Armageddon is Zero Sum

[John]

Just curious, what RL year-ish was Pearl? It sounds like I should be sad I missed this legend.

From what I've heard she began just as Allanak defeated Tuluk and occupied the city, which was before 2002. She died late 2003 from memory.

As for the rumors on Pearl, some of them are true. Many are based on the truth while others are complete fabrications. I only know of one actual resurrection and it occurred shortly before she died. There were any attempts before then. Regardless she is hardly the only character in Arm's history whose power didn't come from coded skills.

Can you survive thanks to coded skills? Yup.
Can you survive without coded skill Set? Yup.
Can you be killed regardless of whether you have coded skills or not? Definitely.

[Bogre]

Definitely not zero sum.

Things I count as wins:

Having your character remembered
Getting into cool shit
Finding out secrets
Finding some neat loot
Being a part of game-historical events, interacting with the characters people remember
Winning a fight (so yes, winning in PVP is a win, but you don't necessarily have to ace another PC)
  ... but so is having your shit beat in a memorable way (does help if you're not ganked)
  ... memorable deaths are wins too
basically - you win the game when you have memorable RP experiences, not just by owning some other noobs.

Skills certainly help you in some situations above, but certainly isn't a prerequisite. Some of the most insane situations I've had in game were with 1-3 days played chars, complete stock-out-of-the-gates. My 1 day warrior lived through the 'Rinth blowing up, where unholy power was the rule of the day and multiple Templars / rinthi badasses bit the dust. Plucky old Blite, though, caved in some heads and hustled it out of there with some awesome stuff.

One of my most successful characters was yes, a merchant. He did start the game as a bastard noble, but he rose to the highest PC commoner position in the Arm of the Dragon. Being a templarate advisor, he never wielded powerful magicks / wrecked people in combat (though, I did stab some people in a pocket plane with his gemmed spear of office!). But he held the Magekiller, he worked against agents of Hadon, demons and Dragonsthralls, recommended a certain recruit Paryl to the Militia, would chat with the Plainsman from time to time, and stood by Samos's side when they made peace with the North. And he had a sweet house and tons of money. On that char, contact/barrier/scan/haggle/pilot/bandage were about the only skills I ever used. For 2 and 1/2 years.

Karma does sort of help because it expands your game-exploration potential. For instance, I have never played an lightning elementalist, so when I eventually do, I'm pretty much going to be enjoying it the whole time and the experience will be a 'win'.

[Delirium]

Everything Bogre said.

(Though admittedly a lot of the things Magister AFKticus enjoyed being a part of wouldn't happen in today's culture.)

I would reiterate that "winning" with or without skills is beside the point. Skills or no skills, it's the role, how well you play it, what you get to experience with it, that's the clincher.

[Lizzie]

Even in PvP or other combat, winning doesn't require that you be the best fighter. It means only that you be better than your opponent. If your opponent is better than you are then sure, he has a better chance at winning the fight. It's not guaranteed, you could get lucky, or you could successfully escape (unless you're in jail but that means you failed before you ever got into the combat situation in the first place, otherwise you wouldn't be in jail).

If you piss off someone who isn't as well skilled as you in combat, then there's a better chance that you'll win the fight. Again - not guaranteed.

But none of this requires that you "keep up" with everyone else. Everyone else is doing their own thing. In fact many of those "everyone elses" aren't even combat-trained PCs at all.

[Riev]

And listen, I skill up HARD, but somehow I still have a decent amount of karma.  If there are people out there who are doing shit to skill up that results in them getting their nuts slammed in a vise, I have no idea what the fuck they're doing, but it must be completely berserk.

Gortoks in the dark IS pretty berserk, but damnit, my clan needed a steady supply of useless hides probably at one point.

I was going to be the best close-combat knife-fighter in the Known. And really, I did it just so I could barehand people and in fact be a subdue-wrestler.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

The game isn't zero sum at all.  It's a completely misapplied concept.  There is no winning Armageddon, only playing.

