Derail about why PK is bad

[Jingo]

Make a challenging PC.  That's what got me back into it

The trick is to find something that is hard, but not codedly frustrating.  Try a really, really dangerous concept, and only play semi-carefully.  Keep shit *on the edge*.

As long as you're fine with getting backroom ganked at someone's first opportunity; only to be left wondering why you even fucking bothered in the first place.

[Feco]

Make a challenging PC.  That's what got me back into it

The trick is to find something that is hard, but not codedly frustrating.  Try a really, really dangerous concept, and only play semi-carefully.  Keep shit *on the edge*.

As long as you're fine with getting backroom ganked at someone's first opportunity; only to be left wondering why you even fucking bothered in the first place.

Ya'll worry too much. Dying is fun!

Die often and gruesomely.  Long lived characters are overrated.

[Jingo]

Fuck no it isn't. Getting your shit pushed in for someone else's power fantasy is pointless and demoralizing.

[whitt]

Fuck no it isn't. Getting your shit pushed in for someone else's power fantasy is pointless and demoralizing.

Sounds like someone's got a case of the Monday's. 

[Jingo]

Welp. Getting pissed on over and over will do that to you.

I've been fucked so hard and so many times for simply trying to play a character just mildly against the grain that I can't help but be bitter.

[lostinspace]

Die often and gruesomely.  Long lived characters are overrated.

I think a big tipping point for my enjoyment of the game was when I started keeping characters alive past 10 days. I get bored and don't want to store them because I've invested 10 days, but it's also against my instincts developed over character deaths to go out and do something potentially suicidal. Dying does suck, but better to go out in a flash than store

[Jingo]

Die often and gruesomely.  Long lived characters are overrated.

I think a big tipping point for my enjoyment of the game was when I started keeping characters alive past 10 days. I get bored and don't want to store them because I've invested 10 days, but it's also against my instincts developed over character deaths to go out and do something potentially suicidal. Dying does suck, but better to go out in a flash than store

No we're talking about the way players are always happy to fuck over players that actually try to allow some weakness and risk into their play..

[chrisdcoulombe]

Yeah, I have been walked into spider holes by clan leaders even though I knew better my character didn't .   Have let my  character be tricked even though I know better.   Some things get you killed by other players.  Some other players characters are elves, thieves thugs.   One of my favorite roles is a c-elf dirt bag.  Creating and overcoming adversity is what makes Armageddon great.   My advice Play an elf from the rinth, elf to your fullest and don't expect to live long. 

[Akaramu]

Being long-lived is absolutely not overrated. You get access to more plots and secrets, get more stuff done, and enjoy a lot of other side benefits as well. Besides... who wants to do the skill grind over and over again?

The 10-15 days played mark is usually where I start to enjoy a role the most.

[chrisdcoulombe]

Playing a redshirt can be fun and living a long time can be fun as well.   

[Riev]

Die often and gruesomely.  Long lived characters are overrated.

I think a big tipping point for my enjoyment of the game was when I started keeping characters alive past 10 days. I get bored and don't want to store them because I've invested 10 days, but it's also against my instincts developed over character deaths to go out and do something potentially suicidal. Dying does suck, but better to go out in a flash than store

No we're talking about the way players are always happy to fuck over players that actually try to allow some weakness and risk into their play..

While it doesn't happen to me (#whitepriviledge) I will say that I've seen it happen where as soon as a character with a noticeable or exploitable flaw is around, people almost CLAMOR to attach and attack.

I've known a couple players whose characters are purposefully flawed, but they don't last long because people fight to exert power. Is it Zalanthan? Of course it is, get a leg up however you can. But from a gameplay perspective, it is demoralizing and turns everyone into no-emote planks of wood because if they ever take a risk someone will fuck them for it.

[Feco]

Oh, I just meant be someone everyone hates, or someone who puts themselves into dangerous situations, or someone who has a job that it can be a struggle to make a living with.

Paranoia of people, monsters, or the risk of not having food or water is what makes the game fun for me.

[Jingo]

Oh, I just meant be someone everyone hates, or someone who puts themselves into dangerous situations, or someone who has a job that it can be a struggle to make a living with.

