Change implemented for sorcerers

[Ouroboros]

Please tell me how a warrior, ranger, or assassin is supposed to achieve the ability to kill an entire City State NPC (and PC) population singlehandidly in a few minutes so I can try it out.

I'm not sure they're supposed to, any more than a sorcerer is supposed to. No PC has ever singlehandedly taken out the entire NPC and PC population of a city-state, regardless of their guild. When you actually see something like that happen, let me know. Until then though, much of the argument has been based on the imagined potential of a sorcerer that's acting on their own in an unrealistic manner and without staff coordination. And realistically if a PC did that, they'd simply no longer be playing that character. Or much at all.

Armaddict pretty much answered this as well, and I agree. Having staff simply shoot down the requests of a character that comes along once every few RL years seems a lot more sound than just pulling the entire guild. But hey, that's just one opinion.

That said, if your intention was to fly in the face of the virtual world and just kill anything that walks... Bring me a mundane of that caliber we're discussing and I'll be happy to show you how it could be done with a bit of time. It won't be in a big fireball blast, but the bodies will drop just the same one by one. Bring me an army of mundanes with you and we can even give the virtual part of said city-state a run for their money. Ask Thrain.

[Nyr]

The PCs running those sorcerers were left holding a bag of shit with no real logical way to move forward with their characters.

In that particular situation, I think one possible option would be responding with discussion or thoughts on moving forward with said bag of shit, if possible.

[BadSkeelz]

That was the problem though, Armaddict: Sorcerers didn't need to demand staff kill a City since they already could through the code. Demand staff change the game world to reflect those actions, maybe. But you still have a lot of dead PCs for no real reason other than stroking of the sorcerer's ego.

Fortunately something that stupid hasn't happened recently, if ever. I can personally attest though that having a powerful sorcerer in the neighborhood does tend to draw outsized attention from everyone involved, Staff and players. They turn in to black holes, sucking up all other plots and making everything revolve around them. When they're essentially unkillable it doesn't make for a very exciting plotline.

This change introduces a glass ceiling that will, hopefully, keep sorcerers a more manageable threat. Something the rest of the game world can struggle and interact with. To me it doesn't sound any different than Red Robes being removed from the PC options. If Sorcerers had also been broken up at the same time, I think there would be less angst since everyone's power is being rolled back across the board. Red Robes and full-power-sorcerers are both products of the same Age, it's just that the latter was removed long after it should have been.

[Rahnevyn]

I think such discussions would go a lot smoother if everyone, on both sides, remembers that staff members come from the ranks of players. A player's opinion is just as valid as a staff member's opinion, because they're two sides of the same coin. Every single staff member was once a player, who more than likely expressed their opinion on the GDB and was at one point or another shot down by a staff member. Their personality and way of thinking didn't change just because they were brought into staff, and whatever good or bad opinions they had as players came with them.

I agree with you up to a point - player opinions are definitely valid, and players see a game from a perspective that staff members no longer do. But actually, while your personality probably doesn't change when you become a staff member, your way of thinking about the game does. You're no longer responsible for just one character and their story or even just one clan you might lead, and you're no longer playing the game trying to "win", find advantages for your character, stay alive, kill your enemies, and so on. The most succinct way I can put it is that as a player, you're championing your own story; as a staff member you're championing everybody's story, and trying to do that in the most fair and impartial way possible even when those stories come into conflict.

The other thing staff tend to have is more information, and the ability to check and verify things. We have opinions, sure, but those opinions are tempered by facts that players don't see. We know exactly what sorcerers have been doing in game over the last few years in a way nobody else can; even the players of the sorcerers themselves only have their individual experiences. Seeing things in the aggregate, your opinion is shaped less by "what if" and more by "what is", if that makes sense. You and I can both have an opinion on whether 100-day warriors are as game-breaking as 100-day sorcerers, but staff are in the best position to actually look at what actual characters in both roles are capable of doing.

[Armaddict]

That was the problem though, Armaddict: Sorcerers didn't need to demand staff kill a City since they already could through the code. Demand staff change the game world to reflect those actions, maybe. But you still have a lot of dead PCs for no real reason other than stroking of the sorcerer's ego.

