How To Have a War

[RogueGunslinger]

People asking for another war are funny. Get in there and join the militia. What do you think the city-states have been doing this entire time?

Not feeling enough impact from the last war? Stop playing characters that are unconnected, unmotivated, and uninspiring. It is not enough to make a patriotic "I hate Allanak" character. You have to LIVE and BREATH it. Every think, feel, and emote around those heathen bastards should excrete your loathing, and every moment spent away from them should be in planning their demise.

I'm sick of people wanting things spoon-fed to them. We had that already, and it takes all of you to REACT to that knuckle-sandwich you just ate in order to make things feel relevant to your character.

[BadSkeelz]

React to what? It's not as simple as not enough people joining the militia. There's vritually nothing to actually fight over. A crew of ten PCs isn't going to be able to attack a village or fortress with dozens, if not hundreds of soldiers inside.

Much as I'm generally against wanting Staff to carry the burden of what happens in the game, as the game world is currently set up the War can't actually happen without massive staff investment.

[Delirium]

Precisely.

PCs can stir up all the minor plots and create all the conflict they want, but reflecting an ongoing war requires staff support.

[RogueGunslinger]

Staff aren't going to support what the players aren't doing. That was my point about joining the militia, or making a Templar. Instead of people asking themselves what the next step should be, and trying to do it, they're asking for hand-outs.

The staff assistance comes after someone tries to do something, not beforehand. If there are no PC's in the gameworld banding together and trying to get shit done I'm not exactly sure what you expect staff to do.

Make another PC vs PC skirmish? Okay but how does that actually add anything sustainable? How does that add anything more to the game than the last HRPT?

[Delirium]

I...

... nevermind.

[Bushranger]

That's what I get for making a war games response to Nyr's blatant opening?

Relax RGS. I can assure you I am not asking staff to create a war without being active in game!

[RogueGunslinger]

That's what I get for making a war games response to Nyr's blatant opening?

Relax RGS. I can assure you I am not asking staff to create a war without being active in game!

Your post is not the one I was responding to.

WE NEED A WAR

Agreed, or at least more effects from that battle.

[BadSkeelz]

I think you're grossly over-estimating just how much authority PCs actually have. There's nothing any PC role can do that meaningfully propels the war without massive staff assistance before hand. Asking PC Templars of either City State to fight the war on their own is like asking Is Friday to take his platoon of marines and invade Iran.

Make another PC vs PC skirmish? Okay but how does that actually add anything sustainable? How does that add anything more to the game than the last HRPT?

This is the real rub, though: the very notion of a war between the two city-states is NOT sustainable. They have no conflicting interests aside from figuring out which Sorcerer King has a bigger dick. Their economies are sustained by autonomous merchant houses with inviolate neutrality. Both cities have very good local reasons to not want to march large portions of their armies off to get annihilated.

Drafting all the local idiots in to the militia and then crashing them against the opposing number of idiots as a form of population control actually is the most sensible conduct for the War.

[RogueGunslinger]

Make another PC vs PC skirmish? Okay but how does that actually add anything sustainable? How does that add anything more to the game than the last HRPT?

This is the real rub, though: the very notion of a war between the two city-states is NOT sustainable. They have no conflicting interests aside from figuring out which Sorcerer King has a bigger dick. Their economies are sustained by autonomous merchant houses with inviolate neutrality. Both cities have very good local reasons to not want to march large portions of their armies off to get annihilated.

Drafting all the local idiots in to the militia and then crashing them against the opposing number of idiots as a form of population control actually is the most sensible conduct for the War.

I hear a lot of talk about the copper war, and the rebellion. People seemed to love those plot-lines. How did -that- work? What is a sensible way to conduct a war?

[KankWhisperer]

I think you're grossly over-estimating just how much authority PCs actually have. There's nothing any PC role can do that meaningfully propels the war without massive staff assistance before hand. Asking PC Templars of either City State to fight the war on their own is like asking Is Friday to take his platoon of marines and invade Iran.

Make another PC vs PC skirmish? Okay but how does that actually add anything sustainable? How does that add anything more to the game than the last HRPT?

This is the real rub, though: the very notion of a war between the two city-states is NOT sustainable. They have no conflicting interests aside from figuring out which Sorcerer King has a bigger dick. Their economies are sustained by autonomous merchant houses with inviolate neutrality. Both cities have very good local reasons to not want to march large portions of their armies off to get annihilated.

Drafting all the local idiots in to the militia and then crashing them against the opposing number of idiots as a form of population control actually is the most sensible conduct for the War.

Yup. When you get some rank there's a lot of reminders that you are still nothing in the grand scheme of things and don't matter. Also there is a lot of pressure to keep the status quo in my opinion.

[Gimfalisette]

I hear a lot of talk about the copper war, and the rebellion. People seemed to love those plot-lines. How did -that- work? What is a sensible way to conduct a war?

The Copper War really only lasted a few weeks...like 3, I think. There was quite a bit of build-up to it, with people doing scouting and stuff, but the war itself was short. Then there weren't really any aftereffects other than posturing within the city states.

I wasn't around for the Rebellion. My impression is that it was an extended time period where there was...an occupation, and a rebellion. And plot stuff happened within that. But the beginning and the end of the rebellion were staff-led.

