Should Extended Mundane Subguilds be Karma-locked?

[BadSkeelz]

Simple question: should the non-magick Extended Subguilds be tied to karma?

That's these subguilds right here,
http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Extended%20Subguilds

I don't think they should be. In my ideal Armageddon, PCs are able to perform wide variety of tasks competently and able to excel at a few of them. The old Guild+Subguild combinations tend to fall short of this ideal. You could do whatever your Guild allows, to what caps it allows, but in most combinations subguilds add only a few abilities at (relatively or objectively) low levels. Extended subguilds, giving more skills at higher caps than normal subguilds, add more variety and roundness to PCs. For others, this complicates guild sniffing, introduces uncertainty and mystery in to another PC's capabilities, creating much more versatile allies and enemies. Some like the tactical rock-paper scissors of Guild balance, but I personally find it jarring and immersion breaking. I'd like to see the lines between Guilds blurred, being more of an emphasis than a license to dominate in a particular field.

The main argument for restricting Extended Subguilds to Karma has been balance. I see Balance as breaking down in to a few categories, each of which need separate addressing:

Balance between "Extended" and "Normal" mundane Subguilds
Currently, yes, a mundane PC with an extended subguild is more capable and versatile than one without. But if all PCs had Extended Subguilds, then there's no longer any balancing that's needed to be worried about on this front.

Balance between Guilds with Extended Subguilds vs other Guilds
It could be argued that a Guild with an Extended Subguild might become "Too good" at their job, or "Too versatile." While I think versatility is only a good thing, I'm skeptical of the "too good" claim. An assassin with Protector could potentially become a better assassin than one without. But they cannot truly usurp the warrior's place of straight-up few-tricks melee face smashing. The differences between the Guilds would become less extreme, but they would not totally vanish.

Magickers with Extended Subguilds
This was the one area of Balance that I definitely thought Extended Subguilds needed restricting: limiting the numbers of Magicker Guilds with Extended Subguilds. But with Magick now being subguild based, it's a moot point. It does, however, lead us to the next point of balance:

Extended Subguilds vs Magick Subguilds
Following the changes, a few of us expressed concerns that mundanes were losing their place in the world compared to magickers, that magick subguilds are just codedly "better." While I think the non-coded Social drawbacks of Magick are an important part of their balance, there's no denying that a Warrior with a Magick subguild will be able to cast more spells than a Warrior with a Mundane subguild, extended or otherwise. But will this actually make them better characters? Our hypotethical Warrior Magicker PC can cast, but he cannot (generally): ride with a weapon in both hands; climb; forage as efficiently as others; find his way through a storm; sneak and steal in the cities; poison; craft items and submit Mastercrafts that may go on to outlive both PCs; exist without being a social pariah. He can just beat stuff up and perhaps cast spells in support of that goal. He may be a better Warrior than non-magick Warriors... but he's still limited. Still specialized, just like all characters. Perhaps even more so.

Extended Mundane subguilds still have a lot of advantages over a Magick one. By making all Extended Subguilds available to all players, we ensure the continued predominance of Mundane PCs in the game world. Those who have not yet been given the karma to play a magicker can still feel like they're contributing by having the option to play better rounded characters, who can excel at as many or more tasks than what a Magicker can do, and contribute items to further enrich the gameworld.

[Beethoven]

I agree with everything you said.

[RogueGunslinger]

I voted other.

I don't think they should be behind Karma, but then the sub-guild system would have to be completely redone again, walking all over the work they just put in.

[Rokal]

I voted other.

I don't think they should be behind Karma, but then the sub-guild system would have to be completely redone again, walking all over the work they just put in.

I'm with RGS here.

[Vwest]

No. They're direct upgrades and improvements on standard subguilds, with a couple of exceptions.

There is no thematic difference between hunter and outdoorsman, nor is there a 'challenge' in maintaining their implied theme with one over the other. They exist in their current form as coded power-ups for players with karma and nothing else -- there is no reason to take thief over rogue, there is no reason to take bard over minstrel.

If you have karma, you play the game from a coded power level significantly above those who don't have an equal amount, without any of the drawbacks or challenges associated with traditionally karma gated roles, like muls, desert elves or magickers.

I'd have replaced the old subguilds with the new ones and used the available slots to create more elaborate and diverse options, rather than creating one more reason for players to resent each other, as well as the staff.

[Case]

I think this is crazy power creep across the board with probably some weird unforeseen consequences, both for magick, and for ext subs.

We don't have enough main guilds. If they got split up more, and hell, if it was like Arm2's planned half guild system, I could get behind that a bunch.

[Centurion]

I voted yes. Reasoning.. they are more powerful, yes..Wether karma is working as it should or not, it gives new players something to strive for. It tries to encourage more players to keep within the rules, as they do their best to impress and be better roleplayers so they can get the perks of a better subguild.

