Blackmoon: Stories, Reflections, Comments

[Delirium]

That is a super negative view of the game. I get how you think it's the "realistic view", but I think it's just negative.

[Armaddict]

Hey, thanks for doing that Bushman (coming back to talk to us about it).  Everyone will always remember you for Sujaal, but I will always remember Bushman.  The fear was real.  The respect in the clan was real.

Ya'll need to stop bagging on Synthesis.  He's not saying absolutely terrible, even if it is a kind of sadface way to view actions in the game, but!

The reason that the staff have largely done away with or stopped supporting antagonistic groups like this is that NOBODY REALLY LIKES IT (except the players who are doing it), despite occasional protestations to the contrary.  It generates a ton of OOC butt-hurt, and when players get butt-hurt OOC, they start doing shitty things IC to try to avoid that butt-hurt.  Nobody says, "Wow, that arrow to the neck was SUPER SCARY, this desert wasteland shit is SO REAL."  They say, "Man, fuck this fucking guy...how many stilt lizards did he have to lob stones at to get his archery skill that high? I'll show him...my next PC is gonna be a d-elf ranger and I'm going to intentionally pick a fight with him (once my archery is maxed by turaal-stoning) and get all my clannies in on it."

While I view the last part as worst-case scenario that only happened based on the player, not by the results of the raiding in the game (i.e. BLAME THE SYSTEM, PRISON GUARD, NOT THE PRISONER)...the rest of it is true.  Which is what this thread is about.  All over now, we're talking about needing antagonists, but also not wanting the Butt-hurt.  They kind of go hand in hand.  I've tried to discuss this in a few threads, but I think Synthesis just broke it down right here, without really meaning to.  Antagonists will kill people in this game.  That is not because there's not a viable recourse.  That is not because they're twinky.  That is not for any reason other than that's what an antagonist to your cause in Zalanthas -does-.

Luckily, we have threads like this that remind us that it's needed despite other threads derailing often into people being too eager to kill.  Too eager to kill is based on character, not player, and that makes it conform into the roleplaying game nicely.  Hopefully, Staff will work to support antagonism in some ways (they already are in other ways), because the game needs it.  And the butt-hurt.  Perma-death means nothing if it's viewed as this scary thing to avoid bringing about.  It should be chasing you like a beast in the game that wants to eat you.

[BadSkeelz]

I still think player physical conflict is the lowest form of interaction, and agree with Synthesis to an extent that it's really only fun for whoever gets to be top dog. Some of the Blackmoon exploits, like this,

Notably, LoD ran a very famous Blackmoon leader named Bushman.  He was the first 'lone archer' scenario I ever encountered in the game, and I was both an ally and enemy with different characters.  It was what led me to coming up with an idea of how to react to it suitable.  Bushman routinely hassled large groups until he was notorious enough that he could demand tribute from Byn units outside the gate, and they'd pay it.

Sound annoying as fuck.

[Riev]

We're all twinks at some point or another.

Was the pike-using dwarf named Abuzor (who single-handidly killed one iteration of the Red Fangs) a Blackmoon? I've heard an account of his exploit (no pun intended) and it's worth a chuckle.

I'm pretty sure Abuzer Khadayif (or whatever it was) was far long after the Blackmoon. I also don't think he did much raiding.

Though I'm still new to SOME vets, I do remember on at least one character being told to strip down as they inspected me, and until now I had no idea why.

[Armaddict]

Oh how far we've fallen, when things like 'physical confrontation is bad' makes its way even into GDB threads about raiding clans.

[tortall]

The Group Shakedown

Probably one of the my favorite solo moments was shaking down an entire group of Byn wandering around outside of Allanak.  I saw them moving between Red Storm and Alllanak and decided to saunter up and shake them down.  Knowing that most of them were likely newer players led by a Sergeant, I wanted to give them a good chance to enjoy the scene.  I casually chatted them up and then went into my normal schpiel about the deserts being dangerous and folks needing protection.  I enjoyed the subtle threats that were exchanged between myself and the Sergeant. 

He may have been able to get a lucky subdue on me, and I may have died.  But Runners, man, they're skittish and slow.

On the other hand, I was QUITE sure that I could turn his head into a porcupine and likely poison a few of his compatriots before they got to the safety of a gate on foot in the desert.  The Byn Sergeant did the smart thing and paid me my due, and it helped both the legacy of the raiders as well as the fun of the game, and only cost a few coins.  No deaths.