[RogueGunslinger]

I guess I just don't understand what people want out of staff. They seem to think it's up to staff to get shit going, well, what do we need to ask them to do?

[KankWhisperer]

The rebellion had staff supported hideouts well within striking distance of their enemy.  Fighting across the known is tedious.

[Barsook]

Maybe we need more player ran plots that deal with this war, whatever it is called?

[KankWhisperer]

I guess I just don't understand what people want out of staff. They seem to think it's up to staff to get shit going, well, what do we need to ask them to do?

They can stop telling me to chill.

[Gimfalisette]

RGS: I was just trying to clarify. I'm on the "start your own plots" side of things, largely. I love staff support when I get it, but I try to organize my play so that it's not necessary. Yes, I too love wars and all that (though to be honest my characters have pretty much always missed out on the action in every HRPT), but I'm fairly content with the clan or regional level of conflict.

[Molten Heart]

I guess I just don't understand what people want out of staff. They seem to think it's up to staff to get shit going, well, what do we need to ask them to do?

I think they want the world to act rather than react.  They want a war (or something exciting) that they can take a part in, not architect it all themselves, because frankly, they just don't have the tools for that.

[BadSkeelz]

Make another PC vs PC skirmish? Okay but how does that actually add anything sustainable? How does that add anything more to the game than the last HRPT?

This is the real rub, though: the very notion of a war between the two city-states is NOT sustainable. They have no conflicting interests aside from figuring out which Sorcerer King has a bigger dick. Their economies are sustained by autonomous merchant houses with inviolate neutrality. Both cities have very good local reasons to not want to march large portions of their armies off to get annihilated.

Drafting all the local idiots in to the militia and then crashing them against the opposing number of idiots as a form of population control actually is the most sensible conduct for the War.

I hear a lot of talk about the copper war, and the rebellion. People seemed to love those plot-lines. How did -that- work? What is a sensible way to conduct a war?

Re: Copper War: There was a resource to be fought over. Once the resource was suitably exploited/exhausted, the war ended.

For carrying on a long-term state of war, I think you need to rework what the concept of War between city states means in Zalanthas. The big battles and complete subjugation of one city or another are arguably anachronistic. Certainly they'd be the exception, not the rule. Small unit actions, possibly mutually arranged between Templars as a means for garnishing their own honor, make a lot more sense and are a lot more achievable in game than what we typically think of as a "War" RPT.

ofcourse nyr retconned honor of the warrior docs so this'll never happen *single tear*

[Narf]

If you want to have a PC driven war, you need to think small.

Get a gang war going. You can have player driven sortes whenever you want, you don't have to travel across the known to find the people you're fighting, players can make significant differences in the outcome.

Make the pond smaller, and you get to eventually be a big fish.

[FreeRangeVestric]

I'll put a huge disclaimer on this and say I've never been involved in PVP that much. But knowing what I know about the code, it's hard for me to imagine a situation where the side that gets the upper hand doesn't just go in and vindictively slaughter the side that's losing. I have no idea how it would be done, but if there was a way to stage an encounter so that it would end with more injuries than deaths, I think that would go a long way to more realistic, sustainable conflict between the cities.

Maybe if there was some set-up where there would be something like 1-3 PCs from each side per room? Again, I don't really see a way that could be enforced without some painfully un-zalanthan "Warrior Code," but I think it would be more manageable than what I can only imagine the ungodly text-wall that 20+ PCs fighting in a single room must be like.

[Is Friday]

RGS: Without giving much away of "behind the curtain" in Armageddon, I'll state a few problems with your idea of war being possible with just PCs.

1.) PC leadership exists on a low/middle tier. Even Blue Robe Templar PCs aren't making big-wig decisions. Let's say a Templar is in charge of 100 soldiers. Hypothetically there's 5,000 soldiers in the "Naki Loyalists". That means there's 50 Templars, give or take. Let's say there's one Red Robe per 10-15 Blue Robes. That means your PC Templars are basically Joe Schmoe in a sea of other Schmoes. Keep in mind that Templars, while educated and given a great deal of authority, would abide by the will of their superiors for fear of lightning bolts.
2.) PC Leadership that isn't nobility is even further down on this list of importance.
3.) Objectives that are worthwhile are likely guarded by 500+ soldiers.
4.) Good luck capturing anything with a 1/5 ratio. You'd need staff support to bring together more resources to accomplish much of anything.

Part of the game is being the tall, muscular man. You're not a super hero. You're just a dude in the cog. These sorts of events can be inspired by or nurtured by PCs, but in the scheme of things... you definitely need staff to enact change.

[Patuk]

I have this nagging urge to pull the ultimate gdb douchebag move and tell you to be the change, rgs, but I won't. That saying was and is useless.

I will instead ask for your advice.

What can people do in the first place to make the war more exciting?

You've told us how nobody is 'entitled' to staff support etc etc despite this being a staff-started war and so forth and so forth but what I've failed to hear is any concrete advice.

What would you do if you juuuust so happened to be playing a sergeant, and wanted to make the war more exciting?

I'm rather excited to hear, because if any of our sergeant players read this and agree, shit might actually get real.

