost random at times.

The biggest difference in variables that people are forgetting is that you can train magick just about anytime you are alone, without any danger. For mundane skills, you have to be risking your life against npc's, using supplies, or finding other pc's to spar with.

In my opinion, magick doesn't branch faster than mundane, maybe faster than it did since the fix.... It just appears as though it does, because it has less requirements to train. Also keeping in mind the wisdom difference makes, and that I bet most people do not prioritize wisdom with their non-magicker roles.

Yes, I do feel that. There is less threat to train magick, it seems. But I have seen magickers become insanely strong way too insanely fast, sadly.

[staggerlee]

Uh...actually, ale-six...if that's the one I'm thinking of...we used all sorts of mages for it, against my wishes as well.

I -did- try and make the social drawback, and as mentioned, it was disregarded and talked about as foolish.  The templarate has not -needed- noble backing for a long time, at least not from PC nobles.  Which very much does put a lot of it into the hands of clan immortals.  Not solely, but at least some reinforcement for good behavior regarding it, a few guidelines, and some urging for some sort of plot where mages don't overshadow everyone else would be awesome.  Along with somehow fixing this status quo problem where PC nobles, and their money, are not particularly needed by templars at all.  I won't go into it here...but the justification that templars don't need to oblige to nobles in return for funding  (as it says in documentation) because they are templars who serve Tek and nobles are just nobles is being overdone, from any of my more recent observations.

Granted, it was not always this way.  But it was disturbing, to see just how much of everything required mages, and how much of everything that didn't -require- them have it justified solely by the tactical advantage with no thought given to the social outlook of things at all...a social outlook that has been allowed to morph and change drastically from where it was.



Edit:  Er, whoops, no...I remember the event you're talking about now.  I was thinking of another group of bandits, heh.

Edited again:  Southern perspective.  Just perspective of a player, not any definitive, researched thing, I don't know all going on everywhere...so don't get to uppity against me if you disagree

I agree with your assessment for the most part, and it fits my limited experience.  However, I'm not sure that kind of debate is really the point of the thread.
The issue on the table is more about how players treat the idea of playing magickers from an ooc perspective, and not how the staff or game world react to them ic.

I believe it was more of an attempt to create an understanding between players than critique the current situation ic or the actions of the staff.

Not saying you don't have a point, just that it's getting a lot sidetracked from the rather valuable one that thread could otherwise make. New thread perhaps?

[Fathi]

Since I can't really elaborate with IC details, I'll just tell you Archbaron, you're very inaccurate with how long it takes. It's a very broad range, and seemed almost random at times.

The biggest difference in variables that people are forgetting is that you can train magick just about anytime you are alone, without any danger. For mundane skills, you have to be risking your life against npc's, using supplies, or finding other pc's to spar with.

In my opinion, magick doesn't branch faster than mundane, maybe faster than it did since the fix.... It just appears as though it does, because it has less requirements to train. Also keeping in mind the wisdom difference makes, and that I bet most people do not prioritize wisdom with their non-magicker roles.

Yes, I do feel that. There is less threat to train magick, it seems. But I have seen magickers become insanely strong way too insanely fast, sadly.

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, the same can be said for any guild. The fact is, a certain percentage of people are going to spam-cast/powergame to get their PCs to a certain skill level (be it "until they branch ___" or "until they can reliably survive in ___" or "until they are maxed at everything").

I don't necessarily think this percentage of people is higher for magicker guilds--it's just easier to measure and a lot more visible when you have a powerful mage than it is a powerful warrior/ranger/pickpocket.

Back when I was playing a ranger who was also a clan leader, it took me until 43 days played to branch a certain skill. I have no idea whether or not branching that skill at 43 days is considered slower than usual or average or what. But I do know that sometimes, that character would hire employees in newbie gear and they would have branched the same skill within a week or two of playing. Am I saying that all those people were powergamers? No, absolutely not. I'm just pointing out that it is just as possible for mundane characters to become insanely strong very quickly. (I'm not going to say 'too' strong 'too' quickly because it's not my judgement, as a player, to make.)

[Malken]

The thing is that magickers only need one stat to be good at, wisdom, and I'm willing to bet that 99.9% of the magickers prioritize wisdom, which also affects how fast you gain new spells and skills.

[Barzalene]

I don't care who plays them or doesn't or how many their are, as long as the fear of magickers remains part of the game. It's subjective, and selfish, but for me it's one of the things that makes Arm feel like Arm.

[Gimfalisette]

I don't care who plays them or doesn't or how many their are, as long as the fear of magickers remains part of the game. It's subjective, and selfish, but for me it's one of the things that makes Arm feel like Arm.

This thread is at least in part about validating that whatever YOU like about ARM, it's OK for you to like that thing

Fear of magickers is something that a lot of players...both those who play magickers and those who play mundanes...often express enjoying about ARM. IMO, fear of magickers is an ambience goal that is currently not well-supported by the game's design. Now, often here on the forums we get into pointing fingers about that--it's the mundanes' fault because they OOCly know too much about magick, and don't RP accordingly! Or, it's the magickers' fault because there are too many of them and they don't RP accordingly!