I was there for that with one of my first PCs! Was a FANTASTIC encounter and still to this day I'm wary traveling around area area 'cause I'm sure Sandman is gonna pop out. :-D

[BadSkeelz]

Oh how far we've fallen, when things like 'physical confrontation is bad' makes its way even into GDB threads about raiding clans.

I never said it was bad, I just said it's the lowest form of interaction. Your example really does LoD a disservice by implying that he just shot at a bunch of Bynners until they paid him. His first-hand account is a much better example of raiding.

There's a big difference between raiding via threat of violence, and raiding by "an arrow flies in from the west and strikes you in the neck."

[Armaddict]

...mine isn't an in-depth elaboration on my scene, it's a description of the effect of the antagonist.  I do him no disservice at all by remembering that he was a scary raider who served as a strong antagonist to entire clans and modified behavior of people so that the wilds was a scary place.

The 'lowest form of interaction' is meant to imply what, exactly, in terms of this thread?  I'm assuming it means 'Don't do this unless you do this, this, and this first', and essentially trying to discourage people from using it, with a blanket context rather than one with qualifiers.  If I'm wrong, perhaps I just misread you.

[Riev]

I think he means it in the way that "blah blah blah is the lowest form of humor" as in "Yeah its funny and it works, but there are better ways to do it".

So, if I read right, he's saying that physically attacking another person gets across the 'interaction' bit of the game, but there are better ways to get interaction than by coded combat.

[Armaddict]

I think he means it in the way that "blah blah blah is the lowest form of humor" as in "Yeah its funny and it works, but there are better ways to do it".

So, if I read right, he's saying that physically attacking another person gets across the 'interaction' bit of the game, but there are better ways to get interaction than by coded combat.

Unless the expressed purpose of the role within the game is startlingly realized best through actual combat.  I'm not afraid of someone who comes up and emotes a lot at me unless they've displayed/endlessly project the willingness to actually follow through.  This is what LoD talked about...there were ways to avoid it.  There was roleplay to be had.  A lot of the time, people just ran away anyway...and a lot of the time, people outright refused to do anything but the physical confrontation.

It's not the lowest form, in the scenario provided.  In this case, actually, I'd argue that avoiding it is more of a disservice to the role than moving things along towards it unless diverted by actions.

[BadSkeelz]

I definitely think encouraging people to solely use their skills to raid  is lousy advice and leads to flat characters, reduced interaction and twinkish gameplay. And that's not just for the raided. Raiders too are probably going to get steamrolled by the Powers that Be. The only people who are going to feel good are the people who successfully ganked last.

As for why Blackmoon was considered a successful source of conflict, I think it has to do with their relative power, where their Conflict took place, and the fact that they had a safe haven.

A lot (or all) of the positive Blackmoon stories seem to involve quasi-equal forces meeting on a level playing field with neither party having an absolute advantage over the other. The lack of certainty and perceived equivalence of power is what ensures players don't immediately resort to '>kill dude'. Mexican standoffs ratcheting up in to melees are good. Being subdued by a sneaking halfgiant and literally shaken down is less so, though potentially amusing. Being ganked immediately is lame.

As for the base, I don't think there's a lot of potential for conflict-exploring interaction where one party has a massive advantage over the other, and a secure location is definitely such an advantage. Coded clans these days all have various compounds where they're reasonably safe, while options for non-clan groups are much more limited. If coded clans had more reason to actually compete, and more neutral ground to do it, maybe we'd see more conflict. I don't think giving every AIM-group-turned-family-role a Mesa Fortress is the solution, but if a serious raiding clan is going to happen again then they're going to need a safe haven somewhere. The conflict can then happen on the sands where the only advantages are those brought by the PCs.

[LoD]

I still think player physical conflict is the lowest form of interaction, and agree with Synthesis to an extent that it's really only fun for whoever gets to be top dog. Some of the Blackmoon exploits, like this,

Notably, LoD ran a very famous Blackmoon leader named Bushman.  He was the first 'lone archer' scenario I ever encountered in the game, and I was both an ally and enemy with different characters.  It was what led me to coming up with an idea of how to react to it suitable.  Bushman routinely hassled large groups until he was notorious enough that he could demand tribute from Byn units outside the gate, and they'd pay it.

Sound annoying as fuck.

Physical violence is a very real part of the game and the permadeath system lends the necessary weight to solicit the right response.  I've never played ANY game that got my blood pumping or adrenaline up as when I thought I was going to lose my character of a RL year to some situation.  I don't want those situations to occur all of the time, and I agree that simply watching code scroll on the screen as someone whacks you with a sword isn't exactly the pinnacle of RP, but they still have a firm place within the game world for us.

