Reactions to the Witch Subguilds

[Akaramu]

No one asked for a gemmed sparring academy, I was only pointing out that mundane skills were added to characters who don't have access to most (and the most popular / effective) mundane skilling options, aka clans. It's not just about combat, either - gemmed merchants face difficulties of their own without access to certain clans and mundane contacts.

ALSO because of these difficulties it makes much more sense to play a rogue mage now. Less gemmed PCs means less chance for a parallel society where gemmed can thrive, trade, and train their skills together. I've no idea if there's less meaningful gemmed interaction than there used to be, though. Staff would have a better idea about this. Are templars and Oashis having trouble finding reliably active gemmed to work with? I don't know.

Please don't assume that what is more fun for you is more fun for EVERYONE. Diverse options = more fun for everyone, not just players who enjoy rangers. Full elementalists, Whirans in particular, were great for offpeakers as well. Which was why I loved them - I didn't have to engage in the hack & slash game or find friends who played the same times I did (and stayed alive for more than a week, which is the bigger issue) in order to do anything.

Anyway, I'm raising these points for staff, not Synthesis, so I'm done with the thread until I have new feedback / thoughts on the matter.

[Riev]

While I have no base on it, I do wonder if the "everyone hates magick" has been lessened a bit, now that magick comes on the backs of something a bit more... solid... so far as mundane main-guilds.

I mean. The docs have mentioned for years now that "a vivaduan is a good travelling companion" but also "anyone seen in the PRESENCE of a witch is considered foul". Its difficult to resolve that dissonance as it is, so I suppose I'm just hoping that people see it more of a "Its too bad that guy is cursed by Ruk, because he makes -real- good armor"...

[wizturbo]

Here's what rubs me wrong about the arguments Synthesis and some others are making on this subject:

I do not accept the premise that a player should need to work to gain coded strength in Armageddon. 

I don't see any problem with a "30 day" magick wielding character being able to threaten a "60 day" warrior.  In fact, people referring to their characters as "X day" infuriates me.  It's a stupid metric that hack & slash players love to refer to, but is utterly meaningless for actual roleplayers.  All I see is a seasoned magick wielding character threatening a seasoned mundane character which makes perfect sense to me.   I don't believe that one player spending 720 hours of play is entitled to be stronger than the player who "only" spent 360 hours. 

I don't care if someone loses their "60 day" ranger to a character that had less hours played.  I love that happens and is possible.  Its realistic.   I wish it happened more often, whether the gal on the other side is a magicker or a mundane. 

[Lutagar]

This is a hypothetical flight of fancy really. But what would you guys think if it was possible to play a full elementalist, but they would ONLY be possible to start off as a gemmed. Hedge wizards on the periphery versus an entire school/doctrine/temple/breeding program of elementalism within the city.  They would require to have grown up within the Temple and so on.

If this is made a thing, then rogue mages should also be capped at HG tier wisdom for not being able to figure out how to recite five words whilst moving their hands.

[wizturbo]

Are templars and Oashis having trouble finding reliably active gemmed to work with? I don't know.

Yes.  They are.  But this might have more to do with Templar and Oashi activity and/or interest levels in working with the Gemmed than a population issue.  It's sort of a chicken and the egg issue. 

[Armaddict]

This is a hypothetical flight of fancy really. But what would you guys think if it was possible to play a full elementalist, but they would ONLY be possible to start off as a gemmed. Hedge wizards on the periphery versus an entire school/doctrine/temple/breeding program of elementalism within the city.  They would require to have grown up within the Temple and so on.

If this is made a thing, then rogue mages should also be capped at HG tier wisdom for not being able to figure out how to recite five words whilst moving their hands.

Elementalism, theoretically, is not just chanting words.  It's being tapped into the element itself.  There is something to be said for a formal temple of study finding better access to that elemental plane than someone who is not in a formally educated setting.  Consider an elementalist closer to a cleric than a traditional mage, despite the name, where 'favor of a deity' is 'access to an elemental plane'.

[Riev]

And, in fact, they all used to be CALLED Clerics. Back in the early days.


I always considered Sorcery the more devoted study of words and arcane gestures, whereas elementalism was a sort of "feeling". een, sul, mon... while they're necessary for our coded interaction with magick, I consider them more of a "level of focus" than a "level of power".

If a krathi makes a fireball, its because he focuses on his element as the fires come out of nowhere. If a sorcerer does it, its because he found out the words and gestures that can tap into the elements without being 'touched' themselves.

[Synthesis]

If you cannot speak, codedly, you cannot cast (the last time I checked).

Either this is a mistake where code does not reflect theme, or it is thematically intentional.

[Riev]

If you cannot speak, codedly, you cannot cast (the last time I checked).

Either this is a mistake where code does not reflect theme, or it is thematically intentional.

I prefer to think its a little of both. While you have to 'speak' the words to cast a spell as an elementalist/cleric, the words are LESS USEFUL than the connection you have with your element/deity. Even Faith-based casting can be stopped by Silence.