[KankWhisperer]

RGS: Without giving much away of "behind the curtain" in Armageddon, I'll state a few problems with your idea of war being possible with just PCs.

1.) PC leadership exists on a low/middle tier. Even Blue Robe Templar PCs aren't making big-wig decisions. Let's say a Templar is in charge of 100 soldiers. Hypothetically there's 5,000 soldiers in the "Naki Loyalists". That means there's 50 Templars, give or take. Let's say there's one Red Robe per 10-15 Blue Robes. That means your PC Templars are basically Joe Schmoe in a sea of other Schmoes. Keep in mind that Templars, while educated and given a great deal of authority, would abide by the will of their superiors for fear of lightning bolts.
2.) PC Leadership that isn't nobility is even further down on this list of importance.
3.) Objectives that are worthwhile are likely guarded by 500+ soldiers.
4.) Good luck capturing anything with a 1/5 ratio. You'd need staff support to bring together more resources to accomplish much of anything.

Part of the game is being the tall, muscular man. You're not a super hero. You're just a dude in the cog. These sorts of events can be inspired by or nurtured by PCs, but in the scheme of things... you definitely need staff to enact change.

The problem is these usually very conservative NPCS that don't let anyone advance up in rank. Since they are immortal and all. You're in the organization for twenty IC years, you'd move up just by chance and people dying. They'd have to advance you because someone needs to do it. So people start gaining real power and doing stuff. People start over reaching and causing problems and getting in over their head? Good. I think that's what usually causes wars. Somehow this idiot got to the top.

[BadSkeelz]

I'll put a huge disclaimer on this and say I've never been involved in PVP that much. But knowing what I know about the code, it's hard for me to imagine a situation where the side that gets the upper hand doesn't just go in and vindictively slaughter the side that's losing. I have no idea how it would be done, but if there was a way to stage an encounter so that it would end with more injuries than deaths, I think that would go a long way to more realistic, sustainable conflict between the cities.

Maybe if there was some set-up where there would be something like 1-3 PC' from each side per room? Again, I don't really see a way that could be enforced without some painfully un-zalanthan "Warrior Code," but I think it would be more manageable than what I can only imagine the ungodly text-wall that 20+ PCs fighting in a single room must be like.

For the "10 PCs on 1" combat zerg problem:

Everyone else should just roleplay samurais like I do, walking around shouting your name and lineage until you receive an honorable challenge.

Swirdsnabsuo is the solution. Change the culture, not the code.

[MeTekillot]

There's nothing stopping you from advancing in rank except hard work. Well, I mean, you become virtual/an NPC once you get so high, but you're not being stopped.

Maybe let stored players quasi-play their stored characters by occasionally submitting reports with how they would react to world situations?


Or uh, don't store high rank players but that requires a lot of staff work and I've noticed a pattern with things that have that.

[Gimfalisette]

What would you do if you juuuust so happened to be playing a sergeant, and wanted to make the war more exciting?

I've played a Sergeant on a war footing (gith invasion, also everything else in 2007-2008). Here are things I did:

-- Recruited and trained mercilessly. If a unit has no PC soldiers, a templar can't do anything with the unit. I made sure our unit was full. (We became so full, in fact, that we became two units with two Sergeants.)

-- Made sure every soldier was equipped for their job. If they had a "specialty" (non-warrior), I made sure they got training and equipment for that. Armor, weapons, mounts, cures, go-packs. Everything was ready.

-- Kept my soldiers busy and entertained until such time as they were required for war. THIS IS HARD. Do not underestimate. I ran in-city RPTs. I ran out-of-city RPTs. I gave them plots and quests. I gave them a relationship with their superior that was both caring and tough.

-- Was absolutely ready to understand and follow orders. My templar boss knew he could count on me.

That is what a Sergeant can do, in short. It's plenty of work to stay occupied. If you're at this level and you want war, you need to be ready to play your part. I'm not saying anyone out there isn't ready, I am just saying this is what is involved.

[Eyeball]

Nevermind.

[BadSkeelz]

I've played a Sergeant on a war footing (gith invasion,

While all your points are spot on and excellent advice to leaders in the combat clans, they're unfortunately not really germane to the discussion of "How do you have a war between the city-states" =/

Wars against gith, spiders, kryl, or other NPCs are in my experience a whole lot funner than wars against other players. But those all require a lot of staff work.

To elaborate: PC versus NPC wars (or PvE, player versus envirnonemnt) are MUCH easier for PCs to roleplay because the NPCs provide the necessary conflict of interest. I.e., they want to eat you and you don't want to be eaten.

[Patuk]

Badskeelz is right. God save us all.

Your advice is good, Gimfalisette, but could just as easily have been advice for a sergeant in peacetime.

What I have yet to see if advice on what a sergeant can actually do in the context of a war.

[Barzalene]

I didn't read every post. I'm sorry if I'm repeating anyone.

I thought one of the things about the copper war that really made it fun was that there was a front. Something to go to. There were small ongoing events instead of one big on. I think we actually could do that without too much staff work. Some oversight. Some involvement. But once we found something to contest we could all be there and contest it. Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic.

[Patuk]

Also, just to answer my own question..

