Antagonize.... like a Boss.

[Gunnerblaster]

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.

If I was going to PK a high authority, I would save the report explaining the details until -after- unless you want Mr. Fancy-Pants Noble to suddenly double his guard because "anonymous" information leaked to him that Mr. Assassin was going to make an attempt on his life.

[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.

If I was going to PK a high authority, I would save the report explaining the details until -after- unless you want Mr. Fancy-Pants Noble to suddenly double his guard because "anonymous" information leaked to him that Mr. Assassin was going to make an attempt on his life.

That's... really cynical and if that happened I'd roll with it anyways because maybe somebody did leak it before I could pull it off. I don't just blindly go around PKing people either, so...

[Nyr]

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.

If I was going to PK a high authority, I would save the report explaining the details until -after- unless you want Mr. Fancy-Pants Noble to suddenly double his guard because "anonymous" information leaked to him that Mr. Assassin was going to make an attempt on his life.

No, this is not what happens.

Send in a report about your plans to PK a high authority/notorious person in advance.  We do appreciate it.  You may have a cynical opinion on something that is contrary to the helpfiles and policy of the game (see help reports, help wish), which is fine, but keep it to yourself and don't imply that others should do it.

[Down Under]

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.

If I was going to PK a high authority, I would save the report explaining the details until -after- unless you want Mr. Fancy-Pants Noble to suddenly double his guard because "anonymous" information leaked to him that Mr. Assassin was going to make an attempt on his life.

No, this is not what happens.

Send in a report about your plans to PK a high authority/notorious person in advance.  We do appreciate it.  You may have a cynical opinion on something that is contrary to the helpfiles and policy of the game (see help reports, help wish), which is fine, but keep it to yourself and don't imply that others should do it.

Never have I ever had Staff adversely react to my character reports involving Doing Something Really Bad I probably Shouldn't Be Doing (AKA Killing a Warlord of Tor, or blowing up a building) When I make it CLEAR that it is OOC information for the Staff, and not something I would report to my superiors.

[Dakota]

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.

I agree w/ the last point, but it is not a rare or uncommon to have a hawk lobby (successful or unsuccessful) to start a war, small conflict with another state in times of internal turmoil. It shifts focus from the main issue at hand. Wage the Dog principle and it happens often. Regardless, with one merchant house that thrives on war, and a few noble houses that are pure instruments of war, having a Hawk Lobby bred on animosity and masked by whatever ruse or good reason for a war makes perfect sense to not only exist but be visible.

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. 

I wish I could say I've witnessed it a majority of the times I've seen the opportunity for it to happen, but I simply haven't and while this isn't an RP discussion, I think this could be solved by more of a top-trickle-down effect in terms of overall attitude.

[Whiran Luck]

Some advice for playing antagonists:

- Don't shit where you eat. I cannot stress this enough. What does this mean? It means if your major underhanded activities are enough to piss off the powers that be in the locale in which you are making your 'home' then you're doing something wrong. If you're playing a raider, this means confining your major raiding activities to locations which are either out of reach for your prey or their powers that be, or at least under your control. The farther away you are, the more likely that the people in charge of your 'home' will shrug and not care about what you're doing. If you plan on taking hostages or abducting people, choose a location in the middle of nowhere that your victims cannot describe. This should also be a good way away from your home base. Have a couple of these locations handy.

- You are not the king of your home. Unless you are, of course, but that's generally up for grabs whenever someone bigger, stronger, smarter or with more clout behind them comes to take over where you are living. What it means, is that wherever you are, there is likely to be either a bigger fish or bigger fish at the edges that will swim in to take a bite out of you if you get -too- big, too fast. It also means that making nice with the powers that be in the area you are is a GOOD THING. Faithful Lord Fancypants Mcgee is probably going to be all too happy to look the other way if your southern raiding expeditions end up in regular 'donations' to the templarate. Getting others involved by giving them a small piece of your ill-gotten pie, goes a long way toward fostering goodwill. Remember, this does not just extend to physical goods and coin, but information. Hell, you can even cover your activities by claiming it as 'scouting'.

