Antagonize.... like a Boss.

[Synthesis]

This, however, is NOT how it works:

You discuss problems with (or at least agree with the position put forth about) antagonist PCs and plots and the like, yet you are actually not having issues with this in game (evidenced by reports or your actual play in game in which you have proven you antagonize LIKE A BOSS).  This makes up at least 6% of posters in this thread at the time of this post, and this seems disingenuous.  Shame on you!  You aren't even having a problem, guys!  Tell other people WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
You discuss problems with (or at least agree with the position put forth about) antagonist PCs and plots and the like, yet you don't send in reports (whether that be at all, or sporadically).  This makes up at least 21% of posters in this thread at the time of this post, with one other that is borderline.

The "not how it works" stuff is annoying to see.  It's why staff are sometimes outright dismissive of claims of a issue.  It's evident that there is enough of an interest from players doing things right--enough to warrant review, or just some extra poking from staff in the future--but the "not how it works" folks skew the issue.

Well, I can tell people how I usually do the "successful" solo antagonist:

1) Utilize every trick in the book to skill up as fast as codedly possible.
     a) Have a minimal IC footprint at this time.  Don't talk to other players. Don't go to bars (unless it's to skill something up).  Stay hidden whenever you aren't doing something to skill up. Etc.

2) Once you're badass enough to raid, only pick on noobs and unaffiliated PCs.

3) Always assume your target will be the shittiest type of player, and utilize overwhelming force.

4) Always kill your target.  Fewer people to raid? Ha--they'll roll up another PC soon enough.

5) Continue to maintain a minimal IC footprint.  Don't stop to chat.  Don't hang out at bars.  Don't take on minions.  Log in, raid, log out.

6) Store or suicide when a more interesting role comes up.

The times I've played as a non-solo antagonist:
1) I was a merchant, so my role consisted entirely of making insane amounts of money to buy the stuff my minions needed to skill up, so that -they- could do 1-6 (above) effectively.  We RP'ed with each other, but I'm pretty sure the minions were just as ruthless as I would've been with the PK business.

2) Other people started fucking with me first, so I'd beat their asses whenever I got the chance...not entirely sure that qualifies as antagonism.

3) Secret pickpocket/burglar in a clan...hunter by day, thief by night--that sort of thing.  Never shared my true talent with anyone.  Skilled up in secret.  Maintained the illusion of being a ranger when around other PCs.  It's basically the first 6 steps with breaks for sparring practice RP in-between.

(I'm not sure that's the sort of least-common-denominator advice anyone had in mind.  In fact, I'm pretty sure the point of the thread was to -avoid- these sorts of things.)

[jriley]

I have to admit this is one of the more interesting threads that I've read in a while. 

What I think that most of us (staff included) are unwilling to face is exactly how easy it would be to ignite direct PC-PC para-military player conflict.  So far we've largely glossed over one of the more important sub-topics of the original post. 

Here's how it could happen.  Let's say that the staff decided to re-open the Red Fang clan.  It's pretty likely that some of the players reading this thread would be willing to store their current character to play a Red Fang, and plenty willing to deal with the loneliness and isolation.  It takes a few weeks to buff up a desert elf character.  About six to seven weeks after the announcement, the body count starts. 

In fact, this is (I'm pretty sure) what happened a couple of years ago that resulted in the clan being shut down, if I remember my clan history correctly.  A group of bright guys were offing people left and right.  I thought this was cool. 

But here is the problem with that -- I'm guessing that at least like 50% of people that got killed by that last, infamous band of Red Fang ended up complaining to the staff.  The staff were (I can only imagine) supportive of the Red Fang players at first, then indifferent.  Eventually, my guess is that even our (intelligent, patient) staff got overwhelmed by the complaints and lost their nerve -- the Red Fang clan was closed. 

