Why 'gickers are players' preferred guilds

[jhunter]

However, for some reason, the prevalence existance of supernatural guilds irks people.  It might be more productive to try and get to the root of that feeling rather than go around in circles about the disparity between the game and the world/documentation.

This would make it more true to my opinion of it.

You attempt to make this argument in pretty much every thread where magickers are discussed, but that doesn't make it more correct. There are plenty of us who are fine with the concept of non-mundanes and magick, with the fact that they are in game, and with the fact that our mundane characters may encounter this stuff. That, however, does not mean that there's not some point where it's just too much. Quick and dirty analogy: I love chocolate, I eat chocolate, I respect your right to enjoy chocolate as you like, but if I eat too much of it my system freaks out. My abstention from chocolate or restriction of it in my diet does not mean I wish it would go entirely away.

What I mean is that I'm 100% positive that there are players who feel this way and that they will chime in with those of you who don't exactly feel the way I stated (and say that this isn't what their intended result is) in order to gear things toward where they want. I wasn't saying that all of you who speak up truly feel this way or that this is your reasons for posting as you post. Just that I'm sure there are people who would be perfectly happy to see magick done away with entirely and use some of you points of view on it as a screen to meet their own ends.

[jhunter]

I also would not consider it "experiencing" magick if my PC had merely seen a gemmer. Experiencing, to me, means that my PC is directly affected by some magickal or non-mundane effect. By my definition, I have only had 1 PC in my 2+years of play who never experienced anything non-mundane. The rest of my PCs have been the chosen target of non-mundane stuff quite frequently, both in Allanak and Tuluk.

However, anecdotal evidence of this sort is pointless to talk about, since there's no way to extrapolate it to the rest of the MUD. We just do not have the necessary data to conclude anything about quantities of non-mundanes or their overall effects on the playerbase.

And how many pcs have you had in the last two years? How many Tuluki? How many 'Nakki? How many elsewhere that rogue mages may also be to stay away from the cities?

[Salt Merchant]

That's why I don't believe anything that jhunter says anymore when it comes to magickers..

99% of the non-magicker pcs I've played since I started playing Arm' back in '95 have gone their entire lives without experiencing magick in any form.

And only seen one gemmer in Allanak for a few RL months?

Give me a break.. I'm really believing that most magickers discussion NEVER get anywhere because of jhunter himself, coming up with facts like these.

I know I'll be called a troll for saying something like that or trying to start a flame, but I'm really not, I really believe this to be a fact.

Jhunter may be the most eloquent among us who don't want elementalists to be made into obscure and difficult classes that are so boring that "balance" is achieved simply by people not wanting to play them (what a horrible "solution"), but he is most definitely not alone in this.

[Gimfalisette]

And how many pcs have you had in the last two years? How many Tuluki? How many 'Nakki? How many elsewhere that rogue mages may also be to stay away from the cities?

See, my point was that this is all anecdotal evidence and thus not relevant to the topic. Brandishing further numbers at you would only obfuscate that point. Talking about what each of us has individually experienced proves nothing at all.

Jhunter may be the most eloquent among us who don't want elementalists to be made into obscure and difficult classes that are so boring that "balance" is achieved simply by people not wanting to play them (what a horrible "solution"), but he is most definitely not alone in this.

I have played about 98% of my time in ARM as a mundane (by choice), but I by no means want elementalist classes to be boring or worthless-feeling to play. I would never advocate an approach to the overall system of ARM that would marginalize any group of players. Again, why does everyone insist in seeing this problem as zero-sum? Why, when dedicated players of mundanes bring up a consistent problem, do dedicated players of non-mundanes immediately get into defensive position and turn it all into us vs. them? Wouldn't the whole game be better served if mundane players were happier with mundane play?

[X-D]

First, This needs to be repeated.

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.

