Concerning game trend: Not harsh enough?

[MarshallDFX]

I'd just like to mention at this time, that if nobody has actually read Hardin's article entitled "The Tragedy of the Commons"... Pick a nice, morbid night where you're feeling particularly depressed.  Go to bed, read it, then proceed to mope and wallow about the destructive nature of the human species.

[My 2 sids]

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.

That seems Tuluk in nature ---  I think there should be vast separation between the cultures.

[Whiran Luck]

I just wanted to touch point on the notion that all Zalanthans are dishonest.

I actually don't believe this to be the case. Telling the truth is always the easiest course of action for the potential liar (with or without embellishments), since you don't have to work at covering up the truth or someone finding out that you were lying and thus risking a loss of trust (especially in a world where trust is so hard to come by). In fact, unless the benefit of lying outweighs telling the truth, I think you would find that almost everyone is more or less honest in Zalanthas, unless they're an elf, because everyone knows elves can't ever be trusted. I put up a chart of trust somewhere on the boards years ago. Back to my original point, I don't think Zalanthans are dishonest as much as they are more or less distrustful of strangers and highly, highly motivated by self-interest. Given that ethical/moral behavior is limited to whether behaving in another fashion is more profitable for them (like lying to cover their ass, lying to hide an acquisition of worth, lying to protect the people they care for) it might be easy to see that as being dishonest, but it's not really being dishonest or more prone to violence or truly criminal behavior -- it's just par for the course for the population of the city-states and probably for inter-tribal relations as well.

I would say that what is rare is action without some sort of benefit gained for totally altruistic purposes.

[My 2 sids]

I know folks are good about taken into account individual NPCs and VNPCs,   but I think one must also take into account massive amounts of NPCs and VNPCs.   Specifically, the type of society which could yeld such a complex society and wealth!     Oppression or not, the truth is it takes a lot of cooperation and civil peace for that to form.

If you want a harsher game have things upset the peace,   because upsetting chaos is hardly upsetting.

[Bogre]

You can approach it a number of ways.

>Telling the truth as often as possible can help you cement your lies as true to those that know your reputation.

>However, being a pathological liar and creating webs and webs of confusing deceit has its uses, too.

[My 2 sids]

Regarding social danger...

I think we need to close a lot more clans... force the player base into more competition with one another.

Hunter/merchant -- you all work for this clan
political people -- these are your choices
Combat -- byn or milita

Everyone else -- you're on you own!


It takes a certain amount of active PCs to have inter-clan conflict w/o bringing the entire clan to a grinding halt.

[jcljules]

I hate the fact that all of the GMHs have monopolies on particular goods. Why not have three generic merchant houses, each engaged in making numerous products and constantly economically fighting with one another?

[Rotten]

I hate the fact that all of the GMHs have monopolies on particular goods. Why not have three generic merchant houses, each engaged in making numerous products and constantly economically fighting with one another?

Because they'd be physically fighting with eachother, too.  The attrition would be quite annoying to everyone involved.

[jcljules]

I hate the fact that all of the GMHs have monopolies on particular goods. Why not have three generic merchant houses, each engaged in making numerous products and constantly economically fighting with one another?

Because they'd be physically fighting with eachother, too.  The attrition would be quite annoying to everyone involved.

Not if the city states made it illegal for them to fight with one another too publicly and violently.

[Synthesis]

I hate the fact that all of the GMHs have monopolies on particular goods. Why not have three generic merchant houses, each engaged in making numerous products and constantly economically fighting with one another?

Because they'd be physically fighting with eachother, too.  The attrition would be quite annoying to everyone involved.

Not if the city states made it illegal for them to fight with one another too publicly and violently.

But then they'd eventually reach the same agreement they have now:  it's more efficient to specialize.  So they get together and arrange a mutual non-competition pact.

Think:  you can try to compete in every market, which will reduce your profitability both through price-gouging and the cost of protecting yourself from competition (both from overt attacks, and the cost of protecting your resource pools), or you can arrange to compete in only one market, where you can maximize profitability by having a monopoly on the sale of the goods, access to all the available resources required for the production of the goods, and by reducing the cost of protecting your investments.

As far as we know, none of the Houses has reached a market saturation point in any of their goods, and as long as they have room to expand in their own market, there isn't any economic reason to break the pact and branch out into another GMH's territory.

[jcljules]

Anti-trust laws? 

[Synthesis]

Anti-trust laws? 

Murder.  Corruption. Betrayal.

Anti-trust is the law on Zalanthas.

[jcljules]

Meh. Sidestepping my semi-serious idea with your clever wordplay.

[My 2 sids]

I think Bribes contribute to a less harsh world.

Eventually, that OOC knowledge that your 'rinither/ gemmed/ half-breed can make enough connections and sid to kill off that templar -- slips to IC.   Then, then suddenly that templar isn't that much of a threat (bam, less harshness)


You know, a lot of people are saying "the world is less harsh now than when I was a newbie" and while some things have (true, it is a shame there's no longer a threat of brutality and enslavement)  what's really changed is the player's perception of the world -- specifically what the docs portray (hierarchical society where Oash and Guild are on one side and Milita/ templarate are on another)  and experience which says different.


Honestly folks, if more and more people played "typical" PCs instead of "fearless exceptions"...  the world would become more harsh

[Mr_Fire]

Yeah for sure, I agree. Over time people just get used to being really carefull with their characters maybe, they don't want the PC to die so they take less risks. Either that or they are just sitting in taverns all day long bs'in about god knows what........I don't know, maybe I'm way off, who knows. 