And listen, I skill up HARD, but somehow I still have a decent amount of karma.  If there are people out there who are doing shit to skill up that results in them getting their nuts slammed in a vise, I have no idea what the fuck they're doing, but it must be completely berserk.

That being said, I don't skill up to "win."  I skill up because I enjoy the process, and I enjoy being useful to other PCs.  I sometimes PK when it's appropriate, but it's been...I don't know...I can't even remember the last time I PK'ed someone.

(Although I have been sorely tempted.)

This. All of it. I work to raise my skills. I sneak when I'm not hiding from anyone in particular. I forget to ">stand" after missing a bash every once in a while. I will backstab an NPC or a jozhal, even. And I've got 8 karma. (Not sure what that Malkren-Delirium karma circle jerk was about...) I'm also fun to be around (usually), I don't run around solo-grinding when there's RP to be had, and I don't use my "ill begotten" skills twinkishly or to ruin other peoples days. I kill like... 1 person per year on average, so I'm not skilling up to zero sum. High horse about your RP all you want, but don't come crying to me when your plots stagnate cause you can't find a single skilled henchmen.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

[Redundant post... nothing to see here...]

[Riev]

When it comes to twinking, I have been remarkably similar to IAmJack and Synthesis. I don't ACTUALLY think I've killed a PC since I played a Tuluki Legionnaire.

I like having skills. I like the feeling of "I should be able to take that" mixed with "but its not worth the risk, I should probably continue my training".

I've seen people who ACTUALLY twink. I've heard of people doing things real damn sketchy but it was "okay because thats just what you have to do". I mean, there's a lot of things people might have to do to "get that damn fail". But that being said? It doesn't make Arm a Zero Sum at all. The benefit is in the play, the social release, the game itself.

[Kryos]

Some great replies here, and I thank all who posted for doing so.  On to the responses I have:

1)  OH GOD THE IRONY.  Pearl's player was the person to show me Armageddon, and talk to me about the superior RP and engagement of the game over its then competitors.  I talked to her OOC about a lot back then, and I can tell you the notion of her getting resurrections en mass and so on, is poppycock.  She was resurrected once, due to being killed by a glitched exploit, just as others (including staff) have stated.  That conversation actually made me roll up a character back then, though it didn't stick.

The idea that favorite sons and daughters of Armageddon having superior resources to you and thus encouraging the notion that more power is required to compete is an interesting one though.  Thank you Nergal for putting this to bat too.

2) Interesting Concepts
I disagree with Synthesis' claim of inappropriate application.  Even in so much as story.  If you take a portion of the player's attention with your story, that's a portion not being given to another's, let alone to win is to live, to lose is to die.  The very theme of the game is about this notion, win or die(andI recognize the abstractness of the concept win here, not limited to direct murder pvp).  I should note I firmly believe this theme is what allows for such strong attachment to experiences, thus emotions and imperfect actors.  If it is not perfectly zero sum, which is reasonable to say, it is at the very least adversarial, and that yet holds a strong format for all the behaviors I wanted to explore.

Bogre/Delirium/Valeria point to something I touched on in the original post:  engagement and attachment through story.  Let me ask you:  do you often get involved in crazy stories and plots when you are perceived as 'useless'?  Or is that a means by which exclusion is conducted, and someone else perceived more useful is included?  Is status as a recognized player capital to expend in the zero sum/adversarial situation?  Not a jab at those who posted, just something I think is worth examining, as my instincts tell me its likely.  

As James suggested, there is a certain, base line of capability that is required by the non player aspects of the game.  If you aren't X good, you can't do Y.  Is this then a baseline motivation for competency that may fuel a sort of cold war mentality described by others, or even proliferate past this baseline?  Due to varied types of player engagement and enjoyment, and some of what I'm chewing on, I think yes.