Fortunately something that stupid hasn't happened recently, if ever. I can personally attest though that having a powerful sorcerer in the neighborhood does tend to draw outsized attention from everyone involved, Staff and players. They turn in to black holes, sucking up all other plots and making everything revolve around them. When they're essentially unkillable it doesn't make for a very exciting plotline.

This change introduces a glass ceiling that will, hopefully, keep sorcerers a more manageable threat. Something the rest of the game world can struggle and interact with. To me it doesn't sound any different than Red Robes being removed from the PC options. If Sorcerers had also been broken up at the same time, I think there would be less angst since everyone's power is being rolled back across the board. Red Robes and full-power-sorcerers are both products of the same Age, it's just that the latter was removed long after it should have been.

Except that you ignored why they're fundamentally different.  A red robe says do this:  You do it.  Sure, they could go all Tektolnes' Wrath on you for disobedience, but such -doesn't- really fit into the game world.  A red robe templar's duties, likewise, increase in scale with the promotion, to the point that it -does- require active maintenance on staff's part.  Staff animation and coordination becomes key in a Red Robe getting everyone to do what their role extends.

A sorcerer has coded power.  They do not require staff animation for them to just 'do their thing'.  Sorcerers 'doing their thing' can cover a very very broad array of things, and each player gets to choose what their character's goals entail.  If they want to be a big baddy, they can, and have the power to do it.  -IF- they reach the power and presence (i.e. They are actively killing PC's, as your post jumps to) that staff support is needed in a PC driven plot to remove the threat/problem...that is a PC-driven plot, which is what came about after the nearly-complete-withdrawal of staff-run plots, and was emphasized.  The extrication of staff-assistance from PC-run plots, as is implicated here, is a pretty drastic step away from some of the things that brought people here.  You're telling me that an event to take down an uber sorcerer who'd been plaguing the city, with a formulated plan and etc, is -not- worth having around?

The latter example, of course, being the case only if said sorcerer actually decided he wanted to actively fuck with a city state, -in- the city state.  Otherwise, upon their discovery, it would be a city-state's initiative...which would...again...be a PC driven plot.  The sorcerer role itself does -not- require staff support;  If mine had survived to any sort of survivable state, his 'role' I'd come up with for it would have been...incredibly hands off, as far as my initiative.  Which was fine.  I even asked for specific boons at the beginning, and when I got approved, I asked for them.  I was told I couldn't have them, to do things on my own.  Which is...how it should be, and can be, with ease.  Again.  Burden on the player, to make the utility work.  The call for staff support is something that can be rejected.

However, to reiterate...when PC-plots are no longer able to call on staff support for them in the obvious case of that rare sorcerer who -does- have power, it worries me.  Apparently my mundane burglar planning a heist that facilitates roleplay over sheer code-use is too much trouble, at this point?

[Adhira]

The extrication of staff-assistance from PC-run plots, as is implicated here, is a pretty drastic step away from some of the things that brought people here.  

This is a complete fallacy. Either it's not been correctly expressed, or you're reading things wrong.  Staff are willing, able and happy to help with PC-run plots. Staff are willing, able and happy to run their own plots.

The facts are:  We have removed the full sorcerer guild as player option.  We have implemented sorcerer subguilds. 

[Armaddict]

The extrication of staff-assistance from PC-run plots, as is implicated here, is a pretty drastic step away from some of the things that brought people here.  

This is a complete fallacy. Either it's not been correctly expressed, or you're reading things wrong.  Staff are willing, able and happy to help with PC-run plots. Staff are willing, able and happy to run their own plots.

The facts are:  We have removed the full sorcerer guild as player option.  We have implemented sorcerer subguilds. 

Right, and in the elaboration of whyyyyy...the reasons given implyyyyy...

[Ouroboros]

...

When it comes to facts, I don't disagree Rahnevyn. A staff member has those at their disposal. Sometimes even players do, for various reasons such as having been on staff before. But personally I'm perfectly content to accept a fact from a staff member at face value, every time. If you tell me for example 2.35% of players die in the first 3.39 hours of play, I'm with you.

