Concerning game trend: Not harsh enough?

[ibusoe]

Hey,

Players of the Arm game have, in my opinion, made tremendous strides in the past couple of years in terms of role-play quality.  Seasoned players continue to mature in terms of their craft, and the newer crop of players seems very eager to learn.

A couple of high points in the role play I've seen include a greater willingness to shun or persecute spell-casters as well as more overt displays of xenophobia against characters who come from distant lands.  Both of these improvements contribute to the game atmosphere, in my opinion.

That being said, I've noticed a concerning trend in the past few months or so that the game is not harsh enough.  In my opinion, we as players have it too easy and spend far too much time griping over OOC disuptes or GDB conflicts rather than, say for example, struggling for survival.
We've gotten soft.  A lack of OOG friendship and comrederie ascerbates this.

Signs of the change include increasing incidence of players defending the weak or discouraging the role-play of antisocial or malevolent characters.

I believe that this is a fixable problem and I for one intent to "be part of the change that I'd like to see," as some players advise.  Additionally, I'm going to make a set of posts over the next few days to address some points I'd like to make.

Please debate, discuss or comment below if you'd like to agree or disagree below if you think that you have some useful input.

Thanks!!





gender roles on zalanthas, forced sex and related role-play, couple of posts about crime on zalanthas, political correctness on zalanthas

[Yam]

gender roles on zalanthas, forced sex and related role-play, couple of posts about crime on zalanthas, political correctness on zalanthas

I really don't think you want to make a thread about that.

[FuSoYa]

gender roles on zalanthas, forced sex and related role-play, couple of posts about crime on zalanthas, political correctness on zalanthas

I really don't think you want to make a thread about that.

I was thinking that and about the gender roles thing.

Ahh... Zalanthas. 

Brandon

[jcljules]

I'd have to agree with your sentiment, ibusoe, with one little semantical difference. I wouldn't necessarily say not harsh enough - I think quite a few PCs deal with dangerous situations and problems - but I wholeheartedly agree that there is a distinct lack of conflict between PCs. I think the main reason for this is that PCs aren't often driven into competition with one another. Everyone seems to be able to achieve their personal objectives without having to fight anyone else for recognition, resources and other such things. I'll give a few examples. Why should a Tuluki noble be in conflict with another Tuluki noble? Most of the qynar and striasiri are held by vNPCs and can be easily obtained - nobles don't have to fight over them, or over anything else for that matter. Why should one GMH merchant be in competition with another? They both have monopolies on their respective goods and competition isn't really necessary. Why should one bard be in competition with another bard? There's so few bards that there's more than enough audience and patronage for everyone. Why should one thief be in conflict with another thief? There's enough unpicked pockets to go around and an abundance of spamcraft-filled apartment/warehouses.

In my opinion, there are three ways to fix this problem. The simplest would be a concerted effort on the part of players to create conflict - just decide that you want whatever your rivals want, and try to stop them from obtaining what they want. The second is my favorite - a larger playerbase would fix most of these problems. Third, staff could force characters into conflict with one another by artificially limiting resources, real and virtual. Reduce the number of huntable mobs, encourage two nobles to go after the same qynar, dangle a single promotion to Lieutenant in front of two Byn Sergeants. Also, though nobody wants to do this, close clans and re-organize the playerbase into a new arrangement that would promote more conflict and activity.

[jcljules]

gender roles on zalanthas, forced sex and related role-play, couple of posts about crime on zalanthas, political correctness on zalanthas

I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with things.

[Cutthroat]

I don't know if there isn't enough conflict. I think there's enough going on behind the scenes, and low points in conflict can be used to rest and recover, so to speak. I could talk about what I see or don't see but other people might see or not see other things.

In my opinion, we as players have it too easy and spend far too much time griping over OOC disuptes or GDB conflicts rather than, say for example, struggling for survival.

I know what you're talking about, I think. I really wish people would more willingly accept when something bad has happened to their character, and just roll with it. I also think that non-lethal conflict (when possible) tends to open up more possibilities for conflicts. Lethal conflict opens up possibilities for conflict with the victim's surviving friends. I think a conflict is a natural way to draw people into a plot, but it isn't the only way.

gender roles on zalanthas, forced sex and related role-play, couple of posts about crime on zalanthas, political correctness on zalanthas

Not sure what this is for, but if these are the topics what you're planning to talk about... please, I think they've been discussed ad nauseam. If they're just as random as they look  and not there for any reason then cool.

[Gimfalisette]

I actually think that an overabundance of lethal conflict tends to diminish the "harshness" of the game.

-- Lethal conflict is a deterrent to entering into conflict. If you don't think you can "win," then you may not play at all.
-- Lethal conflict does not leave a victim who can experience the post-harshness effects. Only clannies/friends/relatives/lovers are left, and they may or may not know that the victim is even gone; and/or, their experience of "harsh" may extend only to being bummed out, if they don't know the identity of the perpetrator of the offense.
-- Lethal conflict overly enriches the victors. "Get all corpse" is a nice quick way to a lot of coin, whereas extracting a 50 sid bribe leaves the victor not that enriched. Thus, PCs who PK a lot can quickly get to a non-harsh lifestyle.

Etc.

[Aaron Goulet]

I actually think that an overabundance of lethal conflict tends to diminish the "harshness" of the game.

