Reactions to the Witch Subguilds

[Rathustra]

Thanks Rathustra, I'm glad I was understanding it all correctly but couldn't find the thread where it was being discussed (I was checking on and off yesterday for the announcement from staff but didn't use search, I used page-turns, ooof).

So - my point stands. It is this "characters CAN notice, depending on whether or not it's IC for your character to notice, that there IS something different" that grates on my nerves, because there is no IC explanation for what happened, and yet your character is expected to react to the change, if/when appropriate. Mage characters living in the temple WOULD ABSOLUTELY KNOW that something is different between their character and the NPCs who have lived there all their lives (because those NPCs are full-guild mages). The templars who oversee those temple-based mages would absolutely know. And anyone those templars talk to about this situation would absolutely know. And so would Oash nobles who have grown up amongst mages enough to see that there is a difference between the ones who served the nobles before them, and the ones they're trying to hire now. And so would anyone those nobles talk to about the situation.

And yet - there exists no IC explanation, because the staff has decided there will be no IC explanation.

If people had contacted staff or questioned things IC to even a fraction of the amount they post on the GDB there could have been a developed narrative of the change. Books could have been written about the change - clans interested in magick, magickers and their use could have posited and debated about the nature of the change.

But there wasn't. It wasn't in staff's interest to run these plots for you. The change was there and the ball was in the court of everyone involved to say something about it but a vanishingly small number of people did anything about it. Likely from ennui or dismay or various other compounding factors.

Look at this:

The only logical, practical, and playable solution is to accept that ICly - things ARE different. And RP that way. You can even point to that fallen star for IC "proof" of the fact of the change. The star came from the elemental planes, and ripped the seams of magickality, rendering each element into segments.

This is an excellent example of what people could have run with. It has an excellent narrative to lay over an IG plot (the falling star). It's a great driving force to draw other players into investigations and it provides a trajectory to lay debate and argument over. It is very frustrating to see such a great idea dumped onto the GDB and lamented over for not being pushed by staff. It comes down to having your character's consider the IG world through the lens of their PC and using their understanding of that world to guide their responses. I don't accept the line that this is terrible because we didn't spoon-feed you a resolution or explanation. I'd always rather make things possible and let people develop and contribute to the world themselves.

I freely admit that it's not like we dumped post after post on you all pushing this line of thought. But previous experience in trying to get people involved through hype and staff posts have shown it doesn't pay off. If we'd sparked inquiry or written books and pushed narratives there'd be posts here about how the entire transition was forced and how the IC rationale was unsatisfactory. The method we chose to release these changes was the best balance of making it workable for staff and leaving avenues for players to come to grips with it/embellish it as they saw fit. It worked well and I am happy with the changes.

edit: Changed my wording.

[Akaramu]

And yet - there exists no IC explanation, because the staff has decided there will be no IC explanation.

I'm content with that for now because the minute there's an IC explanation ... guild gicks aren't coming back.

YES! No IC explanation plz 

[nauta]

I have two questions for clarification.  I think this is the right read of the staff post/help files, but I'm still a little confused, and I see a little confusion from others.

1. Are full elementalists (including Nilaz, Drovians) still in existence but merely not open to play -- that is, they are virtual?

2. Have aspect-elementalists (or demi-elemntalists), such as a guile Krathi, always existed but were merely virtual and closed to play before the change?

If I read things right the answer is 'Yes' to the first and 'No' to the second.  Is this correct?

[flurry]

Just wanted to respond to something from a couple pages back, because I think this highlights something that players couldn't respond to, without some additional guidance from staff.

The fact that no new Elkrans or Drovians have come out into the public for the past few years, is something that would be noticed. It'd be noticed by anyone who is observant and some of THEM would tell other people what they've observed.

