What is the point of the game????

[ianmartin]

Now, don't start flaming me before you actually think about what I am saying, but here goes.

It has been my experience at this point that players really do NOT have a choice in the way things work or in the way things are unless they are involved in something powerful or are in an alliance with
people who are in power.  The little guy can't setup his own little corporation no matter what he does, he gets blocked or something utterly lame prevents him/her from doing it.  However, if the staff/imms
want something done, it gets done (Obviously).

Now, here's my point, is the outcome of everything already decided?  Are we just pawns in a game that we have no control over and are doomed to play our parts?
What I would like to see here is more of an environment where player A can decide he wants to burn down his apartment and whammo it gets done, OR someone deciding
he wants to open a tavern and gets the materials and the contract from templerate and gets it done.  I know the docs say and the board says you can do anything you want
in the game, but seriously, can I do anything other than sit in a tavern, rid the desert of gith or bake the ultimate sweet roll?  I am just asking and I think more than a few people
may have the same question.

Now, with that being said, even though I have probably been pissed for half, maybe 2/3 of the time I play the game, overall, I applaud the staff for what they have done and I hope
that (even though I may have a problem with it) we can continue playing this game so many of us fell in love with.

[lordcooper]

Apparently you can set fire to things in 2.Arm.

Also: le sigh.

[ianmartin]

Apparently you can set fire to things in 2.Arm.

Okay, NOW, I'm Happy

[Delirium]

can I do anything other than sit in a tavern, rid the desert of gith or bake the ultimate sweet roll?

A thousand times yes. You're limited only by the scope of your imagination, and the constraints of the gameworld.

I suppose there are a few left-field exceptions to that, but there has to be some consideration for the whole as opposed to the singular, in multiplayer games.

[Cutthroat]

Now, don't start flaming me before you actually think about what I am saying, but here goes.

It has been my experience at this point that players really do NOT have a choice in the way things work or in the way things are unless they are involved in something powerful or are in an alliance with
people who are in power.  The little guy can't setup his own little corporation no matter what he does, he gets blocked or something utterly lame prevents him/her from doing it.  However, if the staff/imms
want something done, it gets done (Obviously).

That's a matter of design. It's going to be harder to do things as a "little guy" because there are a bunch of "bigger guys" that like their status.

Now, here's my point, is the outcome of everything already decided?  Are we just pawns in a game that we have no control over and are doomed to play our parts?

No. There are myriad examples that prove the exact opposite of this in-game right now and recently (within the past year or so)

Sorry if this seems terse, but this has been talked about over and over on the forums. If you want to do something, you need to work at it. Your chances are better if...
- you're consistently RPing the process of whatever you want to do.
- you're working with other players. (in a clan, or not)
- what you're trying to add will benefit the game overall or make it more fun for players.
- you're sending regular status updates via character reports to staff.
- it will actually fit in the game world as something fairly unique, i.e. it's not going to be redundant.
- it's a constructive effort as opposed to something destructive (both are possible, but you'd have to make a strong case for removing an area or feature from the game)

[Morrolan]

Apparently you can set fire to things in 2.Arm.

As far as I understand, not only can you set fire to things in 2.ARM, you might be able to affect massive change over the long run.  Possibly including raising an army to retrieve your mate, smashing down the walls of the city that took her, and sowing their fields with salt.

Code Select Expand

> fertilize field salt

No word yet on whether you can drag a corpse behind a chariot.

Code Select Expand

> craft chariot corpse into vengeance

As always, however, such things will need to be done taking the whole game world into account, not just the PCs and NPCs.

[X-D]

Elf skin cloaks YO!

Oh wait...no elves.


Ghaatti skin cloaks YO!

[ianmartin]

Now, don't start flaming me before you actually think about what I am saying, but here goes.

It has been my experience at this point that players really do NOT have a choice in the way things work or in the way things are unless they are involved in something powerful or are in an alliance with
people who are in power.  The little guy can't setup his own little corporation no matter what he does, he gets blocked or something utterly lame prevents him/her from doing it.  However, if the staff/imms
want something done, it gets done (Obviously).

That's a matter of design. It's going to be harder to do things as a "little guy" because there are a bunch of "bigger guys" that like their status.