And indiscriminate, wanton murder was never what I wanted.  I didn't routinely hunt people for no good reason.  I didn't force violence on to people that didn't either force my hand (by attacking) or first refuse the higher forms of interaction (by spam fleeing).  I simply tossed an obstacle in their way and gave them a choice as to how to solve it.  The sad fact is that most people who died by my hand chose that death over the pair of boots they were wearing.

The world is dangerous and it visits consequences on us when we make poor decisions.  Those decisions may be being in the wrong part of town, angering the wrong person, traveling in the wrong weather, wearing the wrong clothes, saying the wrong thing or, sometimes, just being in the wrong tavern when an angry Templar shows up.  One of the reasons why Armageddon is interesting is because you have one life with your character and, as you grow attached to that character, you take actions to preserve it.  That attachment allows for things like fear and dread and surprise and shock and worry to all be very real emotional reactions to the encounters we face in-game.

And while I almost always tried to give everyone an RP out when interacting, the manifestation of danger in the wilds (or even in the cities) in the form of antagonists is some of the more memorable and interesting game play and reminds us that our characters are vulnerable, fragile and temporary things.  And the threat of loss is part and partial to the entire experience people tend to come back and revisit.

As evidenced here, the "top dogs" are not the only people that benefit from their role, or that enjoy the experience.  Many people enjoyed their experiences or enjoyed the game of survival at that level.  The fact that it's not everyone's cup of tea just goes to show we're all human and here for different reasons.

And it probably was annoying as fuck to some people.  Especially the ones that avoided RP, spam fled and ate arrows in the neck.

And that's OK.

-LoD

[Reiloth]

Right on The moolah, LoD.

[Delirium]

All the stuff

[Armaddict]

The world is dangerous and it visits consequences on us when we make poor decisions.  Those decisions may be being in the wrong part of town, angering the wrong person, traveling in the wrong weather, wearing the wrong clothes, saying the wrong thing or, sometimes, just being in the wrong tavern when an angry Templar shows up.  One of the reasons why Armageddon is interesting is because you have one life with your character and, as you grow attached to that character, you take actions to preserve it.  That attachment allows for things like fear and dread and surprise and shock and worry to all be very real emotional reactions to the encounters we face in-game.

And it should be noted that a lot of the time, the 'downer' side of things is 'I was just doing my job' or 'I can't not do what a templar told me to do!' and so on, moving to where essentially people feel punished for making their decisions because their decisions were sensible ones.  I'm not saying those are unsensible decisions.  But those very real emotional reactions are what often push the betrayals in game.  The murders.  The corruptions.  The fact that your character is looking ahead and realizing their loyalty might get them caught up in a fight they don't think they'll win is a prime motivator for these behaviors.  The leader who you adore but keeps deciding to fuck with that group leads to that unforeseen betrayal that takes them out of command.

The accuracy of the term 'Shit happens' in Arm is one of the most amazing things about it.  In my open and always-candid opinion, of course.

[Feco]

All the stuff

[Synthesis]

I'd like to point out that the Bushman spam fled quite a few times, too, when it was necessary...so calling people out for spam fleeing is...just a touch hypocritical.

[Armaddict]

I'd like to point out that the Bushman spam fled quite a few times, too, when it was necessary...so calling people out for spam fleeing is...just a touch hypocritical.

I don't think it's calling anyone out so much as stating that when you do nothing but run away you push things over into all out pursuit mode, which I'm sure happened in his case as well.  Regardless, this is still be a completely irrelevant point on the actual discussion at hand and be more centered on you deciding you don't like that we like talking about his raider and you don't.

The entire purpose of all this was to talk about a past raiding clan, and a past leader talked about his experiences in it with some of his instances, and some of the things he used to do to -try- and mix things up in one of the widely-admitted harder roles to balance things out in.  I think you're trying a little hard to try and bring the whole thing down for whatever reason.  All that you're coming across as though, at least to me, is someone trying very hard to make any portion of positivity and good advice found in the thread be lost.  Again, for whatever reason.

[BadSkeelz]

LoD, do you still play? If you do, any opinions on raiding and its place in the game today?

[Synthesis]

I'd like to point out that the Bushman spam fled quite a few times, too, when it was necessary...so calling people out for spam fleeing is...just a touch hypocritical.

I don't think it's calling anyone out so much as stating that when you do nothing but run away you push things over into all out pursuit mode, which I'm sure happened in his case as well.  Regardless, this is still be a completely irrelevant point on the actual discussion at hand and be more centered on you deciding you don't like that we like talking about his raider and you don't.

