Is it wrong that I want to kill all of you?

[BadSkeelz]

The final takeaway could be: a war, a feud, a grudge, just start something!

People just "starting" something is precisely why at lot of it seems idiotic, JDM. It's jarring to have fairly minor and personal conflicts reach murderous levels when we're living in a world of scarce resources and giant monsters knocking at the gates.

I think if gith and giant spiders occasionally raided in to the city, you'd see a lot less Total Drama Allanak and more "Holy shit we might actually get killed by this harsh desert world, better band together and then we might STILL die." Would it cut down on PVP? Yeah, probably. Would it achieve a higher character turn-over rate (which was the ORIGINAL gripe of this thread)? Yeah, probably.

PCs don't kill long-lived PCs. NPCs do. Drama develops between players when they aren't suitably threatened by the game world.

[James de Monet]

True, but I think the other contributing factor in the feeling of (melo)drama is the tendency to overreact instead of escalate.  Like the old adage, 'don't get mad, get even.'

It only seems like bad drama because people have a tendency to go, 'oh, he stole my boots, I'm going to kill him.'  That isn't proportional response.  Instead, laugh it off, then steal his pack, or his apartment, or his friends.  Then he reacts.  The you react, harder.  By the time it gets to anyone being truly angry or murderous, a bunch of people will be involved, and the whole thing will seem a lot less overdramatic, because the justification will be there.

[LauraMars]

PCs don't kill long-lived PCs. NPCs do. Drama develops between players when they aren't suitably threatened by the game world.

I dunno, Allanak drama can be pretty life threatening.  *shiver*

[Eyeball]

I could see it being a valid response by the city to send people after raiders, but mostly only if the raiders start stepping on the city's interests. No one is going to miss a salt grebber or two for example, but if things get bad enough that people hesitate before going out salting, House Jal's bottom line starts taking a hit, and then you'd see action. Same thing with obsidian mining. Indie hunting and other sorts of grebbing not so much. Raiders need to strike a balance between finding victims and terrorizing, which is hard to do with a thin PC population.

[BadSkeelz]

True, but I think the other contributing factor in the feeling of (melo)drama is the tendency to overreact instead of escalate.  Like the old adage, 'don't get mad, get even.'

It only seems like bad drama because people have a tendency to go, 'oh, he stole my boots, I'm going to kill him.'  That isn't proportional response.  Instead, laugh it off, then steal his pack, or his apartment, or his friends.  Then he reacts.  The you react, harder.  By the time it gets to anyone being truly angry or murderous, a bunch of people will be involved, and the whole thing will seem a lot less overdramatic, because the justification will be there.

The problem with your solution is that escalation simply doesn't work, if you assume its goal is to convince the other side to back down and knock off their shit. This playerbase never learns lessons to stop playing with fire. You can punish someone for stealing your Expensive Boots for the umpteenth time, they're still going to try and steal your fucking boots as soon as their HP heals back up. So for purposes of less hassle for your character, it's better to just murder people at the earliest opportunity. They're going to come back on an equally annoying character eventually, may as well buy your PC some time.

I've never liked the back-and-forth gradual escalation that's aimed at inconveniencing PCs. I don't particularly like having to murder PCs just to keep the amount of disruptive kankshit in game to manageable levels, either. To me they're both symptoms of a stagnant gameworld that's no longer threatening or interesting to the playerbase. Maybe I'm just fortunate that I'm still a newb who can still play afraid of the rest of the game world. Going back to the OP's Game of Thrones analogies, JDM, your "Escalation" (melo)drama is King's Landing poli-dicking while I'm up on the wall worried about ice zombies. PVP is small time compared to what we could actually be struggling against.

[Barzalene]

I recently had a pc who stepped on toes and was hated throughout the known. No one tried to kill her. She tried to arrange murders and couldn't get people to carry them out. One muder got cockblocked right out of the gate.

None of it was sex related BTW.

[Kismetic]

Conflict that is meaningful and interesting to humans and demi-humans in this game originates from the power structures of the game, and trickles downhill.  A lot of OOC frustration seems to bear from dealing with the melodrama of the peons, which frankly, is a tangential arc, at best.  If you're dying for conflict, look for it.  Make a rich enemy.  Blunder a noble's pet project.  Do something imperfect or horrible, and sweat bullets because someone powerful wants to kill you, and it's a tok eat tok world, so naturally, you have to do something.  BE THE CHANGE DUDE

I dunno, really, I'm just spitballing.   Maybe take lessons from Is Friday, the guy is a vending machine for powerless internet rage.

[Clearsighted]

I think what people are really reacting to, is not so much the lack of raiding (which has been bullshit since Plainsman, pretty much), so much as the lack of any credible, antagonistic clans or tribes.