Now, here's my point, is the outcome of everything already decided?  Are we just pawns in a game that we have no control over and are doomed to play our parts?

No. There are myriad examples that prove the exact opposite of this in-game right now and recently (within the past year or so)

Sorry if this seems terse, but this has been talked about over and over on the forums. If you want to do something, you need to work at it. Your chances are better if...
- you're consistently RPing the process of whatever you want to do.
- you're working with other players. (in a clan, or not)
- what you're trying to add will benefit the game overall or make it more fun for players.
- you're sending regular status updates via character reports to staff.
- it will actually fit in the game world as something fairly unique, i.e. it's not going to be redundant.
- it's a constructive effort as opposed to something destructive (both are possible, but you'd have to make a strong case for removing an area or feature from the game)

Now, Cuthroat's response is exactly what I am talking about.  I do not remember (correct me if I am wrong) seeing that this is how you go about things., ie sending character reports etc.
Hell, I mean Drov, I never knew this was possible to get what you needed done.  How many ideas by other people, not just myself go by because of not knowing what to do.  If EVERYONE
knows certain things, Is it not feasible to put this into the standard docs to allow people to focus on the game rather than having to run around asking questions (that noone wants to answer)
because they want to be hard-asses ?

just my $0.02 worth and superbly answered by cuthroat.  Keep in mind, i have been around quite a bit and know some things, but some noobs may just decide to leave because it's WAY too vague
in the docs.

[HavokBlue]

I think it's safe to say that if you wish up and say "HEY I'M THROWING TORCHES AND OIL AROUND MY APARTMENT BURN IT DOWN" you are probably not going to get a response, because you're being silly.

[X-D]

Oh, I think you would, but likely not what you hoped.

Suddenly the oil catches fire and swiftly spreads burning everything in it including you...sadly for you the building and room itself are made of stone and when the oil is burned the fire goes out.

Welcome to Armageddon!

[HavokBlue]

That said, if you want to accomplish something, staff are more than willing to work with you on long-term goals and plots, in my experience, provided you are willing to put in work and effort as well.

[Delirium]

That said, if you want to accomplish something, staff are more than willing to work with you on long-term goals and plots, in my experience, provided you are willing to put in work and effort as well.

Yeah, I find that players (dying, storing, being idiots) are far more of an obstacle than staff!

[Talia]

That said, if you want to accomplish something, staff are more than willing to work with you on long-term goals and plots, in my experience, provided you are willing to put in work and effort as well.

Yeah, I find that players (dying, storing, being idiots) are far more of an obstacle than staff!

The storage of leaders is a major drag on staff resources and definitely a huge hindrance to plots.

From my perspective, often, it seems like something good is just getting started and then BOOM, I have to spend the next month looking for and settling in an appropriate new leader. Only to turn around and do that same thing again for another clan the next month. And on and on.

Plots stutter along, at best.

Yeah. It's a big pain point for me. Probably the biggest.

[Taven]

Now, don't start flaming me before you actually think about what I am saying, but here goes.

It has been my experience at this point that players really do NOT have a choice in the way things work or in the way things are unless they are involved in something powerful or are in an alliance with people who are in power.  The little guy can't setup his own little corporation no matter what he does, he gets blocked or something utterly lame prevents him/her from doing it.  However, if the staff/imms want something done, it gets done (Obviously).

Cutthroat had some good advice. I just wanted to add that the world DOES change based on things players do. Relatively recently, there was a building burnt down because a PC wanted to do it. The conditions in the world were right (vNPC support), and you can bet they sent in character reports about their goals. Not everything a PC wants to do is always possible due to staff workload and the vNPC side of the world, but staff will be there to try to support things.

Handling the after effects of the HRPT in both city-states is player driven. That sort of thing normally gets handled by Templars and nobles, but you can bet there have been commoners who made contributions as well. In addition, stopping and preventing some of the "fixes" for those issues were done by PCs, as well. Obviously, I can't get into details, but there are changes happening there.