I think that we the players do this to ourselves.  We need to stop complaining about being one hit killed, being moshed by half-giants, or being nuked by a spell-caster from six screens away because this is how random game violence takes place.  Do we the players really have the stomach to loose an 18-day warrior with a cool background and plots to a semi-random six-second spam-combat with a couple of half-giant raiders? 

Put yourself in the victim's place.  I think we always imagine ourselves as the raiders.  Do we really want a group of powerful raiders running around?  Personally I do but I question that this is what the rest of us want. 

[Nyr]

Jriely, do you read the history page? I'd suggest reading it. The Red Fangs weren't closed because we got tired of dealing with them.

[jriley]

I have to admit this is one of the more interesting threads that I've read in a while. 

What I think that most of us (staff included) are unwilling to face is exactly how easy it would be to ignite direct PC-PC para-military player conflict.  So far we've largely glossed over one of the more important sub-topics of the original post. 

Here's how it could happen.  Let's say that the staff decided to re-open the Red Fang clan.  It's pretty likely that some of the players reading this thread would be willing to store their current character to play a Red Fang, and plenty willing to deal with the loneliness and isolation.  It takes a few weeks to buff up a desert elf character.  About six to seven weeks after the announcement, the body count starts. 

In fact, this is (I'm pretty sure) what happened a couple of years ago that resulted in the clan being shut down, if I remember my clan history correctly.  A group of bright guys were offing people left and right.  I thought this was cool. 

But here is the problem with that -- I'm guessing that at least like 50% of people that got killed by that last, infamous band of Red Fang ended up complaining to the staff.  The staff were (I can only imagine) supportive of the Red Fang players at first, then indifferent.  Eventually, my guess is that even our (intelligent, patient) staff got overwhelmed by the complaints and lost their nerve -- the Red Fang clan was closed. 

I think that we the players do this to ourselves.  We need to stop complaining about being one hit killed, being moshed by half-giants, or being nuked by a spell-caster from six screens away because this is how random game violence takes place.  Do we the players really have the stomach to loose an 18-day warrior with a cool background and plots to a semi-random six-second spam-combat with a couple of half-giant raiders? 

Put yourself in the victim's place.  I think we always imagine ourselves as the raiders.  Do we really want a group of powerful raiders running around?  Personally I do but I question that this is what the rest of us want. 

Okay, I'm going to attempt to answer my own question.  

Personally, I'm somewhat indifferent to the prospect of having a bunch of PC raiders running around in the game.  The real question is if we want the wastelands to be more dangerous or not.  If we want the wastelands to be more dangerous, then it would be comparatively easier for the staff to add new and badder mobiles to hunt us down and eat us.  If we don't want the wastelands to be more dangerous, then adding some PC raiders is the wrong decision.  

The problem with pulling PCs into raiding positions is that player characters are really needed to play urban roles and political roles.  I don't think that loosing four to six players to a raiding clan would damage urban/political gameplay unacceptably, but I also don't think that it would add much to the game.  After all, I'm not really any more/less entertained if my character gets one-hit-killed by a scrab, a tembo or a PC raider.  There's not much of a difference for me emotionally.  

Do some people want to play raiders anyway?  Yes.  Do they deserve more staff support than they're getting?  I'd say yes.  Will this change life and the universe as we know it?  Probably no.  I still think that most of our players lack the patience needed to play a (desert based) militia soldier, or a raider or a Red Fang.

[Nyr]

I doubt your premise since the SLK remain full.

[Down Under]

Problem with threads like these: Lots of speculation, little actual information. There are antagonists, plot-starters, shakers and movers, etc. all around you. If it's a plot to destroy the world, blow up Tuluk, or raid Allanak through the sewers...Don't you think it'll be really hard to find out about it?

[Nyr]

While it may not need to be said, if you are looking for actual advice on playing an antagonist properly, please disregard Synthesis' post as tongue in cheek.

[Thunkkin]

Very interesting thread.