[John]

As a general rule: No.

If, however, there is an exception where the inclusion of guild X with subguild Y will create a character that is vastly superior to all other characters of guild X without subguild Y, then that specific subguild could be justified in having a karma level attached to it. I am doubtful that most of the extended subguilds will fall into that territory. I'm highly skeptical that any crafting extended subguild will fall into that territory. As such I do think there is value in removing the karma barrier from most, if not all, mundane extended subguilds (with the proviso being that any troublesome extended subguilds will be increased as the problems become apparent).

[wizturbo]

I'm a fan of karma gates.  Karma motivates players to behave and focus on role play.  It's one of the very few carrots that staff have to offer players, and I'd rather not have a staff that only carry sticks.

[Vwest]

It also causes people to give up and leave.

[BadSkeelz]

I'm a fan of karma gates.  Karma motivates players to behave and focus on role play.  It's one of the very few carrots that staff have to offer players, and I'd rather not have a staff that only carry sticks.

It also causes people to give up and leave.

The carrot analogy falls flat when the carrot is fundamentally based on subjectivity (what Staff, as individuals and collectively [which changes with the times] think is good play) and luck (happening to play at times and in roles that let you be seen by Staff), despite everyone's best efforts to standardize the sysem.

When it comes to Staff encouraging good play, I would rather have Staff applying the stick in a systemic, fair, impartial manner whose operation is clear to anyone but the most self-absorbed. Have clearly defined rules, have defined punishments, apply them equally without malice. Which I think they do. I also think most players roleplay because we enjoy roleplaying, not because we're after the carrot. So I'm skeptical that the idea of the karma gate, especially on Subguilds that have no justification for existence other than being codedly better than other Subguilds, is necessary here.

There's currently really only two reasons to pick a normal Subguild if you have the Karma for extended ones: you want the Ride skill really badly (only 2 Extended Subguilds have it), or you're playing a karma-restricted race and you don't have enough karma left over to buy an extended subguild.

tldr: Karma gates should exist on Guilds that give powerful bonuses and require fundamentally different, more "difficult" play when it comes to fitting in with the game world - magickers, psions, and certain races.

[Patuk]

I wonder to what degree karma turns Arm into a skinner box. I've spoken to more than a few people who ended playing Arm because they just sorta figured there was nothing left to do after they'd played sorcerors and templars.

[Narf]

I tend to favor temporary benefits for karma over permanent power boosts. This gives a reward to people who are genuinely trying to add to the game world without nearly as much discouragement to new players who will have their characters comparatively gimped compared to even nearly identical versions made by players with karma.

With this in mind I'd prefer the current karma system to be flipped. Instead of giving everyone access to skill bumps, return them to being based on karma. Then revamp the existing subguilds to be equivalent in capabilities to the extended subguilds.

This will change the reward system to give karma-wielding players a temporary reusable benefit on newly created characters, allowing them to come into the game with semi-established characters skillwise. However, every character regardless of karma level will eventually be able to catch up given time and play.

[Armaddict]

Good points.

I voted other, because I'd like to see ESG's removed from character creation and instead added as additional progression to normal subclasses.  Or something like that.

i.e. My assassin/hunter -grows- into an assassin/outdoorsman by some metric or another.

Cuz that'd be neat.

[BadSkeelz]

I think this is crazy power creep across the board with probably some weird unforeseen consequences, both for magick, and for ext subs.

We don't have enough main guilds. If they got split up more, and hell, if it was like Arm2's planned half guild system, I could get behind that a bunch.

Power Creep compared to what? The power Extended Subguilds have over normal ones vanishes the moment the last Normal subguild dies or stores (unless you want Ride; see my point above).

Extended Subguilds combined with our current Guilds do allow for more able PCs, but what exactly is bad about this? I suspect it comes down to you and I having different opinions on where the limits of characters should be. Personally it sets my teeth on edge whenever I hear talk of "splitting up the Guilds"; I can only imagine something like an Offensive Warrior Guild (bash, kick, disarm, weapon skill) and a Defensive Warrior Guild (block, parry, rescue, maybe weapon skill), requiring you take Protector or Aggressor if you want a character anything like our current Warrior guild. Which incidentally means you still can't ride, sneak, climb, or craft in any capacity. Splitting the Guilds up just makes the resultant characters even more limited, which is the biggest failing of the Guild system.

Basically as soon as someone makes a thread saying "Should we split up the guilds?" I will post and say it is a terrible idea.

