Concerning game trend: Not harsh enough?

[jcljules]

I think the game is plenty harsh if you choose to play in certain areas/clans/tribes.
...

I've always felt as if social, city roles should be very dangerous - though they're not. If you're a skilled noble's aide, I think your employer's enemies should be trying to intimidate you/steal from you/ruin your life/drive you away from your noble. And rarely does that happen.

[Fathi]

I think the game is plenty harsh if you choose to play in certain areas/clans/tribes.
...

I've always felt as if social, city roles should be very dangerous - though they're not. If you're a skilled noble's aide, I think your employer's enemies should be trying to intimidate you/steal from you/ruin your life/drive you away from your noble. And rarely does that happen.

I think the main reason why you don't see much of this is because everyone's afraid that someone's just going to spaz out and push the PK button over it. To be blunt, a lot of types of leader PCs have reputations--sometimes undeserved--of being too quick to kill. Or too quick to turn their anger on the tool rather than the tool's employer.

Politics in Armageddon can often become a stagnant thing because every PC in an area is beholden to somebody else and nobody wants to piss off the Lirathans/House Whatever/that blue robe that PKs shitloads of people/anyone that could kill their character.. Unfortunately, I've seen a lot of overreactions to nonlethal hassling, so I suppose that fear is at least somewhat grounded in reality.

I suspect social roles would be more dangerous and there would be more inherent conflict if there were more competition for such jobs. As it is, our playerbase being the size that it is, just about anyone who wants to can get a job as an aide, so the competitive element is removed. And once a PC has that job, they don't want to step on the toes of any other aides on the off-chance that the aide's noble overreacts and smashes down the shit-hammer with the full might of House Whatever.

[Versu]

People are real nice and I can't get away with murder   much less rape or kidnap.

Bad times.

I'm trying so hard! I can't even pretend to be mean or someone will beat me up.

I want to be mean!

[Majikal]

Did someone say rape? 

/derail

[Salt Merchant]

I'm trying so hard! I can't even pretend to be mean or someone will beat me up.

In other words, other people are better at being mean?

Gather some power first, then get mean.

[Dar]

I think the game is plenty harsh if you choose to play in certain areas/clans/tribes.
...

I've always felt as if social, city roles should be very dangerous - though they're not. If you're a skilled noble's aide, I think your employer's enemies should be trying to intimidate you/steal from you/ruin your life/drive you away from your noble. And rarely does that happen.

I think the main reason why you don't see much of this is because everyone's afraid that someone's just going to spaz out and push the PK button over it. To be blunt, a lot of types of leader PCs have reputations--sometimes undeserved--of being too quick to kill. Or too quick to turn their anger on the tool rather than the tool's employer.

Politics in Armageddon can often become a stagnant thing because every PC in an area is beholden to somebody else and nobody wants to piss off the Lirathans/House Whatever/that blue robe that PKs shitloads of people/anyone that could kill their character.. Unfortunately, I've seen a lot of overreactions to nonlethal hassling, so I suppose that fear is at least somewhat grounded in reality.

I suspect social roles would be more dangerous and there would be more inherent conflict if there were more competition for such jobs. As it is, our playerbase being the size that it is, just about anyone who wants to can get a job as an aide, so the competitive element is removed. And once a PC has that job, they don't want to step on the toes of any other aides on the off-chance that the aide's noble overreacts and smashes down the shit-hammer with the full might of House Whatever.

This.

I swear, there are PCs out there I dont even bother to antagonize, because they manage to involve templars and nobles over the smallest, most casual arguments. If it was anyone else, I would engage them in a conversation and either learn to like them or you know ... create 'some' kind of content. But those people I just ... ignore. So they sit in silence on their side of the bar, and I on another.

[My 2 sids]

wasn't rape why the "punishment other than death" got shut down?   So let's by-pass on that.


One, make 'nak more bloody.   Add the ability to subdue someone to the brawl-coded rooms (heck, make most of the city that way).  Basically, nothing wrong with flat-out brute force used to lovingly correct one's lowers.   Templars/ nobles/ and milita should have the ability to kick your arse because they simply don't like you -- and nobility/templarate flat out punish those commoners who offend them (more public whippings damnit) 

Two,  quit babying your subordinates!!!   Let them fight their own battles and if they get in trouble in the street than they get in trouble at home!  Stop making up excuses to punish those who looked at your cook funny or yelled "I hate you" at your stable-girl!!!   YOU are the reason there is so little conflict -- you're the "unknown" backing up that filthy 'rinither who doesn't feel the need to step off the street when someone is walking there!




Look, people, things aren't going to be harsh until players decide they're PCs aren't so cheap they don't care if they have to make a new one vs. deal with consequences.  And/or there isn't more blood shead and humiliation.  AND ROLE-PLAYED OUT!!!   Commoners out number important people 9/1 -- so it's not up to them to make sure your PC feels threatened.

[Salt Merchant]

EDIT: Forget.

[My 2 sids]

I think people just want that old newbie feeling of your skin getting goose bumps the way it did the first time encountering a large desert monster or a scary templar.