Some of the problem, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the intentions staff or players. The problem is that most players either play characters that only last a few RL weeks or months or that last forever (or as long as the player is interested) while living a fairly comfortable life style. This has the result of removing all sorts of "antagonists" from the realm of PCs, especially when this is combined with IC monopolies and restrictions.

You can't have characters like the stereotypical heartless medieval miller who squeezed the livelihood of his neighbors by charging a huge percentage of their grain as the price for letting them grind it at his mill. Players either have access to plentiful food or they're going to die quickly. No one will become dependent on a miller-type character, even if such opportunities existed ICly (which they don't, really).

Most characters don't live long enough for an unscrupulous character to make them indebted to him/her. Nenyuk's monopoly aside, no antagonist can make a living by unfair loans that impoverish those desperate or foolish enough to enter into them. The characters will simply die and the loan shark will never be able to get the loan money back OR make the debtor's life miserable. Besides, any enterprising character will easily be able to make money, so that reduces the evil loan sharks opportunities to only those characters who chose not to be clanned, not to be rich, and to be desperate and foolish. That's a small player population for the antagonist to antagonize.

Examples could be multiplied.

IC monopolies combine with OOC character life expectancy to narrow the antagonists role to: raider, thief/burglar, or asshole. There are other possibilities, of course, but I think they're difficult to achieve and their full impact is blunted because those who should be made miserable or exploited by them will simply die or wander off long before they can truly be antagonized.

[roughneck]

Well, I can tell people how I usually do the "successful" solo antagonist:

1) Utilize every trick in the book to skill up as fast as codedly possible.
     a) Have a minimal IC footprint at this time.  Don't talk to other players. Don't go to bars (unless it's to skill something up).  Stay hidden whenever you aren't doing something to skill up. Etc.

2) Once you're badass enough to raid, only pick on noobs and unaffiliated PCs.

3) Always assume your target will be the shittiest type of player, and utilize overwhelming force.

4) Always kill your target.  Fewer people to raid? Ha--they'll roll up another PC soon enough.

5) Continue to maintain a minimal IC footprint.  Don't stop to chat.  Don't hang out at bars.  Don't take on minions.  Log in, raid, log out.

6) Store or suicide when a more interesting role comes up.

While it may not need to be said, if you are looking for actual advice on playing an antagonist properly, please disregard Synthesis' post as tongue in cheek.

It may be sad, but it is true.  The stuff about maintaining a minimal IC footprint and utilizing overwhelming force are needed if you're going to be successful.

If you steal so much as a single grimy sid from somebody in the salt flats and walk in the gaj at any point that RL week you have a good chance of being hunted down and killed by bored players who come on the gdb to complain about a lack of conflict so they pulverise the first chance they have at some.  Because really, most people only want conflict they can win, anyways.

The above may be cynical and a little exaggerated but I definately see value to Synth's post.  And while you don't necessarily need coded power to be a successful raider, OOC code-smarts are a must.  Although I am apprehensive to kill.  I usually make my goal incapacitation followed by some sort of demand or situation that will offer the victim a chance of survival if they are compliant or choose the right path.  I used to kill 100% of the time and it is definately the logical thing to do if you want to keep your raider pc alive, it just isn't as fun, challenging or artful - to me.  Not that I am particularly elite or artistic, but I do have a good time playing these characters.


On a side note, a solo raider is the best pc for the casual player.  No time to contribute a great deal to a clan or make rpts?  Logging on only twice a week will make you a more successful solo raider anyways.  People will never be too worried with that kind of irregularity.  And with less investment you won't mind taking risks or engaging a conflict you know you're going to lose.   Hell, you might even want to roll up a raider with the goal of ending up fodder for other pc's enjoyment.

[Nyr]

I'll address the bad advice directly, then.