The entire purpose of all this was to talk about a past raiding clan, and a past leader talked about his experiences in it with some of his instances, and some of the things he used to do to -try- and mix things up in one of the widely-admitted harder roles to balance things out in.  I think you're trying a little hard to try and bring the whole thing down for whatever reason.  All that you're coming across as though, at least to me, is someone trying very hard to make any portion of positivity and good advice found in the thread be lost.  Again, for whatever reason.

I comment on points as they're raised.  That's how these threads ALWAYS work.  The fact of the matter is that LoD is implying that everyone should be held to a standard that he himself never stuck to in the first place.  When he knew he was about to get pwned, he ran like a little girl back to the Blackmoon Sekrit Ops Base just like everyone else ran back to the city gates.  I'm not blaming him for doing that.  It's acceptable play.  However, acting like he's a) superior to all that while b) lamenting that everyone -else- does it is disingenuous, at best.

Trying to call me out for doing what literally everyone does (address asides that are only tangentionally related to the primary point of the thread, that is) is...well...motivated by the fact that you just don't like what I'm saying, not that you don't like the way I'm saying it or the context I'm saying it in. 

Back to the point...I already addressed it.  Nobody -really- wants a raiding clan run by PCs.  They might think they want it, but when the chickens come home to roost and they're the ones getting pwned, they're gonna cry about it to anyone who'll listen.  It's the way it's always been.  Nothing, fundamentally, has changed.  Nobody wants to invest 6 months in a PC just to be WTFPWNed by some scrublord who spent 4 weeks grinding archery on stilt lizards, or by folks who spent several years browsing the shadowboards and know enough tricks to powergame the shit out of a 3-way warrior/Rukkian-ranger/protector-assassin/outdoorsman gangbang, not to mention coordinating the assault in-depth on some sort of instant messenger.

But I get it, dude.  You think you'd get a chance to be king of that shit-heap, because you're a good player and you're good with the code, as well.  Hell, I even think you'd do a great job of it.  I believe in you.  HOWEVER--everyone you raid will think you're a fucking piece of shit scumbag twink motherfucker, and cry about it, and generate all sorts of pointless angst about the game and disgruntlement among the rest of the playerbase, all so you can be king of a shit-heap.  I just don't think it's worth it, even if you're the most radical dude who ever planted a flag in shit.

[bcw81]

Calm... Civil... Please people. Opinions are good, they give ideas to everyone. When you go and attack others for their opinions, that's bad.

[Armaddict]

Yeah.  I'm totally trying to run the game with my PC's, man.  You figured it out.   

What I actually called you out on was that you seemed much more intent with your previous two or three posts on discrediting LoD rather than addressing anything about his position or what he was saying.

And I want a raiding clan.  I want to be killed by arrows to the neck.  I want to be paranoid about whether travelers are aggressive or not.  There, your assertion that no one wants it is now moot.

I'll finish with a quote from the Code Guru.

HOW DARE I QUESTION YOUR COMPLETE OBJECTIVENESS AND NEUTRAL LOGICAL PROCESSING.

[Reiloth]

Well done, my apprentice. Well done.

I get what the Code Guru is saying, and though he projects a layer of vehemence in his opinion, I think we quickly praise the Grandaddy RPers of Legend, and disparage the 'common fucked up twink assholes', but really, they are one and the same. They (in this case) are Raiders. The difference between a well-played Raider and a poorly-played Raider is completely subjective. And, more often than not, the 'poorly-played Raider' is reacting to a 'poorly played Raider victim'. That is to say, the people that spam flee away and are caught with an arrow in the neck may become the next Jingo. (Sorry Jingo).

Just as well, people may be doing a spiffy fantastic job RPing actually. But rarely is that stuff seen except by people around them who are buds, and Staff who are watching them. The Assassin that creeps up and nails your ass with a backstab and some poison may have been LoD and doing a fantastic job with hemotes and thinks and all the feels...But you the receiver of doom only saw a mantis head or a lot of quick combat and *beep*.

This is where the "BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT" for your fellow player comes in. If you think someone is being a dinky twinky, put in a player complaint. Staff will look into it, and act on it if they agree that a dinky twinky is amiss.

But harboring all this negativity about our fellow player (from Code Guru to RP Guru) is the root of the problem. I don't think we're going to have more conflict without more trust. Weird as that sounds.

[IntuitiveApathy]

And I want a raiding clan.  I want to be killed by arrows to the neck.  I want to be paranoid about whether travelers are aggressive or not.  There, your assertion that no one wants it is now moot.

[BadSkeelz]

stop whining then about how you can't make a living as a hunter of beasts and become a hunter of players. be the change