The Massive Conflict Thread

[Miradus]

Then I'm not really sure why you're disagreeing with me to begin with?

I didn't know I was.

I can see all sides of this. A lot of it just depends on player's in-game experience. Mine have been mostly good, so I lean towards the positive side.

I'll say I have had more demotivating encounters in taverns with non-combat people than I have had with raiders or bandits.

[Delirium]

a OHK peraine laced arrow from three rooms away.

is codedly impossible

[Taven]

So I've been reading, and I think there's a couple things I want to address.

First of all, there's a lot of discussion about being on your own and trying to take on massive organizations. Organizations that are, by in large, considered too large to fail. As an individual or part of a small crew, you are massively outnumbered and out resourced. However, while that may seem extremely discouraging, it is not the end all. If you want to take out a big House, you need to make it worthwhile for others to support you.

My point is that conflict would be better facilitated if large groups have more worth fighting over. In terms of GMH, for example, Salarr and Kurac have no reason to back you to try to take out Kadius, because Kadius has no conflicting wares. The GMH are carefully portioned off to have extremely minimal overlap, because all the mercantile wars were fought and resolved a long time ago. While there is some resource competition in theory, this has also now all been outsourced (Kadius and Salarr have no hunters and have to hire indy groups, and Kurac also has to hire indy groups, but also has an MMH-starting location as well as the Fist).

I understand at a storytelling level that massive conflict is desired. But from an individual character's perspective, all conflict is big. Whether it's an impeding war or a kryl on the road.

I disagree with this statement. From an individual character's perspective, a kryl on the road is usually just an obstacle, or potential death hazard. An impending war is long-scale, multiple-instance conflict that literally defines the goals of cities and those in them. An impending war has potential for large-scale gain and loss, on a PC level and House level. From an individual character perspective, that is very different and vastly larger in scope than a mere kryl on the road.

The TLDR of my and I think Dune's position is that the risk/reward of any conflict with any other player is so out of whack that nobody would rationally engage in that conflict. So in effect we're punishing players who engage in that conflict while having to consider that players who don't engage in that conflict get to keep their characters and will be rewarded with more power for their continued survival.

The rational approach under this system is to engage in as little conflict as possible while gathering power and to meet characters who are willing to start conflict with instant death.

I'm going to come down on Jingo's side on this one. I think that there's few reasons to participate in significant levels of conflict, and a lot of reasons to avoid it. We've talked a lot about the risk of death already, but that is far from the only risk.

Honestly, another huge risk is frustration and disappointment. Let me clarify: I do not mean frustration that you failed to accomplish your conflict related goal of X, because you were masterfully outmaneuvered by the other House or group, and were ICly crushed. I mean that often times you can't even get the conflict to happen at all. You put in a very large amount of time and effort, and you can't get either the player or staff support to even get the conflict sparked and initiated.

Now not all conflict is going to go anywhere. Some is always going to be something you can't pursue or that fizzles out and dies. That's understandable. But I think that right now the ratio is way off. I think that we need to make changes so that conflict is easier to pursue, and we need to do this by changing the way things are set up.

1. We need to have more built-in competition, to gain better House support and reasons for conflict
2. We need to have more gain potential for conflict, to better encourage players to participate with and pursue conflict

[Armaddict]

I'm still just reading this as 'I'm consciously deciding not to get involved in these things and I want someone to come up with something that makes me stop deciding not to do these things.'

Stop deciding not to do those things.  There.

Edit:  STOP IT.  STOP IT OR I WILL BURY YOU ALIVE IN A BOX.

[Taven]

I'm still just reading this as 'I'm consciously deciding not to get involved in these things and I want someone to come up with something that makes me stop deciding not to do these things.'

Stop deciding not to do those things.  There.

Edit:  STOP IT.  STOP IT OR I WILL BURY YOU ALIVE IN A BOX.

Well, you have a PC, with a PC's motivations. They have a lot of different motivations, PCs, depending on who they are. But there's a fair portion of them that want to achieve success and accomplish things, either for themselves, their House, or both.

One option is to improve their own situation by engaging in conflict. But what conflict? Well, conflict means that you are, by nature, conflicting with someone. Usually this means they have something you want or are standing in the way of something you want. If they don't have that, there's no reason to have a conflict. That kills things off before they even get started.