I don't think this is correct, because it takes a lot more than being merely observant to be aware of who the "public" gemmers are and what their elements are. Furthermore, correct me if I'm wrong, but all we've been told from staff is that those options are closed for new applications. So, without any additional information, it seems to me this is not dissimilar from other options closed to new applications, such as House Tor or any of various tribes. Just because something is unavailable as an option for players does not mean we can use that OOC restriction to make assumptions about the NPC population. That's where staff guidance, in some form, is helpful and/or necessary.

[Raptor_Dan]

Saying one krathi can do something, and another can't feels like this, to me:


"I know he can greb food, and I know he make knives, thus, he can't sew."
or
"You can't poison a weapon? I guess you'll never be able to, then."

I don't think either line should ever be used in armageddon. I haven't read an argument here yet that would convince me otherwise.

In general, players are going to know a lot about what guilds can and can't do, but characters should never make assumptions. And for all you know as a player, you could be interacting with a special app that can do things out of the norm.

Think outside the box more when you represent your PC to the world and things will generally feel a lot more seamless.

I must not have been very clear. I lament when players have their chars make those assumptions.

[Reiloth]

I think what Synthesis said earlier holds true for both Magickers and Mundanes...If we treat PCs/Characters less like swiss-army knives, we'll be more content with whatever skills/methods they have available to them.

The more we try to jam a square peg into a circular hole, the more frustrated we'll get, but that's sort of up to us as players.

[wizturbo]

I like to think the lack of IC reaction to these changes is a form of protest to them.  The PCs that have any business studying magick probably are played by players that hate these changes.  This is my fantasy explanation. 

[Rathustra]

I like to think the lack of IC reaction to these changes is a form of protest to them.  The PCs that have any business studying magick probably are played by players that hate these changes.  This is my fantasy explanation. 

Knowing who such players are and being able to correlate them to this thread let's me know that anyone doing this is just sabotaging their own fun!

[Miradus]

Not real clear what that means, but sounds ominous.

[BadSkeelz]

I like to think the lack of IC reaction to these changes is a form of protest to them.  The PCs that have any business studying magick probably are played by players that hate these changes.  This is my fantasy explanation. 

Knowing who such players are and being able to correlate them to this thread let's me know that anyone doing this is just sabotaging their own fun!

Not to get too far off topic with this, but I think whenever Staff announce an in-game change "for OOC reasons" (Magick subguilds, Tuluk closing, sandwiches disappearing, etc.) the implicit reading is that Staff don't want to see an IC justification presented by players.

[Beethoven]

I think everyone was just kind of confused, Rath. It seemed sort of like staff was saying this was an OOC change and no one should make a big deal out of it IC, and sort of like they were saying you might maaaaybe notice something IC if you were in a position to notice.

I remember thinking I just wasn't sure how to handle it correctly. If there was a potential plot to go along with, it would have been nice to be probed more in that direction, because the announcement itself was confusing IMO and made me (reasonably or unreasonably) afraid to touch the matter.

[Rathustra]

Not real clear what that means, but sounds ominous.

(I'm actually not watching because I'm far too lazy.)

I don't think it's a big secret that people who post in defense of main guilds are probably big fans of that kind of magick arrangement. Knowing who they play, I think if they're guiding their actions using OOC motivations that they're just setting themselves up to have a bad time.

I like to think the lack of IC reaction to these changes is a form of protest to them.  The PCs that have any business studying magick probably are played by players that hate these changes.  This is my fantasy explanation. 

Knowing who such players are and being able to correlate them to this thread let's me know that anyone doing this is just sabotaging their own fun!

Not to get too far off topic with this, but I think whenever Staff announce an in-game change "for OOC reasons" (Magick subguilds, Tuluk closing, sandwiches disappearing, etc.) the implicit reading is that Staff don't want to see an IC justification presented by players.

I think everyone was just kind of confused, Rath. It seemed sort of like staff was saying this was an OOC change and no one should make a big deal out of it IC, and sort of like they were saying you might maaaaybe notice something IC if you were in a position to notice.