We on staff expect more out of players.  If you want to be a jackass, follow that advice. If (instead) you want to play a realistic PC:

--don't twink your skills. Play reasonably.
--interaction with other players involves more than using the commands steal, pick, sap, backstab, kill, and cast. Flesh out your actions with more roleplay.
--don't target newbies. You used to be one. Target unaffiliated people because it makes sense, but singling out newbies for negative interaction is a supremely dickish move.
--be prepared for your opponents to roleplay shittily. This does not mean you should disregard common courtesy in advance of all interaction.
--Kill if it is what your PC would do.
--store if you feel you must. Don't suicide.



I'm sad that this has to be iterated: you're part of an RPI. Act like it.

[Nyr]

It is a good idea to reduce your footprint as a magicker, raider, assassin, whatev--but doing so at the exclusion of all other interaction or roleplay is downright twinkish.

[Synthesis]

Well, a lot of that is twinkishness necessitated by poor play from others, and by problems with underlying code.

1) Skilling up:  it's honestly so easy on Arm that you don't need to spam, even with poor HG wisdom.  There are certain skills that take forever to go up, regardless of wisdom, regardless of spamming--these aren't really the skills that you really need to kill bodies.  It seems like the most dangerous skills are, ironically, the easiest to improve.

2) Reducing IC footprint:  if it wasn't so easy to identify people by mdescs and equipment lists, people wouldn't have to do it.  After you do your first successful raid (and allow the victim to live), or fail your first raid (allowing them to escape), your IC footprint within the cities will essentially be zero anyway, because either you never enter, or you'll die when you do.

3) Being a dick to noobs:  It's not so much because they're noobs, but you can tell people who are noobs by what they do, which creates its own IC justification correlating highly with noobishness.  E.g. people who troll around the 'rinth wearing full sets of armor, or people who are out and about in the desert on foot.

4) Roleplay:  yes, roleplay is good, and it's the point of the game.  Unfortunately, the code and/or the staff does not support particular types of roleplay very well, which is why this stupid thread respawns every year or so.

[Nyr]

It's okay to be a twink because the game allows it, other people do it, and because staff can't be everywhere at once?

Put in a character report if you need staff support for your kind of roleplay, by the way.  You might be surprised by the results.

[roughneck]

I'll address the bad advice directly, then.

We on staff expect more out of players.  If you want to be a jackass, follow that advice. If (instead) you want to play a realistic PC:

--don't twink your skills. Play reasonably.
--interaction with other players involves more than using the commands steal, pick, sap, backstab, kill, and cast. Flesh out your actions with more roleplay.
--don't target newbies. You used to be one. Target unaffiliated people because it makes sense, but singling out newbies for negative interaction is a supremely dickish move.
--be prepared for your opponents to roleplay shittily. This does not mean you should disregard common courtesy in advance of all interaction.
--Kill if it is what your PC would do.
--store if you feel you must. Don't suicide.



I'm sad that this has to be iterated: you're part of an RPI. Act like it.

Agreed, however Synth's advice is still good if not taken to an extreme and accompanied rp, which it easily can be.  I do see the value of your post though, the advice given could easily be taken too far.  I think Synth was exaggerating a little bit anyways. Following some of that advice by no means makes you a jackass.

--twinking is bad but efficiency in training skills goes a long ways
--overwhleming force does not mean backstab/shoot with no roleplay, it means crippling/killing them before they have a chance to flee
--there's a big difference between targetting newbies and targetting inexperienced pc's, determining the difference between a seasoned byn veteran and a novice kadian hunter is an IC decision
--suicide is stupid but I personally encourage increasingly risky activity with other pc's, it's not suicide if someone else pulls the trigger

I see why you responded the way you did, Nyr but the fact is playing a solo raider type is really tricky unless you're willing and have the know-how to create a powerful pc.  A 2 day warrior or ranger with an ugly piece of bone is all you need and can provide some good fun for everyone involved.

I would argue if you don't include at least some of Synth's six points, you're not going to get anywhere.

[Nyr]

It's almost as though we don't find it to be that feasible for people to be long lived solo raiders.

[Kismetic]

It's almost as though we don't find it to be that feasible for people to be long lived solo raiders.