Finally, although this was before the change on how plots were handled (staff driven versus player driven), there were player efforts in the Gith War. After it a lot of people were unsure if they made any difference, or if it was all pre-scripted to happen one way, regardless of how they acted. In fact, staff came out and said that there were several versions of what could have happened, depending on where the focus was for defense.

Changing the world isn't easy, especially if you're small (you need those big guys to support you, and become more influential yourself), but it IS possible.

[Reiloth]

That said, if you want to accomplish something, staff are more than willing to work with you on long-term goals and plots, in my experience, provided you are willing to put in work and effort as well.

Yeah, I find that players (dying, storing, being idiots) are far more of an obstacle than staff!

The storage of leaders is a major drag on staff resources and definitely a huge hindrance to plots.

From my perspective, often, it seems like something good is just getting started and then BOOM, I have to spend the next month looking for and settling in an appropriate new leader. Only to turn around and do that same thing again for another clan the next month. And on and on.

Plots stutter along, at best.

Yeah. It's a big pain point for me. Probably the biggest.

What can be done to help plug the dam of this kind of turnover? I know that it must suck to have to keep apping in people for the same role, or conversely, just doing it for clan A, and then a month later, clan B. I always recommend to people in leadership positions to not treat their character like a vending machine with a question mark over their head. Character first. But even then -- Dry spells in clans can be deadly to leaders, more deadly than wet spells (?) where you feel like you HAVE to log in to appease your minions.

Anyways -- to the OP -- No, things are not predetermined. No, you are not a pawn in the Staff's grand design. You are a very special snowflake and you can choose to do a plethora of things IG. The first step is designing a character that will not do what you consider boring (sitting in a tavern, ridding the red desert of Gith). The second is developing the character's personality to the point where you log in and -feel- like that character, in all of their mannerisms and thought processes. Then -- You truly can experience Armageddon and see it for all its beauty and brutality. If you want to burn down your apartment other than for the sake of burning it down, talk it over with the Staff. I'm sure they'll be receptive to a bit of anarchy.

[Clavis]

That said, if you want to accomplish something, staff are more than willing to work with you on long-term goals and plots, in my experience, provided you are willing to put in work and effort as well.

Yeah, I find that players (dying, storing, being idiots) are far more of an obstacle than staff!

The storage of leaders is a major drag on staff resources and definitely a huge hindrance to plots.

From my perspective, often, it seems like something good is just getting started and then BOOM, I have to spend the next month looking for and settling in an appropriate new leader. Only to turn around and do that same thing again for another clan the next month. And on and on.

Plots stutter along, at best.

Yeah. It's a big pain point for me. Probably the biggest.

What can be done to help plug the dam of this kind of turnover? I know that it must suck to have to keep apping in people for the same role, or conversely, just doing it for clan A, and then a month later, clan B. I always recommend to people in leadership positions to not treat their character like a vending machine with a question mark over their head. Character first. But even then -- Dry spells in clans can be deadly to leaders, more deadly than wet spells (?) where you feel like you HAVE to log in to appease your minions.

Anyways -- to the OP -- No, things are not predetermined. No, you are not a pawn in the Staff's grand design. You are a very special snowflake and you can choose to do a plethora of things IG. The first step is designing a character that will not do what you consider boring (sitting in a tavern, ridding the red desert of Gith). The second is developing the character's personality to the point where you log in and -feel- like that character, in all of their mannerisms and thought processes. Then -- You truly can experience Armageddon and see it for all its beauty and brutality. If you want to burn down your apartment other than for the sake of burning it down, talk it over with the Staff. I'm sure they'll be receptive to a bit of anarchy.

yes all this.

[Talia]

What can be done to help plug the dam of this kind of turnover? I know that it must suck to have to keep apping in people for the same role, or conversely, just doing it for clan A, and then a month later, clan B. I always recommend to people in leadership positions to not treat their character like a vending machine with a question mark over their head. Character first. But even then -- Dry spells in clans can be deadly to leaders, more deadly than wet spells (?) where you feel like you HAVE to log in to appease your minions.

