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

[Saellyn]

I would leave so many folks alive and have so many more interesting scenes with them when they came to, tied up, in my dungeon, with me holding my scissors.  

Dungeon RP ...  One of my true favorites.  You really have to prove you want to live to get out of the Dungeon.

say (throwing a small clay jar of bimbal salve down to the zaftig woman) It puts the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again!

emote strokes his stuffed gortok pup gently, peering down into the hole.

Goodbye hooorseees

[James de Monet]

.
Maybe the case is different for a few select players involved in very subtle and secret machinations, but what I wrote was the truth for 95% of the playerbase.

It's possible that my experiences as those of the 5%, but on the whole, I disagree.

I disagree that there is no or very little genuine MCB going on.
I disagree that there are not good reasons for people to be in conflict.
I agree that raiding clans provided a ready source of conflict, but I don't know that I would agree that it was "quality".  When you were the one being "raided" from three rooms away, it inevitably felt like griefing.
I agree that the game feels "safer" now than it used to, but that may be due in part to my own increasing skill at it.
I strongly disagree that clans do not come into fatal conflict.
I strongly disagree that noble houses do not compete.
I strongly disagree that there is no smuggling, with associated corruption and competition.
I strongly disagree that there is no PC-planned, PC on PC violence that does not result from drama queening.
I agree that the game could benefit from more sustained conflict, or a greater volume of intriguing conflict.

And, as for people being defensive... You might not be shitting all over everything, as you say, but your convivial, constructive, and equitable tone is not coming through in your posts.  Your interest in the game and improving it is, though.  I say that so hopefully it's clear I'm not trying to bash on you, just being frank.

[Kismetic]

[RogueGunslinger]

I learned a new word! Thanks JDM!


con·viv·i·al
kənˈvivēəl/Submit
adjective
(of an atmosphere or event) friendly, lively, and enjoyable.
(of a person) cheerful and friendly; jovial.
synonyms:   friendly, genial, affable, amiable, congenial, agreeable, good-humored, cordial, warm, sociable, outgoing, gregarious, companionable, clubby, hail-fellow-well-met, cheerful, jolly, jovial, lively; More

[Clearsighted]

.
Maybe the case is different for a few select players involved in very subtle and secret machinations, but what I wrote was the truth for 95% of the playerbase.

It's possible that my experiences as those of the 5%, but on the whole, I disagree.

I disagree that there is no or very little genuine MCB going on.
I disagree that there are not good reasons for people to be in conflict.
I agree that raiding clans provided a ready source of conflict, but I don't know that I would agree that it was "quality".  When you were the one being "raided" from three rooms away, it inevitably felt like griefing.
I agree that the game feels "safer" now than it used to, but that may be due in part to my own increasing skill at it.
I strongly disagree that clans do not come into fatal conflict.
I strongly disagree that noble houses do not compete.
I strongly disagree that there is no smuggling, with associated corruption and competition.
I strongly disagree that there is no PC-planned, PC on PC violence that does not result from drama queening.
I agree that the game could benefit from more sustained conflict, or a greater volume of intriguing conflict.

And, as for people being defensive... You might not be shitting all over everything, as you say, but your convivial, constructive, and equitable tone is not coming through in your posts.  Your interest in the game and improving it is, though.  I say that so hopefully it's clear I'm not trying to bash on you, just being frank.

Well. If you take all my statements as being absolutist to the point of 'this never happens', then I strongly disagree with myself as well! If it's being taken that way, it's undoubtedly my fault. But I thought it went without saying that there are exceptions.

What I'm actually saying is that it doesn't happen as often as it should, and that the game/environment doesn't encourage it as much as it should.

When Mord points to the city-state wars between Allanak and Tuluk as being an example of how wrong I am, I just don't know how to take that for example. Because 1) That was a good thing I'm proud of the staff for pulling off, and 2) Is clearly more of a PC vs NPC/NPC vs NPC plot, that I praised staff for doing so well, 3) Somewhat ancient history at this point, and 4) All of the clans involved on one side have since been shuttered.

I'm well aware that nobles do compete. People do play spice smugglers (however artificial/arbitrary the incentive). People do die for reasons besides drama queening (however rarely). Obviously, clans do occasionally kill each other (although, I'd suggest that clans kill their own far far more often).

But I think the way the factions are currently disposed works to suppress interesting pvp conflict more than to encourage it. I'm glad, that according to Mord, it isn't intentional.