.. I'd really like it if some enterprising bunch of fellows tried to organise a combat by champion event. With the right planning, it could probably be planned off.

Probably.

[Gimfalisette]

What I have yet to see if advice on what a sergeant can actually do in the context of a war.

That is what a Sergeant can do. I'm not sure why you guys are so obsessed with a Sergeant somehow being able to push war. App a templar?

I thought one of the things about the copper war that really made it fun was that there was a front. Something to go to. There were small ongoing events instead of one big on. I think we actually could do that without too much staff work. Some oversight. Some involvement. But once we found something to contest we could all be there and contest it. Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic.

Remembering what staff said about that conflict after, I don't think this is a correct impression. It required a ton of work on their part.

[MeTekillot]

Well, what can a templar do in a war, then?

[Saellyn]

Well, what can a templar do in a war, then?

Organize subterfuge.

[RogueGunslinger]

Badskeelz is right. God save us all.

Your advice is good, Gimfalisette, but could just as easily have been advice for a sergeant in peacetime.

What I have yet to see if advice on what a sergeant can actually do in the context of a war.

I think maybe you misunderstood me when I talked about rolling a soldier or templar to be a part of events. I'm not saying a Sergeant has the ability to go out and make meaningful impacts to the war front, swaying it one way or another. That doesn't mean you treat your PC like he isn't in middle of a war, and that doesn't mean you can't create plots that build off of the war. The fun in Armageddon has always been (for me) the circumstances that stir up around such an event that staff have already initiated for us. Not in the event itself. Sure HRPT's are fun and all, but at the end of the day RPT's and HRPT's are not what creates lasting fun.

Do you remember when a bunch of people got together after the war and started burning down Magicker Temples? This would be an example of what I'm talking about. They had an idea, they planned it out, and with some staff help the brought it to fruition.  

What is stopping a southern Sergeant from hiring a couple of 'gickers to get started terrorizing Tuluki hunters and grebbers? What keeping a northern noble from poisoning or collapsing the free-water-cave that's outside of Allanak? What is keeping that Southern noble house from working out a trade agreement with Salarr to make sure they get the best gear while the other city is stuck with shoddy hand-me-downs?

These are things players CAN do. Sure it takes a little bit of staff help, but you need to actually start trying to do something in order for staff to even know you need that help.

[BadSkeelz]

All those things have or had happened. Also, one of them was entirely staff driven with no PC input until after the fact.

[RogueGunslinger]

What's your point?

[HavokBlue]

I agree with most of the sentiment in this thread about the difficulty of shaking things up with PC military roles in the context of war, but it occurred to me that while your PC can't wage war like a city state... You can wage war like a terror cell or a guerrilla group. You will still need to communicate with staff, but look at ways that small groups have fought against large groups historically and maybe apply it to your plans in game.

[BadSkeelz]

What's your point?

That it is happening, so it's kind of discourteous to tell people they should be doing it. Also, a couple of your suggestions (especially any requiring permanent changes to a room) would require pretty heavy staff support and pre-approval which is kind of running counter to the whole original point of this thread.

[Delirium]

You can wage war like a terror cell or a guerrilla group. You will still need to communicate with staff, but look at ways that small groups have fought against large groups historically and maybe apply it to your plans in game.

The thing is - when that is the limit of what you can do, and it doesn't seem to have any real impact, it starts getting to the point where you go "well, now what?"

(and we circle back around to needing staff support; and more than that - staff allowing players to succeed)

[Barzalene]

I thought one of the things about the copper war that really made it fun was that there was a front. Something to go to. There were small ongoing events instead of one big on. I think we actually could do that without too much staff work. Some oversight. Some involvement. But once we found something to contest we could all be there and contest it. Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic.

Remembering what staff said about that conflict after, I don't think this is a correct impression. It required a ton of work on their part.

Oh, I'm sure it did. Especially to get everyone and every thing in place.

But I think pcs could, manage their own skirmishes if someone made a plan and others showed up. Not battles, but skirmishes. And it might be fun.

[Barzalene]

You can wage war like a terror cell or a guerrilla group. You will still need to communicate with staff, but look at ways that small groups have fought against large groups historically and maybe apply it to your plans in game.

The thing is - when that is the limit of what you can do, and it doesn't seem to have any real impact, it starts getting to the point where you go "well, now what?"

You're likely right. But no one is doing it. So, maybe it would lead to things. Maybe no. Maybe it would suck or be boring. But it might be worth trying.

[HavokBlue]

I can't speak for every role but if you're in a leadership role and you communicate with staff and involve people, I think they will be more receptive to things than most people give staff credit for.

People always talk about how they're unable to do (insert thing here) and then I look at my experiences and think "well they just signed off on that big plot to discover Steinal and hey check it out my plans to systematically assassinate the entire of the House Fuckwood aren't being shut down. I'm glad I'm communicating and involving people!"

[RogueGunslinger]

What's your point?

That it is happening, so it's kind of discourteous to tell people they should be doing it. Also, a couple of your suggestions (especially any requiring permanent changes to a room) would require pretty heavy staff support and pre-approval which is kind of running counter to the whole original point of this thread.

People want things to happen and to be a part of it. People who feel like there's nothing going on. I told them this stuff is going on, and they can be a part of it, and they can even make up similar ideas.