Now, I've been playing for a very long time, long before karma in fact. I stopped playing at about the time of the great hack, "95" I think, or there abouts. At that time and before, I would have put the mage count at about half the PCs. I came back late 98 or early 99. Lost 2 PCs in a week then had one last most of a year. With that PC, before he was a day old I saw no less then 10 gemmers. In the time I had him he saw no more then 3 rogue mages but the total number of gemmed stayed basicly the same. Over the last 10 years I've never noticed the number of gemmed mages go much higher then that but often it goes much lower While the number of rogue mages steadily increases (/me points at the above quote then at every person on the GDB complaining about mages). Still, even now I would put the total mage count at under twentyfive. When you consider that our playerbase is over 300 that puts the mage PC count under 10%, Well within what most you people consider reasonable. And under 10% is FAR from a prefered class. Even lumping all the mage classes together. I'd also bet that fully half of the playerbase has at least 2 karma. Now, I'm not on staff, so I could be talking out my ass on these numbers, but I really doubt I am very far off.

I'll make another bet as well. I will bet that the average lifespan of a mage PC is less then half that of the average combined lifespan of mundane PCs.

[Salt Merchant]

I have played about 98% of my time in ARM as a mundane (by choice), but I by no means want elementalist classes to be boring or worthless-feeling to play. I would never advocate an approach to the overall system of ARM that would marginalize any group of players. Again, why does everyone insist in seeing this problem as zero-sum? Why, when dedicated players of mundanes bring up a consistent problem, do dedicated players of non-mundanes immediately get into defensive position and turn it all into us vs. them? Wouldn't the whole game be better served if mundane players were happier with mundane play?

And what will make such players happy? The complaints I've read here can be categorized as follows:

1. Players of mundane characters are annoyed to be attacked so often by elementalists outside of the cities.
... This seems to have resolved itself.

2. Players of mundane characters feel that elementalists have become too "I want to be your friend"-ish to be feared properly.
... seem to me that 1 and 2 are in direct conflict; which do you really want?

3. Players of mundane characters resent being "less powerful" than elementalists.
... I'd argue that they can easily be more powerful... i.e. the leader types with resources and bodyguards at their command. No one seems to complain that templars and nobles are too powerful. Why is that?

4. Players of mundane characters see themselves as being excluded from staff-run plots or at least as being less relevant to them.
... I don't see what the players of non-mundane characters can do about this.

5. Players of mundane characters feel there is an expectation on them to act utterly terrified of magickers every time they are encountered, even in the most benevolent settings.
... I would say this is an extreme viewpoint. Sure, let it be true in Tuluk. In Allanak, where gemmed are a daily sight about the bazaar and Commoner's Quarter, I would replace the expectation with disguised fear and dislike.

6. Players of mundane characters want it to be a low fantasy world and feel there are too many elementalists about, jarring this perception.
... As someone pointed out, seeing a gemmed mage is not the same as seeing magick in use. I think the gemmed have been pretty good at avoiding public displays of magick these days.

So it's not just one thing, it's a whole host of them.

[Delstro]

I agree with Gimf on this one, and I also think it is the way the magicker guilds are set up. Right now, the guilds themselves are mundane in the way they progress and how skilled they are at anytime. Magickers don't have exploitable weaknesses in a mundane's eyes. That doesn't make much sense, so let me show you an example or two.

Mundanes practice and when they get better, they are always that good. Leaving out alterations on PCs such as magick or spice. It doesn't matter if they were asleep 1 second before being in combat, and it doesn't matter if they have been awake for 7 days in a row. Neither of those are my problems. My problems are that magickers and their skills are exactly the same. A krathi can be powerful when they are in the Land of Drov and they will be that -same- power if they are in the land of Krath. I say we fix that, and it will make magickers and mundanes interesting. Now, I can lure a Drovian into the light to weaken him and give me an advantage.

A drovian, a Krathi, a Vivaduan, and a rukkian all fall into a cold, damp, dark hole together. They are all maxed out in their skills and they have all been playing for 32 days and 4 hours playing time. In my idea, this Drovian will become a lot more powerful than the krathi, but will still be about the same skill level as the rukkian, who in turn would be more powerful than the vivaduan who is more powerful than the krathi. The krathi is now the weakest member in the foursome. The Krathi knows this and starts running for the light at the end of the tunnel, with no advantage over the other three, he made it. The other three chase him into the hot, blaring, sandstormy day and now, the Krathi is the most powerful, the rukkian is second most powerful, the drovian is third since the sand is nearly blocking the sunlight, and the vivaduan is last for the lack of Vivadu's strength in the area.