Opinions however, regardless of how tempered by facts they might be, are still such. A person doesn't get better at deductive reasoning just because they become a staff member, their capacity to process and interpret facts remains the same. I could sit an point out all the mistakes various staff members have made over the past 20 years, armed to the teeth with facts as they were, but I don't think it's necessary to prove the point. We're all human and we all make mistakes, often because we misjudge facts or opinions we take as facts. And that's the core of my point. A staff member's opinion is not by default unassailable simply because they have facts at their disposal, and a player's opinion isn't less valid just because they might not have said facts. Much like that other argument, who's at the keys still matters.

When we're discussing the health and direction of the game, we're all theorizing and it's a very subjective matter. Opinions and personal tastes play a huge role. Some staff members have a dislike for abc and feel it has no place, others love xyz aspect and feel the game needs more of it. The very same applies to players. There's no recipe for success though, we're just all guessing here.

I'll also say this... There are definitely players who champion their own story, and there are players who champion everyone's story as well. Just as I firmly believe there are staff members who can be personally biased in their "championing" of the game, which history has proved with various staff members no longer part of the team. No one's perfect, but I think if as a staff member you feel all players only look out for numero uno... Well, look at it this way. If it were the case, few would join staff to begin with. A desire to champion the game is usually what brings a player to apply for staff, and chances are if you look closely you'll see that in their history as well.

[TheWanderer]

This is a lot of reading and complaining for a subguild most of us won't be playing and (hopefully) seeing very often.

Summary: It sounds like cool cheese, I guess. I'll form a more detailed opinion on the changes in 2-5 years.

[Ouroboros]

This is a lot of reading and complaining for a subguild most of us won't be playing and (hopefully) seeing very often.

Most of the complaining has nothing to do with the addition of the subguild, it has to do with the removal of a guild. While the two were presented as a package deal, they're two very different issues.

[Nyr]

The extrication of staff-assistance from PC-run plots, as is implicated here, is a pretty drastic step away from some of the things that brought people here. 

This is a complete fallacy. Either it's not been correctly expressed, or you're reading things wrong.  Staff are willing, able and happy to help with PC-run plots. Staff are willing, able and happy to run their own plots.

The facts are:  We have removed the full sorcerer guild as player option.  We have implemented sorcerer subguilds. 

Right, and in the elaboration of whyyyyy...the reasons given implyyyyy...

...

When it comes to facts, I don't disagree Rahnevyn. A staff member has those at their disposal. Sometimes even players do, for various reasons such as having been on staff before. But personally I'm perfectly content to accept a fact from a staff member at face value, every time. If you tell me for example 2.35% of players die in the first 3.39 hours of play, I'm with you.

Opinions however, regardless of how tempered by facts they might be, are still such. A person doesn't get better at deductive reasoning just because they become a staff member, their capacity to process and interpret facts remains the same. I could sit an point out all the mistakes various staff members have made over the past 20 years, armed to the teeth with facts as they were, but I don't think it's necessary to prove the point. We're all human and we all make mistakes, often because we misjudge facts or opinions we take as facts. And that's the core of my point. A staff member's opinion is not by default unassailable simply because they have facts at their disposal, and a player's opinion isn't less valid just because they might not have said facts. Much like that other argument, who's at the keys still matters.

When we're discussing the health and direction of the game, we're all theorizing and it's a very subjective matter. Opinions and personal tastes play a huge role. Some staff members have a dislike for abc and feel it has no place, others love xyz aspect and feel the game needs more of it. The very same applies to players. There's no recipe for success though, we're just all guessing here.

I'll also say this... There are definitely players who champion their own story, and there are players who champion everyone's story as well. Just as I firmly believe there are staff members who can be personally biased in their "championing" of the game, which history has proved with various staff members no longer part of the team. No one's perfect, but I think if as a staff member you feel all players only look out for numero uno... Well, look at it this way. If it were the case, few would join staff to begin with. A desire to champion the game is usually what brings a player to apply for staff, and chances are if you look closely you'll see that in their history as well.

You both definitely have some strong opinions.  We acknowledge that.  Thank you for offering your opinions that differ from the staff view expressed here or elsewhere.  We appreciate it! 