-- Lethal conflict is a deterrent to entering into conflict. If you don't think you can "win," then you may not play at all.
-- Lethal conflict does not leave a victim who can experience the post-harshness effects. Only clannies/friends/relatives/lovers are left, and they may or may not know that the victim is even gone; and/or, their experience of "harsh" may extend only to being bummed out, if they don't know the identity of the perpetrator of the offense.
-- Lethal conflict overly enriches the victors. "Get all corpse" is a nice quick way to a lot of coin, whereas extracting a 50 sid bribe leaves the victor not that enriched. Thus, PCs who PK a lot can quickly get to a non-harsh lifestyle.

Etc.

By golly, I think the old gal's on to something here.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I usually try to prolong conflict, too. I feel that insta-PKs are not in the best interest of the game. I'm not one to lock someone in an apartment and get them. I'd prefer to face them elsewhere, where there are choices presented. Makes for pulse-pounding excitement for me, too.

[jcljules]

It seems to me that there's a lot of lethal conflict and very little prolonged conflict.

[Gimfalisette]

Prolonged conflict requires more patience, energy, attention, wisdom, strategy, and courage. Simply, it's harder.

[Ocotillo]

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.

[Gimfalisette]

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'm not really sure what to do about that problem, though. I think staff could probably do more to promote the prolonged-conflict behavior they want to see. Leaving it up to the playerbase seems to eventually lead to all of us wallowing in ennui over the issue.

[shadeoux]

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'm not really sure what to do about that problem, though. I think staff could probably do more to promote the prolonged-conflict behavior they want to see. Leaving it up to the playerbase seems to eventually lead to all of us wallowing in ennui over the issue.

There is plenty of conflict going on, I simply think that the tension isn't there though. With out going into IC events and such, I do think that the game is fine as is, just let it play out. If you think you need conflict, hold more of a grudge, if your in the south, kick a northie in the nuts, and if your up north kick a southerner in the nuts, if they are in luirs, kick the dun cloaked fella in the nuts and RUN...

If your out in the desert, don't spam flee upon every PC entering, there are not to many straight PKillers anymore without warrant that I know of I am sure there are still some, but most will opt to role play out scenes over just hack n slash. (this is getting better I did notice though)

Just my 2cents

[Jingo]

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.

[Qzzrbl]

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.

[MarshallDFX]

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.

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

[Gimfalisette]

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.

[jcljules]

Heh. As if people actually worry about boring people to death with long rants on the GDB. Go ahead, I agree with Gimf. Rant away.

[Dar]

It does. And you know what ... screw them. Let them. Because if this is an excuse you use to end other's plots quickly, then it is your responsibility to at the very least put as much into the gameworld, as you have removed by a thoughtless pkill. If you feel you're capable of it, go for it. But if you fail, then you deserve the torture of a ten thousand tregils biting onto your balls, one after one after one.

[Gimfalisette]

It does. And you know what ... screw them. Let them. Because if this is an excuse you use to end other's plots quickly, then it is your responsibility to at the very least put as much into the gameworld, as you have removed by a thoughtless pkill. If you feel you're capable of it, go for it. But if you fail, then you deserve the torture of a ten thousand tregils biting onto your balls, one after one after one.

Word. Except let's not get this thread locked.

[Fathi]

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

I agree that it's possible to play a relatively long lived PC and not experience anything more harsh than an Arena match or a templar yelling at someone. However, I think that the amount of 'harshness' your PC gets into is entirely dependent on the type of role you're playing and how you play your character.

If your character rarely leaves the city, doesn't ever make any enemies, doesn't ever join a clan that has a built-in allies and enemies list, and doesn't happen to be played during a time of large-scale conflict ala Tuluki Riots, Copper War, or Gith Siege... then yes, I can imagine you would think the game isn't very harsh. But there's plenty of things you can do to initiate some harshness yourself. Or, if you think the tavern scene isn't harsh enough, you are always welcome to roll up a desert elf, a citizen of UnderTuluk, a rogue mage, or a 'rinthi.

If you think it's too easy to survive, try playing like a newbie would. Roll up a character who has no idea how to use half the skills on their skill list. Play a guild you've never played before. Play in a location you've never played before.

It's easy to think that survival is a piece of cake when you, the player, know all the tricks.

[Ocotillo]

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

No. Do it. I love hearing explanations of the tragedy of the commons.

[KankWhisperer]

Conflict is fine. I tend to have a lot of build up to the actual fight. Words, trying to do this or that to them. But if we get in actual coded conflict, then I am not going to let someone live, unless their buddies rush in and save them or similar. Letting someone live for fear I don't please someone's OOC definition of harshness isn't going to happen. I can't imagine anyone except someone in a higher position of power even -THINKING- about leaving someone who just tried to kill them alive. Just doesn't seem like the thing a normal person would do once the line is crossed.

[Cerelum]

Conflict is fine. I tend to have a lot of build up to the actual fight. Words, trying to do this or that to them. But if we get in actual coded conflict, then I am not going to let someone live, unless their buddies rush in and save them or similar. Letting someone live for fear I don't please someone's OOC definition of harshness isn't going to happen. I can't imagine anyone except someone in a higher position of power even -THINKING- about leaving someone who just tried to kill them alive. Just doesn't seem like the thing a normal person would do once the line is crossed.

This is why I think attacking someone with MERCY ON should give different combat messages, something akin to slapping you in the face with the flat of the blade...  That way people will have at least an inkling if the person is just trying to outright wound and kill them, or subdue them.

Because a lot of times I've attacked folks with a club user, I'll go till they pass out with mercy on, steal all their shit and leave them in a gutter.