This idea, IMHO, would make magickers and mundanes "balanced." Balance = fun

[Salt Merchant]

I agree with Gimf on this one, and I also think it is the way the magicker guilds are set up. Right now, the guilds themselves are mundane in the way they progress and how skilled they are at anytime. Magickers don't have exploitable weaknesses in a mundane's eyes. That doesn't make much sense, so let me show you an example or two.

Mundanes practice and when they get better, they are always that good. Leaving out alterations on PCs such as magick or spice. It doesn't matter if they were asleep 1 second before being in combat, and it doesn't matter if they have been awake for 7 days in a row. Neither of those are my problems. My problems are that magickers and their skills are exactly the same. A krathi can be powerful when they are in the Land of Drov and they will be that -same- power if they are in the land of Krath. I say we fix that, and it will make magickers and mundanes interesting. Now, I can lure a Drovian into the light to weaken him and give me an advantage.

A drovian, a Krathi, a Vivaduan, and a rukkian all fall into a cold, damp, dark hole together. They are all maxed out in their skills and they have all been playing for 32 days and 4 hours playing time. In my idea, this Drovian will become a lot more powerful than the krathi, but will still be about the same skill level as the rukkian, who in turn would be more powerful than the vivaduan who is more powerful than the krathi. The krathi is now the weakest member in the foursome. The Krathi knows this and starts running for the light at the end of the tunnel, with no advantage over the other three, he made it. The other three chase him into the hot, blaring, sandstormy day and now, the Krathi is the most powerful, the rukkian is second most powerful, the drovian is third since the sand is nearly blocking the sunlight, and the vivaduan is last for the lack of Vivadu's strength in the area.


This idea, IMHO, would make magickers and mundanes "balanced." Balance = fun

So we're back to this again. Making mundanes "more fun" somehow means making elementalists "less fun" (= easy prey to mundanes).

[X-D]

Besides, Delstro, you are wrong in your assumption.

Hopefully this answer is vague enough to not be too IC.

[Armaddict]

1. Players of mundane characters are annoyed to be attacked so often by elementalists outside of the cities.
... This seems to have resolved itself.

I don't really think this is a problem.  Moreso...I think there are just so few mundane raiders that the non-mundane raiders seem far too populous.  That, and no one likes losing a character to the magicker equivalent of a subdue/kill, so cut a little leeway for those who are holding a grudge.  Everyone does it.

2. Players of mundane characters feel that elementalists have become too "I want to be your friend"-ish to be feared properly.
... seem to me that 1 and 2 are in direct conflict; which do you really want?

That's well and good.  Probably even expected of a mage.  I can't speak for everyone in the thread, but my concerns have been in the reactions to those sentiments from mundanes and 'mundanes' who in positions of power.  The ones who uphold the social order of things.

3. Players of mundane characters resent being "less powerful" than elementalists.
... I'd argue that they can easily be more powerful... i.e. the leader types with resources and bodyguards at their command. No one seems to complain that templars and nobles are too powerful. Why is that?

First off, I don't appreciate the word 'resent'.  It sticks out as particularly negative, as if the whole concern is out of jealousy rather than maintenance of the game.  Magickers are supposed to be powerful.  So are nobles.  However, it's worth noting that one has the coded power it is supposed to have, and the other has political power that is supported by coded benefits.  Recently that coded power of the former has been seemingly influencing the political power characters hold.  Again, this is not 'true' evidence, just observations of mine.

4. Players of mundane characters see themselves as being excluded from staff-run plots or at least as being less relevant to them.
... I don't see what the players of non-mundane characters can do about this.

Again, I can't speak for everyone, but at least in my posts...I didn't want this to be conceived as a topic meant to be thrown in the face of mages so much as the entire playerbase.  Some things need to be kept in mind regarding social standing, social order, and drawbacks of the non-mundanes that require roleplay on the part of players.  Not just mages.  Perhaps you could toss ideas in on this problem rather than treating it as a personal attack on you for playing a mage.