I don't really know whether it can be fixed. I've pondered it quite a bit. Players don't often give constructive, actionable feedback on why they are storing their sponsored roles. But here are some things I've gathered both from personal experience in sponsored roles and from other players and observation, in no particular order of importance:

-- Some players just don't really like rules and structure. They don't want to write character reports, be accountable for their pkills, or have to follow rules for conducting RPTs.
-- Some players don't enjoy being responsible for facilitating the enjoyment of other players through administrative tasks and plot/quest/project leadership.
-- Some players are very focused on their own characters' skill development. This is not a good match for most sponsored leader roles, because coded skill development usually needs to be far, far down the list of things that get done.
-- Some players simply aren't good at thinking up plots/projects/quests for themselves and their clans. They are reactive rather than proactive. In the player-driven environment, this is not a good fit for a sponsored role.
-- Sometimes players don't enjoy the mostly mundane focus of sponsored leader roles. That is to say, if it ain't high magick, they ain't interested.
-- Sometimes players get lonely if there are not enough other leaders around for them to interact with. It really sucks to be only one of two nobles in your city...and the other noble doesn't play at the same time as you.
-- Some players are really mostly into adventuring. Some sponsored roles might include adventuring, but none of them is mostly about adventuring. (Byn Sergeant is the closest match here.)
-- Some players just won't put up with the crap that minions often give. Minions die, run away into the 'rinth, run off to go salting, pick fights, steal from clanmates, etc. at an astonishing rate. This can burn out player leaders.
-- Sometimes the players and staff in a particular clan configuration just don't get along.

I could probably think of more reasons, but it's late and I'm tired. Player leaders who stick to it for the long-term are very rare. Those who do a good job at it are even rarer. Most of these problems I don't think are fixable, because they're about the fact that mostly players just like doing their own thing. And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that; it just makes the job of staff harder when players aren't fully invested in helping out too.

[number13]

All of the really good leaders end on staff and are therefore ineligible for leadership roles?  I don't know that for a fact; just a guess.

Templar is a coveted role because they get super-special goodies to go along with the massive responsibility.  My one and only (ill-fated) attempt at a Nooble left me wondering where all the goodies were. (probably in Allanak, because the grass is always greener).  There was a guard, that I couldn't do much with except use a prop.  There were some 'special' items that, with my character prior, I had stashed quite a few stacks of.  There was some money. The aforementioned prior character, without even really trying, had amassed a great deal more.  And I had the ear of staff and presumably the respect of the commoners, which isn't anything to sneeze at, but when you get down to brass tacks, I actually find it easier to get other PCs involved when I'm playing as lowly criminal scum or an outlaw weirdo.

The entire game is just props and toys, but it seems the high karma classes or even successful independent gets much cooler toys than the average sponsored role.  (with the possible exception of House Tor and House Kurac)  That's ass-backwards, and if it were to somehow change (I don't know how!), then maybe the roles would be appreciated more.

Templar would be the test case. If the southern templars have as bad of turnover as northern nobles, then I'm completely wrong.  

[Reiloth]

What can be done to help plug the dam of this kind of turnover? I know that it must suck to have to keep apping in people for the same role, or conversely, just doing it for clan A, and then a month later, clan B. I always recommend to people in leadership positions to not treat their character like a vending machine with a question mark over their head. Character first. But even then -- Dry spells in clans can be deadly to leaders, more deadly than wet spells (?) where you feel like you HAVE to log in to appease your minions.

I don't really know whether it can be fixed. I've pondered it quite a bit. Players don't often give constructive, actionable feedback on why they are storing their sponsored roles. But here are some things I've gathered both from personal experience in sponsored roles and from other players and observation, in no particular order of importance:

-- Some players just don't really like rules and structure. They don't want to write character reports, be accountable for their pkills, or have to follow rules for conducting RPTs.
-- Some players don't enjoy being responsible for facilitating the enjoyment of other players through administrative tasks and plot/quest/project leadership.
-- Some players are very focused on their own characters' skill development. This is not a good match for most sponsored leader roles, because coded skill development usually needs to be far, far down the list of things that get done.
-- Some players simply aren't good at thinking up plots/projects/quests for themselves and their clans. They are reactive rather than proactive. In the player-driven environment, this is not a good fit for a sponsored role.
-- Sometimes players don't enjoy the mostly mundane focus of sponsored leader roles. That is to say, if it ain't high magick, they ain't interested.
-- Sometimes players get lonely if there are not enough other leaders around for them to interact with. It really sucks to be only one of two nobles in your city...and the other noble doesn't play at the same time as you.
-- Some players are really mostly into adventuring. Some sponsored roles might include adventuring, but none of them is mostly about adventuring. (Byn Sergeant is the closest match here.)
-- Some players just won't put up with the crap that minions often give. Minions die, run away into the 'rinth, run off to go salting, pick fights, steal from clanmates, etc. at an astonishing rate. This can burn out player leaders.
-- Sometimes the players and staff in a particular clan configuration just don't get along.