3) Stuff I'm chewing on
I wonder if the limited options for player plot guidance are a factor in this idea of expending some sort of capital in order to achieve inclusion.  I've brought up (years ago now I think) the idea of the glass ceiling players are put under and how I rail against it.  Openly admitted, because it clashes with my play style is one reason I rattle that particular saber.  But I also believe it hampers the size of the cake that is competed for.  Only so many avenues of plot creation exist, if players can never do what NPCs can.  If Armageddon is player driven, that is a huge shackle, and breeds animosity over what share of story remains.

Also, while the game is zero sum/adversarial, discussion is not.  Some of this is hard to say or type out coherently, but none of it is belligerent in intent.  I have a great deal of fun playing Armageddon, and enjoy doing so with a number of players I don't know on any level other than their PCs.

[WarriorPoet]

My only mentionable Guild character, Rocker, gained a fair amount of pull, power, and notoriety as a hardass killer. Secret? I dont recall ever sparring with him and most of the murders and killings attributed to him were carried out by others. He was no Pearl, but I carved out his niche, had a blast playing, and was codedly never more powerful than your average Byn runner. It is nice to be able to reap souls with a big fucking sword, but it certainly isn't a must.

Also, Staff has never paid me any particular attention, good or bad. I still get my kicks.

[Coat of Arms]

In my opinion, it's okay to be a Jones as long as you play responsibly. The game is already set up in such a way that you can't become godlike with ease. Some people play this game like an RPG where character advancement and coded activities are the main appeal, and as long as they also roleplay and don't grief other players, that should be fine. There are skill timers, and there's risk of dying. Very few people become powerful through "twinking up" in some supposedly illegal way, because either it isn't possible or it's so dangerous that the odds of dying before you reach the goal are so high that it's a waste of your time.

The issue is more that the game sometimes lacks reward for the alternative. You can play one way: going out to hunt every two RL hours, making sure you fight the most agile animals, and using your skills with the sole intent of raising them. You can play another way: joining a clan, training when it's possible, and using your skills when your character has a reason to do so. The former is vastly more effective and rewarding. To some extent, this is probably inevitable. Still, I think the game could do more to lessen the gap.

Right now, if I join a clan and show up during training hours but find that there are no other players around - which, in some clans, will happen more often than not - I just miss out. Too bad. My character advancement is halted for entirely OOC reasons, boring reasons, reasons that I could avoid by not being in that clan. Many players opt not to be in clans for that reason alone, which isn't good for the game.

There's a few things I would really love for Armageddon to do in order to acknowledge and support the game's competitive nature and its "murder, corruption, betrayal" theme. It is in part a game where people are out to get each other, and that's great. That's what defines Armageddon. It's what makes it exciting and interesting, it's what provides something to do even when there's a lull in the plot scene. In other games of its ilk, people spend that time sitting around doing nothing -- or they don't play; what other RPI has more than 20ish players? Don't underestimate how much of Armageddon's appeal comes from the fact that you can play it like an exciting, high-stakes PvP game.

So, I think Armageddon ought to be more open to that. It's not some unwanted nastiness that the game is better off without. It's actually what makes this game popular and has sustained it for such a long time, while literally all other games in the genre have dwindled or died out. I'm not saying abandon the standards that players have been held to all these years, but maybe drop the pretense that caring about your character's power is some kind of awful vice, or cheating. Instead, make it so that those players who do care, and make up enough of the playerbase that you'd all be very sorry if they were gone, aren't at odds with the actual gameplay. Examples:

- Provide a more consistent and reliable source of training in clans. If the schedule says you train today, you should be able to get some form of training no matter what. Sparring dummies do nothing, there need to be actual NPCs to train against when players aren't there.

- Stat randomness needs to be reduced so that your character's potential isn't largely determined by a dice roll at creation. This isn't Dungeons & Dragons. The total amount of stats between one character and another shouldn't be able to vary this much.

- No skill should take RL months to obtain. At least not something as basic as parry. This, and weapon skills above journeyman, takes more than it ought to, which compels people to do what most everyone will tell you that you shouldn't: mindlessly grind for the sake of skillgains.