- Have a safehouse. Or two. Preferably out of range of the long arm of the law. Somewhere where you can hide out when the heat is a little too hot, or you ended up pissing off someone you didn't mean to. It's going to happen, so you may as well prepare for it. If you're really good at what you do, you'll probably have some advance warning.

- Understand that if you set out to do things to make enemies, you will make enemies. If you're just playing a general raider, without specific targets, then you will make a lot of enemies. To the people who whine about raiding people outside a city and then people get mad and get them in trouble when they go to the same city to hang out at the bar? Tough titties. If you have a problem with the consequences of what you do in pissing people off, then you're apparently not cut out to play an antagonist. This ties into not shitting where you eat, clearly. More like, don't eat where you shit.

- Your role is not raider, antagonist or conflict-maker. If this is your entire reason for playing the role, then I strongly suggest you learn to play something else because you won't be happy. A criminal isn't playing a criminal role-- no matter how much of an antagonist a person is, no matter how many babies they eat every day, in the end, they are still a -person-. As a person, there need to be reasons behind why your character is doing what they do, otherwise it's completely contrived and existing for no other reason to grief players except to grief them because that's how you get your kicks gets old and boring fast. Play a character first, their occupation second. This is why homegrown characters tend to last longer and feel more realistic than out of the box characters-- there is more investment, more connection to them. They tend to have reasons they are doing X aside from their player wants to do X. Even coming into the game with a reason behind why your character is doing what they do is a good start.

- Like the above, realize that this sort of activity shouldn't be the only source of interaction your character has. You don't need to raid everyone you meet. You don't have to burgle every house you break into. When you go to a bar or hang-out, you shouldn't always be going there to pick people's pockets. This goes doubly-so for a loner type raider. This may lead to its own entertaining things.

- Don't play your character as a collection of skills and percentages. In some way, I mourn the addition of skill levels, but this isn't the thread for that. Still-- coded skill only has meaning in terms of code. It's important, yes. But you'd be surprised at how easy it is to get by without being a code badass. This is a little easier with colleagues and minions, obviously. Even so, your actions are not limited to what is codedly allowable. Unfortunately, some people will take advantage of such things, but this has always occurred whether or not you play an antagonist. But when people go along with you, and you'd be surprised at how many will, especially if you put a little trust as a player into the other players, at what wonderful events can unfold. If the choice comes down to taking a chance and doing this, even at the risk of losing your character, take that chance anyway.

- Keep the admins updated with your character, your characters goals, and what you are currently doing to make things happen. Even if it's boring. Even if it's nothing. Don't be afraid to ask for advice or to ask questions. Out of the bajillion times I've emailed staff, I can count on the number of fingers of one hand that I've received a reply that was not in some way helpful, even if it was just asking clarification. If staff says no, do not get butthurt. Do not believe they are poo-pooing you to spite you. Ask for clarification. Ask for ways that you can weave part of what you want to do into what already exists. Create a bulleted list of why you think implementing your idea would be beneficial, and if appropriate, add a bulleted list of why it might not work. Staff are way more inclined to assist you if they know you have also thought about the consequences of what you are asking.

- Realize that no role, no matter what it is, if you want to at least have a long-term role or character that lives past 10 days, is going to be a riot-a-minute fiesta of fun. There will be boring periods and slow periods. This includes playing raiders and criminals and antagonists. If you have things to do to keep yourself occupied during these times, you are more likely to enjoy and stick it out, which in turn, makes it worth investing in a truly antagonistic character.

- Involve other people.

I could go on and on and on. Playing an antagonist is no different from playing any other role. If you, as a player, go about it in a stupid and twinky fashion, then yes, you're going to die quickly, usually. If this is fine, if that's all you want, there's no need to even post on the board. Just do it. There's no reason to even bother admins for investing time into setting you up. If you actually want to play a realistic antagonist, especially unaffiliated, then do your best to set yourself up. If you manage to stay alive and retain colleagues/minions, you will likely have the staff support you've been asking for on here. And who knows? Maybe you'll be the actual proginator of a new clan of criminals. If so, congratulations!