Armageddon used to have a lot of conflict-driven clan vs clan, or tribe vs drive competition. The most obvious example was Allanak vs Tuluk. But there were the Red Fangs, and others. Armageddon doesn't have that anymore. Clans/tribes also provide an infrastructure for potential antagonists. It's not like, invest 10 days in a loner ranger, raid one person, then get fucked. You got a support network.

I think they need to bring it back. Vote Gith in 2016.

[Narf]

True, but I think the other contributing factor in the feeling of (melo)drama is the tendency to overreact instead of escalate.  Like the old adage, 'don't get mad, get even.'

It only seems like bad drama because people have a tendency to go, 'oh, he stole my boots, I'm going to kill him.'  That isn't proportional response.  Instead, laugh it off, then steal his pack, or his apartment, or his friends.  Then he reacts.  The you react, harder.  By the time it gets to anyone being truly angry or murderous, a bunch of people will be involved, and the whole thing will seem a lot less overdramatic, because the justification will be there.

Going back to the OP's Game of Thrones analogies, JDM, your "Escalation" (melo)drama is King's Landing poli-dicking while I'm up on the wall worried about ice zombies. PVP is small time compared to what we could actually be struggling against.

As much as it's not my personal favorite sort of thing, it's hard to deny the sudden surge of player numbers during the riots a while back. I think it's pretty clear from that that a large portion of the playerbase likes interesting and dynamic PVE situations.

[Kismetic]

Last I checked, pretty much none of the noble houses like each other, despite whatever surface alliance they're flying for the month.  Merchant houses are in cutthroat competition over fringe markets.  Everyone hates the indies, and the AoD has to wipe all your asses.  Maybe the game would be enriched by having a blunt instrument like raiding gith or delf clans brought in, but saying there's a complete dearth of potential is lazy and a copout.

[Delirium]

I think what people are really reacting to, is not so much the lack of raiding (which has been bullshit since Plainsman, pretty much), so much as the lack of any credible, antagonistic clans or tribes.

Armageddon used to have a lot of conflict-driven clan vs clan, or tribe vs drive competition. The most obvious example was Allanak vs Tuluk. But there were the Red Fangs, and others. Armageddon doesn't have that anymore.

I think they need to bring it back. Vote Gith in 2016.

The funny thing is that players were mostly responsible for destroying those clans. They want antagonism until it happens to them.

Then they bitch and moan and cry and swear unholy revenge.

I loved the Red Fangs, I loved being raided by and cutting dirty deals with them. Granted, they overstepped their reach, but they added a much-needed flavor of danger to the wilderness. I would have preferred to see the Red Fangs curtailed to certain areas (Red Desert, Salt Flats, Scrub) rather than destroyed entirely. That danger has returned somewhat due to the increased NPC threats and poisons, but it's still nowhere near as interesting as having to deal with the cunning of a player-controlled antagonist.

The problem is twofold:

1) Reaching the point where you have enough power to be an effective protagonist is hard, and staying alive is even harder when the whole Known bands against you because you hurt, stole from, or insulted one of their precious PCs. Meanwhile, staff can just load up an NPC with the appropriate skills. So staff-generated conflict is much easier.

2) There are no player-created clans outside of cities any more, which means that these player antagonists lack a base of operations. Contrast against the Black Moon or the Rebellion, where you had sweet defensible camps that could be ridden out of and retreated to.  Without a place to congregate and store stuff, it's impossible to keep a clan together.

[Clearsighted]

Maybe the game would be enriched by having a blunt instrument like raiding gith or delf clans brought in, but saying there's a complete dearth of potential is lazy and a copout.

It's a good thing no one said that!

Merchant houses are in cutthroat competition over fringe markets.

Since when?

GMHs are so specialized, that they're really more co-dependent than competitive. Their rich indie hunters typically want to make purchases from all three Houses, so they stay on good terms.

I'm not saying there's a complete lack of disagreement. Great Britain and Spain still bicker about the status of Gibraltar and tweak each other about it, but they both belong to the EU, and no actual 'shooting war' is conceivable between them. That's pretty much how it is between Salarr, Kurac and Kadius. There's not enough overlap for them to meaningfully have it out, or incentive, to risk losing access to the other House's orders.

Things are not so dire as people are making it out, but unrealistically idealistic assertions are not helpful either.

[Clearsighted]

I think what people are really reacting to, is not so much the lack of raiding (which has been bullshit since Plainsman, pretty much), so much as the lack of any credible, antagonistic clans or tribes.

Armageddon used to have a lot of conflict-driven clan vs clan, or tribe vs drive competition. The most obvious example was Allanak vs Tuluk. But there were the Red Fangs, and others. Armageddon doesn't have that anymore.

I think they need to bring it back. Vote Gith in 2016.