- Starting skill levels usually are so abysmal that most skills basically cannot be used until at least a couple of days have been put into the character. Skills should not start this low. New skills you branch can start at the bottom of novice, that's fine.

Remember AtonementRPI? A game where skills generally capped around 60-70ish, and you started at 30-40ish? That was friggin' awesome. One's character was actually able to contribute from the start, and it didn't feel like you had months of heavy-duty grinding ahead of you before you could feel accomplished. That carrot was actually within reach, and you started out good enough that you didn't feel forced to obsess about skillgains. It was really nice. And then there's Armageddon, where your skills start at 5 and cap at 90 and it's hard to justify joining the Borsail Wyverns where I'm lucky to get a chance to use those skills five times a week. Instead I'll go live in the grasslands where the weather's nice and I can do what I want and add nothing to the game for the first long while until I'm satisfied that the competitive players, of whom I started out speaking, don't have too easy of a time getting my boots.

[John]

do you often get involved in crazy stories and plots when you are perceived as 'useless'?

My involvement in plots have always been irrespective of my coded skills. When I have been perceived as useful it has had nothing to do with my skills.

And yes, I've been involved in some pretty big stuff, both ancient and relatively recently.

If you aren't X good, you can't do Y.

This is true. However if you aren't good at X, you can still get Y done. It just means involving other players, getting their skill and knowledge brought to the table which increases of them knowing pertinent things which could escalate what doing Y actually means and could result in A, B and C also needing doing which means bringing more players and before you know it doing Y has resulted in a mini-plot that's potentially getting staff involvement. I have done this so it is possible.

[RogueGunslinger]

In my opinion, it's okay to be a Jones as long as you play responsibly. The game is already set up in such a way that you can't become godlike with ease. Some people play this game like an RPG where character advancement and coded activities are the main appeal, and as long as they also roleplay and don't grief other players, that should be fine. There are skill timers, and there's risk of dying. Very few people become powerful through "twinking up" in some supposedly illegal way, because either it isn't possible or it's so dangerous that the odds of dying before you reach the goal are so high that it's a waste of your time.

The issue is more that the game sometimes lacks reward for the alternative. You can play one way: going out to hunt every two RL hours, making sure you fight the most agile animals, and using your skills with the sole intent of raising them. You can play another way: joining a clan, training when it's possible, and using your skills when your character has a reason to do so. The former is vastly more effective and rewarding. To some extent, this is probably inevitable. Still, I think the game could do more to lessen the gap.

Right now, if I join a clan and show up during training hours but find that there are no other players around - which, in some clans, will happen more often than not - I just miss out. Too bad. My character advancement is halted for entirely OOC reasons, boring reasons, reasons that I could avoid by not being in that clan. Many players opt not to be in clans for that reason alone, which isn't good for the game.

There's a few things I would really love for Armageddon to do in order to acknowledge and support the game's competitive nature and its "murder, corruption, betrayal" theme. It is in part a game where people are out to get each other, and that's great. That's what defines Armageddon. It's what makes it exciting and interesting, it's what provides something to do even when there's a lull in the plot scene. In other games of its ilk, people spend that time sitting around doing nothing -- or they don't play; what other RPI has more than 20ish players? Don't underestimate how much of Armageddon's appeal comes from the fact that you can play it like an exciting, high-stakes PvP game.

So, I think Armageddon ought to be more open to that. It's not some unwanted nastiness that the game is better off without. It's actually what makes this game popular and has sustained it for such a long time, while literally all other games in the genre have dwindled or died out. I'm not saying abandon the standards that players have been held to all these years, but maybe drop the pretense that caring about your character's power is some kind of awful vice, or cheating. Instead, make it so that those players who do care, and make up enough of the playerbase that you'd all be very sorry if they were gone, aren't at odds with the actual gameplay. Examples:

- Provide a more consistent and reliable source of training in clans. If the schedule says you train today, you should be able to get some form of training no matter what. Sparring dummies do nothing, there need to be actual NPCs to train against when players aren't there.