Anyways, I hope some of this stuff helps.

[X-D]

I skipped the last couple pages, but have a few things to say on the matter of raider and raidee. Much I cannot say for another month but.

In recent history I have found more then 95% of raid victems quite willing to play along in one direction or another, So I do not think the fear of raid victems always running away or just typing kill is currently valid.

Let me restate, My experience as a raider has been good, most people currently playing would rather have a good scene.

But, They do need to know there is going to be a good scene. So if you are raider joe nobody...well, you are less likely to have a good raid experience.

I have also found, at least on the point of raiding groups, Staff is more then willing to support when they can or should. But That group does need a solid leader, it needs rules of operation, staff needs to know those rules as well as the raider players and the leader needs take responsibility for his/her crews actions.

My earlier post was not citing anything in my experience with staff on the subject of raiders, in that my experience has been overwhelmingly good, from Nyr on down.

My feelings about staff "seeming" to not want antagonists has come from other areas of the game.

That all being said.

Don't shit where you eat, not so much good advice any more. Sadly it seems most everybody is in everybody elses bed, if you try and run a raiding group out of nak that only raids in the north, there is a 99% chance, once found out it will be a nakki templar that nails you, likely because you are hurting the peace with those northy tree huggers or maybe a northy templar paid him/her off.

And the above is possible simply because it has been made impossible to hide your identity, by staff, over the years. You cannot hide it even from the lowest newbiest newb.

Safehouse, not even possible, and I am not going to bother going into it, the world is simply not that big, no place is out of reach or even hard to reach and there are far too many methods to find such places even if they did exist.

Many of the other posts are good, but the one about war.

In fact, the biggest reason for war through out history has been BECAUSE your house is not in order. In fact, the external influences on the south right now should have them wanting war if only for resources and or to lower the number of mouths to feed.

Or the north should be looking to take advantage of an enemy that is possibly already in a weakened state, Or even a pre-emptive series of strikes to make sure they never get north to raid for resources.

Hell, I never put in for templar myself, but if I was going to, it would to set up a privateer system (otherwise known as state sponsered/sanctioned pirates) In arm they would be state sponsered/sanctioned raiders.

[Armaddict]

Hell, I never put in for templar myself, but if I was going to, it would to set up a privateer system (otherwise known as state sponsered/sanctioned pirates) In arm they would be state sponsered/sanctioned raiders.

I tried to set this up several times, and it was -always- shot down.  I just don't get it. XD

[Nyr]

Hell, I never put in for templar myself, but if I was going to, it would to set up a privateer system (otherwise known as state sponsered/sanctioned pirates) In arm they would be state sponsered/sanctioned raiders.

I tried to set this up several times, and it was -always- shot down.  I just don't get it. XD

Really?  That seems unlikely.  I would think that with the backing of the templarate (or one templar), this could be done.

[Synthesis]

Hell, I never put in for templar myself, but if I was going to, it would to set up a privateer system (otherwise known as state sponsered/sanctioned pirates) In arm they would be state sponsered/sanctioned raiders.

I tried to set this up several times, and it was -always- shot down.  I just don't get it. XD

During the Copper War, my HG was working as a privateer until a certain notorious Whiran spamkilled him.

The Copper War was a long, long time ago, though.

[Armaddict]

Hell, I never put in for templar myself, but if I was going to, it would to set up a privateer system (otherwise known as state sponsered/sanctioned pirates) In arm they would be state sponsered/sanctioned raiders.

I tried to set this up several times, and it was -always- shot down.  I just don't get it. XD

Really?  That seems unlikely.  I would think that with the backing of the templarate (or one templar), this could be done.

I won't say which PC's here, and I doubt you know off the top of my head, but I submitted for it with clan staff with both of those pc's.  The first time it was outright shot down as I recall, or shot down by the templarate possibly.  The second time it was said to worry about such things after <this primary concern> is dealt with.  Which...hasn't been able to be dealt with, as far as I've seen.

Either way, it -does- seem unlikely, which is why it surprised me so much.  Seems like such a kickass idea, man.  Then again, as we know, my communication skills are often not the greatest, so that could have been the issue as well.  But I did try.  With two pc's.

