Known History and Player Involvement

[WarriorPoet]

I vaguely recall this being discussed before but I couldn't find the thread, so....

1394 (Year 8 Age 19)
The joint forces of the Clear Waters Oasis tribe and the Ironsword clan attack Allanak's obsidian mine, managing to free the slaves. Thrain Ironsword dies in the battle along with several templars. After the attack the Clear Waters Oasis tribe, joined by a horde of former slaves, lay siege to Allanak. During this time, Tektolnes is mysteriously absent.

Thrain was a PC. I know this because I had the pleasure of playing, later on, with the player.

My question is where on the timeline did the living player-made history begin? Thrain was mid-90's, I think. Where on the timeline did the actual pre-permadeath and RPI version of Arm begin? How many of the events on the timeline before this were player-made or involved?

[Desertman]

I'm interested in this as well.

While we are going back this far in time I have another to tack on.

I SWEAR I read many years ago that the dwarven race as a whole was more or less a race of slaves at one point.

I am having a hard time finding it in the documentation now. I'm starting to wonder if I just imagined that?

Weren't dwarves for the most part a slave race at one point until they were "liberated" by Thrain?

[Delirium]

If I'm going to be totally honest, reading the history page makes me sad.

Things in those days just seemed more... epic in scale. Open to possibility. Player-led AND staff-supported. Thrain. Blackmoon. The rebellion. The conclave. Others.

IMO, they worked largely because they had a defensible base to operate out of. It's impossible to keep players together without one.

These days getting yourself a piddly little tent camp, much less a base, is essentially impossible, unless you're working out of a city and with the Templarate.

While creating a player-led clan is possible, you can only create a merchant house, which doesn't fit all concepts.

Bring back player-created outlaw clans and tribes. Bring back some of that open-world, epic feel.

[Jherlen]

I recall someone telling me a story about how Thrain Ironsword pulled up to them in the desert while driving a wagon, and ordered his inix pulling the wagon to say "Get in." rather than having to go out and say it himself. So while stuff was maybe more epic back then, it sounded like the standards were a bit... less.

[CodeMaster]

I'm interested in this as well.

While we are going back this far in time I have another to tack on.

I SWEAR I read many years ago that the dwarven race as a whole was more or less a race of slaves at one point.

I am having a hard time finding it in the documentation now. I'm starting to wonder if I just imagined that?

Weren't dwarves for the most part a slave race at one point until they were "liberated" by Thrain?

In the language help file it's mentioned:
http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Mirukkim

[Delirium]

I recall someone telling me a story about how Thrain Ironsword pulled up to them in the desert while driving a wagon, and ordered his inix pulling the wagon to say "Get in." rather than having to go out and say it himself. So while stuff was maybe more epic back then, it sounded like the standards were a bit... less.

While that's a cute anecdote, I don't see what that has to do with being willing to fully support player-led initiative.

Much about the game has changed, some for the better, some not.

OT, I'm fairly certain that the playable history begins between these two dates:

1389 (Year 3 Age 19)
The first Defiler in over 1500 years is found and killed outside of Tuluk. Ancient texts resurface which detail much of Defiler magick.

1394 (Year 8 Age 19)
The joint forces of the Clear Waters Oasis tribe and the Ironsword clan attack Allanak's obsidian mine, managing to free the slaves. Thrain Ironsword dies in the battle along with several templars. After the attack the Clear Waters Oasis tribe, joined by a horde of former slaves, lay siege to Allanak. During this time, Tektolnes is mysteriously absent.

[WarriorPoet]

OT, I'm fairly certain that the playable history begins between these two dates:

1389 (Year 3 Age 19)
The first Defiler in over 1500 years is found and killed outside of Tuluk. Ancient texts resurface which detail much of Defiler magick.

1394 (Year 8 Age 19)
The joint forces of the Clear Waters Oasis tribe and the Ironsword clan attack Allanak's obsidian mine, managing to free the slaves. Thrain Ironsword dies in the battle along with several templars. After the attack the Clear Waters Oasis tribe, joined by a horde of former slaves, lay siege to Allanak. During this time, Tektolnes is mysteriously absent.

I was assuming this was the case but I didn't know how much of the timeline actually happened in the 'pre RPI' days.

I started playing after the Academy bombing and before the liberation of Luirs because I believe I remember my first Byn Trooper dying there. Been a long time but I think Sujaal was still a sergeant then.

Anyway, thanks for the answer. The History page is the main reason I started seriously playing here way back when. It was so rich, mysterious and well written I had to get in on it. And now, 15 years later give or take, I can read the updated doc and take immense satisfaction knowing I was involved in a lot of the wackiness contained there.

[Jherlen]

I recall someone telling me a story about how Thrain Ironsword pulled up to them in the desert while driving a wagon, and ordered his inix pulling the wagon to say "Get in." rather than having to go out and say it himself. So while stuff was maybe more epic back then, it sounded like the standards were a bit... less.

While that's a cute anecdote, I don't see what that has to do with being willing to fully support player-led initiative.