- Stat randomness needs to be reduced so that your character's potential isn't largely determined by a dice roll at creation. This isn't Dungeons & Dragons. The total amount of stats between one character and another shouldn't be able to vary this much.

- No skill should take RL months to obtain. At least not something as basic as parry. This, and weapon skills above journeyman, takes more than it ought to, which compels people to do what most everyone will tell you that you shouldn't: mindlessly grind for the sake of skillgains.

- Starting skill levels usually are so abysmal that most skills basically cannot be used until at least a couple of days have been put into the character. Skills should not start this low. New skills you branch can start at the bottom of novice, that's fine.

Remember AtonementRPI? A game where skills generally capped around 60-70ish, and you started at 30-40ish? That was friggin' awesome. One's character was actually able to contribute from the start, and it didn't feel like you had months of heavy-duty grinding ahead of you before you could feel accomplished. That carrot was actually within reach, and you started out good enough that you didn't feel forced to obsess about skillgains. It was really nice. And then there's Armageddon, where your skills start at 5 and cap at 90 and it's hard to justify joining the Borsail Wyverns where I'm lucky to get a chance to use those skills five times a week. Instead I'll go live in the grasslands where the weather's nice and I can do what I want and add nothing to the game for the first long while until I'm satisfied that the competitive players, of whom I started out speaking, don't have too easy of a time getting my boots.

I loved this post. This post is amazing. The only thing I'd disagree on is parry begin hard to advance, and a nuanced disagreement with the idea that skills should start higher. I agree that low level skills are useless and suck, but I'd rather skills be addressed in a way that made them better at low levels instead of just bumping everyone to journeyman+.

Anyway, I agree with everything else wholeheartedly.

[SuchDragonWow]

The only thing zero sum about Arm is the GDB.  Coat of Arms wins and this thread loses.

[evilcabbage]

staaaaaaff

everyone else is abusing stilt lizards.

can i abuse them too?

can i abuse turaals too?



staaaaaaaaff.

everyone else has higher skills than me.

please bump me up to master in everything.




i think the thing that needs to be stated is that, no, not everyone is stabbing npcs at night in the street. in fact, 95% of the playerbase is not doing that.

if you believe they are, you are crazy.


not everyone abused or hunted stilt lizards or turaal either.


a few people say "everyone does this because this is how to get better" and suddenly a giant thread about how armageddon is zero sum pops up out of nowhere.

people whine about their skills not going up fast enough. weapon skills take too long. i don't want to put in an hour a day, or ten minutes a day, to level my skills.
my skills should go up faster.

look i get it, i have played a lot of warriors in my time, a lot of rangers. weapon skills are a huge source of frustration for me too.

i don't make threads about it. i don't whine to staff about it. i don't whine anywhere about it.

you do not see me in other forums complaining that my skills don't go up fast enough, or other people are abusing stuff.

you won't even see me telling people how to raise their skills beyond the obvious "use them where and when it makes sense".

consequently yes, my characters may never master a skill that i believe is important to them.

consequently, i may die to another player because their skills were better than mine.


that's okay. i have lost a lot of characters over the years. that doesn't stop me from playing warriors who inevitably may die, or what have you.

i just play the game, guys. really. the cabbage just plays the game. you should stop making threads and play the game too. it's fun, i swear.

it really is.

[John]

I agree with a number of Coat of Arms' sentiments.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with skilling up responsibly. There is also nothing wrong if you get the most enjoyment from the game in reaching higher skills ranks and achieving coded accomplishments. As an off peak player I routinely (though not always) take a crafting subguild so I have the ability to solo-interact with the game on a coded level, have coded achievements and explore a coded area of the game. With extended subguilds now automated for mundane classes, I will be very tempted to take Merchant+Extended Combat Subguild.

I don't think it's necessary to grind X amount before you can contribute to the game. But nor is there anything wrong with skilling up responsibly either.