Besides, its all kind of theory-crafting anyway. More on topic: I agree a LITTLE with Wizturbo's outlook on things. Saying that "a 10 day magicker is better than my 50day warrior" is a bit TOO code focused for me, because its more than the amount of time you put in to your skills. However, I DO believe that there should be time, and risk, for a magicker to gain their skills just like any other class.

Its not a "thematic" thing. Its not "for the ArrPee". Its from a gameplay mechanic. A group of mages shouldn't be able to "come to power" in less "time invested" than a normal class unless it also comes with a modicum of risk. I'm on board for removing 'nil' casting.

[Lutagar]

You could explain it away by turning the temples into hogwarts, but it'd be unbelievably shitty for the many players who don't have 8 karma that want to play a powerful indy role. It's like desert elves being made a separate species from city elves all over again, for no other reason than people feeling uncomfortable that someone from the unwashed masses could be potentially become one of the most powerful characters on grid without being under a sponsored role's (and by extension, the staff's own) thumb.

[Armaddict]

I just think it's an intriguing idea that immediately grants viable motivations to both go gemmed and go rogue, and it also immediately grants a rift between the two, making for this long-needed purpose of gemmed mages; there is an ongoing struggle against the ungemmed (coincidentally, I think the magickal subguilds make a mundane more able against full mages than just a pure mundane is).

I'm not an 8 karma player, nor am I a huge magick fan, but I think shooting it down immediately under pretense of 'There's no reason you should learn better than me just because I don't want to do that thing the full mages do' is not exactly viable; that's just going back to the same argument that existed before the change about the social role and place of gemmed, ala 'I want to play the mage but I want to be able to do whatever I want with it and these restrictions on it make it not fun.'

[Lutagar]

ala 'I want to play the mage but I want to be able to do whatever I want with it and these restrictions on it make it not fun.'

Rogues are much more restricted than gemmed. Their restriction is consequences, which is entirely IC, as it should be.

[Tisiphone]

Wouldn't this be the exact opposite of the 'solution' to the 'problem' of people getting their jimmies rustled over magick, though? Gemmers have the most exposure to mundanes in the "I'm clearly a magicker who magicks with magick and am defined by my magick (which you may feel makes you irrelevant)," role. If a main benefit of the new subguild-only approach is that it helps carve out a place for mundane roleplay/plot movement/whatever, letting gemmers specifically be full-guild mages seems backward.

[Armaddict]

ala 'I want to play the mage but I want to be able to do whatever I want with it and these restrictions on it make it not fun.'

Rogues are much more restricted than gemmed. Their restriction is consequences, which is entirely IC, as it should be.

I see it differently.  Rogues are only restricted in secrecy and the regime of Allanak, where you can certainly go as a gemmed, but that doesn't really get you involved in anything (and restricts your involvement in a number of things).  They can get involved in far more than a socially restricted gemmed.  They can raid without <insert crippling reaction>.  They can start insurgencies, make their causes, have people join them, etc.  Their big restriction is essentially the same one as an elf; don't get caught.  But yes, that is IC.

Wouldn't this be the exact opposite of the 'solution' to the 'problem' of people getting their jimmies rustled over magick, though? Gemmers have the most exposure to mundanes in the "I'm clearly a magicker who magicks with magick and am defined by my magick (which you may feel makes you irrelevant)," role. If a main benefit of the new subguild-only approach is that it helps carve out a place for mundane roleplay/plot movement/whatever, letting gemmers specifically be full-guild mages seems backward.

I don't really want full mages back, to be clear, but I'm trying to be constructive on a healthy middle-ground.  The immediate boon that made me like this one more than most was the potential for the gemmed/ungemmed interaction that gave them all something to do (if properly set up), without making it something where their plot is dependent on mundane plots.  I'm sure there are plenty of downsides to it, I'm just bouncing the idea around more.

[Tisiphone]

So am I. That's just my contribution. Carry on.

[Molten Heart]

.

[Dar]

Current mages are a LOT less restricted then full mages.

If you have a full mage in your group, they are absolutely useless in any non-social arena, except magick. And if you're employing their magick a lot, then 'lo and behold your group is now magick worshipping, which puts every magick hater on edge.  If you dont want to be 'known' as someone who accepts magick, then you would either not be interested in full mages, deal with full mages only on arm length distance, or have magick used only in private, which again ... makes a non in private mage absolutely useless.

With hedge mages that we have today, you can have an absolutely functional group that is doing whatever, and they're ALL mages of some kind. Without any restrictions. They wont have thematical restrictions (too otherwordly to care for physical possessions, etc), they dont have the coded restrictions, they dont have cultural restrictions.  There is a chance that they dont even have the restriction of being found out by their compatriots. Because if the group is on the fringe, then odds are like attracts like and you're liable to attract the sikrty non-mundanes anyway.