[ShaLeah]

No. It's not.

Murder first.
Corrupt second.
Betray third.

[James de Monet]

I thought it went without saying that there are exceptions.

It goes without saying that there are exceptions, sure.  It is my experience that these things happen often enough to be statistically significant, however.  I wouldn't call them exceptions.

What I'm actually saying is that it doesn't happen as often as it should, and that the game/environment doesn't encourage it as much as it should.

I would agree that they don't happen as often as they could, not sure about should, but I might be able to get behind the game encouraging them more, in measured ways.

As for the war, from my perspective, I would describe it more as a story than anything else.  It seemed like that story played out with a cast of characters who were, on either side, PCs, NPCs, and VNPCs in equal measure, and much more of it may have been PC driven than is readily apparent.

At first, I was going to question how any motivation in game could be 'pretended', but I think I see your point in that no one needs to pretend to want to make ivory hair needles.  There is (PC) supply and (NPC) demand.  People want(ed) to make them IG and IRL.  I suppose things like smuggling do require more of an IC motivation, as there is less coded vehicle available to them (and faster ways to make money exist).  Half of the game is 'what you make of it', though.  Like exploration, and laws, and religion, and spice, and atmosphere, and pain, etc.  I suppose some of it could be reinforced with code, but as in the case of hair needles, I'm not sure that makes the RP surrounding it more deep and vibrant.  And I still feel that using the word "pretending" disparagingly in a role-playing game is...a little odd.

[Desertman]

I think one problem is that a lot of people "want some conflict" without having to play the person who instigates the conflict.

I can guarantee if you show up and act confrontational to the right people, very quickly you are going to find yourself in a conflict.

However, if you are playing a "good guy" and you are complaining there aren't enough "bad guys" providing you with conflict, well, there are always going to be more good guys than bad guys...even in Armageddon.

If you truly WANT conflict, and don't just WANT to be the hero in those conflicts, then be a bad guy. I promise you, you will get it. You will also provide some other people with some fun conflict, and for that, we thank you.

I've played some villains and some truly rotten people. I was NEVER short any conflict any time I wanted it.

Though I screwed up his death scene with my stupidity about the code (and my visualization of how a certain contraption worked/looked), the character Eye that I played (the gold-eyed something or another man) was in a constant state of conflict with a lot of people. I had a ton of fun with him. I wasn't just being part of the conflict, I WAS the conflict. Constantly being hunted and constantly hunting people was a ton of fun, hopefully for everyone involved.

I don't want to do that with every PC. But I highly recommend it if you feel you are lacking some conflict. Play the villain. Mess with people. Screw with people. Enjoy it.

Don't expect a lot of conflict coming your way constantly if you are in fact not confrontational and do not conflict with people.

[Clearsighted]

I think one problem is that a lot of people "want some conflict" without having to play the person who instigates the conflict.

I can guarantee if you show up and act confrontational to the right people, very quickly you are going to find yourself in a conflict.

This is correct. I'm one of those people. I have a hard time coming up with a completely arbitrary reason to just fuck someone over. Nine times out of 10, you have to go so far out of your way to get into a confrontation, that you just come off as a crazy person anyways, which turns everyone else against you. This is rough to pull off unless your specifically defining character idea is 'crazy person everyone hates and who will die within a month'. Or if you mostly only confront the weak and clueless. If I had a sid for every time I've seen a militia PC pick on an obviously confused newb, I'd have like seven sids.

I do have one or two ideas to get around this, and to make it more palatable, which I'll explore on a future character.

What I have seen, is that when there is a meaningful reason to confront someone, like protecting one's territory, or because your clan preys on a particular stretch of road, or two clans are dedicated foes (such as some Southern clans vs some Northern clans) that people were perfectly fine and eager to instigate conflict, since the confrontations made sense.

There's always one or two guys out there who are willing to play the sociopath that everyone hates. Bless them. What's ironic is when I see people trying to keep them alive, since they're so rare to have around to begin with.

[BlackMagic0]

This thread sums up the entire reason I've had some difficulties getting back into ARM. Everyone I've seen seems to want to be goodie goodies and support everyone. Hold communal hand holdings and shit.
I miss feeling like my life is in danger. Now I just fear people hugging me.