[James de Monet]

I guess the crux of it is, for me, I don't have a problem with people who want to see their skill identifiers change, or their skills list get longer.  If that is what keeps them coming back to the game, hey, skill on.  What I absolutely don't want to see, though (and as I mentioned in that other skilling thread), is where we start to cater to that playstyle to such an extent that the people who don't want to play that way (IE me, and others of my ilk - for the record, I have no idea what a skill timer is, or why you need one; no, don't tell me, I don't want to know) are now relegated to playing derp or social only characters forever.  It ISN'T that way now.  Skilling up takes long enough, and the lifestyle that it requires is dangerous enough, that casual or combat-clan-social characters can still make an impact just doing the day-to-day thing.  I think this is critical.

Other than that, I guess my only question for people who do like to grind would be...if it was easier to get weapon skills above jman, do you guys think that you would get bored with high-level/long-lived characters more easily?  If watching those numbers tick is your thing, isn't there a possibility that maxing out at day 10, then playing till day 40, is going to really stop delivering that high you want?  Or does logging in every day and seeing everything at 100% do it for you?  (This isn't intended as a persuasive sentiment, it's is an honest question.)

[Armaddict]

Nice posts.  

- Provide a more consistent and reliable source of training in clans. If the schedule says you train today, you should be able to get some form of training no matter what. Sparring dummies do nothing, there need to be actual NPCs to train against when players aren't there.

I agree.

- Stat randomness needs to be reduced so that your character's potential isn't largely determined by a dice roll at creation. This isn't Dungeons & Dragons. The total amount of stats between one character and another shouldn't be able to vary this much.

I partially agree.  While I do not think the random sway needs to be this large, I do -not- think that the spread between people needs to decreased drastically.  I like that some people are Absolutely Incredible in some areas, and I'm not.  I like when I get exceptionals in my prime stat.  In my experience, stat ordering + the 1 reroll has resulted in some pretty good stats for me, leading to this being kind of a point of trying to equalize where I don't think equalization has much place in a roleplaying game.  It's not about whether it's D&D or not.  Even Mushes generally have a stat ordering that is fairly spread.  I see no reason to level this out.

- No skill should take RL months to obtain. At least not something as basic as parry. This, and weapon skills above journeyman, takes more than it ought to, which compels people to do what most everyone will tell you that you shouldn't: mindlessly grind for the sake of skillgains.

- Starting skill levels usually are so abysmal that most skills basically cannot be used until at least a couple of days have been put into the character. Skills should not start this low. New skills you branch can start at the bottom of novice, that's fine.

Again, I disagree due to the same arguments that have been posted on this topic for the past year or so.  We do not need to bump starting levels, and in the end that accomplishes very little anyway, as has been discussed.  There is a variety of anecdotal discussion on that, but in the end, it comes down to people perceiving it as the grind or the story.  Frankly, the concept of 'But the way we have it -makes- me have to grind' is becoming a broken record that's been torn apart too many times.  Nothing is -making- anyone grind -anything-, as is evidenced by the entire history of the game and so many notable characters within it that did no grinding.  None.  The demand for increasing skills before you play the game in earnest is a personal issue, not a game issue.

While the -months- of grinding can be annoying...I find it less so when I think and acknowledge that my character is fully realized from the moment that it enters the game.  He's out there, surviving, and doing his thing.  Skills go up.  He gets better at surviving and doing his thing.  This is not a slow increase, it's actually quite drastic in that first day of play time...all that time is, is basically 'don't be stupid, be a cut above the average zalanthan like a PC is supposed to be, and you'll end up fine'.  Does getting parry on a ranger or assassin suck?  Yup.  Does it -gimp- them to not have it?  I don't think so...it just emphasizes what they are.