But let's assume they do have something that you want. Next, you have to try to pursue this conflict. It takes a lot of time and effort. Maybe, like a large portion of conflicts, it fizzles out and doesn't get anywhere. Your effort has now been wasted, and you are not further ahead, but rather further behind. Maybe, like some conflicts, you fail. Maybe you're killed off, or maybe you're just out maneuvered. You are significantly set back, in either case (either literally dead or politically hamstrung). In the small portion of conflict that is left, you may succeed. This success can either be total, or is more likely to have earned you enemies (which you will then have to deal with).

The reward better be pretty large for all those risks.

But let's say instead that you are not really interested in conflict at all. You would rather work together with another group. Now, there's still some challenges here too. Sometimes this also won't get enough support to go anywhere and will fizzle out. But in trying to build things with people, benefiting everyone, you're making friends and connections. You're not making so many enemies (although any success can make some enemies), so there's a lot less risk to you. In general, it would seem that you are more likely to be successful.

So saying "STOP IT" is not helpful. If I am to act in an IC way, I must consider my character's goals. I can't simply decide "maybe I should ignore all these drawbacks and pursue conflict, just because". So what I'm saying is LET'S GIVE PCS MORE REASON TO ENGAGE IN CONFLICT!

[Armaddict]

Which the last 8 pages have been sprinkled with people telling you, 'I dunno, I don't have a hard time finding conflict', then you countering with that not being worth it because this and this, and so on and so forth.

Which is why I'm saying...apparently, it's you stopping you, not anyone else.  -I'm- not having a hard time finding people to consider enemies and kill or not kill.  -I'm- not seeing feeling like all of my characters live long, pointless existences.  Because my characters find things to make into their causes.  I think the justification that you're just following the IC desire for safety to be a convenient one for you at this time.

As far as massive conflict?  I've said multiple times that I agree, but that such is a staff endeavor, not a player one.  They have to be okay with taking the reins back and doing big plots, because what we have now is what the playerbase demanded from them before; stop running plots, let us control things.  This is what reduced them to the game equivalent of an approval board.

However.  Stating over and over that there's no things worth you joining over (which is, paraphrased, what you've said a few times now) is saying you're selecting the choice not to, not that there's no opportunity around you.

It's summed up pretty well by your outline that ends in:

The reward better be pretty large for all those risks.

Edit:  Which is to say...oh my god, your plan might not work out?  Oh my god, you might make enemies?!  Oh MY GOD, THINGS MAY NOT GO AS PLANNED?  You're calling these things outrageous risks and using them to justify evasion of having goals because they're not worth it.  This is, again, an illustration of you making the conscious decision not to pursue those things that you acknowledge could be a possibility, not that they don't exist.

[Lizzie]

LET'S GIVE PCS MORE REASON TO ENGAGE IN CONFLICT!

Red Fangs
Tuluk
Sorcerers
Nilazis
Conclave
ALA
Senate Meetings
Psi/Sorcs
Archives
Tor with gemmed "war-mages"
Thralls
The Rebellion
Only "the few" with enough karma having full-on mage guilds, no magick subguilds.
Only "the few" who chose Merchant main-guild being able to mastercraft.

All. Gone.

Make crazy shit happen, make neato stuff rare. That's how you create massive conflict.

[Taven]

Various things

I'm confused what you are trying to say.

You seem to be saying that there's lots of conflict, and how dare I say it's hard to pursue, while simultaneously saying that you agree with me on large-scale conflict. While then also stating that there's nothing we can do about it, because everything is staff. But then you also blame players for wanting to control things and say that's what's ruining it all. And then you bring it back around to it being my fault for not pursuing opportunities that clearly exist.

So... Is there a problem with conflict or not? Because if you're saying that you believe there is a problem, then it would be logical to discuss solutions.

[nauta]

I wonder if it's not so much conflict that's lacking as a narrative.  Two narratives:

1. A grand narrative, or at least an Allanaki-wide narrative, where everyone in Allanak has a rationale or motivation to engage with (and conflict with) someone else (Tuluk, for instance).

2. A clan narrative.  A narrative in which someone in clan A has a rationale or motivation to engage with (and conflict with) someone in clan B.  (With exceptions: the Byn needs no such narrative, for instance.)

These really should come from staff, not players.