[Nyr]

Ah...well, that's the rub.

If you are not a templar, state-sponsored privateering is going to be difficult, 'cause you ain't the state.

[Titania]

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.

If I was going to PK a high authority, I would save the report explaining the details until -after- unless you want Mr. Fancy-Pants Noble to suddenly double his guard because "anonymous" information leaked to him that Mr. Assassin was going to make an attempt on his life.

No, this is not what happens.

Send in a report about your plans to PK a high authority/notorious person in advance.  We do appreciate it.  You may have a cynical opinion on something that is contrary to the helpfiles and policy of the game (see help reports, help wish), which is fine, but keep it to yourself and don't imply that others should do it.

It is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

I rarely make requests. When I put in a request saying that if <this set of circumstances happens> then <these people> will die, the staff simultaneously told me they know nothing of my character and then, while knowing nothing of my character,  told me how it was not IC. In my opinion if you give them a heads up and they don't like your action, IC as it may be, they will just find a way to make you the bad guy.

[Nyr]

It is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

I rarely make requests. When I put in a request saying that if <this set of circumstances happens> then <these people> will die, the staff simultaneously told me they know nothing of my character and then, while knowing nothing of my character,  told me how it was not IC. In my opinion if you give them a heads up and they don't like your action, IC as it may be, they will just find a way to make you the bad guy.

Emphasis changed (though the percentages are likely wrong now what with more posters and more people fitting that category):

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 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.

It shouldn't be a surprise why you're having a problem:  if you informed staff regularly, maybe they'd know something about your character.  See help staff communication, help reports, etc.  We're not hiding this stuff from you.  It is in helpfiles, it has been announced.  Please adhere to staff guidelines here, and you will see much better results!

[Armaddict]

This makes up at least 6% of posters in this thread at the time of this post, and this seems disingenuous.

Could you let them know who they are?  The one who is speaking against it, but does a good job at it.  They might not know it.

This thread has actually made me think about a couple things that I -really- would like clarification on, there will be a request incoming.

[Nyr]

I'll shoot them both an e-mail, but it'll probably be tomorrow.

[John]

I don't see avoiding city-state conflict as lame.

Even if the templar does want to avoid inter-city conflict (and I'd like to think that when a templar is thinking such a thing they're adding "yet" at the end. As in "I don't want to start a conflict, yet." and fully intend to start one down the road). Expressing such a thought to anyone should be (IMO of course) avoided at all costs. Yes we've come a long way from the bad old days when templars demanded all PCs bow down to them. But they should still be a force to be feared (not respected. Respect is for nobles. It's their whole point of existing after all. Templars are feared).

If ever anyone wants to do something that would spark inter-city conflict the templar should simply tell them to stop. If they get asked why, the templar could reply in a variety of ways depending on who asked. For example:

• Commoner - "Because I said so."
• Soldier - "Because I said so."
• Merchant - "Because I said so."
• Slave - "What did you say?" as he reaches for a whip
• Noble's Aide - "Because I said so."
• Noble - Well actually, he should let the noble go ahead with this disastrous idea. Allow the noble to make a complete and utter fool of himself, cause quite a bit of trouble and then step in at the crucial time to stop everything before it gets out of hand. The noble's house will either have fallen in political clout or owe you a favour. Or both. If you work it really well northern templars or nobles may actually think they're indebted to you. And what better way to set up your ultimate move then by discretely (so as to keep appearances up of course) currying favour with those northern fools.
• Pillow friend that you've been sleeping with every night for the past 20 years and who you admit your every thought to - "Not yet. I'm working on X, Y and Z. But once those are done. Then. Then I will make my move against them northerners and they'll never even see it coming"

Does anyone really want to do something that could get themselves killed, if it's not worth the risk?