I remember thinking I just wasn't sure how to handle it correctly. If there was a potential plot to go along with, it would have been nice to be probed more in that direction, because the announcement itself was confusing IMO and made me (reasonably or unreasonably) afraid to touch the matter.

I filled a post with posts of mine where I tried to clarify this when the change was made and afterwards. After a certain point I'm happy to accept that people aren't going to engage with things and just go with preconceptions or what their gut tells them is the true nature of things. The way the change was rolled out was fine from a staff perspective as if nobody engages with it, it's no effort wasted building and preparing things.

[Feco]

I'd like to make two positive statements about the change:

1) Mages are more unpredictable now (although arguably, extended subguilds did this quite a bit).

2) In my experience, it's easier to be a person first, with varied goals.  With main-guild magickers, having a limited skillset made me more prone to play "mage first."  (although again, extended subguilds also made this easier).

[lostinspace]

I like to think the lack of IC reaction to these changes is a form of protest to them.  The PCs that have any business studying magick probably are played by players that hate these changes.  This is my fantasy explanation. 

Knowing who such players are and being able to correlate them to this thread let's me know that anyone doing this is just sabotaging their own fun!

Not to get too far off topic with this, but I think whenever Staff announce an in-game change "for OOC reasons" (Magick subguilds, Tuluk closing, sandwiches disappearing, etc.) the implicit reading is that Staff don't want to see an IC justification presented by players.

This is how I understood it as well. Don't bring it up IG because nothing has happened IG.

[Beethoven]

I get that you tried to be communicative, but I know I apparently misunderstood and I'm sure I'm not the only one who got confused. We probably should have done more to clarify and push things forward IG, too, but I'm just providing a possible explanation as to why people stayed away from the matter besides "players don't want to do things."

I dislike the changes mostly because of the removal of Nilazi. It feels like everyone and their dog is a hidden mage now, but nobody's truly horrifying or villainous, even the sorcerers. They're mostly just...rangers who fly. :/

[Reiloth]

I think a dialogue requires both parties to be equally a part of the conversation. I think the best tack to have taken with this (IMHO) would be opening the request with the players if they didn't do so themselves, and solicit feedback rather than expecting players to approach Staff with misgivings.

I'm a very opinionated person (as displayed by my weekly podcast). Not all of my opinions are negative, and certainly not meant to be taken as negative. However, providing unsolicited feedback can be tantamount to walking by a Staffer's desk and dropping a manifesto on it and expecting them to give you a reasonably similar response. It can be considered 'offensive' or 'rude' to only get a thank you and a have a nice day. I try to be careful with how often I do this, or check what my expectations are. I find that using the GDB to have healthy discussions about the game, where players and Staff can equally chime in, is the best road for me at the moment. I've found that most of my private feedback with Staff is met with 'Thanks', and little else, while GDB threads and ideas have actually been a greater catalyst over the history of the game to change things, or at least change opinions and highlight potential areas of the game that could be improved.

So -- In consideration of this, players sometimes don't want to approach Staff with a 'Here's how I would do things' sort of request, or dropping off the manifesto, if they don't get an indiction from Staff that they're interested in that.

In Rathustra's defense, it was sort of built into the original announcement that they were open to those kinds of requests. So if they didn't get those sorts of dialogue-engaging requests from Players, how are they suppose to know there's a problem or that players want to engage in that sort of dialogue? Hindsight is obvi 20/20, but I think it would have been reasonable for Staff to assume players of full-mages may not have been happy.

Consider though that -- Some people who weren't playing full-mages at the time, and thus didn't have a holdover full mage to complain about, may not have filed a request, but been equally annoyed that they were incapable of doing so.

There's plenty of reasons that players might hold on to misgivings about these changes and chose not to voice them until much later to Staff. Maybe they wanted to give the subguilds a shot, but didn't have a PC available at the time to do so, until much later, find out they don't like it, and see that it's been almost a year since the announcement, so they don't want to really make a stink about it. It doesn't change that they don't like the change, but it also doesn't change the fact that raising an issue far after the point of contention just seems like...Painfully needless, in some ways.