[Taven]

[Adjusted by Taven for size while trying to keep content]

Red Fangs, Tuluk, Sorcerers, Nilazis, Conclave, ALA, Senate Meetings, Psi/Sorcs, Archives, Tor with gemmed "war-mages", Thralls, the Rebellion, Full Magick Guilds (no subguilds), Only Merchants MC-Capable

Make crazy shit happen, make neato stuff rare. That's how you create massive conflict.

There's a few things I would pull forwards from your post.

First, that there's a number of things you listed that generated some conflict just by existing. For example, Red Fang stirred up conflict by their nature. Tuluk and Allanak are by nature conflicting with each other. Thralls and Sorcs are also, by their nature, existing in conflict. All of these threats mentioned are external. Instead of all being in the same city, you have opportunities to work with others in your city against an outside force. I think as a general rule, people just enjoy conflict they can work together with others on. Right now, the game has next to no external conflict.

Secondly, you mentioned "make crazy shit happen". I think that's another thing we're lacking right now. Conflict is easier to initiate as a reaction to something happening, particularly a large event that offers a lot of opportunities. This is something that staff can initiate.

So I think both of those points of your post are good.

I'm a little less sold on some of the other pieces. Why is having only Merchant Guilds be MC-capable an added advantage to conflict, for example?

[Taven]

I wonder if it's not so much conflict that's lacking as a narrative.

I'm thinking we need more reasons to engage in conflict. I wouldn't call it "narrative", as some clans already have narrative (the story behind why they should conflict) without having a large enough gain (what they get out of conflicting).

1. A grand narrative, or at least an Allanaki-wide narrative, where everyone in Allanak has a rationale or motivation to engage with (and conflict with) someone else (Tuluk, for instance).

Having a large opponent for Allanak would be beneficial to aiding conflict, yes. However, this is hard to do (as mentioned previously), because Allanak massively dominates in size and power. Additionally, all of the other PC locations rely on Allanak economically (save maybe the Pah and Morin's, but those have indirect economic ties via other close-by organizations). While you certainly can create a large NPC baddie to overcome, and that can provide some excitement, it does not provide long-term PC-on-PC conflict.

2. A clan narrative.  A narrative in which someone in clan A has a rationale or motivation to engage with (and conflict with) someone in clan B.  (With exceptions: the Byn needs no such narrative, for instance.)

Narratively speaking, Borsail and Oash have story reasons to dislike each other. Borsail hates magick, Oash has magick. In theory there's some political gain by messing with the other, because of rising or falling in rankings. However, they have no direct competition in that their scopes are vastly different (slave breeding vs wine making). Changing this to have something they both desire or creating an overlap in what they do would enable more substantial reasons for conflict.

These really should come from staff, not players.

Yes, a lot of this would need staff to alter and change the world to better balance it. It wouldn't have to be all at once; it could be an ongoing shift, a series of events, which then PCs could then react to.

My ideas on the first page of the thread analyze many of the clans, then take a look at how staff could change things to make conflict more appealing, rewarding, and imminent.

[Armaddict]

Various things

I'm confused what you are trying to say.

You seem to be saying that there's lots of conflict, and how dare I say it's hard to pursue, while simultaneously saying that you agree with me on large-scale conflict. While then also stating that there's nothing we can do about it, because everything is staff. But then you also blame players for wanting to control things and say that's what's ruining it all. And then you bring it back around to it being my fault for not pursuing opportunities that clearly exist.

So... Is there a problem with conflict or not? Because if you're saying that you believe there is a problem, then it would be logical to discuss solutions.

Mm, I see what you mean.  To clarify, I'm addressing both the main point and several repeated derails as far as conflict as a whole.

Massive conflict, I agree, but I'm saying that's kind of expected; It's what the playerbase pretty much demanded from the staff a long time ago, was the ability for us to take the reins even if it meant that there was less world-enveloping conflict that was beyond our grasp (this tradeoff was explicitly discussed in it).  If we want the stage of massive conflict to change, due to the nature of the game, we kind of have to lean on staff to do things that we can join in on.  This means we won't be in charge of it.  We have to be okay with that, but I was saying I'm perfectly okay with this coming back under those conditions.  As far as players running huge world-enveloping things, it gets really dicey, due to how players tend to want to achieve massive change for it to feel 'worth it', and massive change doesn't often conform to the long-time standard of the static sandbox.  I'm firmly rooted in the idea that the static sandbox is a good thing, not a bad thing.  If players were able to just build shit just because they wanted to, end houses because they wanted to, and so on, the game would cease to be something steady over time to engage in (i.e. Everything is a shrinking time window, not something everyone gets to experience when they choose).