The Allanaki Empire wasn't carved out by spineless wine-sipping, silk-wearing, flower sniffing socialites who wouldn't know the sharp end of a sword if it ran right through their gut. Oh no. It was built on the backs of slaves. It was wrested into the Highlord's fist on the corpses of dead commoners. Allanak controlled the Known World from the Salt Plains to Mantis Valley. From the southern dusty plains to the Grey Forest. It wasn't won by templars keeping the peace because it was "good for trade" or because they might break a fingernail if they actually fought someone. No. It was gained because the templars marched forward and crushed the weak beneath their boots. They weren't afraid to take on Muk Utep. And if people asked about trade, why what better way to fill the bank accounts of nobles then by controlling all of the major settlements of the Known World. Taxes can be raised as they need to. Resources can be chopped down, dug up or killed to be sent south so that we can live in true luxury.

The Allanaki Empire was carved out of the dunes and plains because Templars weren't afraid to get their hands dirty.

As for why a templar would want all this bloodshed? For the glory. For the political power. To rise above his fellow blue robes and prove his worthiness of wearing the red. To be remembered long after he's dead. Those brave few who helped carve out the Allanak Empire are remembered even to do this day. Their names will never be forgotten while ever Allanak's red walls still stand. I wasn't around for the Occupation of Tuluk. But I remember talking to characters who were and I remember their stories even to this day. The last truly bad-ass templar I remember is Templar Shome (who was considered rather subdued for her time). She led forces out into the sandy deserts to fight the dangerous Spider Plague that erupted all those years ago. She was also involved in fighting back an invasion of a peculiar race (who to this day still pose the greatest mystery for me as to what they were and what they wanted). Those are the templars I remember. Not the ones who handed out gems and merchant's tokens and were too afraid to rock the cart.

With the way things are, you could still play a carefree blue robe that ends up dragging Allanak into a protracted conflict with Tuluk... good luck not catching flack for it though.

Baaah. Clearly this so called templar doesn't have the political saavy of a drunken Fale. If your superiors are unwilling to engage in a conflict with Tuluk. Convince them. Spy on the Tulukies. Find out what they're plotting. Invent plots if you must. The empire requires it. For if we allow those upstarts to think they're actually our equals, they'll start acting as if they're our equals. If we don't bring the fight to them, then they'll start to think we're weak and are ripe to be attacked. If we're not engaging in regular conflict then our soldiers are growing weak. If we start showing so much weakness that the northerners are thinking of attacking us, how long until the commoners rise up once more and start rioting? The reason they rioted originally wasn't because the sky went dark. Oh no. It was because we have had nothing but disasters. First we lost Tuluk to a rag-tag bunch of grebbers. Next we lost our outpost in Mantis Valley. Then we lost the Copper War!

For years we have shown that we are nothing but weak, and the commoners smell blood on the sands. The jakhals are circling looking an excuse to go in for the kill. Not only must we show our strength and dominance for the greatness of the Empire. Oh no. We must show our strength because our very survival depends on it. Or else soon we'll have magickers hiding under every rock ungemmed and uncontrolled. We'll have commoners who think they're our equal and refuse to bow. We'll have lawlessness and crime spread throughout the streets. We must show our strength because if we fail to do so, total anarchy will erupt and it will become too late.

The PCs know they could get fired, or die, and tailor their actions to avoid those consequences. They don't avoid conflict entirely, but they take on a reasonable level of conflict. How is that anything but good roleplay?

The templar that shows weakness is the templar that either dies in an alleyway or gets shipped off to a small farm or the very mines they're trying to avoid. Saying "I don't want to start a fight with X" is tantamount to saying "If I fight X I'm going to lose." While that might be true, to voice it is to show weakness and become powerless. The only way to avoid that is to pretend to be strong and try to fool everyone into thinking you are by setting them against one another all the while trying to appear strong and unassailable.

That is why I say it is lame for a nakkie templar to say "I don't want to start trouble with Tuluk." Think it if you must. But never say those words. You have a tradition and reputation to uphold. To say those words is to bring disrepute to your station.

This, however, is NOT how it works:

(I realise this may not be aimed at me, but I'm posting this more to explain my position then to respond).