But it is not really any person's fault or moral failing. Mundane players are OOCly weary of magick, and know much more about magick than they used to. It's human nature to be unimpressed with things one has seen many times. In fact, with the current state / system of the game, asking mundane players to RP "as if" they had no knowledge or prior experience of magick is akin to asking any player to RP correctly with the rest of the playerbase and also have full knowledge of everyone's OOC identity. It's a major kill to immersion and good RP.

[Armaddict]

Ah, yes, there was some derailment there staggerlee.  I could only be making it worse, but let me try to apply it more to the thread in a short explanation of what I was getting to.

It's very easy to get into magickers because of the reasons stated in the OP, in my opinion.  However, it is only getting worse because there are things getting ignored (okay, not ignored, but often tossed aside or trivialized) that -normally- make the great appeal of mages a little harder to stomach.

The tormented, beaten down magicker, the one who is struggling with what they are, is much easier to play when they aren't put on a pedestal.  Essentially, mages become a more powerful, more versatile, more useable class without having much to batter down those advantages.  The advantages are built into the classes, built into the code, while the drawback requires consistent play on the part of leaders, reinforcement from those who can see things being underplayed, and the all around interaction they receive from the average meeting with the mundanes.

The mages do have their drawbacks to counter their advantages.  They are many.  It's just that they aren't coded in and enforced, they require adherence to history, to documentation, and the willingness to make things a little harder on yourself in favor of keeping the gemmed held in the light they are supposed to be.  (And yes, that mold can be broken.  But when the mold is broken more and more consistently, it becomes easy to disregard the existence of those drawbacks altogether.)

Is that...more in line with things?  Or should I just back out with that train of thought?

[Riev]

I would add to this:

When you're playing an obvious special application character or a karma-required guild, other players treat you much, much better.

For instance, when my rogue magickers get caught and killed by the templarate, I usually get a nice, drawn-out, well-emoted scene with some effort put into it that's worth the while.  Pickpockets and burglars? Brief interrogation, few cursory emotes, and an execution. The same thing goes with ordinary characters:  show up with obvious magickal effects on, and pretty soon everyone is upping their game, emoting like crazy.  Just showing up doesn't cut it.

Further, it extends to how other characters treat your character in confrontations.  If you're perceived as some ordinary Joe, people have a much higher tendency to behave badly and stretch the limits of IC believability...if they know you're a magicker, when you emote being atop a distant dune, they'll (usually) respect that shit and not try to sap you out of the blue.

I would like to just QFT this so people see it again. I have seen, on numerous occasions (And... heh... done it myself) that when a magicker or karma-required class comes along, the emoting and respect starts flying. When some ranger with newbie boots comes up, people just seem to shrug it off.

Quite frankly, the reason I would play a magicker now is  because the last mundane I had died due to me playing at 3am and being stupid. So, I figure I may play a magicker just to see if it feels any better than dying to stupidity.

[Dalmeth]

I submit that while Gimfalisette's points are valid, they solutions to them are not ideal. The way magickers are currently structured allows them to play in a way similar to popular games, like MMOs.  I don't mean to slander it.  I mean to say they can be played in pop-in, pop-out manner, with solid gains received during play.  I'm still going on about time efficiency.  Magickers are largely independent.  They are the most powerful characters in the game, they don't need the strength of numbers and therefore don't have much need of clans.  As someone else stated, they don't even need the usual procedures of training that mundanes must endure.   Magickers are highly mobile.  My limited knowledge in magick tells me this much.  If they can't be just about anywhere in the world in ten minutes, they can make an effect there.  This allows easy grouping and interaction with people you want to actually play with.  Everything is streamlined with magickers.

I personally think non-magickers are plenty cool.  They can do plenty things magickers can't.   So it's not a matter of giving them skills like necksnap and tripleshot that'll draw players away from magickers.  My solutions are vague at best.  Remedying the hurry up and sit method of travel might be one method, where you could walk an animal at a slow pace instead of having an essentially preset stopping point.  It'd even allow you the time to pump out an emote or two before moving on to the next room.  Mostly, a change in game mechanics is what is necessary.

But it is not really any person's fault or moral failing. Mundane players are OOCly weary of magick, and know much more about magick than they used to. It's human nature to be unimpressed with things one has seen many times.

This doesn't necessarily address the problem of magick.  It's boring.  That's right.  All those spells are boring.  Can you end the unholy darkness that has suddenly descended upon you?  Can you hope to block the incoming fireball with your shield?  No.  Magick is boring for everyone else who has to watch it.  Allow people, that is non-magickers, too, to prepare themselves against magick.  Make lasting effects have a focus which can be acted upon by anyone.  Be it a simple object that must be destroyed or some manipulation of the Way.  Maybe the spell roots in people's minds and all present must expel it before it dissipates (good idea for Drov spells).  Just don't make me sit there and accept what's happened.  Let us all do something about it.