You saying those things are going on and have happened just proves the point I was trying to make that people can be a part of the war without having massive HRPT skirmishes every couple months.

[Delirium]

I've have thought for a while that adding NPC raiders back into the game could be a fun option, though I can't take credit for the idea.

Add in some Tuluki/Allanaki guerilla-style raiders in the north and south, that operate much like gith do now. That could add in a bit of sustained conflict and make it at least a little bit less "out of the ordinary" (and therefore somewhat less immediately squashed) if PCs started their own "raid the opposite city" crews.

Plus, anything to make the desert a bit more dangerous without necessarily being a deathtrap is a good thing.

[Barzalene]

I've have thought for a while that adding NPC raiders back into the game could be a fun option, though I can't take credit for the idea.

Add in some Tuluki/Allanaki guerilla-style raiders in the north and south, that operate much like gith do now. That could add in a bit of sustained conflict and make it at least a little bit less "out of the ordinary" (and therefore somewhat less immediately squashed) if PCs started their own "raid the opposite city" crews.

Plus, anything to make the desert a bit more dangerous without necessarily being a deathtrap is a good thing.

That sounds fun.

[Delirium]

You can wage war like a terror cell or a guerrilla group. You will still need to communicate with staff, but look at ways that small groups have fought against large groups historically and maybe apply it to your plans in game.

The thing is - when that is the limit of what you can do, and it doesn't seem to have any real impact, it starts getting to the point where you go "well, now what?"

You're likely right. But no one is doing it. So, maybe it would lead to things. Maybe no. Maybe it would suck or be boring. But it might be worth trying.

People have done it. And it didn't really lead to anything.

Granted, that might have been due to X factor and Y factor... but my point is, people have made sustained, prolonged efforts at keeping the conflict and war plots going on, so (directed at RGS) the suggestion that players only need to take up the mantle and try a little is borderline insulting.

[Barzalene]

Oh. I ... yeah.

That aside, I think we could all enjoy some escalating and de-escalating hostilities. And I don't mean that as any kind of dig at anyone. I don't mean that I think anyone is doing it wrong. It's just a thought and the next question is how. And how is a  harder question.

[TheWanderer]

Could we just, like, send PCs back to those outposts from the HRPT and have missions delivered by staff? Hell. Anything? It seems like we all just got a firm pat on the buttocks and then were sent back home, as to never again visit the horrors of this war that I've heard no PC acknowledge in months. I'm 99% percent sure that this HRPT was called the start of a war in the following updates to the Armageddon website.

IG, we've been at (I assume, at least) 'war' for years. Shouldn't there be a growing number of casualties and a heavier burden of taxation on the common populace? Wouldn't food become more scarce as more of it is sent off to the front? Civil unrest as -more- citizens die to starvation? A riot, maybe? It's been years, and things weren't that peachy in either city beforehand.

Again, that's assuming the war didn't already end and I just missed that tidbit. But... you could have Tuluki players try to burn down farming villages, Allanaki players defend those villages -- small skirmishes that actually have a meaningful impact in a desert where it's difficult to come by fertile land. Riots, social upheaval, something grand to facilitate better rp than, "Hey, I killed a beetle," with the following grunt and, "Cool."

There were and are so many opportunities.  We don't need to have another war, we just need to flesh out the one everybody's forgotten about.

[Delirium]

... which requires staff support.

/plink plink, I'm done here.

[Armaddict]

Recently tried to promote conflict between the two.  Conflict hungry savages swarmed me and drove me off with insurmountable odds and hyper-reaction.  Which only says that it's kind of ripe, really.  People want it.

But there's nothing actually turning it into battle.  A PC effort can't storm either city, which means they can, essentially, be ignored.

Really, I'd wish for an elaborate system of various resources that have to be gathered/bought/found/raided for in order for the city, as a whole, to benefit in some way (or suffer from, with lack of it), movements to take such resources to each city, and limited 'points' where that resource can be found, opening up the ability for each army as well as third parties to set up small-scale combats, skirmishes, operations, raids, etc, and have it be meaningful without actually requiring full time staff support.  In other words, a coded system that promotes conflict over resources.

Which ain't gonna happen.  But damn if that'd be cool.

[TheWanderer]

... which requires staff support.

/plink plink, I'm done here.

Oh. I didn't really read the thread, just the title. Was the goal not to have staff support? Any war is gonna have staff support, and you're stupid to think otherwise.

[Gimfalisette]

I think players are hampered a lot more by what they and other players do than anything staff does or doesn't do. Build your plot around particular players or skills, someone dies? Whoops. You wanted to run an RPT but just found out you're being transferred to a new job? Whoops. There's a guy you need to contact but that dude is simply not ever on when you are? Whoops.

Especially now that we have the request tool, communicating with staff and getting help seems a lot easier than it was in the past. But if your plot requires X, Y, and Z from the player side of things, and for player reasons those don't happen...that just doesn't work very well. But that's a player problem, not a staff problem. (We players notoriously suck at keeping our PCs alive and active.)

I guess staff could throw a war and invite us all? But then the complaint always seems to be, "You railroaded us!" Is there a way to be happy, somewhere in the balance?

