Is Armageddon a hack & slash game ?

[theebie]

I always had in my mind that Armageddon isn't a hack&slash game, but from my last post regarding longterm injuries I got lots of other opinions about this, so I want to find out what people really think about this.

[Lizzie]

No, it's an RPI. H&S is a different category of mud. These have actual distinctions and criteria. H&S games have levels, and the goal of the game is to rise in levels. The method of rising in levels is to kill mobs, which you can loot for treasure (typically in gemstones or game coin), thus also gaining money. Roleplaying is not always required, and sometimes not even encouraged. Grouping up is typical for hunting adventures, and hunting is pretty much all there is except when the game staff bring a quest in (or if there are built-in quests or dungeon-crawls). H&S don't typically have permadeath but instead penalties for dying, usually in the form of lost experience, lost skill points, and/or lost equipment. Characters don't have mdescs, and there is no advanced emote code; instead, there are socials (aka verbs) for interaction with other PCs and the rest of the game world.

Two completely different types of gaming. The only things they have in common: they're both text, and more often than not, they both derive from C coding language.

[whitt]

I always had in my mind that Armageddon isn't a hack&slash game, but from my last post regarding longterm injuries I got lots of other opinions about this, so I want to find out what people really think about this.

I think the question might not be so much a mud category based question as it is a "If this is a role play mud, why does everyone focus so much on strength, con, skilling up weapons skills, and hacking things with bone swords" question.  I've asked myself this same question many times. 

I think the answer can be found in player types and styles.  Those who are interested in focusing on social RP, by nature of the fact they can not discuss what's going on with their characters and generally don't need to "go to code" for much of their activity have less to talk about on the GDB.  They're also probably IG playing instead of playing the GDB.  Those who focus on killing things with bone swords are a different sort of player.  they must go to code to get their enjoyment out of the game and derive that enjoyment from beating the code into bloody text-based corpses.  These folks tend to have much more interest in discussing how they did, didn't, should have, or should not have beaten the code into submission.  They probably also have a much higher mortality rate as "If you think this turns out well, you haven't been paying attention" and are also more attuned by nature of their personalities to direct conflict on whichever forum they might have to discuss how they feel about this and that.

tl;dr - the GDB is much more Hack & Slash oriented then the IG play.

[Desertman]

We just like to roleplay reasons for our hacks and our slashes.

It's a hack and slash the same way that a nuclear submarine is a sunken boat.

[MeTekillot]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4

[RogueGunslinger]

I'm not even sure a Mud can be a Hack n Slash. Even still, among muds, Armageddon would likely be one of the least hack 'n slash of them.

[Eilwen]

If only all the questions in life could be so easily resolved.

[Delirium]

Way to negatively generalize, there, Whitt...

I have the ability to use both coded and uncoded situations to support my roleplay, and enjoy exploration and combat, so therefore I must be a terrible roleplayer. Don't be an RP snob. I've long said that one of the best things about this game is that (in general) it supports multiple playstyles.

Maybe you didn't mean it to come off like that. But it certainly did.

[AdamBlue]

I voted yes just because I knew absolutely everyone would vote no.

It is not a hack and slash.

[whitt]

Way to negatively generalize, there, Whitt...

I have the ability to use both coded and uncoded situations to support my roleplay, and enjoy exploration and combat, so therefore I must be a terrible roleplayer. Don't be an RP snob. I've long said that one of the best things about this game is that (in general) it supports multiple playstyles.

Maybe you didn't mean it to come off like that. But it certainly did.

Yikes.  Not what I meant at all. 

In fact, what I meant was that, as you said, the game supports multiple playstyles - hack & slash to almost pure social.  The GDB discussions, I've found, tend to focus more on coded activities, much of which are related to combat and survival situations.  The hack & slash players, by nature, are more likely to express a strong opinion in those threads than in the, say, food changes thread - which they have little use for unless it becomes too easy for them to starve. 