That's what I'm talking about too.

[Feco]

I guess I just like getting fucked with, so I fuck with people back.  Sorry if that isn't fun for you guys.

If it helps I try not to be a no emote plank of wood.

[Jingo]

I guess I just like getting fucked with, so I fuck with people back.  Sorry if that isn't fun for you guys.

If it helps I try not to be a no emote plank of wood.

I love getting fucked with. I fucking hate losing my character while watching personality less planks of wood live forever.

Because there really is never any "fucked with". There's only killed ez.

[Delirium]

Jingo is mad again. Jingo needs to come play with me, I'll make him miserable and he'll love it.

[Feco]

Something that helps me is to imagine that there are lots of plots and motivations going into a PC's actions.  You just don't get to see their personality, oftentimes because of the unforgiving, quick, and difficult to control combat and crime code.

Whether or not that's true is another story, but it's what I tell myself.

[Jingo]

Something that helps me is to imagine that there are lots of plots and motivations going into a PC's actions.  You just don't get to see their personality, oftentimes because of the unforgiving, quick, and difficult to control combat and crime code.

Whether or not that's true is another story, but it's what I tell myself.

I like to pretend that most plot motivations are "XXX is mildly inconveniencing me. Guess we better kill them." Whether it's true or not, it really doesn't matter. They can't expend the mental effort needed consider anything but an extreme reaction.

Jingo is mad again. Jingo needs to come play with me, I'll make him miserable and he'll love it.

I never really stopped being mad.

[manipura]

We all get it Jingo.  It's old.
You play better than the vast majority of other players because you play your PCs faults and flaws superbly while everyone else is just playing to win.
You getting fucked over is never really a result of an in-game occurrence, it's simply you getting fucked over because someone else HAS TO WIN.
I thought I was a bitter vet but I -rue- the day I'm as bitter as you.

[Feco]

hey guyz its okay all friends 

[Jingo]

We all get it Jingo.  It's old.
You play better than the vast majority of other players because you play your PCs faults and flaws superbly while everyone else is just playing to win.

Not a claim I've made.

while You getting fucked over is never really a result of an in-game occurrence, it's simply you getting fucked over because someone else HAS TO WIN.

If that "in-game occurrence" is weak bullshit I'd never, ever pull on anyone myself; then yeah. I think it's an accurate assessment.

[Nergal]

Moderated a post that was an unnecessary attack.

If you feel like someone is eschewing RP to play to win, that breaks the required RP rule. Put in a player complaint about them.

For now, try to stay on topic.

[Armaddict]

If you feel like someone is eschewing RP to play to win, that breaks the required RP rule. Put in a player complaint about them.

My take on this from Jingo's posts is that he generally feels like he's supposed to be mostly safe from other players because he's playing his.  I think the above statement has some misconceptions around it that playing a driven, ruthless character means that the player themself thinks they can win the game.

I think that undermines the setting of the game far more than a character who inflicts paranoia about death ever does.  Once upon a time, there was not a virtual swarm of approvals and checkups and demands for information around every character-on-character conflict that ended in death.  Once upon a time, 'It was purely opportunity.  I wanted his gloves and coins.' was not an indicator of 'playing to win', it was actually fitting into the setting of 'No one gives a shit about anyone but themselves.'  My personal feeling is that this has gone away based off of ooc assumptions of how the character's -player- thought of the game rather than where the character fit into the world, mostly driven by that stomach-curdling feeling of character death or the frustration of having key elements of other people's stories removed.  I don't think staff is free of this same frustration, when they're trying to line things up and find out that this -one- overheard conversation over here just derailed the entire thing and made an enemy they hadn't anticipated.

Jingo, I applaud you for playing characters with weaknesses.  But I think you're cutting a lot of people short in doing the same thing (most players build weaknesses of some sort into their characters, and promptly make it a driving part of their character).  And I think the expectation that weaknesses won't be exploited by enemies, known and unknown, is the downfall of your enjoyment, rather than the reason your characters should be entitled to live longer because they have weaknesses.  If I had a fit whenever someone killed me for playing my character or doing their job, there's no way I could enjoy anything in this game.