[BadSkeelz]

Again, that's assuming the war didn't already end and I just missed that tidbit. But... you could have Tuluki players try to burn down farming villages, Allanaki players defend those villages -- small skirmishes that actually have a meaningful impact in a desert where it's difficult to come by fertile land. Riots, social upheaval, something grand to facilitate better rp than, "Hey, I killed a beetle," with the following grunt and, "Cool."

There were and are so many opportunities.  We don't need to have another war, we just need to flesh out the one everybody's forgotten about.

The villages of both sides are too heavily defended to be assaulting without staff animating a few hundred soldiers for the desert. The farming villages are also VERY close to their respective city states (or in Tuluk's case, inside the fucking thing). There's no room to interdict farming shipments. There's not enough PC troops to assault or even harass the farms.

The war's ended because the primary mission of both sides have been accomplished.

[TheWanderer]

Again, I didn't really pay much attention to the thread -- just glossed over it and the title, then tossed in my two cents.

Doing anything without staff support/intervention usually ends up being pretty trivial, and if you're going, "How To Have a War," having staff onboard would be the first step.

And if the war's ended, seeing as how I've heard little of any other PC skirmishes, your post would suggest both sides accomplished their goals at the HRPT in March.  Why bother getting the hopes of the playerbase up by posting something akin to, "Thus the stalemate has come to a close and the war between Allanak and Tuluk has been renewed." That's with genuine curiosity.

[LauraMars]

Let's avoid calling names, please.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

The reality is that there is no war. There was a conflict that was resolved. Now there are hostilities, but there is no war. In a war, you try to take over things or take back things. This is true in literally every conflict. The problem in Armageddon is that there is nothing for the North to take from the South, but there is stuff for the South to take from the North. Ideally, both sides would want something, or want to save something, from the other side.

However, in the case of the South, taking something isn't a matter of taking the one thing. They have to take the whole thing, and so in order to do that, they need high ranking NPC support. In short, for there to be a war, there has to be staff involvement.

If we were looking at an ideal situation for the game of Armageddon, in order to breed constant conflict, you would either have one city with factions within it trying to control areas or risk dying out, or you would have two civilizations who either need something the other side has, or who fight ceaselessly over a natural resource.

Let's say a fresh-water sea popped up in the middle of the Red Desert. This is water - this is literally life, both for humanoids, and for plants. So you have this insanely lush, vast area that needs to be controlled so that you can drive wagon trains back and forth between it and the controlling city. To control the oasis, you have to enter by one of two or three entrances. These are patrolled by well-scripted NPC soldiers, who are brought by the PC templars to man the locations. These NPC soldiers are backed up by PCs. The goal in taking the oasis is to kill all of the NPC soldiers so that you can bring your own controlling force in and hold the locations.

What does this do for your city? Controlling the oasis brings down prices at NPC vendors across your city. It changes room descriptions. It provides room echoes befitting a city rolling in wealth. It gets beggar NPCs to disappear. It makes living in your city more pleasant. And all of that, with the possible exception of changing room descriptions, is possible via scripting. Er, well, I suppose the price matrix would have to be coded too. I could write up the connecting web if I were so inclined, though.

But in this situation, there would be reason for perpetual war between the civilizations.

You could replace the oasis with a massive metal mine, if you wanted, and get the same result. The benefits would change, but the idea would remain the same. Something PCs can fight over and change what happens to their home town. Yes, you need to have staff willing to code and write up all of the initial framework, but it would completely change the stale feeling you get now.

[Marauder Moe]

Wars against gith, spiders, kryl, or other NPCs are in my experience a whole lot funner than wars against other players. But those all require a lot of staff work.

To elaborate: PC versus NPC wars (or PvE, player versus envirnonemnt) are MUCH easier for PCs to roleplay because the NPCs provide the necessary conflict of interest. I.e., they want to eat you and you don't want to be eaten.

This.  Large-scale battles with players on both sides are just nasty, confusing, and exceedingly deadly.  They are not that great.

Do you know what mostly made the war HRPT's fun?  The simple fact that you took a significant portion of the playerbase and dropped them in a different location for an extended (1-2 weeks) period of time and caused them to mingle more closely.


Interestingly, if you narrow down the definition of "war" to something like that, it becomes more reasonable for PCs to start the ball rolling themselves.  Sure, Blue-Robe Malikus can't start a war by himself, but he probably could get his unit of soldiers, some Wyverns/Scorpions, a band or two of Byn, mages, conscripts, and a gaggle of adventurous nobles+aides together.  Take that group, tell the staff you want to rile up some spiders/gith/delves/whatever, maybe even northerners, and I bet there's a fair chance they'd be willing to load a camp and throw a few waves of NPCs at you over the next week or so.

[Kismetic]

Step 1 - Seige the enemy state with the bulk of your standing army/slave warriors/volunteers.

Step 2 - The enemy state counters with world devastating magick/psionics.

Step 3 - Smuggle forces from under siege and harry supply lines.

Step 4 - Retreat, reverse roles and refresh.


Be the change, RGS.

[RogueGunslinger]

You can wage war like a terror cell or a guerrilla group. You will still need to communicate with staff, but look at ways that small groups have fought against large groups historically and maybe apply it to your plans in game.