There also seems to be a focus on "IC Understanding and Plots". I think this is mostly on the Players as well, with some push/impetus from Staff, because if a PC doesn't know anything has changed, how can it be anything but arbitrary for them to notice a difference?

I personally like the changes, and don't have many problems with them. But I can see where Beethoven and others who do have misgivings are coming from. Just providing a little Devil's Advocate to both sides.

[Reiloth]

I get that you tried to be communicative, but I know I apparently misunderstood and I'm sure I'm not the only one who got confused. We probably should have done more to clarify and push things forward IG, too, but I'm just providing a possible explanation as to why people stayed away from the matter besides "players don't want to do things."

I dislike the changes mostly because of the removal of Nilazi. It feels like everyone and their dog is a hidden mage now, but nobody's truly horrifying or villainous, even the sorcerers. They're mostly just...rangers who fly. :/

I can agree with this somewhat. There are still 'Nilazi Elements', they are just Sorcerer elements now I think. Nilazi were some of the most truly vile villains that I can remember Zalanthas having, and it is a shame that they aren't available as subguild options. If anything, I would love for that to change, and have a 'Necromancer' subguild and 'Mage Hunter' subguild, splitting their skills pretty evenly across those spectrums.

[Akaramu]

I don't think it's a big secret that people who post in defense of main guilds are probably big fans of that kind of magick arrangement. Knowing who they play, I think if they're guiding their actions using OOC motivations that they're just setting themselves up to have a bad time.

If I was playing one of the new mage subguilds and having a blast with it, I'd STILL strongly post in defense of full guild mages in addition to the options we have now.  For many reasons that I might one day compile and send to staff. I'm just waiting until I have some actual mage subguild experience so I know what I'm talking about. Feedback based on guesstimates doesn't help anyone.

[wizturbo]

Knowing who such players are and being able to correlate them to this thread let's me know that anyone doing this is just sabotaging their own fun!

Maybe my post didn't come off as I had hoped...  I don't think this is actually what's happened.  It's my fantasy explanation, because I personally don't like these changes and having a bunch of players who agree with me would assist in having them reversed. 

What I think has happened is exactly what other posters are referring to of this being an OOC change, and responding to it would be like responding to House Tor no longer being available to play in.  It exists, it's just a virtual/npc organization.  To ignore the virtual seems like more than embellishment to me, and I try to refrain from that.

ICly speaking, my character hasn't seen anything to make them believe anything has changed besides a single offhand comment by a minion that there aren't a lot of "X" around lately.  If there were IC things to respond to, I would respond to them.  I'm not going around trying to sabotage these changes, even if I wish they hadn't happened and I sincerely doubt anyone else is too.   I don't think anyone who plays this game or reads these boards wants anything but the best for Armageddon, even if we like to post about things on the GDB when we disagree on something.

[Riev]

Its almost like we've all been driving on the Autobahn, enjoying ourselves at whatever speed we liked, but now suddenly someone imposed a hard speed limit on the stretch of road and insisted its "always been that way".

Sure, its safer for other drivers. A greater number of people will probably say its a good idea to have limits, but there will be those people who want things the way they were.

[Reiloth]

I like to think the lack of IC reaction to these changes is a form of protest to them.  The PCs that have any business studying magick probably are played by players that hate these changes.  This is my fantasy explanation. 

Knowing who such players are and being able to correlate them to this thread let's me know that anyone doing this is just sabotaging their own fun!

Not to get too far off topic with this, but I think whenever Staff announce an in-game change "for OOC reasons" (Magick subguilds, Tuluk closing, sandwiches disappearing, etc.) the implicit reading is that Staff don't want to see an IC justification presented by players.

Furthermore, I think this is so Staff doesn't dig themselves into a hole/game direction that they can't later back out of.

I can see the benefits to that, but I also think going full bore with confidence sends a more clear message.