This is not to say that players of combat characters can't or don't RP.  Or that players of social characters are unable to concern themselves with combat RP.

[Desertman]

Way to negatively generalize, there, Whitt...

I have the ability to use both coded and uncoded situations to support my roleplay, and enjoy exploration and combat, so therefore I must be a terrible roleplayer. Don't be an RP snob. I've long said that one of the best things about this game is that (in general) it supports multiple playstyles.

Maybe you didn't mean it to come off like that. But it certainly did.

Yikes.  Not what I meant at all. 

Don't worry. It's all in the eye of the reader. Personally I didn't read that at all.

[555]

As an RP snob, I have to say, gtfo of my game, you hack and slashers.

[Large Hero]

It's a roleplaying game although a small, but not tiny, number of players treats it as a hack and slash. They see it as a contest to be won through code, as a medium for competition instead of collaborative storytelling.

[Molten Heart]

When we say "Hack & Slash" what exactly are we saying? Is the game just about killing things and collecting loot? To me that's what a hack and slash game is.

If the concern is that more focus can be placed on the joys of the on going stories. I think that's a valid concern.

If we're talking about the tone of the GDB, the GDB is a free for all. Remeber to read with a giant grain of salt. Remeber that the posters on the GDB aren't an accurate representation of everyone playing the game

[RogueGunslinger]

It's a roleplaying game although a small, but not tiny, number of players treats it as a hack and slash. They see it as a contest to be won through code, as a medium for competition instead of collaborative storytelling.

You can do both things. They are not mutually exclusive.

[Large Hero]

It's a roleplaying game although a small, but not tiny, number of players treats it as a hack and slash. They see it as a contest to be won through code, as a medium for competition instead of collaborative storytelling.

You can do both things. They are not mutually exclusive.

That goes without saying. No two playstyles are mutually exclusive. You can be an Explorer and Builder, a Roleplayer and a Griefer, etc. It's a matter of emphasis. My statement stands

[Inks]

Actually...Never mind. The majority of play I see is excellent. Keep on keeping on, Armers.

[wizturbo]

Armageddon isn't a hack and slash game.  There are many pieces of evidence to support this:

1)  Combat code is very thin, with little choice or excitement compared to games where combat is supposed to be the thing you spend most of your time doing.
2)  Rewards for combat are small.  NPC's and monsters don't have epic loot most of the time.  Skill gains aren't based on how many things you kill in an hour.  Etc.
3)  The staff and other players look down on people who spend too much time engaged in combat.
4)  The most powerful characters in the world don't even have to engage in combat to be more dangerous than even the "best" combat focused characters.  In fact, if playing a powerful character is a player's aim, the best route to that power is to pursue Karma to unlock these options...not engage in hack & slash behaviors.


With that said, the game doesn't have to be hack and slash for players to have a heavy interest in optimizing their characters to be "winners".  I suppose it's human nature that people would rather play codedly stronger characters than weak ones.  They'd rather be the one winning their mostly roleplay focused sparring sessions than playing the loser.  They'd rather be the knight in shining armor that saves the day during an RPT, than the weakling that has to run away.  I can relate to that, it's fun to play those characters.  It also comes down to a feeling of achievement that comes from all roleplaying games, be they hack & slash or roleplaying focused.  People like to see their characters grow, be it in coded power, prestige, or some other virtual cookies.  The funny part is, "losing" in Armageddon tends to net you more growth than winning...  But winning is what people want to do!  

[Armaddict]

Diablo vs Neverwinter Nights is the equivalent of H&S vs RPI.  (edit:  Arm is far more hardcore of an RPG than NWN, mind you, or DnD.  The lack of levels and such is a big deal.  But the emphasis on combat is the difference I'm going between, where it's strongly present in both)

In neither one is it bad for you want to be play a badass.

They see it as a contest to be won through code, as a medium for competition instead of collaborative storytelling.