Also, as a final note, a good player tends to increase everyone's level of play.  It's not just karma.

[Is Friday]

It would be cool if magick had a lasting effect on players it touched, and perhaps for the caster, too. I've always dreamed of actually being cursed by a magicker.

[Malken]

How about adding a few 'cursing' spells to the list of magick but it would be totally random, every magicker would receive randomly one of these cursing spells and it would not be related to their elemental.

Like, say, a curse that makes you desire food much faster than normal, taking you to 'starving' at an alarming rate, and any type of magickers could receive it at the start, but they would never know what they'd get
until they are in-game.. Perhaps this would add a slight touch of 'mystery' to the magickers? Sure, you'd know that the Gagahuan 'giker you just met probably knows how to Gaga you to death, but you don't know
which of the curses he's capable of casting on you if he so wishes it.

[Is Friday]

That would be cooler if these curses were tied to mundane commands, like look, contact, and anytime the staff wanted to intervene and manually add a small annoying curse to whoever just touched the magicker in an emote.

random curses along this line of thought:
You start seeing random things that aren't there after tasting the same drink you had when the magicker touched you, and lose the curse when you piss it out. (i.e. let's have it start 1 IC day after the incident, and end the 2nd IC day.)

It would be a great roleplaying addition to add speculation, pursued superstitions,  and terror to the general populace.

[Karo]

Sorry for not reading all the posts, but they where kinda long and I just wanted to say a few quick things, so sorry if I repeat anything.

I have two things I'd like to say.

First to everyone who goes 'oh there are so many magickers about.'

Yes, the documentation states that magickers are rare and yada yada yada.  But think about it for a few seconds.  PCs THEMSLEVES are rare.  For every 1 PC there are hundreds of NPCs and Thousands of vNPCs (Maybe more Could reach into the millions for all I know).  So sure, magickers are common among the PC population, but they aren't common among the world population, which fits quite well into the documentation.

Second, to the OP.
I'd like to add the fact that non-mundanes allow you the chance to do something unique to that guild.

Anyone can wear armor, wield a shield, and hit someone with a weapon, so warriors main function isn't all that special. Perhaps they get a few warrior unique things later on in life (no idea) but they are all still things that basicly anyone -could- do.  Same goes for all the other mundane guilds.  Lots of skills overlap between them, and from what I can tell, they all end up at about the same place as far as what they can do.

Magickers on the other hand can do very impressive and unique things.  Only a water elementalist is going to be able to create a barrier of water or whatever it is water elementalists can do.

So yeah, you mention that the non-mundane classes are special, but I think it is the way in which they are special which is important.  Each individual elementalist can do things no other can.  Each mundane guild however has few things that really set them apart (especially at high levels, from my limited knowledge)

[Myrdryn]

(haven't read the entire thread so if I said something someone else said or missed something I'll probably make another post)

Magickers are a karma class.  Karma is a measure of trust, not a measure of how well you roleplay.  There have been fantastic roleplayers that just couldn't be trusted because they abused the system.  I'm  just stating that up front, I'm not pointing fingers.

The feel and environment of the game is in large dependent upon the players at large.  A desert world where resources are scare.  Where certain aspects of the game world just are, and the main thing reinforcing these things are the players and the way they react.  Certain things can be coded, other things (like fear/acceptance of magik) can't be.  Hate for elves, or a dwarf's focus can't be regulated by the code.  If someone chose to roleplay their half-giant as stupid or smart is up to the player and can't be regulated by the game.

When you have karma for something, that is the staff saying "We have faith that you understand these things about the game and believe you will roleplay accordingly".  The game/code allows for a wide range of abuse from karma races/guilds, having the karma for it means that you are trusted not to abuse them.  That means that just because the code allows something, doesn't mean that you should do it.

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.  I'm not saying you should never play 'the excpetion' but if you find yourself regularly doing so, it probably isn't good.  One extreme example of this is the elf that rides mounts.  Sure there isn't any code in the game that keeps elves from riding mounts, it's just documented that elves don't ride so no one does.  If one elf decided that it would 'ok' if he rode a mount and others around them accepted it, that would lead other people to think "Hey If he rides with his elf, it can't be that bad if I ride with my elf.  This is an extreme example I know, but it is the same thing with anything in the game.  When people go against the norm and do something, it becomes familiar and is can become socially acceptable by the players around them.  It's important that players try to keep a firm image of the world in their mind, that just because someone else is breaking the norm, that it makes it 'ok' to do it yourself.   It is the staff's job to keep tabs on this kind of thing but we can't possible keep tabs on everything everyone does, and we try to trust you guys to do the right thing (pointing to karma=trust/ability to roleplay within the scope of the game).

More recently the staff has been less stringent on who gets karma and who doesn't.  Should we restrict karma more to people that don't represent their karma guild/race as they should?

As to the perceived popularity of magicker PCs, it could be that some people just have some character concepts that they've always wanted to try and are doing so before Arm 1 is finished.

(apologies for any typos as my brain is going numb from reading so much GDB).