And the main reason (from what I and anyone I've spoken to) people do not wanna play the 'bad guy' is because the minute you do -anything-. Every single PC, Templars, etc get together for a man hunt. Everyone suddenly knows what you look like and is chasing you down because you robbed one salt grebber. I can name off the top my head at least a dozen times this has happened. "Oh Amos got robbed. Call the Templars and Milita! Everyone get together and hunt one guy for robbing a poor grebber!" Yes.. because anyone would give a shit about joe poor ass over there.

Honestly why bad guys should just kill people. I'd rather rob them, rp, leave them alive to steal from again.. but then every single PC knows your mdesc, sdesc, name, and nickname within 2 hours.
Not to mention if you try to rp it out. Most people spam flee from you. The minute they see you in the same room.

It's not hard to come up with valid reasons for being a bandit, or killer. Not at all. That are legit roleplaying reasons.

TO NOTE: My comment about the big man hunts. Is not against a few friends going after the bandit but when Templars get involved, and Milita, and every other PC in town. I've seen it happen multiple times.

[Majikal]

During my stint as a militia leader we went on a few manhunts for the 'notorious' bandits, the badass ones that had gained a bit of fame for killing multiple people and promised me a promotion on their capture/death. Whenever it was petty crime, bob the hunter's apartment got robbed, idgaf, amos got robbed for his backpack by some elf, idgaf, someone stabbed an elf.. why are you telling me? Let's celebrate with a drink! I made a point to only go after big fish or those people who effected/upset people that had actual influence. Commoner on commoner crime, hell I sometimes looked the other way when it was happening right in front of me, it surprised a lot pc's when mine did this but hey.. welcome to Zalanthas.

Law turning a blind eye to petty shit should be a bit more commonplace. Or taking a bribe to ignore petty shit, anyway, which was more often the case.

The city-wide manhunts for salt flats raiders and grassland assholes I've definitely seen get out of hand quite quickly. It's resulting in most the raiders I've seen nowadays almost coming off as griefers instead of interesting pc's.

A figure arrives from the west
A figure attacks you

The best intense scenes I've ever had in arm is raiding and being raided, I haven't experienced a descent scene in this regard in two years? Though I intend to be playing the villian for awhile, be the change etc etc.

[Clearsighted]

And the main reason (from what I and anyone I've spoken to) people do not wanna play the 'bad guy' is because the minute you do -anything-. Every single PC, Templars, etc get together for a man hunt. Everyone suddenly knows what you look like and is chasing you down because you robbed one salt grebber. I can name off the top my head at least a dozen times this has happened. "Oh Amos got robbed. Call the Templars and Milita! Everyone get together and hunt one guy for robbing a poor grebber!" Yes.. because anyone would give a shit about joe poor ass over there.

That's why 'bad guys', or antagonists, need a clan of their own. If the Red Fangs were an indie outfit, they would have collapsed in a RL month. There was an incredible amount of hostility towards them and survival was very hit or miss in the wastes. The clan survived and thrived because it had a camp to coalesce around, and when people died, they didn't have to go through some complex initiation ritual or seek special permission. They could just app right back in normally.

Antagonists have a high turnover, and they only work if the staff makes it easier for fresh blood to infuse them, as they did with Fangs, which were as simple as apping into the Soh.

Commoner on commoner crime, hell I sometimes looked the other way when it was happening right in front of me, it surprised a lot pc's when mine did this but hey.. welcome to Zalanthas.

It's great that you did this. Most can't seem to resist the opportunity to jump over any tiny spat, because they've got so little else going on. Having a modicum of restraint is an incredible virtue, when playing a Militia/templar.

[Schrodingers Cat]

If you feel the need to ask... the answer is probably yes.

[bcw81]

Most can't seem to resist the opportunity to jump over any tiny spat, because they've got so little else going on. Having a modicum of restraint is an incredible virtue, when playing a Militia/templar.

However, having too much restraint is bad for the game world. There is a very fine line people have to walk, and the best way of doing that is to make sure that the documentation is upheld. If it's a human v. elf thing? Side with the human, fine them both; the human 20 coins, the necker 50.

[Revenant]

When it's warranted, IC reasons and whatnot, I don't have an issue with it. I don't like doing it, it makes me really sad, so, I try and do my best to avoid it, I really have to be pushed, as I can recognize the amount of effort that goes into concept, character development and skill development, and appreciate it. It's when people go out of their way to find reasons that I take issue. If I get the sense someone is OOCly just LOOKING for an excuse to kill other characters, then I'll investigate further, if, after a good deal more investigation I figure a person's sole OOC focus is to kill people, they go on the "naughty" list. I'll avoid interacting with these players and their characters as much as possible. If pursued unreasonably, then I'll fight back.