My ideas for it thusfar have been lowering the amount of giant plots that 'require' mages.  No more big uber demons who slaughter the mundanes and require magick to destroy.  So on and so forth.  Not to say those plots can't exist, but don't make them -the- plot that everyone has to go into.  Also...smaller RPT's.  Why is there not a weekly rpt for this clan that lasts two hours, where only the mundanes go?  Such as a routine patrol for soldiers, where combat does not necessarily take place, but -something- takes place of interest to them?  At least give more mundanes the ability to find a niche in why they exist, beyond guarding mages in important missions.  Again...I'm not saying this is -always- what's going on, but it's things that are adding to the this shift in perception.

5. Players of mundane characters feel there is an expectation on them to act utterly terrified of magickers every time they are encountered, even in the most benevolent settings.
... I would say this is an extreme viewpoint. Sure, let it be true in Tuluk. In Allanak, where gemmed are a daily sight about the bazaar and Commoner's Quarter, I would replace the expectation with disguised fear and dislike.

This is documentation, not a role-play facet or whatnot.  It really is very cool when there's a bar full of mundanes, and out of nowhere a gemmed takes a seat.  Not three and four gemmed at a time, just one.  Watch the mixed reactions.  When gemmed are consistently doing this, how can the mundane possibly stay true to documentation when it has become such commonplace?  There is the council of mages, the allanaki mage's quarter, and a clan who specifically seeks out mages to employ to try and keep mage interaction up without interrupting the 'schism' that exists between the mundane and non-mundane.

Mages are generally not scared away by that group of mercenaries eyeing them.  They may roleplay discomfort with the persecution, but the fact is...they always come back for more because it's interaction.  So...through continuing to always get more and more interaction from the mundane, we will pretty much have to expect that the 'shininess' of the gemmer in Allanak will fade.

Herein lies what was spoken about earlier.  You spoke of how horrible of a solution it was to make mages undesirable to play...but really, it isn't.  If you don't like persecution, and if you don't like being a powerful creature that most clans won't take due to social ramifications, most commoners won't befriend because of superstition and underlying distrust...why would you want to play the class that is persecuted?  That is what the thread brought up.  With all these drawbacks that -do- make playing a mage hard to play, why do they remain popular?  Either something is not being played out exactly as fully as it should be, which is my opinion...or there are things more appealing to playing mages that overcome those drawbacks, which was outlined in the OP...or...the idea of making a role appealing only to those who enjoy the roleplay of being fully and outright persecuted does not work, because to some the appeals of the mage easily overcome them.  In which case, as I said earlier, either something else needs to come up to discourage play or documentation needs to be changed to reflect the changing of the world.

6. Players of mundane characters want it to be a low fantasy world and feel there are too many elementalists about, jarring this perception.
... As someone pointed out, seeing a gemmed mage is not the same as seeing magick in use. I think the gemmed have been pretty good at avoiding public displays of magick these days.

That is not exactly the issue.  It's hard to have a low-fantasy world where there is a dominant section of the playerbase who love the magick system so much that they can't stand leaving it, making it so that everyone who wants to occasionally play a mage ends up adding to a population problem rather than being a brief surge.  In any case, it is not the visibility of magic that makes fantasy, it's the existence of it.  Dragonlance is high fantasy, yet there are several books that only refer to magecraft and its effects.  However, it -is- becoming more and more commonplace to see enchanted items.  It -is- becoming more and more commonplace for groups of gemmed to come into a bar full of mundanes, and not begin casting spells, but begin speaking of mage-population politics, spells, and so on and so forth.

Low-fantasy is not brought about by a lack of spellcasting, it is brought about by a prominence of things of the non-magickal nature, of making magickal things a true spectacle.  This is very difficult when social order has shifted enough to bypass all the low-fantasy-setting qualms and suspicions of mages, as well as the virtual populace's reaction to it, all in the name of utility.  Yes, mages are more powerful, they will -always- be useful for a mission.  But without taking those role-play-dependent drawbacks into account, then the status quo changes.  Just because you -can- use something, or something -could- be incredibly useful, doesn't necessarily mean you always -should-.  Again, no fault of the mages themselves...this is a global statement to all players, not an attack on mages themselves.