[CodeMaster]

This is a lot of reading and complaining for a subguild most of us won't be playing and (hopefully) seeing very often.

Most of the complaining has nothing to do with the addition of the subguild, it has to do with the removal of a guild. While the two were presented as a package deal, they're two very different issues.

To be fair, it seems like a guild has been fragmented into intersecting pieces.  It seems to be a distinct (albeit rare) possibility that the people playing the disparate pieces could convene and strive toward the power levels of the sorcerers of old... and now two sorcerers have an incentive to interact with each other.

[Saellyn]

You know, I slept on the change, and honestly I don't care. I PROBABLY won't ever see the ability to play this, and if it ever does show up in the game I'm probably going to be just as keen to A) work with it depending on pc and goals or B) get the fuck away from it asap because it's still got sorcery and it's still a hell of a lot meaner than I am.

[Armaddict]

This is a lot of reading and complaining for a subguild most of us won't be playing and (hopefully) seeing very often.

Most of the complaining has nothing to do with the addition of the subguild, it has to do with the removal of a guild. While the two were presented as a package deal, they're two very different issues.

I agree.  I'd be much more in tune with this if it was decided that full sorcerers were still completely playable, but very limited.  I'd also be more okay with it if there were work being hinted at towards sorcery as a whole being worked at, i.e. path reworks to make each path more...broad?  Maybe some spells that come from multiple paths, but the 'mainstay' spells being very very separated and deep into the subguild?  I can't really say without knowing the subguild layout specifically.  But the big deal was removal of the full sorcerer guild from playability.

My ORIGINAL complaint being that it seemed that the very fabric of how sorcery works was being unceremoniously destroyed (I don't see how, given how sorcery works as a principle, one would be limited to one path) with no real reason or basis other than it was a whim (Nyr's post afterwards gave actual reason, but the original statement was 'because we said so'.) My viewpoint on withdrawal from PC plots has come since then through those elaborations...essentially, a rare, but major plot-driving role removed because it often entailed staff involvement.  I don't like that.

As far as the subguilds?  No real complaint here, and I believe that such has been hinted towards in the past.  My only concern there is desensitization, and it's a small one.  I have been in a position where my characters agreed to work with sorcery-driven plots in the past...it's always resulted in bad notes.  Driving sorcerers into closer proximity with the population?  It will still be rare, I realize, but over time...I fear the rationalization to band up with will become more inherent, to where sorcery is no longer as dependent on coercion and such to gain minions.  That is only a very minor, personal concern, in line with my altogether anti-magick lean.

[Ouroboros]

You both definitely have some strong opinions.  We acknowledge that.  Thank you for offering your opinions that differ from the staff view expressed here or elsewhere.  We appreciate it! 

See? That wasn't that hard, was it.

And thank you for listening and considering said opinions with an open mind, in turn. We're aiming for the same thing after all, a better and healthier game.

What do you think, Nyr... Group hug, or are we pushing it?

[Ouroboros]

To be fair, it seems like a guild has been fragmented into intersecting pieces.  It seems to be a distinct (albeit rare) possibility that the people playing the disparate pieces could convene and strive toward the power levels of the sorcerers of old... and now two sorcerers have an incentive to interact with each other.

To be fair, all of that would still be the case if the extended magickal subguilds had been implemented as proposed years ago, regardless of whether the sorcerer guild option was removed or not. They'd just be a lot more accessible at their proposed karma rate while full sorcerers would remain as rare as before. The could also have been made rarer simply by controlling the number of approvals, if that was desired.

Then again, a lot's happened in those two or so years... hasn't it.

[BadSkeelz]

Except at four karma, you have vastly more people who would be able to play these things. Every newbie who has their first karma would have theoretical access to some of the most dangerous code in the game. 4 karma subguilds was a terrible idea and I'm glad it's done away with.

Even if Staff were going to keep their numbers equivalent to what we had with 8 karma sorcs, why not just bump up the Karma? That's part of what karma is for. It's also a representation of how much Staff trust you, and I'd much rather these be available to people with 5 karma than 1.