What I'm also addressing is that some people are also saying that the state of small conflict is healthy enough for the game to continue even if we don't have that change in the massive conflict.  That keeps receiving a chime in that small-scale conflict isn't worth engaging in at all, which has prompted my above responses; when I read it, it comes across as 'if we don't get big achievements soon, this game sucks and all of you who engage in small time conflict are lying about it being good'.  Small scale conflict is still pretty dang healthy in the game, if you're actually willing to play in it.  I'm simply saying that if you're unwilling to engage in the conflict that -is- available (and entertaining), then you're kind of depriving yourself.  The opportunity for things to do is definitely there.

how dare I say it's hard to pursue

I didn't say how dare you.  I made fun of you for acknowledging that it's there, but that you just refuse to engage in it, so there's something wrong.  That's on the small-scale side of things, though, not the point where I agree with you as far as world-sweeping plots.

I believe the game exists fine without the massive world-sweeping plots, but they are not currently present as you said.  They would be cool bonuses to the game to have, again, so long as we realize they can't really all be player-run.

[nauta]

It's what the playerbase pretty much demanded from the staff a long time ago, was the ability for us to take the reins even if it meant that there was less world-enveloping conflict that was beyond our grasp (this tradeoff was explicitly discussed in it).

This was before my time, and it seems kind of strange.  The best times I've had have been being involved in staff-delivered narratives, be it actively as an agent, or passively, soaking in the vibes and excitement of bats in Tuluk or a war with Tuluk or gith in the tablelands. 

And, like Taven pointed out above, the most frustrating times I've had was trying to get my own plots moving, be it via staff or via players.

[Reiloth]

It's what the playerbase pretty much demanded from the staff a long time ago, was the ability for us to take the reins even if it meant that there was less world-enveloping conflict that was beyond our grasp (this tradeoff was explicitly discussed in it).

This was before my time, and it seems kind of strange.  The best times I've had have been being involved in staff-delivered narratives, be it actively as an agent, or passively, soaking in the vibes and excitement of bats in Tuluk or a war with Tuluk or gith in the tablelands. 

And, like Taven pointed out above, the most frustrating times I've had was trying to get my own plots moving, be it via staff or via players.

The other thing to note is while there was a period of time where this was true (Staff wasn't doing railroad plots/their own plots, only encouraging PC to PC conflict/plots), they ended up rolling that back and saying 'Not anymore'. So...We're living in a time 'post' that.

[In Dreams]

There's no way I'm going to read everything written in this thread, but my experience with player conflict on Armageddon, both observed and participating in personally, has been overwhelmingly negative.

Every time that I've seen it's just been hundreds of hours poured into a given PC for it to end with virtually no roleplay or interaction, but just a coded line or two.

Honestly, I know this isn't going to be popular, but I don't want more escalated kinds of player conflict on Armageddon - at least the way things stand now - because no one that I've yet seen has really made a roleplaying effort of it. Player conflict beyond petty rivalry and jealousy hasn't felt interesting to me on this game more than a couple of times, if that. It's more like a contest of who's spent less time roleplaying and more time bumping their skills up.

The only solution most have to conflict - even minor conflict - is one-line-of-text-kill-them-they're-dead. Maybe conflict winds up being a sort of excuse to use the most extreme of coded skills people have spent so much time building up? I don't know. I'm still a newbie on the coded side of things.

I personally want to groan every time one of these "moar conflict!" threads pop up. Conflict's important but my experiences on Armageddon have, to date, completely soured me on it. It changes what's otherwise a beautiful environment, gritty atmosphere and deep characters into who's been crapping away their time with improving their skills the most or trying the hardest to win with the least amount of interaction possible. But OMG!! They might not win if they emote!!!11 and winning is what's most important on our roleplay-intensive fantasy game!!!

Anyway, I know I'm a MUSHer in the wrong environment sometimes, but I'm okay with the amount of conflict here. At least until something's done to ensure it's made more interesting when it happens.

[Lizzie]

[Adjusted by Taven for size while trying to keep content]

Red Fangs, Tuluk, Sorcerers, Nilazis, Conclave, ALA, Senate Meetings, Psi/Sorcs, Archives, Tor with gemmed "war-mages", Thralls, the Rebellion, Full Magick Guilds (no subguilds), Only Merchants MC-Capable

Make crazy shit happen, make neato stuff rare. That's how you create massive conflict.