Much of the "suspense" we have now in games seems to be to avoid walking on egg shells in fear of pissing off another PC (doesn't matter if they're some mutant, breed, rinither, gemmed) ...  and that's not very harsh, just OOC taxing.


I think if people logged in, held their breath for a scene, then left knowing that the scene was completed they would find it exciting.

[X-D]

2sids is correct.

Many times I've wondered. If you were a noble, somebody great and powerful, better by blood etc etc etc. Why exactly would you notice if some dirty commoner insulted another dirty commoner...even if dirty commoner #2 did work for your house in some manner? One of hundreds or even thousands. Hell, I'd be more pissed off about that commoner bothering me with dirty commoner problems then anything.

Of course, if dirty commoner #2 is offering me say, 10k to look into the matter, well, maybe I won't be quite so pissed off.

And templars are even worse. Your above most of the nobles of your city, you are the highlords enforcers or the sun kings faithful. The antics of the commoners should mostly be if anything, a mild source of amusement.

And Do try to remember, much of your power actually comes FROM that small group of raiders outside the city. They are the ones that make the cities feel safer to commoners so they stay there to work for you and bribe you etc.

Too many times have I seen a templar collect up a bunch of soldiers and personally ride out chasing some mugger/raider into the wild because salt grebber wood chopper #625543 got mugged.

I mean come on now, would a templar really use his invaluable time and resources to avenge somebody that is not even worth a sip of tea to him? No.

Yes, I know riding out with the posse to chase the outlaw is fun, but 99% of the time, it is not very realistic.

/rant

[Kankfly]

But hey, think of it this way. Maybe outwardly, this PC seems to be stepping on eggshells and avoiding PC conflict when in fact he's the mastermind behind all those little sexcret plots on trying to get these few PCs killed/sold/maimed/etc. And then the reason you don't really get to see the outcome is because he died to a stupid carru in a pit, to the soldiers because he forgot to get rid of one tiny grain of spice in his pack, or a misdirected syntax and couldn't flee in time. Then everyone remembers him as Bob the Dude Who Doesn't Like To Piss People Off.

[Me]

Agreeing totally with you, X-D.

One of my main rant about the topic of raiding is that if PC 1 lets PC 2 walk away alive, but his pride wounded and his gears completely stripped. PC 2 would then go and find a templar nearby and complain about how he got unjustly raided by a bunch of elves/mages/muls/undead mantis. Templar would then jump to the opportunity to go and hunt down the said raiders, mobilizing his entire unit to wreck vengeance over a little suffering a little commoner grebber had endured. Now that just doesn't make sense to me at all.

Granted, if let's say a GMH was raided, and because the GMH have been bribing the templarate constantly - it would seem more reasonable to to ride out and take down those raiders.

Now if you think about it this way, if templars and cities in general would instant leap to protect every single PC around, wouldn't that only encourage PC raiders to slay every survivor in each raiding missions? If I am playing Raider Badass, I sure as heck wouldn't want to have the entire Nakki/Tuluki army descending on me just because I raided lumberjacking Amos and then let him live right?

The raiding topic have been discussed over and over and over again, but according to my experience it does not have to involve in every single time = a PK. In fact, raids could always stimulate more plots and more story lines. Lumberjack Amos could be so humiliated by losing everything he worked so hard to a bunch of scary raiders, he could then start weaving out plots of trying to take down the raiders etc.

Point is though, please do not think just because you killed 3 known PC raiders that are actively performing raids, that you've managed to eliminate ALL existing raiders in the game world. Virtual populations and NPC population always counts.

Again I'm stressing this: Just because a certain clan houses X amount of PCs, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ENTIRE CLAN/TRIBE/HOUSE ONLY HAS THAT AMOUNT!

[Rhyden]

Totally agree with X-D.

Templars and Nobles should barely bat an eye at the common filth of either city, unless someone is rich enough to convince them otherwise. And the theory that raiders make the cities safer by keeping commoners inside the walls is awesome. I never thought of it that way, but it's true.

[Aaron Goulet]

I mean come on now, would a templar really use his invaluable time and resources to avenge somebody that is not even worth a sip of tea to him? No.

Yes, I know riding out with the posse to chase the outlaw is fun, but 99% of the time, it is not very realistic.

I'd like to see commoners hire the Byn for this purpose.  It seems more realistic, since the law doesn't typically apply outside the city walls.

Although, in the case of extreme raids against the GMHs, etc...  I could see the templarate getting involved, as such things would be bad for trade within the city.


Edit: And Rhyden knows what he's talking about.

[Gimfalisette]

As long as templars are basically bored and basically think they are supposed to be combat PCs, they will always go chasing after raiders and meddling in affairs that really should be far beneath them.

[brytta.leofa]

Some of you guys have a tendency, in character, to be way too helpful. I'm plenty guilty of this myself, and when it becomes common it can really damage the atmosphere.

One good way to play a desperate, thrifty commoner is to help people only when you expect to get something fairly tangible out of it.