I could probably think of more reasons, but it's late and I'm tired. Player leaders who stick to it for the long-term are very rare. Those who do a good job at it are even rarer. Most of these problems I don't think are fixable, because they're about the fact that mostly players just like doing their own thing. And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that; it just makes the job of staff harder when players aren't fully invested in helping out too.

Word. I think it takes a particular type of person to play sponsored leader roles, not to mention lots of time. I've been in great leadership roles, and ran out of time. Or had a RL event that came up that led to losing time to play the game. I've loved those roles, and think back fondly on them, wishing that I could have stuck with it instead of storing, honestly.

[Bacon]

I actually find it easier to get other PCs involved when I'm playing as lowly criminal scum or an outlaw weirdo.

This.
It's probably the most true statement regarding sponsored leader roles vs. independent roles and being able to get stuff going around you. The fact of the matter is, you find that in a sponsored leader position you are under a lot more restrictions as to what you can and can't do. This limits being able to mix things up a bit to keep yourself and those around you entertained and involved as easily. (Note: I'm not saying it prevents it from being done but it does make it harder.)
I don't know how it is now with the changes to staff run plots vs. player run and other changes. I haven't played one of those roles since before many of these changes. But at that time, it was the single biggest problem with keeping things going both for the characters around mine and myself. Not enough freedom to make things happen as easily. I don't know what can be done to fix this really, there are obviously certain things with certain clans that cannot be changed.

[Talia]

Southern templars do have less turnover than northern nobles, but southern templars still have a ton of turnover. And I don't believe it has to do with perks that come with any of the roles; rather, it has to do with the fact that the role of southern templar has some built-in excitement involved, in the form of chasing criminals, chasing and gemming or killing rogue magickers, and generally being openly menacing. No other sponsored role is very similar in those ways. (Northern templars don't chase criminals so often because there is a smaller playerbase, and also because crime can be licensed. The play around rogue magickers is different there too.)

The problem is that the game needs player leaders to be generating excitement, not just responding to excitement. Most players don't know how to generate their own excitement, and of the players who do know how to generate excitement, it tends to be, let's say...more spontaneous and chaotic than sustained and widely involving.

As to whether all the good leaders end up on staff, that's not true. I can think of a number of great player leaders who are not on staff. But not all of them (or even most of them) are playing leaders right now. The role of leader is extremely taxing, and no one wants to do it all the time, especially since the reward of doing so lies mostly in the satisfaction of doing so. These great leaders also tend to be somewhat older and more mature players, who have lives and stuff, so can't always play leaders.

Word. I think it takes a particular type of person to play sponsored leader roles, not to mention lots of time. I've been in great leadership roles, and ran out of time. Or had a RL event that came up that led to losing time to play the game. I've loved those roles, and think back fondly on them, wishing that I could have stuck with it instead of storing, honestly.

I hear you on that. It's happened to everyone who's put the time in to play leaders, at some point.

The fact of the matter is, you find that in a sponsored leader position you are under a lot more restrictions as to what you can and can't do. This limits being able to mix things up a bit to keep yourself and those around you entertained and involved as easily. (Note: I'm not saying it prevents it from being done but it does make it harder.)
I don't know how it is now with the changes to staff run plots vs. player run and other changes. I haven't played one of those roles since before many of these changes. But at that time, it was the single biggest problem with keeping things going both for the characters around mine and myself. Not enough freedom to make things happen as easily. I don't know what can be done to fix this really, there are obviously certain things with certain clans that cannot be changed.