I loved the Red Fangs, I loved being raided by and cutting dirty deals with them. Granted, they overstepped their reach, but they added a much-needed flavor of danger to the wilderness. I would have preferred to see the Red Fangs curtailed to certain areas (Red Desert, Salt Flats, Scrub) rather than destroyed entirely. That danger has returned somewhat due to the increased NPC threats and poisons, but it's still nowhere near as interesting as having to deal with the cunning of a player-controlled antagonist.

I loved the Red Fangs as well, and I had several of them. It was okay to take risks, and die, because you had a clan infrastructure to grow back up in. And also, people to RP with and form relationships with. It wasn't so dire as a loner raider.

I also agree with both of your points, as to what the primary challenges are.

[Kismetic]

Maybe the game would be enriched by having a blunt instrument like raiding gith or delf clans brought in, but saying there's a complete dearth of potential is lazy and a copout.

It's a good thing no one said that!

My bad if it seems like I'm targeting you there, but this is a common saber to rattle.  "There is no source of conflict, therefore, mantis/gith/halflings."

There's not enough overlap for them to meaningfully have it out, or incentive, to risk losing access to the other House's orders.

There are things for GMHs to compete over in the game, and while there is likely not room for a 'shooting war' (like back in the day when a Kuraci got assassinated in parley), there is a source of conflict and ways for PCs to deal with it.

[Barzalene]

I like the idea of crushing the losers of conflict into dust, but new enemies should take their place.

[Armaddict]

I think what people are really reacting to, is not so much the lack of raiding (which has been bullshit since Plainsman, pretty much), so much as the lack of any credible, antagonistic clans or tribes.

Armageddon used to have a lot of conflict-driven clan vs clan, or tribe vs drive competition. The most obvious example was Allanak vs Tuluk. But there were the Red Fangs, and others. Armageddon doesn't have that anymore. Clans/tribes also provide an infrastructure for potential antagonists. It's not like, invest 10 days in a loner ranger, raid one person, then get fucked. You got a support network.

I think they need to bring it back. Vote Gith in 2016.

I'm curious which time you're talking about with major clan vs clan.  Aside from north vs south, which was mostly played out through RPT's and very minor raids that were incredibly infrequent...gith have been gone for a looooong time, and were not wildly successful prior.  Mantis were so isolated you had to go and find them to see a PC.  Halflings were around, but from what I saw, they tried just as much to make friends with chosen people rather than be a pure antagonist (exposure small on that one).

Are you talking blackmoon?  They were an antagonist clan, yes, but far from majorly responsible.  As I've said many times, in the 1999-2003 era, when I probably saw the most player on player conflict...it was almost solely on an individual level.  Everyone was a raider.  Everyone was getting raided.  Kadian/Salarr hunters banded together so they didn't get raided (why people joined them in droves), which is where blackmoon came in.  They were the only ones capable of raiding large groups.

I'm not in disagreement with you, but I -am- reiterating the point that people seem to want this, but are essentially demanding clan and staff support for doing it, which is just not necessary.  Make a raiding group.  Openly.  Train each other in guard, trap people in, do your raids, force independents into you group...see how far you get.  Raider lives are not typically long lived ones, but damn are they fun.  That's with or without clan support.

[Barzalene]

The problem Jack, isn't that you want to kill me. The problem is you haven't even tried.

[Armaddict]

The problem Jack, isn't that you want to kill me. The problem is you haven't even tried.

Blam.  Classy and absolutely right.

[Desertman]

I've played some seriously rotten individuals. The horrible rapist murderer sick and twisted mentality fuckers.

I don't know, I generally don't get "hunted" by the whole world. I usually end up getting hunted by a single group...while having other groups on my side, be that out of fear, or just because they like the dastardly roguish charm of my villain, which I usually try to shoot for since that is fun for me.

I've never played an all out psychopath though. The kind who have no code and no morals. Those are the kinds that tend to get hunted by "everyone", because nobody can relate to them....even the other villains.

If you want to play a antagonist, don't play one that is intentionally going to make you an enemy of every single person you meet, or yes, it will feel like you are being hunted by everyone, and you will die quickly.

Most of my villains have some sort of code, or personal law, even if it is twisted, that people can catch onto and either relate with or adapt to so they don't feel like my character is a direct threat to them.

I recommend that. Not only is more realistic in my opinion, but it is more interesting, and the villain tends to last longer, but without a doubt almost always has a shorter lifespan than your typical good guy.

I have always considered the "good guy" the standard. Why? Because most of us come from playing tabletop games and RPG's where you are always the good guy. We want to be heroes. What fun is playing a villain in a world of villains where your evil is just the "norm"? No, you need a world of heroes and a few villains for villains to be truly special...I like it that way.