My post isn't to say that antagonism doesn't exist. I'd like to think it does and I've seen a bit of it (I'm an off peak player so a bit is all I can hope for ). My initial post provided some ideas I have on how to promote antagonism while my second post was to respond to the idea of nakkie templars all wanting to hold hands and sing songs in the name of trade. I personally haven't heard a templar say they want to get along with those so-called "Chosen." I've had minimal contact with templars what with being AFK since 2008

People posted positions or statements and I responded to them as if they were true. I have very little to no in game knowledge in the past few years (in case that wasn't obvious in my previous posts).

If I was going to PK a high authority, I would save the report explaining the details until -after- unless you want Mr. Fancy-Pants Noble to suddenly double his guard because "anonymous" information leaked to him that Mr. Assassin was going to make an attempt on his life.

I've heard these sort of rumours happening since 2002. Most of the time they were always in the "not-so-distant" past. I'm not going to say it never happens, but I've certainly never heard of it. Sometimes a noble will just get lucky and for reasons unrelated to what you're planning, he'll increase his security.

As an example of getting lucky. I was playing a D&D game the other week and I did a "Harrow Reading" with a deck of cards. I drew a card that had the picture of a queen ant on it. I said to the players we should watch out for one of the NPCs because my reading had revealed that she was dangerous and that she was the queen ant. I was pulling it out of my arse. I based it on the fact she had a silk worm and was a tailor. I figured silk worm, queen ant. They look similar, I'll associate that card with her.

For the rest of the adventure we were keeping a close eye on the tailor because of what the cards had revealed to me of the future. She does nothing to urk our suspicions and the GM is saying "why are you all focusing on the tailor" and I reminded them about my fortune reading. Funnily enough towards the end the tailor turned out to be a villain that we had to fight. At which point I leapt up and said "see! The cards don't lie! I can tell the future with them!" Afterwards I had a look at the adventure and sure enough the tailor had been intended as a villain.

Gigantic coincidence. But boy did it pay off. Same thing can happen in Armageddon.

That said in the past I spoke with players on AIM. I spoke to one who many people claimed got quite a bit of OOC help from the staff. From both in game and out of game discussions I never got the idea that she was ever fed inappropriate information. Sometimes she got information from in game contacts. Other times she just relied on old fashioned paranoia. When you have a long lived PC you tend to become quite paranoid (at least, that's how it used to work) because people were out to get you.

Ultimately that person did die due to a PK. If she did have an Imm feeding her information, she must have done something big to annoy that Imm.

That said, not all of the staff are perfect. No-one's saying they are. Sometimes a staff member will mess up. Sometimes an inappropriate person will be chosen to become a staff member. These matters are usually dealt with quickly and quietly. If you believe you have a genuine grievance, send it in. If you don't trust some of the staff for whatever reason, ask advice from one you do trust.

IMO you'll get a lot more out of working with the staff then against the staff.

Never have I ever had Staff adversely react to my character reports involving Doing Something Really Bad I probably Shouldn't Be Doing (AKA Killing a Warlord of Tor, or blowing up a building) When I make it CLEAR that it is OOC information for the Staff, and not something I would report to my superiors.

I had one PC who did something very very naughty. It was due to him having a nervous breakdown (due to IG events). I told my clan staffer OOCly why my character was doing what he was doing and they never punished me for it because I was taking appropriate precautions against getting caught.

I tried to set this up several times, and it was -always- shot down.  I just don't get it. XD

I've seen these set up and supported by clan staff from established coded clans. So I'm surprised to hear this. I would seek out further clarification as to why. Even now, send in a request and said "I proposed X at time Y and got knocked down by Z. Although I realise Z is no longer with us, could you provide me with feedback as to why X wouldn't be appropriate in the game?"

The Copper War was a long, long time ago, though.

It feels like it was only yesterday.

I rarely make requests. When I put in a request saying that if <this set of circumstances happens> then <these people> will die, the staff simultaneously told me they know nothing of my character and then, while knowing nothing of my character,  told me how it was not IC. In my opinion if you give them a heads up and they don't like your action, IC as it may be, they will just find a way to make you the bad guy.

Sounds to me like the solution to that problem was more communication leading up to the attack. Not less. Had you been sending in reports from when your character was first created, they would have known who you were and been more amenable to your idea. Also they could have worked with you to address any concerns they may have had.