Part of the issue is that the gameworld wouldn't be the gameworld that we all say we love (with rigid social hierarchies and intense prejudices and harshness and etc) if, for example, nobles could always do just whatever they feel like doing to have fun or advance a plot. The fact that Lady Borsail can squash your life if she wants is entangled with her pampered lifestyle and her horror at the thought of leaving the walls of Allanak. Were those things to be separated, the game's cultures would be cheapened and watered down.

From a practical standpoint, IMO, the fact that leaders cannot codedly accomplish everything they need to in pursuit of a plot, due to restrictions, is good for the game because it forces them to recruit and train loyal minions who can do those things for them, therefore widening the plot and its possibilities. If Lord Fale is a perfectly competent assassin on his own, and has cultural authority to conduct his own assassinations, then what is the point of your puny newbie 'rinthi assassin? Removing restrictions from sponsored roles would unbalance them.

[Bacon]

Right that's what I meant with the last line of that. There is really nothing that can be done to make it just as easy for a sponsored role. Once people experience both, I think they find it just plain easier and less time consuming to do it with unsponsored characters rather than take on sponsored roles. It's not that I haven't had fun with mine, not at all. It's just easier to do it other ways I think. It may be a contributing factor to the storing of sponsored characters.

[Riev]

I can say from my point of view, that I've only really had two "leadership" PCs, and one of them was only because, at the time, I wasn't a fan of any other leadership PCs available.

I get burned out real quickly though, when the same player rolls through the clan, time after time, or when I really feel like its my job to keep people occupied. I'm much better in a support role, helping the leader get things done, or being an aide-de-camp of sorts. Taking meetings, so on and so forth.

Besides. Everyone knows aides have more power than their bosses. The bosses are too busy to deal with your piddly ass, so the aide gets free reign. All the time.

Though to be a bit more on topic, there is plenty to do in the game, once you start getting into character. Socializing, schmoozing nobles, mastercrafting, being the best <x> in <city, region, known>. The trick is to find out just what your character wants, and Dwarven Focus it out of the park.

[jstorrie]

I have a feeling that a lot of sponsored-leadership-role-burnout is due to unrealistic expectations.

This gets back to ianmartin's original post. No, not everything is possible in Armageddon - and for the same reason that not everything is possible in a tabletop RPG session. Some things are just logistical nightmares to oversee and implement. The Copper War event, for example, was hell of sweet; it also took up a lot of staff-hours. I'm not surprised that it's proven difficult to arrange "campaign events" on that scale again. Not being on the staff side I can't give you an estimate on how many hours of staffer time it took, but I'm pretty sure it was a big number.

The most successful leader PCs are likely the ones who come up with ideas for events which require only minimal staff oversight. If you can say "we're doing some cool shit next weekend, log in!" and then everyone can log in and just go - staff included - that's the best sort of event. It's kind of unreasonable to expect your clan staff to slave away all week preparing a one-hour event for a dozen or so PCs. The best RPTs, in my mind, are the ones which only require staff to show up twenty or thirty minutes before everyone else.

I think that a lot of people jump into the high-level sponsored roles with big plans, pitch them to staff, and get the "uh we can't possibly do all the work it would take to implement this, as much as we would like to" answer. The unsuccesful ones think "fuck this, I guess it's just status quo forever." The successful ones, on the other hand, think "okay, what's the coolest event idea I can come up with which would require only a reasonable amount of work by my clan staff, who are volunteers?"

I actually like that in Armageddon, there are overt social and environmental issues which prevent the individual from getting far in life. I've played MUDs where players could become high priests and kings and such. Those MUDs run into the same "what you want to do simply requires too much work by the staff/immortals/gamemasters to be feasible" problems, but in their cases, you get this alienating IC/OOC split - whereas in Armageddon, you can chalk it up to The System being hostile to individuals of below house-head-level and it feels all right.

I wish that I could sum all this up by talking about my specific experiences lately with trying to arrange certain in-game events, getting the "no logistical way to do it" answer, and then successfully re-working it into something more feasible (which turned out to be killer fun.) I guess I'll tell you in a year.

[RogueGunslinger]

To chop muthafuckas up with bone swords.