I think you're confusing something here, which is that the actual basis of roleplay here is to make stories of harsh competition and people struggling against each other.  Because someone kills you does not mean that they reduced it to a contest, it means that their character had a goal that you somehow or someway stood in the way of or were part of.  Those people who live this lifestyle take part in risks more often that there are determining factors of your characters success, but a large constant through many scenarios is having a character who is sufficiently prepared to meet such challenges...i.e. Skills. As a matter of fact, you might be complaining about someone like me...where -I- complain about how trusting the playerbase has become of each other, how quickly people band together to go out and hunt together with very little prior knowledge of each other, and etc.  We have hardcore softies, we have hardcore gritters, and we have the entire spectrum between, which is pretty much a healthy place to be, I think.

[Desertman]

I like winning, and I like telling a story.

My goal? To make sure it is my story that gets told how I want it to be told while crushing those who stand before me!!!

[Armaddict]

I like winning, and I like telling a story.

My goal? To make sure it is my story that gets told how I want it to be told while crushing those who stand before me!!!

[Desertman]

I like winning, and I like telling a story.

My goal? To make sure it is my story that gets told how I want it to be told while crushing those who stand before me!!!

[Large Hero]

Diablo vs Neverwinter Nights is the equivalent of H&S vs RPI.

In neither one is it bad for you want to be play a badass.

They see it as a contest to be won through code, as a medium for competition instead of collaborative storytelling.

I think you're confusing something here, which is that the actual basis of roleplay here is to make stories of harsh competition and people struggling against each other.  Because someone kills you does not mean that they reduced it to a contest, it means that their character had a goal that you somehow or someway stood in the way of or were part of.  Those people who live this lifestyle take part in risks more often that there are determining factors of your characters success, but a large constant through many scenarios is having a character who is sufficiently prepared to meet such challenges...i.e. Skills. As a matter of fact, you might be complaining about someone like me...where -I- complain about how trusting the playerbase has become of each other, how quickly people band together to go out and hunt together with very little prior knowledge of each other, and etc.  We have hardcore softies, we have hardcore gritters, and we have the entire spectrum between, which is pretty much a healthy place to be, I think.

No, I'm not confused. I'm not talking about someone being competitive, cruel or selfish in-character. That's better than okay; as you say, it's appropriate for the setting. Even if a character is competitive, the player's goal should still be to cooperate toward a better storytelling experience.

"Hack and slash" is an OOC construct. I'm referring to players who treat the game as an OOC competition. They kill PCs to get another notch on their OOC belts. They twink up their characters to derive some OOC enjoyment from it. It isn't very difficult to find evidence of these players.

I think these players are strange. If they want an OOC competition and challenge from other players, they should go play a game that has actual pvp like Counterstrike or Dota, instead of a decades-old mud with a paper-thin combat system. Getting a thrill out of killing or dominating another player (note player, not character) in Armageddon is kind of like thinking you're a badass because you beat someone at tic-tac-toe.

[RogueGunslinger]

It's a roleplaying game although a small, but not tiny, number of players treats it as a hack and slash. They see it as a contest to be won through code, as a medium for competition instead of collaborative storytelling.

You can do both things. They are not mutually exclusive.

That goes without saying. No two playstyles are mutually exclusive. You can be an Explorer and Builder, a Roleplayer and a Griefer, etc. It's a matter of emphasis. My statement stands

Sorry, didn't mean to phrase it like I disagreed.

[Large Hero]

It's a roleplaying game although a small, but not tiny, number of players treats it as a hack and slash. They see it as a contest to be won through code, as a medium for competition instead of collaborative storytelling.

You can do both things. They are not mutually exclusive.

That goes without saying. No two playstyles are mutually exclusive. You can be an Explorer and Builder, a Roleplayer and a Griefer, etc. It's a matter of emphasis. My statement stands

Sorry, didn't mean to phrase it like I disagreed.

I guess I did read it that way, which is more to do with me than with your phrasing. Thanks for being cool about it.