Meanwhile, conflict, threats, sabotage, bribes, favors, grudgingly making alliances with enemies and/or undesirables (by any means necessary), sure, love these things, as long as they are kept reasonable. But sometimes boundaries are overstepped, horrendously, and, things happen. If you put murder first, though, it makes betrayal and corruption harder to access. I prefer corruption, myself, then betrayal, then murder as a last resort. Corruption usually works for me, well. It depends on the priorities my PC has and their perception at the time. I, for one, see plenty of murder IG, but murdering decreases the number of characters around to corrupt and betray. Maybe it's not as much murder as it once was, but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.

EDIT: I don't know about anyone else, but my characters constantly feel in danger, like they're walking a fine line, dancing in the fire, sometimes, you slip, but, I enjoy it, and prefer to stretch that experience out as much as possible (provided it's not TOO intense), it's the conclusion that's usually a downer. I suppose, if you want to feel in danger, generate some conflict, make enemies, it's not too difficult to pull it off. as Dman was saying, the trouble comes in expecting someone to bring it to you.

[ibusoe]

I've bumped into the conspicuous dearth of conflict between clans.  Everyone who runs the prominent clans happens to be friends, with few exceptions.  It makes getting things done difficult.  People are too afraid to step on the toes of the people that they're meant to be conspiring against. 

[nauta]

I've bumped into the conspicuous dearth of conflict between clans.  Everyone who runs the prominent clans happens to be friends, with few exceptions.  It makes getting things done difficult.  People are too afraid to step on the toes of the people that they're meant to be conspiring against.  

Publicly, maybe... but I know from experience in at least two clans over the last two years that privately there's a lot of inter-clan hatred, and MCB.

[AdamBlue]

Those who you think are relatively nice boring people to you may be savage, evil people to someone else.
That friendly person may of murdered someone and is totally comfortable not telling anyone.
That other friendly person might be a cannibal on break and is enjoying some scrab meat for a change.
That other friendly person may be a defiler, mindbender, ect.

Friendly = The most dangerous.

[FantasyWriter]

If you feel the need to ask... the answer is probably yes.

IMO, that is what is wrong with you, OP, you asked.
Forgiveness is better than permission.

[ibusoe]

Publicly, maybe... but I know from experience in at least two clans over the last two years that privately there's a lot of inter-clan hatred, and MCB.

I know that you guys mean well, and if you look at my earlier posts on the topic you'll see that I initially agreed with this position.

The thing is, my current character is placed high enough that if substantial conflict were taking place, the symptoms of this at least would be visible to me, even if the principles, the architects, the stakeholders, des agents provacteurs, the stakes, the methods and the attack vectors weren't apparent to me.

As a player I think the problem has existed for most of a decade that conservative role play is rewarded more than risk taking.  I've seen things improve a lot during my tenure, but I think that if risk taking were rewarded a bit more, then we'd see more conflict. 

[ibusoe]

EDIT:  Most of my motive for writing in about this isn't to complain - I'm having fun with the game.  Rather I want to validate for the benefit of the people that are complaining, that they aren't crazy to think so.

[Mordiggian]

Publicly, maybe... but I know from experience in at least two clans over the last two years that privately there's a lot of inter-clan hatred, and MCB.

I know that you guys mean well, and if you look at my earlier posts on the topic you'll see that I initially agreed with this position.

The thing is, my current character is placed high enough that if substantial conflict were taking place, the symptoms of this at least would be visible to me, even if the principles, the architects, the stakeholders, des agents provacteurs, the stakes, the methods and the attack vectors weren't apparent to me.

As a player I think the problem has existed for most of a decade that conservative role play is rewarded more than risk taking.  I've seen things improve a lot during my tenure, but I think that if risk taking were rewarded a bit more, then we'd see more conflict. 

[Clearsighted]

I think there are several clans/houses which are a cockpit of conflict and intrigue which staff, like Mord, can be justifiably proud of provoking. Secret plots, political conspiracies, etc.

I also think that maybe less than 10% of the playerbase is ever meaningfully exposed to or participates in such excitement. I believe, through long personal experience that the game is currently largely devoid of organized 'mundane' conflict which is more easily grasped by the majority. Like territorial conflicts, rival patrols or even, rivalry which wasn't so subtle and restricted as to be largely unknown/irrelevant to the majority.