There's a few things I would pull forwards from your post.

First, that there's a number of things you listed that generated some conflict just by existing. For example, Red Fang stirred up conflict by their nature. Tuluk and Allanak are by nature conflicting with each other. Thralls and Sorcs are also, by their nature, existing in conflict. All of these threats mentioned are external. Instead of all being in the same city, you have opportunities to work with others in your city against an outside force. I think as a general rule, people just enjoy conflict they can work together with others on. Right now, the game has next to no external conflict.

Secondly, you mentioned "make crazy shit happen". I think that's another thing we're lacking right now. Conflict is easier to initiate as a reaction to something happening, particularly a large event that offers a lot of opportunities. This is something that staff can initiate.

So I think both of those points of your post are good.

I'm a little less sold on some of the other pieces. Why is having only Merchant Guilds be MC-capable an added advantage to conflict, for example?

Making "things that were traditionally done by only a small group of people" made for dynamics not available when everyone and their brother wants to - and now can - do it. The ranger no longer has to rely on Salarr for a fancy suit of armor, when he is able to mastercraft his own. Lord Templar Tor doesn't need to find a Merchant OR go to Kadius, when any Byn warrior mercenary can make a unique, special, custom-designed pair of silken underwear.

If everyone can do it, there's really no reason for any of them to fight over customers. But when only three - or four - if only a very few can do it, then you'll see actual competition. "He's MY customer" "No, he's MINE." It is meaningless when the customer can make his own and doesn't need you at all, because he is now self-sufficient and can kill his own critters, skin them with ease, make a suit of armor, and wear it - or sell it to another PC and set up shop as a one-man travelling NPC.

[bardlyone]

Lizzie, roughly 1/6 of the people on at any given time are merchants. That's not rare. That's not something you have to fight over.

What's rare are pick pockets.

[Riev]

Lizzie, roughly 1/6 of the people on at any given time are merchants. That's not rare. That's not something you have to fight over.

What's rare are pick pockets.

Pickpockets, in a conflict thread, are the perfect example of "conflict happened, time to call in the army".

As soon as someone is missing something from their inventory, that they are SURE they had there a minute ago, every enforcer in the game is called. That guy stole my pair of dice, get 'em. The guy that killed my lover? Yeah no idea, he seems kinda cool, we had a drink the other week but MY DICE MAN.

Pickpockets are rare because if you're good, MAYBE someone won't know it was you, but they're pretty sure it was you. Latch/Unlatch made pickpockets my dream, and PROBABY my next PC, but only because I'm a huge fan of the ability to "pay" people in coin pouches without them knowing or seeing you.

[bardlyone]

I don't know that I've ever been pick pocketed in game. And more often than not, I keep my sids in something that's open unless there's a specific reason not to. Including my pack, which is still 90% or more of the time open. It's entirely possible that it's happened and I haven't noticed. But pickpockets, yeah, are super rare. They are less common than any given element of witch. They are that rare. Whereas the 3 most populace guilds in game at any given time are warrior, ranger, and merchant. That's why I don't understand the logic of looking at merchants as rare and something to fight over. Is it shitty for merchants that other pcs can master craft? I don't know, how many different types of things can that other pc mastercraft? And how many types of things can a merchant mastercraft. Exactly.

But you're dead on right about how people get w/regards to pickpockets, Riev. I don't play them for the same reason I don't play elves or warriors (the general shape of the role itself is unappealing to me as someone who doesn't enjoy stealing or pking regarding other players, I don't mind it happening to me, but I don't like to be the one doing it). I would encourage anyone who likes pickpockets though, roll one up sometime.

[Patuk]

Yeah.. Pickpockets are a lot of fun, but even at master steal/hide, crit fails can and will happen. It's surprisingly easy fleeing from the grasp of NPC soldiers, and rooftops are a godsend, but playing a guy who can and will die because of a crit fail in your most important skill someday is something I don't see most people do.

[Riev]

Yeah.. Pickpockets are a lot of fun, but even at master steal/hide, crit fails can and will happen. It's surprisingly easy fleeing from the grasp of NPC soldiers, and rooftops are a godsend, but playing a guy who can and will die because of a crit fail in your most important skill someday is something I don't see most people do.