The thing is - when that is the limit of what you can do, and it doesn't seem to have any real impact, it starts getting to the point where you go "well, now what?"

You're likely right. But no one is doing it. So, maybe it would lead to things. Maybe no. Maybe it would suck or be boring. But it might be worth trying.

People have done it. And it didn't really lead to anything.

Granted, that might have been due to X factor and Y factor... but my point is, people have made sustained, prolonged efforts at keeping the conflict and war plots going on, so (directed at RGS) the suggestion that players only need to take up the mantle and try a little is borderline insulting.

Alright, things have sort of wandered and I didn't want to just ignore your question. So let me try to clarify why me and you weren't really discussing the same things.

People wanted another war, or were complaining about not seeing enough effects of the last one. I, in my usual dickish way said they aren't trying hard enough(this was all just a random though, not really the sort of material I'd have as a first post in an actual topic for discussing). Which I agree is disingenuous to them.  Those people, however, are not the same people who are making sustained prolong efforts at keeping the conflict going. There's a difference between wanting your plots to leave a lasting impression on the world(which I completely agree with you on) and people not feeling involved in plots or feeling that there isn't any sort of war going on.

The difference between those people is that one is hopefully having some fun and making it fun for others too, even if their plans don't always pan out. Where as the other group is expecting all the fun to come to them. I  wasn't talking about the first group of people in my original "random Thought" which this thread was made from.

[Delirium]

Okay, one more thought, spurred by 7DV's post, and a desire to offer possible solutions and my reasonings behind them;

I do feel it was ultimately a mistake to destroy the area of Tyn Dashra, because that meant there was nothing left to fight over. It would have been a far more interesting storyline to see the Muark lands get fought over, taken over, and dominated by one side or the other. I understand that things might have happened the way they did for (REASONS) but I think there could have been a way to work that in and allow for something left behind to fight over.

Resources - and the scarcity of those resources, no matter whether they are magickal, metal, or more mundane - are at the heart of Armageddon's conflict, and when you remove such a large resource wholesale you remove the source of conflict. Add in a resource to fight over, or a real and immediate need for a resource that one city has and the other doesn't, and you will see conflict arise again. As it is, it's reminiscent of a game of cops and robbers - everybody's fighting, but it's a he-said-she-said and nobody has a real, defined direction to strive toward, and nobody really wins or loses anything tangible.

[Molten Heart]

You can wage war like a terror cell or a guerrilla group. You will still need to communicate with staff, but look at ways that small groups have fought against large groups historically and maybe apply it to your plans in game.

The thing is - when that is the limit of what you can do, and it doesn't seem to have any real impact, it starts getting to the point where you go "well, now what?"

You're likely right. But no one is doing it. So, maybe it would lead to things. Maybe no. Maybe it would suck or be boring. But it might be worth trying.

People have done it. And it didn't really lead to anything.

Granted, that might have been due to X factor and Y factor... but my point is, people have made sustained, prolonged efforts at keeping the conflict and war plots going on, so (directed at RGS) the suggestion that players only need to take up the mantle and try a little is borderline insulting.

Alright, things have sort of wandered and I didn't want to just ignore your question. So let me try to clarify why me and you weren't really discussing the same things.

People wanted another war, or were complaining about not seeing enough effects of the last one. I, in my usual dickish way said they aren't trying hard enough(this was all just a random though, not really the sort of material I'd have as a first post in an actual topic for discussing). Which I agree is disingenuous to them.  Those people, however, are not the same people who are making sustained prolong efforts at keeping the conflict going. There's a difference between wanting your plots to leave a lasting impression on the world(which I completely agree with you on) and people not feeling involved in plots or feeling that there isn't any sort of war going on.

The difference between those people is that one is hopefully having some fun and making it fun for others too, even if their plans don't always pan out. Where as the other group is expecting all the fun to come to them. I  wasn't talking about the first group of people in my original "random Thought" which this thread was made from.

Is it fair or even accurate to lump players into two separate and distinct groups?

[Ol 55]

This discussion may be detrimental to the game, as it revolves around the game's current main arc.  Some things I've read here touch far too close on things I've seen developing in the world, things that are in the works and may not have hit the scene, yet.  Maybe our energy is better focused on playing the game and writing taste descriptions for baby items.

[RogueGunslinger]

You can wage war like a terror cell or a guerrilla group. You will still need to communicate with staff, but look at ways that small groups have fought against large groups historically and maybe apply it to your plans in game.

The thing is - when that is the limit of what you can do, and it doesn't seem to have any real impact, it starts getting to the point where you go "well, now what?"

You're likely right. But no one is doing it. So, maybe it would lead to things. Maybe no. Maybe it would suck or be boring. But it might be worth trying.

People have done it. And it didn't really lead to anything.

Granted, that might have been due to X factor and Y factor... but my point is, people have made sustained, prolonged efforts at keeping the conflict and war plots going on, so (directed at RGS) the suggestion that players only need to take up the mantle and try a little is borderline insulting.

Alright, things have sort of wandered and I didn't want to just ignore your question. So let me try to clarify why me and you weren't really discussing the same things.