[Cutthroat]

I think Bribes contribute to a less harsh world.

Eventually, that OOC knowledge that your 'rinither/ gemmed/ half-breed can make enough connections and sid to kill off that templar -- slips to IC.   Then, then suddenly that templar isn't that much of a threat (bam, less harshness)


You know, a lot of people are saying "the world is less harsh now than when I was a newbie" and while some things have (true, it is a shame there's no longer a threat of brutality and enslavement)  what's really changed is the player's perception of the world -- specifically what the docs portray (hierarchical society where Oash and Guild are on one side and Milita/ templarate are on another)  and experience which says different.


Honestly folks, if more and more people played "typical" PCs instead of "fearless exceptions"...  the world would become more harsh

Maybe I'm just never going to understand, but...

How do bribes contribute to a less harsh world, when it is understood that there are many officials of every city-state and settlement that are corrupt? Not all of them are corrupt to a disgusting extreme bordering on treason, but certainly not all of them are paladins. It is that corruption that makes things harsh - that idea that you could bribe, but that your bribe just might not be enough, or that you could pick the wrong person to bribe.

How does a person with no social ranking manage to kill off a templar with just money? Maybe that should be analyzed, if that's even the case. I suspect that it isn't, because that just makes no sense.

How is there no longer a threat of brutality and enslavement? People torture and kill each other quite a bit when they deserve it. Enslavement still happens - granted, it's quite rare due to the OOC constrictions, but it happens when it's appropriate.

How does the world documentation set House Oash and the Guild against the militia and the templarate? How does the Allanaki documentation even do that? Bad terms with the templarate =/= enemies of the templarate, or allies of the Guild.

I'm sorry, I really don't get what your point is. I do agree that people should play more "typical" PCs, or more appropriately, PCs that are realistic in relation to Zalanthas. I do think that involves bribery, and other methods of dealing with the law. Put simply and bluntly, ignoring your competition is stupid.

[My 2 sids]

Maybe I'm just never going to understand, but...

How do bribes contribute to a less harsh world, when it is understood that there are many officials of every city-state and settlement that are corrupt? Not all of them are corrupt to a disgusting extreme bordering on treason, but certainly not all of them are paladins. It is that corruption that makes things harsh - that idea that you could bribe, but that your bribe just might not be enough, or that you could pick the wrong person to bribe.

You're right.  That's how it's supposed to work.  What I'm saying is if every PC is so easily bribed, than that danger that you just described can't happen.   Think about the impact if every PC was a magicker --  sure, people could try to RP according to the docs, but it'd be a challenge because of the PC balance, right?

Again, bribing has it's place.   I'm suggesting a few PCs which are different that what's already in game would add some harshness.

How does a person with no social ranking manage to kill off a templar with just money? Maybe that should be analyzed, if that's even the case. I suspect that it isn't, because that just makes no sense.

How is there no longer a threat of brutality and enslavement? People torture and kill each other quite a bit when they deserve it. Enslavement still happens - granted, it's quite rare due to the OOC constrictions, but it happens when it's appropriate.

I'm just going by what I know just like you are going by what you know.

How does the world documentation set House Oash and the Guild against the militia and the templarate? How does the Allanaki documentation even do that? Bad terms with the templarate =/= enemies of the templarate, or allies of the Guild.

http://www.armageddon.org/general/noble.html#houses

I'm sorry, I really don't get what your point is. I do agree that people should play more "typical" PCs, or more appropriately, PCs that are realistic in relation to Zalanthas. I do think that involves bribery, and other methods of dealing with the law. Put simply and bluntly, ignoring your competition is stupid.

My point:   Contrast extenuates harshness   If everything is done behind the scenes,  and everything is done in mostly the same way -- the game isn't going to feel as intense.    And really it is intensity people are seeking.

[Cutthroat]

I'm aware of that link, and referenced it in my reply to you. It specifically says House Oash is often on bad terms with the templarate. It doesn't mean they are enemies of the templarate, or allies of the Guild. It just means they piss the templarate off sometimes. Any noble of any house in either city can do the same - it's just that nobles in House Oash tend to do it more.

I think you don't mean that contrast extenuates (roughly, lessens) harshness, but rather increases harshness. To that point, I agree. I also contend that there is already plenty of contrast in the game, and if you don't detect it yourself, or you don't detect a preferred kind of contrast yourself, you could add to it yourself. I think even assuming Zalanthas is currently a world where everyone was easily bribable, there would be intensity in other aspects of this process, as well as throughout the game.

[Fredd]

all i have to say is that i have been robbed many, many times. in differant places. i think that's pretty harsh.

been strong-armed by a certain clan in the table lands a few times

robbed at spearpoint when out hunting

blackjacked and robbed in 'Nak at night.

Lesson learned: bring friends that wont rob you, so  youwont be robbed.

[jcljules]

I sort of wish more of the above happened to me.

[Gimfalisette]

I sort of wish more of the above happened to me.

PC's a/s/l ...I will dispatch minions immediately...

[jcljules]

But I'm your only minion.

[Gimfalisette]

But I'm your only minion.

I make all my minions feel like they're the only one. It's just part of my genius! Also, who says I can't dispatch you to do something nefarious to yourself, huh?

[jcljules]

feel betrayed

backstab gimfalisette

[Spice Spice Baby]

After some thought and a quick inventory of my PC's recent experiences, I have to say that the game seems plenty harsh from my end.