[Delstro]

I don't see a problem with a templar taking out his squad to look for a "raider."

I don't think that templar would waste to much time looking and tracking a raider of woodsmen. Specially if those woodsmen aren't paying taxes.

[Me]

As long as templars are basically bored and basically think they are supposed to be combat PCs, they will always go chasing after raiders and meddling in affairs that really should be far beneath them.

[number13]

Yes, I know riding out with the posse to chase the outlaw is fun, but 99% of the time, it is not very realistic.

That's pretty much it right there. The templar is looking for fun for his minions and for himself.  I don't think the solution is to say that the law affiliated PCs shouldn't be hunting raiders and criminals. That's the fun bit they signed up for.

Spawning scripted NPC incursions to keep militia/Legion amused could be one solution. If they are busy beating back riots from the Rinth or hordes of flaming, mutant raptors, the militia isn't going to be worried about a raider stealing someone's bag of salt.

[Kryos]

I honestly suspect if appropriate arrangements were made, the templars would *not* go bounding after the raiders.  I suspect, based on this and other threads, the raiders in question don't have the hutzpah to talk to the templars, because they are 'newblars' or whatever.  Seems pretty clearly a self-sustaining trend, to me.  I'm getting whiffs of hypocrisy over here.

[number13]

I honestly suspect if appropriate arrangements were made, the templars would *not* go bounding after the raiders.

There's that too. Especially in Tuluk, being shady without at least some sanction from the authorities is usually suicide.

[Synthesis]

Eh, I've had "agreements" with templars, before.

First time I failed raiding someone they just happened to like, I got tossed in the Arena, without any sort of prior warning like, "Oh, hey, don't raid -these- guys."

Thanks.

Anonymity > bribes any day of the week.  The only time you need bribes is when anonymity is broken.

[Rhyden]

I think the game is plenty harsh. There's enough players out there with real guts, and creativity. There's enough characters out there who are "making things happen" while making many mistakes and developing their flaws. There's enough chaos and unpredictability to satisfy even the most masochistic minds.

templar

templars

templarate

templars

Yeah, sometimes Templars are right-up assholes. Sometimes they're kind of mediochre and just disappear. Sometimes Templars make -harsh- mistakes. Just look a little ways back at some recent Allanaki history. If you look a little further, you would find out that Templars have been stirring up shit and mixing the stewpot closer to the beginning of Armageddon.

[MarshallDFX]

Little bit late, but here goes

Economists would have something to say about this phenomena.  It is rather unavoidable, barring extreme measures.  I won't bore people though.

Actually, please do.

Alright.  This was in response to:

Insert here a comment in which I pretend to be a more experienced player and give a depressing but informative anecdote about that one time I tried to prolong conflict and not kill the dumb fucker and they turned around and went revenge-kung-fu-hero on my ass and burned me out on sparing people again.

Yeah.

I think this is just a common perception and not the reality of the gameworld. I thought some of the examples used in the other thread were thoroughly ridiculous.

Though the thread was locked before I could post my thoughts.

It happens -alot- more than you think it does.

Not tragedy of the commons, as Ocotillo suggested, but a prisoner's dilemma.  I'll be concise and short.  An economist would suggest that PKing scenes (may apply to other scenes, but I'll stick with PKing as its the obvious example) will have little emoting, or are "unsatisfying".  That is, there will be no "trust" shown to the other players to roleplay anything out.

The reason is because of the incentives people face in doing one of these scenes.  I'm going to make a not-entirely-unreasonable assumption that we are all rational, utility maximizing individuals.  That is, we want, and our characters want to live and flourish IG.

Now, imagine a player in the desert (PKee), and another arrives (PKer).  Both players in the room are faced with simultaneous decisions.
Let's consider the "payoffs" for each potential action.  I've assigned numbers to "payoffs" just for ease.  Units of utility.  There are two decisions that can be made.  One can either "Roleplay", meaning show trust in the other and not just jump into coded action, or do the alternate action (run, pk)

Payoffs below are in the form:  (Payoff to PK'er, Payoff to PK'ee)




If both players choose to roleplay, they both get relatively high payoffs.  They both have fun, and the outcome is undetermined (8,8).
If the PK'ee chooses to roleplay, and the PK'er chooses to jump on that chance, then the PK'er gets all the benefit and the PK'ee is left feeling sour.
If the PK'er chooses to roleplay, and the other just spam flees, then the PK'ee gets to survive (yay), and the PK'er is left feeling sour.
If both the PK'er and the PK'ee resort to coded actions immediately, it's not very fun, but they're not left feeling "sour" for having tried to RP and been duped.

Given these payoffs, the dominant strategy is always {PK, Run}.  That is, if the other tries to roleplay, there is always an incentive to not roleplay, and take advantage of the situation to your benefit.  Especially as you know the other person is likely to do the same.

All in all:  Nash Equilibrium:   NE~{PK, Run}.  No other equilibrium is stable (due to incentives to pk/run), and therefore overall all desert encounters will be code first, roleplay later.

[Synthesis]

faulty assumptions are faulty