Gemmed mages have restrictions a-plenty. It will not increase the exposure to magick for the rest of mundane playerbase anymore, then existance of any other magick touched gemmed that exists right now. At the same time, it will force all people who 'want' to play full mages into the same enclave, which will improve interaction and solve ... some issues mentioned on this thread.

For the record? I think current versions of mages are 10 times more powerful then full mages. They are absolutely ridiculously scary. Possibly only 'certain' combinations, I havent really explored that area. But regardless. Some of them can be absolutely scary. A lot scarier then full mages of any kind.

[Armaddict]

See, that power scale is how they are conceptually to me, Dar, but there keep being players telling me otherwise, which is kind of tugging me back and forth and keeping me from knowing exactly what to think about it since I don't play them.

[Akaramu]

Current mages are a LOT less restricted then full mages.

(...)

With hedge mages that we have today, you can have an absolutely functional group that is doing whatever, and they're ALL mages of some kind. Without any restrictions.

Gemmed mages have restrictions a-plenty.

This was exactly my point. It makes no sense to play a gemmed anymore. Compared to rogues, gemmed are more disadvantaged than ever. I'm afraid that slowly, over time, the gemmed parallel society and what it added to the game may be dying out. But what do I know, I only just returned to the game and I'm still guesstimating.

But I'm constantly in full stealth mode, lurking somewhere near you.

In fact, people referring to their characters as "X day" infuriates me.  It's a stupid metric that hack & slash players love to refer to, but is utterly meaningless for actual roleplayers.

<3

[Jihelu]

I feel like before playing a gemmed meant something like:

"I have all this power and people fear and hate me but I'm protected by the city but I can't really do -insert most mundane functions here" so this is fine"

Now it is
"I have some power and people fear and hate me the same amount but I'm protected by the city but I don't really need the city to protect me because of -insert guild you took-"

It's like playing an elf now.
Without the agility.
Give all mage guilds agility boosts.

[Akaramu]

I feel like before playing a gemmed meant something like:

"I have all this power and people fear and hate me but I'm protected by the city but I can't really do -insert most mundane functions here" so this is fine"

Wrong.

Full elementalists could:

Craft
greb
hunt
Scout
Trade
Steal your stuff
Bounty hunt
Had all the subguild options available to them
Melee combat required a lot of grinding but was possible if you really wanted to.

The only thing they couldn't do was 100% stealth mode in cities without making templars grumpy.

[Shoka Windrunner]

This is a hypothetical flight of fancy really. But what would you guys think if it was possible to play a full elementalist, but they would ONLY be possible to start off as a gemmed. Hedge wizards on the periphery versus an entire school/doctrine/temple/breeding program of elementalism within the city.  They would require to have grown up within the Temple and so on.

If this is made a thing, then rogue mages should also be capped at HG tier wisdom for not being able to figure out how to recite five words whilst moving their hands.

Elementalism, theoretically, is not just chanting words.  It's being tapped into the element itself.  There is something to be said for a formal temple of study finding better access to that elemental plane than someone who is not in a formally educated setting.  Consider an elementalist closer to a cleric than a traditional mage, despite the name, where 'favor of a deity' is 'access to an elemental plane'.

I guess I've always seen every person's path to their element to be different.  So it can be roleplayed in their own way.  Some it's a logical thing, like a mathematics or something.  Some it's just instinct, they just do it.  This seems ridiculous.  If we do that all clanned mundanes should have less endurance because they live a 'soft' life in the cities.

[Armaddict]

I guess I should have said that less authoritatively; I don't play them that much in Arm, but that was how I viewed them based off exposure to other sources and 'logicking' in my head.

[Lutagar]

It makes no sense to play a gemmed anymore. Compared to rogues, gemmed are more disadvantaged than ever.

A bit belated, but can I ask how?

The only real difference this has made is mages are collectively either nerfed/buffed depending on your opinion (I personally think it's a buff, excluding full guild_whiran which >>> everything) and you can't instantly recognize a mage based on a lack of coded skills.

[bardlyone]

Because it's entirely possible to be passably a mundane guild and subguild to the outer world (assuming you choose a sub with some limited overlap) while being a magicker secretly, and having none of the restrictions that being gemmed puts on you. Prior to the change, you had to get by purely on your subguild skills in order to do this, which was much, MUCH more challenging, both the bluff as believable, and the play as in skillset, because it was so much more limited. Now, you have a subguild's worth of magick and are 95% mundane, but you are choosing to give up everything and a shitload of possibilities - every clan, every relationship with someone who's not a mage, basic socializing, etc etc etc. Basically, choosing to play a gemmed is ridiculously unrewarding when it used to be the exact opposite, as far as what it actually offers you, unless you already wanted to work for the Oash or try to be a war mage for the templarate - which... Well, I've seen the frustrations people wanting this and hoping to have an actual place for it other than periodic usage wind up with. Yes, there are still some people who will choose to fight you blindfolded with one hand behind their back (all the impediments), but most people won't.