Basically, I only come in to say this because I'm not of the mind that we need some sort of drastic skill overhaul just because there's consensus that some tweaks on how things work are needed.  Some change good.  Coming in and changing the entire nature of the beast bad, particularly when it's actually working very well as far as long lived characters still having personal goals.  You can say that maxing should be fast, and all goals should become social/political/whatever...but I will just move ahead of that now and say that's what you could be doing from the moment you enter the game instead of focusing entirely on skill development.  Long-earned achievements good, particularly where the middle of the scale is where you're already kind of kickass, and all those things that don't perform well in the middle of the scale tend to increase pretty dang fast.

I don't think it's necessary to grind X amount before you can contribute to the game. But nor is there anything wrong with skilling up responsibly either.

I very much agree with this.  Skills and the idea that everyone should max them/fully branch every character is a pretty new and foreign idea to me that seems to have taken prevalence in the last two years or so.  It's weird.

[Erythil]

I have played this game for almost a decade without playing a single combat character, so it is possible to enjoy it without being the strongest fighter.

[valeria]

Bogre/Delirium/Valeria point to something I touched on in the original post:  engagement and attachment through story.  Let me ask you:  do you often get involved in crazy stories and plots when you are perceived as 'useless'?  Or is that a means by which exclusion is conducted, and someone else perceived more useful is included?  Is status as a recognized player capital to expend in the zero sum/adversarial situation?  Not a jab at those who posted, just something I think is worth examining, as my instincts tell me its likely.  

Overall response: No.  What?  No.

Getting involved in crazy stories and plots, yes.  I do this all the time.  If I'm not getting dragged in by other people, I tend to create them.  Being perceived as useless?  No.  Excluded in favor of someone more useful?  No.  I've been excluded for being a recruit and not trusted in an organization, but I think that was less because I was useless, and more because who lets recruits sit in on war planning sessions.

"Is status as a recognized player capital to expend in the zero sum/adversarial situation?"  I don't know what this sentence means.  I don't usually get PKed, but when I do, I'm usually rooting for my character to die while desperately trying to get them out of it.  Because I don't like it when my characters die, but if they do die, I want it to be to a PC or in a big RPT, instead of to NPC #1835 or Hole #23.

I tend to get included in a lot of shit early on with almost all of my characters.  I think that's because they're enjoyable to play around (even when they're complete assholes) more than because they have mad or useful skills.  Plus, if my character isn't in leadership, she's probably constantly pestering leadership with "here I am, what are we doing" or being in areas where PCs congregate because that is how I get involved in plots--being visible to people that are making plots, not being somewhere in the desert trying to solo skill up.  Even my extremely shitty 'sneaky' elf was getting dragged into stuff, despite that she had almost no skills at all.

This isn't a personal anecdote, but it's one I'm very familiar with.  When Zoltan was playing Raul, he was constantly embroiled in wacky adventures.  When he got on staff and another staffer loaded up Dead Raul, they checked the skill levels of Dead Raul, and minds were blown at how horrible Raul's skill levels were.  I didn't play with Raul, but it sounded like he was very enjoyable to play around.  Didn't hurt that he was in a leadership position either.

Anyway, I never feel excluded because I don't have the skills.  Mostly because by playing my characters as people going about their daily lives, they tend to get decently skilled,* but also because by devoting my time to interaction instead, I tend to get more interaction.

*Even though I've never fully branched anything, most of my characters (4 warriors, 3 burglars, 7 rangers, 3 gicks, 1 pick pocket, 4 merchants, 1 templar, 1 assassin) have at least their basically useful skills branched out by 5-8 days played/2-3 months of playing, if they make it that long.  Except my warrior characters, which start playable in everything I want them to do but ride unless I pick a riding subguild, and my noble characters, who aren't going to skill up but that isn't the point anyway.  Then again, what I define as a "basically useful skill" and what you define as a basically useful skill might differ.  I don't think I've ever had a ranger with parry, not even my ranger that was in Winrothol for an RL year, but she had a good story.  Anyway, she didn't die because of PK, I ended up storing her because RL happened.