If you feel like the current world is full of a lot of long-lived "good guys" right now....it's probably because it is. Good guys tend to live longer than bad guys, because bad guys make a lot more enemies.

Seems like a basic math that is always going to hold true, barring some minor fluctuations now and again due to events or particularly inspiring villains coming onto the scene.

My advice? Play an inspiring villain. Don't play a fucking nutjob, you will die quickly because you will have zero allies, even among the villains. Play a smart villain.

[The Silence of the Erdlus]

There's actually been a surge of raider activity in my area recently, but I guess it is still quiet elsewhere?

[Clearsighted]

I think what people are really reacting to, is not so much the lack of raiding (which has been bullshit since Plainsman, pretty much), so much as the lack of any credible, antagonistic clans or tribes.

Armageddon used to have a lot of conflict-driven clan vs clan, or tribe vs drive competition. The most obvious example was Allanak vs Tuluk. But there were the Red Fangs, and others. Armageddon doesn't have that anymore. Clans/tribes also provide an infrastructure for potential antagonists. It's not like, invest 10 days in a loner ranger, raid one person, then get fucked. You got a support network.

I think they need to bring it back. Vote Gith in 2016.

I'm curious which time you're talking about with major clan vs clan.  Aside from north vs south, which was mostly played out through RPT's and very minor raids that were incredibly infrequent...gith have been gone for a looooong time, and were not wildly successful prior.  Mantis were so isolated you had to go and find them to see a PC.  Halflings were around, but from what I saw, they tried just as much to make friends with chosen people rather than be a pure antagonist (exposure small on that one).

Are you talking blackmoon?  They were an antagonist clan, yes, but far from majorly responsible.  As I've said many times, in the 1999-2003 era, when I probably saw the most player on player conflict...it was almost solely on an individual level.  Everyone was a raider.  Everyone was getting raided.  Kadian/Salarr hunters banded together so they didn't get raided (why people joined them in droves), which is where blackmoon came in.  They were the only ones capable of raiding large groups.

I'm not in disagreement with you, but I -am- reiterating the point that people seem to want this, but are essentially demanding clan and staff support for doing it, which is just not necessary.  Make a raiding group.  Openly.  Train each other in guard, trap people in, do your raids, force independents into you group...see how far you get.  Raider lives are not typically long lived ones, but damn are they fun.  That's with or without clan support.

The gith was mostly a joke. I'd love them, but I highly doubt staff will bring them back. Not because staff isn't hardcore enough for my tastes, but because I think if they were going to move in that direction, they'd do it with a different clan first.

As for antagonistic clans in the past that are no longer around...There's a lot of them. Red Fangs, Blackmoon, The Rebellion, Dune Stalkers, Benjari. Again, the whole Allanak vs Tuluk dynamic. That's without touching on Mantis/Gith/Halflings which are no longer around. Personally, I'm fine with the Mantis and Halflings being gone. They were worthless ISO clans. What I like about the Gith, is that they're not ISO. But it's hard for Gith to have a meaningful place in Pah politics, without the Red Fangs. Since the Red Fangs were known to secretly trade and cooperate with the Gith, against the other tribes.

Anyways. I don't know how much staff support it requires. All it basically needs is a camp and a minimum of documentation. The reason why the Red Fangs were able to work is that you didn't need to get recruited by them ICly. You didn't need to be friends with someone OOCly. You could simply note their existence as a clan and app into them like you would Sun Runners, Soh or ATV.

Do I think the game would benefit from having a Red Fang/Blackmoon/Rebellion type clan again? Yes. Do I understand why they're not around, even if I disagree with the why? Yes. Am I going to 'be the change' with my next PC, for whom I already have some pretty great ideas to try stuff along the lines of what you're suggesting? Absolutely.

But so long as we're talking about 'opinions' and 'desires', then yes, I'd desire another Red Fang type clan. I hope that staff might get around to introducing one, since the South vs North dynamic is more in abeyance.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

The problem Jack, isn't that you want to kill me. The problem is you haven't even tried.

Blam.  Classy and absolutely right.

Haha. Truthful. This is just the GDB incarnation of a discussion I was having with a friend last night, and have had several times over the past 6 months or so.

And I'm not whining about wanting change. I've been doing my part, as much as I could with the characters I've had lately. This topic was more of meter for if others were feeling the way I feel about this situation. And in that capacity it's been very encouraging.

Delirium's "Twofold problems" did smack it on the head. And I'm sorry to say, I think what was hard before will become a lot harder with Tuluk closed.

[Talia]

This is why every NPC I play is an utter asshole. I'm just trying to make the hatred flow for you guys!

[BadSkeelz]

I deeply regret not trying to fite your NPC Talia

edit: tho as I recall I did ask you to fite me m8 and NPC backed down 

[Barzalene]

I'm not done trying!