To expand a bit, my point was that standards for everything seem a bit higher now than they were in the past. A higher bar to clear means more effort required (both by staff and players) to do something consequential. I imagine it was easier to create and destroy clans when they weren't so tightly woven into the world of Zalanthas as they are today.

So whereas before Thrain could take up his steel sword and declare he was starting an army with the intent to free all the dwarves in Allanak and they were laying seige to the city, and get staff support because the focus of the game was around player conflict with the world as a backdrop, today we would think some dwarf trying to pull the same thing off was insane, and he'd quickly be dealt with by the nearest Blue robe. Today the world isn't just a convenient fantasy backdrop, it's... well, a world, that we want to feel immersive and therefore consistent.

There are pros and cons to both approaches and I'm not saying that player-led initatives shouldn't ever be supported, I'm just maybe trying to un-rose the rose colored glasses a bit.

[Delirium]

You make a good point Jherlen. There was a lot of wacky nonsense, but I posit we've gone too far in the "gritty harsh realism!!!" direction.

I would at least like to see a structure in place for something other than mercantile clans. Getting something off the ground which would impact a substantial portion of the playerbase, both directly and indirectly, feels almost impossible when you struggle to reach that elusive and often arbitrary tipping point of "do I have enough players directly involved in this initiative for staff to agree to do something about it".

It's especially tough when you see staff opening whole (previously closed or virtual) clans, but refusing to support your own player-run efforts.

[Armaddict]

As far as the epic scale of things...

Remember that in those times, those were what RPTs were, what they were defined as.  Staff-led, player-driven changes to the world at large.  At these times, there was a lot of player uproar about how even though players got to be in the forefront of it, they didn't feel like they had any actual control over the events; it was going to happen with or without them, they were just along for the ride.  Their decisions changed how things happened, but not whether they did happen (which was actually untrue as far as I could tell).

Anyway.  What ended up happening was a big discussion over it, which led to a new staff policy (that I'm not sure if it's still around) where players would do the plotting.  Players would arrange the course of things.  Staff would okay things, still, but it was no longer their job to drive the game forward.

I don't think it's so much about 'bases', though they're helpful.  I think it's about not having necessity to do things to survive, as a group.  With staff-run plots going in every clan, with staff members always interested in the progression of their own clans, there was always some 'higher up' crash course set that inevitably led to these sorts of things, whereas players in charge tend to be both lower profile and far more careful.  Tor decided they were reclaiming a fort.  The Arm wanted to expand here.  Kurac wanted their spice running to grow in strength.  These were examples of directives from a staffer where they built it into an event; when a player has the same inclinations, we are told it can or can't be worked on, and we do our own work.  The result is that it's usually smaller in scale, but this is pretty much how the playerbase said they wanted it.

We flip around a lot. (i.e. Buff rangers!  Nerf rangers!)

[Erythil]

Part of the appeal of Dark Sun is being a bunch of renegade good guys who can fight the evil power.

This used to happen on this game but now everything is heavily weighted towards being the evil power. 

I'd play the shit out of some Mal Krian style good guys.

[Jihelu]

It's hard to be good when the ultimate evil is where the entire game takes place.
God damnit tek

[BadSkeelz]

Good guys are boring and usually played in disgusting ways, anyway.

[WarriorPoet]

Good guys are boring and usually played in disgusting ways, anyway.

Good and evil are for heavy metal music and comic books.

[Armaddict]

The point I keep trying to get at is that good guys can still be antagonists to other good guys.  We aren't all bonded together in the fight against the tyranny of desert spiders.  Criminals think they're the good guys, so do soldiers.  Some do, at least.  Kurac thinks they're the good guys, Salarr thinks they are.

Everyone can be antagonists and protagonists at the same time.  Which is more of the Zalanthas that I come from, that I constantly try to allude to with posts on conflict.

While I don't think we'll be seeing things of the previous RPT scale, I -do- think there's some super exciting warring to be done by players, if they just...get willing to do it.

[nauta]

I'd love to see more history discussed inside the game.

Also: protip: searching on the main website does not search the chronology page.

[BadSkeelz]

I'd love to see more history discussed inside the game.

Also: protip: searching on the main website does not search the chronology page.

Look at murals whenever you see one in the room description. There's a few in Allanak that touch on and expand events from the City's history.

While I don't think we'll be seeing things of the previous RPT scale, I -do- think there's some super exciting warring to be done by players, if they just...get willing to do it.

I have a theory that as the player base has aged, we're no longer willing to risk PCs with dozens or hundreds of hours of invested playtime over essentially petty plots. Players of long-lived characters act to protect their investment by squashing plots (and snuffing our shorter-live characters). They also band together to protect themselves, which is why you see clans and alliances full of long-lived PCs. The game's pretty much calcified, but it can be made lively again with just a dozen or so murders.

[Jingo]

Part of the appeal of Dark Sun is being a bunch of renegade good guys who can fight the evil power.

This used to happen on this game but now everything is heavily weighted towards being the evil power.  

I'd play the shit out of some Mal Krian style good guys.

Its the old underdog rebel trope. It's not that the rebels are "Good Guys" it's more along the lines that they're fighting a much more powerful enemy against all odds. Because of the cultural cachet behind it though we like to call these guys the "Good Guys" even when their morality is probably as grey as all the other dudes. (Except when they're brown and fighting us we call them terrorists.)