I once had a PP in Tuluk who was trying to be an Aide to a Jihaen. The Templar asked for him to fetch some spice, so he hid, snuck off to the Spice Store (tm), bought some papers and some product, rolled it up, and then tried to sneak in and plant it on him.

It did not go well.

Hilarity ensued, and I lost a helmet that I'd spent 2000 coins on as 'tribute'. 10/10 would do again.

[Miradus]

I'm thinking we need more reasons to engage in conflict. I wouldn't call it "narrative", as some clans already have narrative (the story behind why they should conflict) without having a large enough gain (what they get out of conflicting).

You're playing a GAME with me. A game.

I want you to have fun as much as I am having fun. If you think that bumping up against a character of mine could result in some fun conflict then let's do it! Heck, I wish we could collude OOC and come up with a good, all-encompassing plot that would result in a couple of RL months of conflict. Instead, I'll just deal with people IC and hope they have the same intention.

If someone just wants to end conflict with pk or wants a killboard of some sort to show their epeen, there are better muds for that, and heck, better games for it. Fireballing someone in the face is immensely gratifying. When I want to do that, I go play MUME.

[nauta]

To get back to the main post, one thought I had -- I agree with a lot of what Taven has to say:

Staff Proaction.  Perhaps the staff of each clan could open a request upon each new leadership change, and periodically throughout, appealing to the players in that clan for ideas on storylines that might be fun to pursue.  Players, of course, can and should be pro-active here too.  I'm sure this is happening now.

I think it's been mentioned before, but my view is that what makes Armageddon great is that it allows for good stories (or plots, or narratives, or conflicts, whichever word you want to use). 

Structural Issues.

It might be worth drawing a distinction between three kinds of storylines (or narratives):

Grand.  The grand narrative that every character out of chargen can hook into.  This used to be Allanak vs. Tuluk or the clawfoot vs. the tribes.  This isn't just 'background', but a living narrative.

Clan. The grand narrative for a given clan that each character (or at least those who aren't intentionally trying to play against the clan) has access to.  This will vary clan-by-clan: some clans have this (Oash vs. Borsail), some don't (Fale), some don't need it (Byn). If you feel this narrative is missing in your clan, then open a request and prod staff with ideas to provide one.

In an ideal world, yes, the structure of the clan documentation would have this narrative built into it -- Oash vs. Borsail for instance.

Personal.  This is the storylines we pursue on the petty level: who is fucking whom, insults, thefts, etc.

I think things are stellar at the personal level here, but I do think that there definitely is no grand narrative, at all, and I doubt anyone would disagree.  Clan narratives will vary from clan to clan.

Anyway, I hope that can help steer the discussion a bit.  I know that some of my disagreements with people in this thread have been about the degree to which personal-level conflict is possible (and happening) in the game: I think it is happening a lot, and if it's not, then that's on the player.  But I would agree with Taven et al. that there is no grand narrative, and at least a couple years ago the clan narrative in Oash was pretty barren.  (Otherwise, I have no experience with clans in Allanak.)

[palomar]

The best extended times I've had playing this game were when major story arcs (with a number of related minor arcs) affected a lot of clans, tribes and individuals at the same time over an extended period of time. It can, but doesn't have to be HRPTs.

There is conflict in the game but sometimes it needs to be spiced up a bit. The game world can feel very stale at times, and staff and players both have their parts in keeping things fun. Many of us have played this game for a long time and some things tend to become repetitive, but we also have a good bunch of creative people playing/staffing so surely that shouldn't be an impossible obstacle to get around.

I miss the depth to magick that you had a shot at reaching if you were (un)lucky or tried real hard. It had drawbacks but also led to a lot of conflict. I'd take just a pinch of semi-high fantasy magick vibes in the hands of players over NPC shows/echoes any day.

Edited to add: Also, I want to be able to feel a sense of direction when I'm playing in or around a clan. The feeling that there's a narrative but also a long-term, possibly rather vague, goal that PCs can actively work towards and also hope to achieve to some if not full extent. Or, if that's lacking, that there's support for the PCs to pursue their long-term goals if it aligns with the clan's mindset. It happens sometimes but probably not often enough, hence threads like this.

[Jingo]

Even when there is fun stuff happening in game. I can't find it appealing at all when when all the win-at-all-costs play comes to the forefront. Even plots that should be fun and exciting start to lose their luster when it's clear one party is just going to kill their way to victory. Or otherwise win the game by pulling dirt moves out the bag of tricks.