People wanted another war, or were complaining about not seeing enough effects of the last one. I, in my usual dickish way said they aren't trying hard enough(this was all just a random though, not really the sort of material I'd have as a first post in an actual topic for discussing). Which I agree is disingenuous to them.  Those people, however, are not the same people who are making sustained prolong efforts at keeping the conflict going. There's a difference between wanting your plots to leave a lasting impression on the world(which I completely agree with you on) and people not feeling involved in plots or feeling that there isn't any sort of war going on.

The difference between those people is that one is hopefully having some fun and making it fun for others too, even if their plans don't always pan out. Where as the other group is expecting all the fun to come to them. I  wasn't talking about the first group of people in my original "random Thought" which this thread was made from.

Is it fair or even accurate to lump players into two separate and distinct groups?

[Molten Heart]

Alright, things have sort of wandered and I didn't want to just ignore your question. So let me try to clarify why me and you weren't really discussing the same things.

People wanted another war, or were complaining about not seeing enough effects of the last one. I, in my usual dickish way said they aren't trying hard enough(this was all just a random though, not really the sort of material I'd have as a first post in an actual topic for discussing). Which I agree is disingenuous to them.  Those people, however, are not the same people who are making sustained prolong efforts at keeping the conflict going. There's a difference between wanting your plots to leave a lasting impression on the world(which I completely agree with you on) and people not feeling involved in plots or feeling that there isn't any sort of war going on.

The difference between those people is that one is hopefully having some fun and making it fun for others too, even if their plans don't always pan out. Where as the other group is expecting all the fun to come to them. I  wasn't talking about the first group of people in my original "random Thought" which this thread was made from.

Is it fair or even accurate to lump players into two separate and distinct groups?

The way I'm reading your post, you're saying there are two types of players.  Group A makes their own plots and enjoys themselves without complaining, they have everything they need/want.  Group B is lazy and doesn't make an effort, they complain and want someone else to make the game fun for them.  Is that what you are saying?

[Barzalene]

I feel so silly posting just to say Yes! Yes! I think Venomz and Delirium are really on to something here.

[LauraMars]

This discussion may be detrimental to the game, as it revolves around the game's current main arc.  Some things I've read here touch far too close on things I've seen developing in the world, things that are in the works and may not have hit the scene, yet.  Maybe our energy is better focused on playing the game and writing taste descriptions for baby items.

I'm inclined to agree.  Please be careful when talking about the "current" state of the game and what people may or may not be doing with their characters.

[RogueGunslinger]

Alright, things have sort of wandered and I didn't want to just ignore your question. So let me try to clarify why me and you weren't really discussing the same things.

People wanted another war, or were complaining about not seeing enough effects of the last one. I, in my usual dickish way said they aren't trying hard enough(this was all just a random though, not really the sort of material I'd have as a first post in an actual topic for discussing). Which I agree is disingenuous to them.  Those people, however, are not the same people who are making sustained prolong efforts at keeping the conflict going. There's a difference between wanting your plots to leave a lasting impression on the world(which I completely agree with you on) and people not feeling involved in plots or feeling that there isn't any sort of war going on.

The difference between those people is that one is hopefully having some fun and making it fun for others too, even if their plans don't always pan out. Where as the other group is expecting all the fun to come to them. I  wasn't talking about the first group of people in my original "random Thought" which this thread was made from.

Is it fair or even accurate to lump players into two separate and distinct groups?

The way I'm reading your post, you're saying there are two types of players.  Group A makes their own plots and enjoys themselves without complaining, they have everything they need/want.  Group B is lazy and doesn't make an effort, they complain and want someone else to make the game fun for them.  Is that what you are saying?

No. I'm saying that if you're involved in plots surrounding the war, you're likely not going to be complaining about nothing happening involving the war. You might complain about not affecting anything. But that's not what we were talking about.

I feel so silly posting just to say Yes! Yes! I think Venomz and Delirium are really on to something here.

Yeah, going to have to give a +1 to those ideas, they're brilliant.

[TheWanderer]

We need goals? Like resources? We have goals. I was pretty sure we were all genocidal maniacs striving to destroy the other's city and way of life entirely, with a thought that each city was an affront to each of our respective gods.

World domination, baby. Fuck your resources.

[Eyeball]

EDIT: Nevermind.

By the way, I like the idea of water suddenly welling up somewhere in the desert.

[Malken]

WE NEED A WAR

Agreed, or at least more effects from that battle.

Dude, I post random nonsense on the Gdb to keep me sane at work. Don't take what I post seriously. Beside, I haven't played in months and months and probably will never play again. I'm just secretly in love with delirium and the Gdb is the only way I get to know what she's up to.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Delirium is a unique individual. You must up your game, son. In game.

See what I did there?

[Adhira]

There's great ideas in here. And as some reassurance staff actually had a similar conversation to this a few months ago. In fact the title of our forum thread was - How to have a WAR - brainstorming thread. We are very aware that war is a difficult thing to both sustain, and make accessible to players. Hopefully with new staff coming on board you'll see more obvious signs of things in this area.

I am going to go ahead and lock this thread now, since it's touching on things that are treading close to IC and the temptation keeps leaning towards current game events, characters, and things that may be developing.