That said, I can understand why this would have happened. In the past I got the impression reports to staff were seen as a burden unless you were a leader. Fortunately that seems to have changed.

[Tisiphone]

John: app a templar in the next round.

[palomar]

I don't see why every Blue robe has to have it in their mind to seek conflict with Tuluk. Nor do I see why every Tuluki templar would have to seek conflict with Allanak. Sure, it would fit nicely with such roles, but it certainly isn't essential and there is plenty of other kinds of conflict to be found elsewhere or indirectly touching on inter-city stuff. I do agree that it could be a sign of weakness to say you don't want that kind of conflict, but everything has to be considered in its own context.

All I see is lots of talk about how things should be from someone who hasn't played actively in three years. If you're not happy with how you think things are, I suggest you app a templar next time there's an open role announcement.

[Down Under]

I don't see why every Blue robe has to have it in their mind to seek conflict with Tuluk. Nor do I see why every Tuluki templar would have to seek conflict with Allanak. Sure, it would fit nicely with such roles, but it certainly isn't essential and there is plenty of other kinds of conflict to be found elsewhere or indirectly touching on inter-city stuff. I do agree that it could be a sign of weakness to say you don't want that kind of conflict, but everything has to be considered in its own context.

All I see is lots of talk about how things should be from someone who hasn't played actively in three years. If you're not happy with how you think things are, I suggest you app a templar next time there's an open role announcement.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing (That John hasn't been playing in a while). He has sentiments that I very much agree with, and that we as a playerbase perhaps have lost touch with by playing in the day-to-day. He has a refreshing standpoint of someone who is on the outside looking in, someone who hasn't been in the shit for a little while.

I think it should be an option, at all times, to have conflict between city-states and Outpost, but should not be one avidly pursued without just cause. Personally, I think it's the duty of leaders in clans to Mix Things Up. If it isn't IC for your character to do so, then don't, but I always make leader PC's that have it within them to cause serious change, based on their opinions and attitudes.

[palomar]

I don't see why every Blue robe has to have it in their mind to seek conflict with Tuluk. Nor do I see why every Tuluki templar would have to seek conflict with Allanak. Sure, it would fit nicely with such roles, but it certainly isn't essential and there is plenty of other kinds of conflict to be found elsewhere or indirectly touching on inter-city stuff. I do agree that it could be a sign of weakness to say you don't want that kind of conflict, but everything has to be considered in its own context.

All I see is lots of talk about how things should be from someone who hasn't played actively in three years. If you're not happy with how you think things are, I suggest you app a templar next time there's an open role announcement.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing (That John hasn't been playing in a while). He has sentiments that I very much agree with, and that we as a playerbase perhaps have lost touch with by playing in the day-to-day. He has a refreshing standpoint of someone who is on the outside looking in, someone who hasn't been in the shit for a little while.

I think it should be an option, at all times, to have conflict between city-states and Outpost, but should not be one avidly pursued without just cause. Personally, I think it's the duty of leaders in clans to Mix Things Up. If it isn't IC for your character to do so, then don't, but I always make leader PC's that have it within them to cause serious change, based on their opinions and attitudes.

From my limited perspective (not being staff but playing regularly most of the time), I have seen all kinds of attitudes towards conflict among PC leaders in the past three years. Internal, inter-city, city-tribe, tribe-tribe, clan-clan conflict etc. All on different levels and with varying real results in game.

Not every templar PC can match "the legends-of-the-past PCs" but I've seen plenty who have been proactive in the conflict field. My personal opinion is that the playerbase isn't out of touch with these things. Yes, sometimes things go stale, or seem stale. It probably depends on a lot of different things. Both longevity and lack of longevity among leader PCs and their minions play in, I'm sure.

To antagonize like a boss, in a leadership position, you have to be around for a while. It's been said before that as a leader PC (particularly in a sponsored role) it's not recommended to try to change the world out of the box.