I would also like to play the shit out of them.

[Armaddict]

I have a theory that as the player base has aged, we're no longer willing to risk PCs with dozens or hundreds of hours of invested playtime over essentially petty plots. Players of long-lived characters act to protect their investment by squashing plots (and snuffing our shorter-live characters). They also band together to protect themselves, which is why you see clans and alliances full of long-lived PCs. The game's pretty much calcified, but it can be made lively again with just a dozen or so murders.

While I disagree with what you've stated to be the motives, I think we're in agreement on the state of the game and the older playerbase.  I've been referring to it as risk aversion and often tie it in with seeing skills (no risks until I know I'm better equipped to deal with them), but you are correct as well.  The gist of it is...I think in the past people were much more willing to sacrifice their character for their cause, which was against <insert group here, clan-based or not>, and in turn, there was a lot more strife for everyone.  It's hard to fight a group that is willing to risk it.  It forces you to risk it as well.

In it's current state, being incredibly patient for the opportune moment is -easy-.  Almost no one does pre-emptive strikes.  Almost no one is forcing hands to make plays more sloppy, just because it has to be done.  I think as the playerbase as aged, as you said, there was a movement away from the often frivolous PK of the former game into the opposite extreme, where warring is viewed as a slight against other players.  We need a happy medium that makes sense for the game world.

As a side note...I think this would also do well to involve people who -are- interested in that element of roleplay.  Some people are happy with where things are, which is fine.  Some people think it's stagnant, because there's not enough conflict; that is also a valid opinion.  A little more of a shift to accomodate those with the latter can be done without completely alienating the former.  I think, anyway.

[Desertman]

I think one of the issues is that there really isn't anything to do with a long-lived arguably powerful character once you reach that point other than "stay alive".

There isn't shit worth risking yourself for because the options to actually go about doing anything meaningful/lasting simply don't exist.

So yes, people do seem opposed to risking their characters more these days, but the solution isn't, "Kill them.".

The solution should be, "Provide them with actual realistic outlets that make risking their character worth the risk.".

There should be a feasible Risk vs Reward system...not a Risk For No Reason system.

[Armaddict]

I think one of the issues is that there really isn't anything to do with a long-lived arguably powerful character once you reach that point other than "stay alive".

There isn't shit worth risking yourself for because the options to actually go about doing anything meaningful/lasting simply don't exist.

So yes, people do seem opposed to risking their characters more these days, but the solution isn't, "Kill them.".

The solution should be, "Provide them with actual realistic outlets that make risking their character worth the risk.".

There should be a feasible Risk vs Reward system...not a Risk For No Reason system.

This is more true for a long-lived independent than a long-lived clannie.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I'd agree with Addict here. Unless something has changed in the past couple of years, someone in an established clan can make some serious history, but it's not easy (nor ought it be). It is a lot easier than doing some on your own (unclanned).

[dravage]

In RPI MUDs like ARM you'll always get the back and forth over time between mostly staff-led events, and a reliance on players to do this themselves (a big reason for this is staff resources or lack thereof). Right now the balance is definitely weighted towards player initiative, but I believe there's always a need for a healthy dose of staff-run RPTs, plotlines, new areas etc, to keep things fresh.

A great way to mobilize folks is to introduce the treasure-hunt mechanic for major plots: essentially place value on a certain place, item, person, and give PCs a reason to go off and track it down and bring it home. Release the info to a few clans, and let them compete for said thing. Ideally, open new (small) areas with challenging creatures or traps that would provide a dangerous element.

Is it fair to say that there's an HRPT once per RL year here on ARM?

[Suhuy]

I think one thing that would help the current predicament is for characters to have something to feel passionate about. Aside from day to day squabbles, they currently don't.

What I mean is, a cause. And for that to happen you need some sort of injustice (or perceived injustice). You can't have that with tarantulas as enemies, or even with gith. Human to human conflict is infinitely more likely to inspire players, in my opinion.

How great would it be if a splinter group of Tulukis fled into exile and tried to amass a following in the wilds somewhere, preparing for the day they launch an assault on what they see as their taken homeland. Or for a noble house in Allanak to be forced into exile, bringing with them their followers loyal to their cause and willing to see their former city-state as the enemy? Where would they go? And what groups outside of Allanak's walls would see them as friends, and what groups would see them as foe?

The best period of Arm for me was during the Rebellion. It was a classic Cowboys and Indians setting, where one group was smaller and oppressed and the other a mighty and powerful empire. I'm not talking good versus evil, simply big and powerful Group A fighting small guerilla Group B. If that existed on some level today, you can bet characters would have something to feel passionate about. It didn't work when it was Tuluk and Allanak because they were on equal footing. That won't create passion.

Some of this can be derived entirely from the players, but most of the really good stuff (that happens on a larger scale, as in the examples above) require staff support. It has to be everyone involved, a joint player-staff endeavor, for something like this to happen.

[Jingo]

It wouldn't go anywhere short of significant staff support. The reigning authority would have it on lockdown in a handful of days and try to kill it if they don't.