Yes.  In my opinion, the role of a mage should be -harder- to enjoy than a mundane, but not -less enjoyable-.  It is a different role, the same way a mul is a different role.  The same way a noble is a different role.  The same way a warrior who is a -sergeant- is a different role.  All of those roles have certain players who simply say, "Meh, I tried it, but it wasn't for me.  I wasn't having fun."  That mentality used to be far more prominent in terms of the mage classes, but over the course of several years has been on a steady decline, and hence why I say the social order -around- mages has changed,  not the mages themselves.  The outcry for mages to be able to be more useable so they could enjoy the role more was a mistake, in my opinion, which conflicts with many of yours, I know.  But the awesomeness of magick in armageddon, the awesomeness of the spellcasting code...should not overrule the awesomeness of the social stigma placed on you for using it.  If you can take the persecution, can scrape your way into being a mage of social standing against -all- odds and with very few opportunities actually given to you...then you are meant to play a mage.  Not if you're drawn to the coolness of casting spells.

As for how things were back in '98...the number of PC mages you saw means very little to me.  Back then, the social order remained intact.  There was one noble house who hired them openly.  Openly, mind you.  Because the social aspects were very strong on everyone's mind.  The templarate did not hire them as aides.  The templarate borrowed them from that noble house, the vast majority of the time...or if direly needed, they were conscripted out of temples.  The idea is...they were still playing a mage in the atmosphere the documentation describes, rather than the world the documentation is supposed to describe being shifted about because someone wasn't having fun playing a mage when they -really- wanted to play a mage.

Also worth noting:  Almost all of my perceptions and opinions come based out of Allanak.

[Armaddict]

This idea, IMHO, would make magickers and mundanes "balanced." Balance = fun

My simple reply is that classes in armageddon are not based around 'balance', they are based around roles and roleplay.  Mages are supposed to be "generally" more powerful than the mundane, in terms of raw coded ability.  There are always the exceptions from character to character and situation...but balance isn't what's needed.  IN MY OPINION.

[Angela Christine]

This idea, IMHO, would make magickers and mundanes "balanced." Balance = fun

My simple reply is that classes in armageddon are not based around 'balance', they are based around roles and roleplay.  Mages are supposed to be "generally" more powerful than the mundane, in terms of raw coded ability. 

I don't believe it.  My mages get eaten by raptors just as easily as my rangers do.   

[Armaddict]

That's because they hate you, the way they're supposed to, AC

I noticed something in my post above.  Keep in mind that when I say 'you', I'm not talking to people currently playing mages.  It's a blanket statement.  You = not me = everyone currently playing arm and reading posts.  I'm not telling mages they shouldn't be playing mages, I'm just trying to explain that whole 'role' thing and some people not really being suited for them.

[Is Friday]

All deaths should be subject to circumstance, though.

[Xio]

Long story short. I prefer mundanes.

[Archbaron]

Long story short. I prefer mundanes.

[NoteworthyFellow]

Man, why can't we all just funnel this OOC hatred for magickers into an IC thing?  I see more complete disgust for the non-mundane on the GDB than I do in the game.

That said, this thread makes me feel like I should go on the GDB and ask permission before I play a mage.  I think I should probably stop reading it.  Regardless, whatever it takes to get people to stop complaining about the state of the non-mundane world in this MUD, I think it should be done, because I sure as hell don't want to feel like I'm inconveniencing a good chunk of the player base when/if I play my first mage ever.

[Gunnerblaster]

Man, why can't we all just funnel this OOC hatred for magickers into an IC thing?  I see more complete disgust for the non-mundane on the GDB than I do in the game.

That said, this thread makes me feel like I should go on the GDB and ask permission before I play a mage.  I think I should probably stop reading it.  Regardless, whatever it takes to get people to stop complaining about the state of the non-mundane world in this MUD, I think it should be done, because I sure as hell don't want to feel like I'm inconveniencing a good chunk of the player base when/if I play my first mage ever.