The only downside for Magicker subguilds I can see at current is that they don't get to be quite the Power Ranger they can be now. It may also make Guild sniffing them easier; the moment your minion can't perform a mundane skill outside of their presume moveset, they're quasi-outed as a magicker. Which, frankly, is not that different from the current state of affairs.

[Lizzie]

I say other: it depends on what they do with the main guilds, and what they do with karma, and what they do with the entire skill progression system.

[Vwest]

I've spoken to more than a few people who ended playing Arm because they just sorta figured there was nothing left to do after they'd played sorcerors and templars.

I think that's a symptom of things remaining frozen in time, forever.

Change here is almost non-existent and when it does happen, it's often influenced so minutely by players as to render us irrelevant. Those precious few allowed to have even a sliver of real influence are essentially the 1% of the Armageddon 1%, so for most of us, even if we're here for a decade or two, we're never relevant, never have an impact and can never, ever leave a mark on the game world.

Karma is likely the only goal most players can ever realistically have here and I think it skews a lot of perceptions.

You can't look back and say, "I'm the one who broke the back of Salarr." or "I raised the army that laid waste to Red Storm." because these things are forever beyond our means, both because of staff prerogative* and because we've written the game into a corner where everything is decided by immortal, untouchable magickal super powers and there is absolutely no way for them to lose power - barring a staff generated deus ex machina.

But then we're back to staff prerogative.

I'm not being critical of the lack of change, here. I believe the lack of overarching change is more about keeping players content, as the risk in sweeping change is it will upset those who have become comfortable with the status quo and cause them to leave - in a genre where the pool of players is a slow dwindle, this kind of thing can be a game killer.

I'm pointing to the lack of change as the major reason we have such a heavy lean towards a 'play for karma' mindset and why some people tend to fade away once they've got what they're after. You've hit karma goal, you play your coveted options and... congratulations, you've won the game! Bye.

If you're playing the game exclusively to win karma, such as running sponsored roles in hopes of winning favor or playing characters who aren't doing or pursuing the things you, as a player, find interesting and enjoyable, then you're doing it wrong in my opinion. It's a losing proposition, but one that entirely too many people seem eager to accept.

That isn't the point of a hobby game. I'm not here for Progress Quest and you shouldn't be, either.

Unfortunately, the value of each point of karma has gone up sharply, as it now directly establishes who has the most coded power in the game. There is no sense of rock paper scissors, more karma = more coded power. Two karma makes your character better than every one karma character in the game in hard coded terms, three and beyond exaggerates this even more.

This coded power comes without challenge or drawback, they are the mushroom to your Mario.

Karma is now much, much, much more likely to become peoples singular focus than it was before because without it?

You're meat for the people who have it, chummer.

[SuchDragonWow]

I don't like this idea if simply for the fact that I liked what was done to revamp the old subguilds.  Should every character get a master subguild?  I don't think so, honestly.  And I know I've been repeating it a lot, lately, but I hope karma becomes a regenerating resource, so you can't just play Extended or Magick subguilds every single character.

[Case]

I think this is crazy power creep across the board with probably some weird unforeseen consequences, both for magick, and for ext subs.

We don't have enough main guilds. If they got split up more, and hell, if it was like Arm2's planned half guild system, I could get behind that a bunch.

Power Creep compared to what? The power Extended Subguilds have over normal ones vanishes the moment the last Normal subguild dies or stores (unless you want Ride; see my point above).

Extended Subguilds combined with our current Guilds do allow for more able PCs, but what exactly is bad about this? I suspect it comes down to you and I having different opinions on where the limits of characters should be. Personally it sets my teeth on edge whenever I hear talk of "splitting up the Guilds"; I can only imagine something like an Offensive Warrior Guild (bash, kick, disarm, weapon skill) and a Defensive Warrior Guild (block, parry, rescue, maybe weapon skill), requiring you take Protector or Aggressor if you want a character anything like our current Warrior guild. Which incidentally means you still can't ride, sneak, climb, or craft in any capacity. Splitting the Guilds up just makes the resultant characters even more limited, which is the biggest failing of the Guild system.

Basically as soon as someone makes a thread saying "Should we split up the guilds?" I will post and say it is a terrible idea.

The only downside for Magicker subguilds I can see at current is that they don't get to be quite the Power Ranger they can be now. It may also make Guild sniffing them easier; the moment your minion can't perform a mundane skill outside of their presume moveset, they're quasi-outed as a magicker. Which, frankly, is not that different from the current state of affairs.

That's not what I had in mind for 'splitting up the guilds' but hopefully I'll remember to post when I'm not working. Remind me later BS?

As for the Ext Subs, I thought they were quite good at 3 per year. The power creep I mean though, is having more of the physical main guilds represented in population, of which three are vastly more popular than others, then allowing for magicks atop them. While it drags down the magick level, it'll probably drag up the fighty fight level. Affects hunting a bunch, and it's not like there's some major repeatable enemy right now and stuff. We'll see.