OOC chatter does make things like this difficult, being that a long lived raider type is gonna have to exist under the radar, whether it's  living in the wild or leading a double life.  The answer to "How did you know that?" seems out of touch once your Raider PC is dead.  So does a complaint, for the record.

Just a note, since I'm certain things like this do happen when people get emotional over their PC getting killed, maybe more than once, even.

[Armaddict]

It's almost as though we don't find it to be that feasible for people to be long lived solo raiders.

...you pretty much have to start out on your own in that particular endeavor, which is when said guidelines actually help.  Very rare are the circumstances that put you into a group doing it early on.  Even to duress people to join you (which makes things interesting),  you have to have survived on your own for awhile.

[Synthesis]

It's okay to be a twink because the game allows it, other people do it, and because staff can't be everywhere at once?

Put in a character report if you need staff support for your kind of roleplay, by the way.  You might be surprised by the results.

Not okay to be a twink.  Correctly done, all the things I outlined are merely mediocre play, not twinking.

It's perfectly okay (and necessary) to play on that borderline between outright twinkishness and mediocrity, though.  Again, the point of these threads (generally) is to ask:  how can we improve things from this mediocre least common denominator?

[burble]

From most of the posts, I wonder if we are even playing the same game.

(all this from a year or more ago)
My various chars have been flogged, beaten, robbed, threatened, attacked by gickers, plotted to kill (person died before it came to fruition),
secretly undone what his partners were doing, etc.

I like adventure stories so I create them.

My chars get involved in all kinds of stuff and I don't even try! They pick sides. They overtly and covertly help their favorites. Sooner or later it comes out.
It just takes a long time to get things moving and I sure as hell don't need anyone else to do it for me.

If you just want something so blatantly obvious as a war..I'm firmly in the "don't care" camp.
If you need someone else to create some conflict for your entertainment...hahahaha.. go ahead, be all the NPC you can be.
Heck, sounds like some of you would be better off animating an existing gith or scrab than trying to play a PC anyway.
You don't have a story, you just want to play killer and cry like a baby here when it's not easy.

DIKU combat sucks so bad it is pathetic. For PK combat, I go to those freemium online games where you don't have corners in the desert, death due to mistyping (flee not slee!), scrollfest when too many characters are in a room, doing anything with more than a couple of people is SLOW as molasses..etc etc.

The best commands on this game are "say" and "emote". Period.

[palomar]

Playing the antagonist does not equal playing a raider.

Every PC can be another PC's (or group's) antagonist, their nemesis. An antagonist does not have to be hunted and hated by the whole Known World, but some roles end up that way because of their orientation, because of how the player plays the PC. If you raid everyone (or you play a hostile race like mantis, gith, halfling) and piss off all the GMHs, both city-states and the Sandlord's auntie, expect to be hunted down real fast.

[Rhyden]

If you steal so much as a single grimy sid from somebody in the salt flats and walk in the gaj at any point that RL week you have a good chance of being hunted down and killed by bored players who come on the gdb to complain about a lack of conflict so they pulverise the first chance they have at some.  Because really, most people only want conflict they can win, anyways.

Couldn't agree more.

Trust me, having played a Templar/Militia before, I know how boring it can get when there's literally no crime and nothing to do for vast periods of time. You want to know the solution? Don't go overkill whenever you FINALLY have a criminal in the dungeons. You guys want more criminals and conflict to deal with in your city state? Then don't go totally balls to the walls on a criminal in your dungeon. Don't spend 2 hours torturing them, cutting off fingers, stripping them naked, poking out their eyeballs and trying to squeeze any morsel of information out of them.

Instead, when that elf gets sent to the dungeons for stealing a piece of bread, maybe do what the documents actually tell you to, and slap on a light 10-20 sid fine before letting them go. You will be AMAZED by the results of this. Because not only will this elf probably go back out there and begin creating more conflict, but you're probably going to see an upswing in criminal activity which ultimately means more conflict and more fun for all.