[Titania]

It's sometimes hard to get excited about planning to kill people or have rivals. Just wait a month and they die to bad connection or unfortunately located npc. If they are a sponsored role they will store. If they are a restrictive role they will log in so rarely it is practically impossible to find them online. In my previously mentioned complaint, they all stored or died before I could really even start thinking seriously about it anyway. Feels like sometimes your options are kill on sight or kick back andhave the best revenge by living well and let time and odds solve your problems.

[Dakota]

Their is one sort of... +1 to staff I want to add...

While it's certainly hard to see sometimes bc you plan and plan and work and work and then get shot down bc your idea for an attack/assassination/whatever is just too risky (though being shot down DOES NOT stop you from going ahead with it if thats what your PC would do)...

Staff as a WHOLE, in my experience across various antagonists and plans and plots, a few of which were bat-shit insane, are supportive if the idea / reasoning works. Even if it doesn't you're encouraged to keep trying until you get something that does work.

Regardless I don't think you need staff interaction to use well-documented and historical friction to start a brawl with some northern scum with your southerner in the Tavern in Luirs. Shit If I was a Templar from Nak, and heard about some southerner beating up a northie in a tavern or screwing him over, I'd give him some sid, some f-me PC whore and a pat on the back. Then again... I'm convinced if I was a templar I would last a total of an RL week before I got off'd.

[jriley]

It is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

I rarely make requests. When I put in a request saying that if <this set of circumstances happens> then <these people> will die, the staff simultaneously told me they know nothing of my character and then, while knowing nothing of my character,  told me how it was not IC. In my opinion if you give them a heads up and they don't like your action, IC as it may be, they will just find a way to make you the bad guy.

I hate to say this, but I actually agree with this post, as well as most of what Synthesis has to say above.  Despite the fact that multiple, official postings seem to contradict that this sort of player experience even happens.  In fact, the series of emphatic denials really only serves to emphasize that this is an undocumented problem. 

Unfortunately when I receive correction from staff members it typically involves a situation where the staff don't really seem to have any conception of who my character is, who I am as a player or what I am trying to accomplish in any particular scene. 

After years of absentee parenting, I've really just gotten used to doing pretty much everything for my character on my own.  I mean, the staff code the game.  They admin the game.  They approve my character for play, but after that pretty much everything cool that happens to my character is the result of what I'm doing or something another player is doing.  When a crash happens, staff are unresponsive to replacing the stuff I lost.  When I want to impact the game world, the staff generally try to convey the fact that they'd just prefer for me to go mine some obsidian or something. 

I don't think that this is personal.  I don't think that this is targeted.  I don't think that the staff are bad people.  But I'd really prefer that any new players to the game, who read this thread, receive the (far more honest) advice from Synthesis above that generally says that if you want something cool to happen, you have to do it yourself. 

Honestly, if the staff are too busy to hold our hand all of the time, I'd prefer that they were honest about this rather than trying to put official spin on the situation and say that they'd really really love an inbox full of player requests right now.  No they wouldn't.  They're inboxes are already full.  They're too busy.  We're on our own.  We make the characters.  We make the plots.  We're the change. 



disclaimer: obviously, even in this climate if you're going to make a post like this it's important to point out, for the benefit of newer players, that the senior players and staff generally enjoy an amicable relationship, that the game has improved a lot over the past few years, that I generally support the direction that the game is going and that players can count on the staff to listen politely to constructive criticism. 

[Down Under]

I don't think Synthesis' advice is entirely serious, jriley. There are points in there, though snarky, that make sense, but I wholeheartedly disagree that it should be advice given to new players.

Advice to new players:
-Use the helper system to get better acquainted with the game
-Read all the docs before applying for your first character (This usually ends up being by #5 for most people, myself included)
-Send in weekly reports to Staff to keep them appraised of who your character is; even if your character isn't in a clan, there are Indy Staff that love watching over you.

Your characters are unknown, unfamiliar to Staff, and feel like 'absentee parents' because, more likely than not, you are not keeping in close touch with them. I won't pretend that I know the entire situation behind your account or the time you have spent here, but that is the wager I would make. If you make weekly reports, Staff will be very intimate with your character's plans, motivations, and goals.