I think staffers generally feel like a lot is going on as they spend most of their time observing and reacting to the hidden masterminds. But you have to see it from the perspective of Bill Bynner and Tim Tribal, or even Greg Grebber too. They see nothing going on. Maybe they'll die in some RPT, but that's as close as they'll get. Tribal pvp-rp has essentially devolved into taking pot shots at rogue gickers and not angering the Sun Runners, who lacking a credible Gith or Blackwing foil are hugely over represented, power wise.

Staff's two main retorts to this (Well, Mord's) is to either 1) be the change or 2) reminding us of the Allank-Tuluk war.

This misses the point in two key ways:

Firstly, the main concern is about clan-wide dispositions and rivalry which can promote mass organized rp-pvp with legitimate reasons to work against each other. Staff are great at giving pcs and npcs good and interesting reasons to oppose each other, but outside a select few, have done a poor job of setting a stage for interesting conflict for anyone who isn't their clan spymaster.

Secondly, the most obvious example of organized rp-pvp rivalry was recently extinguished by the closure of all the Tuluk clans. Closing Tuluk was a good thing, but the game needs a new more tangible rivalry for the plebs to grasp.

I was mosty done with this thread, but I thought ibuesoe's concerns deserved more than a dismissive eyeroll. Maybe Mord's eyeroll means 'we already know this and machinations are already at work to fill the conflict void and make us whiners regret our asking for it". If so, great! If the eyeroll meant "everything is great right now, you're just not important enough to be aware of it", then I stand by my post. The unimportant people of Zalanthas deserve conflict and rivalry too.

Sometimes I wish staff would get away from their plot fascinations having to be these big epic affairs with mindbenders, magick, templars and dragons. A 'plot' as simple as two tribes competing over the same watering hole, or two merchant houses competing over the same caravan road or for exclusive privileges with some outpost or city would be infinitely more interesting as a change of pace. Either conflict might start small but could rapidly grow to affect many others, such as the Byn deciding whose contract to accept.

[Kismetic]

I sometimes feel like we're not playing the same game.  I'm up to my eyeballs in MCB, and I thought for sure even a little of it would've caught someone's attention.  Maybe Zalanthas needs a News Channel.  "In other news, Joe Commoner was murdered, today, and Jane Merchant hasn't been seen in weeks!  Here's Tom with the weather."

I dunno, I can't contribute meaningfully to this thread, because I don't get it.

[Clearsighted]

I sometimes feel like we're not playing the same game.  I'm up to my eyeballs in MCB, and I thought for sure even a little of it would've caught someone's attention.  Maybe Zalanthas needs a News Channel.  "In other news, Joe Commoner was murdered, today, and Jane Merchant hasn't been seen in weeks!  Here's Tom with the weather."

I dunno, I can't contribute meaningfully to this thread, because I don't get it.

It helps to get away from the MCB meme and actually look at the clans in game and where they have meaningful overlap. A few clans in Nak are doing pretty good, if you're well positioned enough to appreciate the subtleties.

MCB by itself is meaningless to debate. Each of us could go out and murder, corrupt and betray more. I could care less for anyone's personal level of MCB because it is all so relative.

All we can gauge with reasonable accuracy is the main dispositions of the major tribes. We can see for ourselves that rival Tuluk clans are gone. That tribal raiders like dune stalkers, red fangs or benjari are gone. Antagonistic races like mantis, halflings or Gith are gone. It is a good thing that some of these entities are gone, but they were never replaced.

We can factually judge current clan dispositions and assert with a high degree of confidence that for most of them there is either a severe dearth of institutional rivalry or it is so subtle as to be irrelevant to most players. Some existing rivalries should be more unsubtle so more than 2-3 pcs can appreciate it.

Compared to the above, an individual player's personal MCB quotient has no bearing on the game's greater clan level rp-pvp potential. Not even anecdotally.

My own worthless anecdotal experience is that vastly more MCB happens within clans than between them. Excepting RPTs, I would wager most (not all) long term pc deaths are internal affairs. Unfortunately, people get bored, and seeing little incentive for safety in numbers, tend to turn on each other.

I've never known a clan more tight knit than the red fangs, even despite major personality clashes. But that was because every semi-skilled character was valuable to the group's survival.