For instance, blowing up Tuluk so it's gone maybe has more of a real impact on the game. Growing Tuluk out of the ashes, if they want to bring back Tuluk later, also seems to have more of a real place in the world. Currently, it's a nebulous Dawn of the Dead Ravenholme zombie place that people may or may not be able to virtually get into. I'd prefer it blown up. It also gives closure and almost more meaning to the players and PCs and histories there. Like ancient Rome, it's history, man. Now it feels like Tuluk stored and was super cool, so maybe they'll be able to unstore some day.

Similarly, with Mage Guilds, i'd like it to just be a nail in the coffin. Main Guild Magickers are gone forever. Mage Subguilds are the way of the future, comrade. I actually -do- think this is what Staff said, but some people are grasping at straws hoping Staff will change their mind and bring back Drovians and Elkrosians and Nilazi and all the full-guild mages "someday".

Not only do I think that's not going to happen, I think it only breeds more misunderstanding and resentment when we hold on to this point of view as a playerbase. The game has changed. Let's maybe think of ways to constructively work with Staff to adjust the subguilds (or add more of them, or tweak their skills), rather than move backwards and try and get main guilds (and thus more high magick) back into the game.

Remember that ArmageddonMUD/Zalanthas as a setting is a "Low Magick Setting". That means that Magick can be a part of a plot, even have a plot surrounding it, but that it isn't the make and break of the game setting. It doesn't move mountains, it doesn't alter planes of existence...Which it totally did, when Main Guild Magickers and Full Sorcerers were a thing.

Things to consider.

[Riev]

I'm getting a very "Trump is President, deal with it" vibe from this.

The game changed. The game has changed numerous times over the years. Some skillsets got reworked, some things got removed or tweaked. But we've had a closure of an entire sphere, a revamp of the entire Playerbase's selection of skillsets in the form of extending Subguilds and Magick subguilds, and a "promise" of a Main Guild revamp as well.


The game has changed. Deal with it. Its just changed a lot in five years without much rhyme, reason, or explanation other than "we said so", and for some people that's not enough.

[BadSkeelz]

I filled a post with posts of mine where I tried to clarify this when the change was made and afterwards. After a certain point I'm happy to accept that people aren't going to engage with things and just go with preconceptions or what their gut tells them is the true nature of things. The way the change was rolled out was fine from a staff perspective as if nobody engages with it, it's no effort wasted building and preparing things.

For what it's worth, I thought the Staff announcement and follow-up discussion regarding these changes and our ability to acknowledge them IC was the best handling of such a situation in my 4ish years of playing. Far better than the Sorcerer subguild changes (which seemed very blunt and heavy-handed, what with the storage any active sorcerers to facilitate the new normal) or the Closure of Tuluk (where the initial announcement made it sound like Staff were simply going to store everyone in the north in a couple of weeks and Tuluk would be closed with no IG justification. That's not what actually happened but it was an impression I found personally difficult to shake).

I'm afraid I can't really remember my reaction to the subguild rollout, other than thinking it was a good move not to store all active Guild mages. I don't think I ever really had the impression that this was something that could be widely reacted to in-game, at least not without being an Oash lord or long-lived Gemmed studying the new whippersnappers. I could venture some cynical theories on why the magick-favoring playerbase didn't respond more actively to the change but I'm trying to be nicer in the new year.

[Rathustra]

I'm getting a very "Trump is President, deal with it" vibe from this.

The game changed. The game has changed numerous times over the years. Some skillsets got reworked, some things got removed or tweaked. But we've had a closure of an entire sphere, a revamp of the entire Playerbase's selection of skillsets in the form of extending Subguilds and Magick subguilds, and a "promise" of a Main Guild revamp as well.


The game has changed. Deal with it. Its just changed a lot in five years without much rhyme, reason, or explanation other than "we said so", and for some people that's not enough.

Don't blame me. I didn't vote for him.

[KankWhisperer]

Full mage guilds won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.