I say screw'em. Do your own thing.

Only reason I haven't played a mage is mainly because I just don't feel I have the proper mind-set to play one properly. So I'm going to make another mundane after this current PC and just mess around until I get an idea for what I want to do with the mage. If I get an idea, I'll totally go with it. If I don't, well I'll just keep playing mundanes until I do.

I think it's an 'inconvenience' when someone makes a mage, simply just because their able to instead of actually having any idea and/or plans for the PC besides, "Let's be l33t!"

[Zoltan]

I had an OOC dislike for magick. When I got the karma to app a mage, I just went for it. I realized most of my dislike for it had to do with my perception of how others played mages. I figured that I could give it a good shot at playing it right* and -then- make a better judgement about them. I'm definitely glad I gave it a try. Just do whatever you're interested in; this game's for recreation, and chances are that if -you- are having fun, players interacting with you will have fun too.

*Right as defined solely by my interpretation of the game documents.

[Pale Horse]

Only reason I haven't played a mage is mainly because I just don't feel I have the proper mind-set to play one properly. So I'm going to make another mundane after this current PC and just mess around until I get an idea for what I want to do with the mage. If I get an idea, I'll totally go with it. If I don't, well I'll just keep playing mundanes until I do.

The bolded part is actually the mindset I had years ago, when I asked for my own magicker karma to be removed, after having played several.  I'd been attracted to them, more for the power potential and survivability, than for any real desire for arcane RP and I didn't want the temptation around whenever I made a new character.

After a couple years (mostly inactive) I re-applied to have the karma reinstated and tried them out with a new perspective.  Did my RP skill increase?  Did I add to what I saw as the atmosphere and manner in which 'gickers should be viewed, IG?  I don't know, but I do know that I was playing one for what I felt were the right reasons this time, and that made all the difference..to me, at least.

I admit that I still love the survivability and sheer power that comes with playing a mage, but after having played quite a few over the past year, then switching back to mundanes, I'll have to say that I find there is a lot more..."potential", in mundanes, than I had previously given them credit, for.  Or, perhaps, I should say there is "different" potential.

[Elgiva]

I am with jhunter. I don't play in Allanak, but I rarely see a magicker in wastes. It was much worse a year ago. I think this trouble kind of solved itself.
Are there too many Gemmers? I don't have any problem with that either. They have whole Quarter in Allanak. As I said before, size of that Quarter and number of buildings and NPCs in that place suggest there is more than just a dozen of Gemmed-magickers in Allanak.
I don't see any world-shaking shakes either. I remember threads about "too many magickers" (or "too many burglars" or "too many of <whatever>") since I started to play Armageddon years ago. I don't think current situation contradicts documentation anymore than -other- things - I mentioned number of PC slaves, I'd add amount of coins some PCs have in banks. According docs most people on Zalanthas are poor and striving to survive. If that many of current PCs have wealthy account at banks, doesn't it contradict docs too? It might. But it doesn't bother anyone, because many enjoy playing rich PC more than poor one. Or... most of citizens never leave the city, right? How many of PCs never left gates of their city? Or what about number of hunters versus number of beggars between PCs? That sure isn't "as in docs" either. Should people play hunters less and spend more time playing some of dirty beggars (without being secret assassins or whatever) then?
You don't like magickers around? Alright. Why don't you do something in game about it? It might be more fun than never-ending complaining on GDB.

[spawnloser]

I didn't read too much... but I just gotta say, you're forgetting one reason people play magickers, Gim.  Some people just like the concept of magick and like playing those that can do it.  They play magickers because they like playing magickers, pure and simple.

[Gimfalisette]

I didn't read too much... but I just gotta say, you're forgetting one reason people play magickers, Gim.  Some people just like the concept of magick and like playing those that can do it.  They play magickers because they like playing magickers, pure and simple.

Oh dearlordy. As I've already said at least once in this thread, I did not forget that reason. I simply did not include it because it's not a system design reason, it's entirely personal, and therefore does not need a fix nor would it take a fix. The OP was about systematic influences on the quantity of non-mundanes in game.