[James de Monet]

I kinda feel like people are willfully dismissing the fact that staff have said, multiple times in this thread, that sorcerers are not being removed from the game. They are being removed as a playable option. You know what else was removed as a playable thing? Slaves.  Do you know what you still see in game when the story calls for them? Slaves.  I think it's too early to lament the death of the uber villain as we have known them.

Also, I feel like what staff are trying to intimate to you is that the problem with sorcs was not the players necessarily, or the history of their use, but their de facto reality as a sort of game-breaking kit.  Sure we hope people with mad karma don't go off on a murder and vandalism spree, but in some cases, they would have to work against IC realism to not do that. Why? Because sorcs can get crazy powerful. And when they do, what are their players supposed to do? They want to create plot, so they create conflict. But when you create conflict with a thermonuclear device, it's a little harder to contain than when you do it with a baton.  Things will naturally escalate to a point where they either have to use those game-breaking skills, or they come up with oddball reasons not to, or staff have to intervene to keep things realistic but also functional. I think that conundrum is what they are trying to remedy with this change.

[Armaddict]

Those staff-run plots with sorc's will be the saving grace.

Wait...

[Rahnevyn]

A staff member's opinion is not by default unassailable simply because they have facts at their disposal, and a player's opinion isn't less valid just because they might not have said facts. Much like that other argument, who's at the keys still matters.

Like I said earlier, I agree up to a point. I am not sure if I'm just reading you wrong, but I feel there's an implied assertion here that everyone's opinions ought to be taken with the same weight regardless of knowledge of or experience with the topic at hand, which varies from poster to poster. In general staff have a broader perspective and are going to be able to better evaluate what a given change will do based on what we can see - but yes, we don't have all angles of the perspective.

"Validity" of someone's opinion is of course subjective, and so you can't really make objective value judgments about it. But when it comes to turning one's opinions into persuasive arguments, I'd give more merit to those with more experience with the subject and better access to the "truth".  I don't say that to be dismissive of opinions nor sound arrogant, but some topics require more background knowledge to debate effectively than just "time spent" as a player and the ability to write a well constructed persuasive essay.

Threads like this aren't exercises in futility, since after all a lot of the opinions being expressed are true at any level of experience in the game. I think we've heard lots of good feedback, like:

- You want to feel like there are super-powerful sorcerers out there to be afraid of (there still will be, and if they aren't meeting their fear factor quota after these changes we can always address that.)  
- You want to feel like staff are there to support their plots, both big and small (which is one of our primary roles, and isn't changing.)
- Maybe there could be more interactive ways to handle the learning and spread of magick and sorcery (bringing sorcerers back down to earth a bit will hopefully help with interaction there.)
- Everyone would love it if big changes like this could have an IC plot behind them (not always feasible, but always good to attempt when it is)
- ... and a bunch of other stuff I won't go back over 10 pages to synthesize down.

[MeTekillot]

Will staff characters be allowed to play sorcerers?

[Molten Heart]

Am I wrong in thinking the sorcery subguilds (the new sorcerers) are still accessible to those with 5 karma  through a special application, which is also the only way one can currently play any extended subguild?

[Rathustra]

Will staff characters be allowed to play sorcerers?

Staff cannot play anything a player cannot play. Indeed we are allowed to play less as we're not permitted to apply for sponsored roles.
edit: Assuming here you're referring to sorc-as-mainguild sorcs here of course.

Sorcerers (as their incarnation as subguilds) still require 8 karma to app-in without a special application. So yet, a 5 karma player can special app. for one.

[Fujikoma]

Am I wrong in thinking the sorcery subguilds (the new sorcerers) are still accessible to those with 5 karma  through a special application, which is also the only way one can currently play any extended subguild?

Wait, you -have- to already have five karma to play an extended subguild? *whistles innocently and moves along, quickly*

[Twilight]

CGP = karma

Each mundane extended subguild is 1, 2 or 3 CGP, which is listed in their helpfile.  So you don't need any karma to special app any of these.

Sorcerer subguilds were going to be 5 CGP, but staff have now said they are going to be 8. So you need 5 karma to special app one of these.