[Delirium]

Val, it's awesome that you can build such rich stories without underpinning them with (much) skill. I've been there, too.

Not all concepts are like that, though, and not all players are like that. That's OKAY.

My argument is that I don't want people to start demonizing skills, that's just as ridiculous as slaving at their holy altar.

This is a MUD, not a MUSH - skills are central to gameplay, just as roleplay is.

The challenge is to make them coexist better. Trying to teach people not to care about skills is counterproductive at best.

[Bogre]

You can play another way: joining a clan, training when it's possible, and using your skills when your character has a reason to do so. The former is vastly more effective and rewarding.

This is what we're discussing - the former might be more effective at gaining skills, but is it ultimately more rewarding? Only if you bar your metric at 'gaining skills'.

Instead I'll go live in the grasslands where the weather's nice and I can do what I want and add nothing to the game for the first long while until I'm satisfied that the competitive players, of whom I started out speaking, don't have too easy of a time getting my boots.

Again - part of this thread is wondering why some people feel they need to be at a certain level of skill before 'playing'.

I remember Atonement well, and there was a lot of grinding. You had people able to get a very real advantage by grinding out skills. Getting your skills from novice to familiar, yea, not too hard. But to get up to 60-70 in combat skills? Very difficult. My character there was one of the top-skilled (if not the most skilled) characters in the Beta, and reached 80 in a weapon skill (the only person to do so in the Beta), 70 in a combat skill, and was at 50 for defense. It took him over...150 days played. In fact, beyond a certain point (familiar-talented) you had to do some ridiculous stuff to up skills at the end, which was by design and sort of made sense - you had to be in very difficult / dangerous situations to get skills at the top. I mean, my heroic point came about when my character was clawed and literally knocked out bleeding by a really monstrous NPC, and its a close thing he didn't die.

I've never been one to advocate for things to start out on an equal footing. What makes the 40 day warrior badass, if every newbie out of the gate has 50% of his skill from the get go? What makes exceptional stats really exceptional, if everyone is averaging 'very good'? You offer the supposition that a large part of the playerbase is here for a fast-paced PVP game - would you be logging in everyday to go around to the bar and RP if your skills were already pretty much maxxed? No. Would your character be out in the wilderness or in the streets and able to bump into other RP opportunities if you started the game with a complacent level of skill? I don't think so. Things to do certainly keep people logging in and playing, and its part of the game. There's a sense of accomplishment you get from improving your character. The more you increase the starting average, the more you lose that, or worse, transmute it to 'to be awesome, now I've -really- got to grind', because you're in a place where now to gain skills you need to jump through hoops.

I think the changes are really good. By all means, make it a bit more reasonable to gain skills and get to a pretty decent level. I've personally never really had a problem with that (all of my clanned chars generally get pretty good at hitting stuff in the face through time and normal effort), but it sounds good to me that you don't have to really bend over backwards to try and make sparring 'work' for gains.

[RogueGunslinger]

I don't think anyone feels they need to be a certain level before they can play their character. I think People play their character on a scale. Towards the beginning some are more focused on skills, but that doesn't mean they're excluding roleplay to get those skills up. They're just not actively seeking out interactions with others that doesn't involve getting their skills up. As their skills increase they slowly become more and more social, feeling like they can better contribute to whatever is taking place.

[John]

+1 Valeria's post

My argument is that I don't want people to start demonizing skills, that's just as ridiculous as slaving at their holy altar.

This is a MUD, not a MUSH - skills are central to gameplay, just as roleplay is.

Agreed.

Trying to teach people not to care about skills is counterproductive at best.

Agreed IF people care about skills because they enjoy acquiring and using them. If, however, someone doesn't care about skills for their own sake and instead engaging in unenjoyable play so that they can qualify to get involved in the plots and interesting stories, I definitely think there is value in mentioning the grind isn't necessary in order to get involved in plots.

[valeria]

Trying to teach people not to care about skills is counterproductive at best.

I was answering a set of questions, not trying to Preach!