It's still pretty easy to hide your subguilds if you're clever.

Briefly, what I'd kinda like to see is picking two half mains, and one sub, and that forms your character. A pure warrior is 2x warrior + one sub. A magicker warrior is half warrior + half gicker + one sub. I don't mean cap at half, but cap lesser and differently if you're not a pure form of the main class. That also allows for like, a burglar + warrior kinda dude or other combinations.

I'd also like to see more abilities which are trait based or non skilled, such as when only rangers had direction sense, or forage food, or linguists/bards getting faster acquisition. More of those odd little specialities that can add some flavor. Hell, maybe make one or two choosable depending on the guild, kinda like D&D feats.

That or I'd be interested in some basic talent packages like "ranger" or "warrior", then you pick some additional skills too. Or freeform if skills were divided into categories.

Not sure where else to post something like this, but that's a rough outline of what I'm thinking BS.

[BadSkeelz]

I don't like this idea if simply for the fact that I liked what was done to revamp the old subguilds.  Should every character get a master subguild?  I don't think so, honestly.  And I know I've been repeating it a lot, lately, but I hope karma becomes a regenerating resource, so you can't just play Extended or Magick subguilds every single character.

I would just wait for mine to regenerate between characters, assuming I didn't have re-earn it (which sounds like a logistical nightmare and would just slow down the accumulation rate even more). Much as I did with Spec apps.

Unfortunately, the value of each point of karma has gone up sharply, as it now directly establishes who has the most coded power in the game. There is no sense of rock paper scissors, more karma = more coded power. Two karma makes your character better than every one karma character in the game in hard coded terms, three and beyond exaggerates this even more.

This coded power comes without challenge or drawback, they are the mushroom to your Mario.

Karma is now much, much, much more likely to become peoples singular focus than it was before because without it?

You're meat for the people who have it, chummer.

As someone who killed, by my rough count, approximately 31 points worth of karma on a human warrior/thug over 2 RL years (thanks Crimcode), I wouldn't say things are quite this bleak. Your argument is truer the more you restrict it to Extended Subguilds, however. They're just flat-out Better, existing for no reason but to reward players.

[Norcal]

I went with Other, because I don't think we should put all the mundane extended subguilds in the same basket.

As I wrote in another thread, if as a brand new player with no karma I am encouraged to play a merchant who can mastercraft all kinds of stuff including a sword,  why am I then not trusted to play a ranger who can also mastercraft a sword?

The difference is that the master crafting ranger can both make and use the sword. The ranger in some ways, now has a (slightly IMO) greater ability to shape and impact the game world than a mundane merchant with a normal subguild or a mundane ranger.  However, I don't think the difference in ability is great enough to warrant karma. Other extended subguilds might give greater advantages and each should be evaluated individually.

Another way to look at it is in terms of experience and understanding of the game.  With greater diversity and ability to impact the game world, one would hope that there would be at least a basic understanding about how the game works, and the ability to keep a player alive for a decent amount of time. This implies at least one karma point for longevity.

And all this assumes that karma is about trust.  If it is also about perks for playing well or something, then Extended subguilds make nice perks!

The fact that they were special apps also was probably a reason to put them behind a karma barrier. Limit to some extent the requests staff had to deal with.  

[burble]

Good points.

I voted other, because I'd like to see ESG's removed from character creation and instead added as additional progression to normal subclasses.  Or something like that.

i.e. My assassin/hunter -grows- into an assassin/outdoorsman by some metric or another.

Cuz that'd be neat.

I voted other - something like above. Use longevity as the metric. Character lasts a month (or 3 months or whatever is considered long for karma purposes) then regular subguild turns to extended.
Character doubles that time, all existing skills they have go to master cap.

[Jingo]

My oppinion: This thread has a bunch of text walls.

[BadSkeelz]

My oppinion: This thread has a bunch of text walls.

tl;dr of the "No" camp: karma-locked mundane extended subguilds are codified staff favoritism that provide no benefit to the game at large by being karma-locked. There has been no argument for why they should remain locked other than "power creep" and "Staff have already done a lot with the subugilds, let's not make them redo it again."

I find the power creep argument more compelling, if not convincing.

[wizturbo]

It also causes people to give up and leave.

It actually causes them to play more, be more engaged, and have more fun.    I can't support that with any facts, but neither can you.


Anyway, I think we should give the staff time to roll out the new guilds before we comment on what karma should or should not gate.  For all we know, there's guilds that aren't allowed to be paired with extended subguilds (making normal subguilds critical for those) or they have karma gates as well that make the extended subguild karma reqs feel less disjointed.