My advice to you griefer-type antagonists in powerful positions: Go easy on 99% of your criminals, and save your griefing 2 hour torture sessions for the real bad guys. If you let the petty criminals go, then not only are you promoting small petty crimes for your minions to deal with, but you're also encouraging players to actually play criminals and stir up some conflict. And here's the best part: if you slap on light fines or heavier ones for reoccurring crimes, you will become extremely wealthy. And what does wealth equal in Arm? More plots!

[Nyr]

Put in a character report if you are any sort of antagonist looking for advice on how best to proceed. You may be surprised by the results.

[roughneck]

Put in a character report if you are any sort of antagonist looking for advice on how best to proceed. You may be surprised by the results.

Good advice.  Getting player complaints are irritating but if you have already reported everything, it's going to be way easier on you.

Whether I'm clanned or not I report every pk immediately and send in a report of at least the major stealing/raiding/whatever I've been doing just to keep it above board. Best to get Staff understanding your thinking, roleplay and tactics early on so when the time comes to resolve a complaint the investigation is a lot more straightforward.

[Potaje]

Nothing annoys me more then to hear a templar, from either citystate worry about angering the other city state.

Alright, When it is a nakki templar, that annoys me the most. I mean Come on, Nakki templars worried about keeping the peace? HAHAHAHAHA...lame.

I did not play Arm before May of 2010. But I've read a hoard of the GDB posts that go faaaar back before that. I think the fact you never see any active Hawk Lobby in either city state against the other city state has sort of.. fed into any "we need more antagonist" sentiment.

Do I think a Templar wanting to keep the "Peace" between the two cities is bad? No. But its strange when you don't even feel so much of an animosity between the two cities when citizens of both meet on neutral ground. Usually when they meet at random in say Luirs, its cordial if not friendly... The last open conflict was.. What? Less than a few dozen years ago? I just find it hard to believe that despite each city being run by God-Kings, theirs not a group of senators, templars, nobles foaming for a war with the other city to 'finish the job'. Perhaps this is more of a staff / policy thing to NOT encourage war or hawkish actions to those players of Templars.

Will this led to more groups antagonizing like suggested in the first post? No. But it will promote more of what I think FW and others are getting at (and its structured). I just don't get why this sort of friction IG has been reduced, and it would be interesting to hear from staff; if it is staff induced or just from the actions from timid players in high powered positions. We don't need a full out war (would be nice though).

I think it helps to look at the situation in each of the city-states and history itself, to really understand why there is no frothing desire to wage all out war, though I am not saying the desire is perhaps not there.

First, each city-state has both/ either or, current external internal conflicts going on, perhaps less perceived bu your common hunter, tavern sitter pc who is not getting involved in the over all geographical plots that have been in works of being resoved or working towards it.

These situations in themselves make planning all out war improbable. To here people go on about it shows a lack of military minded strategy. Honestly, you must secure your interior before looking out beyond your borders.

A lot of the major issue is perhaps seen to most as subtle, but in truth is there and present for all pcs to become actively a part of.

There have been small local skirmishes involving multiple clans, both north and south, generally working together against a common threat. There are generally lulls between such things, whether staff or pc driven, especially when the Pc's organized strikes are effective and kick ass.

As for north south hate, I'm sure there is no great love there, and is one is visiting the other, so long as they stay in line, its hard to draw out a good solid reason to fuck them up, but does that mean merchants give them good deals, or locals dive them directions to the shop that don't lead them through bad parts of town or the longest way to get from point aye to point be. I doubt it. There are many ways to get one over on them.

Send them to go kiss the z-land equivalent of the blarney stone.

 

[Saellyn]

I think some of the best antagonist advice ever is: If you are going to PK, immediately wish up about it and send in a report detailing the why's and how's and any previous RPs beforehand. If it's some kind of shakedown effort, report the why's and how's and any rp beforehand. That kind of stuff is the kind of stuff staff needs to see to understand fully what's going on.