Play the game, but also play the setting.  Cuddle puddles and insistence on mutual agreement to not end each other makes every conflict-based interaction in the game, on the average, shallow (there are exceptions).  It can be played out for a long time.  It can also be ended quickly.  There is no requirement, anywhere, for either approach to dominate, and asserting that players are obligated to leave you alone because you play well, or that every action taken against you has been this thing that makes them a terrible player, is a more destructive attitude to project onto the game than a player who has a different idea of how to overcome conflict against their character than you.

[Tisiphone]

I think that undermines the setting of the game far more than a character who inflicts paranoia about death ever does.  Once upon a time, there was not a virtual swarm of approvals and checkups and demands for information around every character-on-character conflict that ended in death.  Once upon a time, 'It was purely opportunity.  I wanted his gloves and coins.' was not an indicator of 'playing to win', it was actually fitting into the setting of 'No one gives a shit about anyone but themselves.' 

I miss the days when killing someone for his boots was something said on the GDB only half in jest, because those chalton boots were worth ~100 'sid and that's a perfectly good reason to murder somebody.

[Feco]

Killing people for their boots is still a thing.

[Hauwke]

I havent killed anyone for their boots but thats only because I havent played a murderous pc.

[Jingo]

If you feel like someone is eschewing RP to play to win, that breaks the required RP rule. Put in a player complaint about them.

My take on this from Jingo's posts is that he generally feels like he's supposed to be mostly safe from other players because he's playing his.  I think the above statement has some misconceptions around it that playing a driven, ruthless character means that the player themself thinks they can win the game.

Nope. As usual you trot out a strawman for my actual position. I'm not against bad things happening to my character. I'm against the explicit metagamey, kneejerk reaction to kill any and all inconveniences to my character the easiest way possible.

I'd be thrilled if someone actually took the effort and the risk to actually hire an assassin to kill me. Rather than play locked room musical chairs.

But if your "driven, ruthless character" just leads me into a locked room or gets me killed on my first visit to the gaj, etc; then I'm gonna call bullshit. You didn't put any effort in. You have no right calling your character "driven". You're just lazy; you just want to win.

I miss the days when killing someone for his boots was something said on the GDB only half in jest, because those chalton boots were worth ~100 'sid and that's a perfectly good reason to murder somebody.

People who play like this forget very quickly that this is not normal human behavior. Most people do not kill unless they believe something extreme is at stake (2 days worth of salting isn't extreme). But I guess players really like their gritty power fantasy where they can kill without provocation.

But that's secondary to the fact that it's just shitty, griefy, garbage. It adds nothing to the game except 100 coins to your character's bank account and a tally to your .txt file. And it encourages victims to pick up unfun, avoident behaviors just to avoid getting griefed a second time.

I seriously don't play in clans anymore. Because I'm sick of getting powertripped on by leaders who pull out the bag of tricks over minor interpersonal tension. Like is this for fucking real? I don't want to play in clans anymore because leaders will kill me if I don't dance to their script. And I know for a fact that this is one of the reasons many players won't play in clans until they've spent 10+ days buffing up their character.

[Akaramu]

Um... wait. I play flawed characters, and I play in clans. I've never, ever, been killed by powertripping clan leaders. Not once. Not even Torgun killed me! And that's an accomplishment. 

Surprisingly, my most flawed character ever is at 25 days played and counting. Flawed or not, if you're Joe Commoner, you still have to make sure you're more useful alive than dead. You don't mouth off to dangerous people and if you commit treason, you pray you don't get caught.

[Jingo]

If you're Joe Commoner, you still have to make sure you're more useful alive than dead. You don't mouth off to dangerous people and if you commit treason, you pray you don't get caught.

Not even.

I'm talking more along the lines of being hired by leader 1 and working with explicit permission on an activity. But leader 2 disapproves and asks you not to engage in said activity which you refuse to because you're loyal to leader 1.  In the end leader 2 would rather just kill you than try to navigate the myriad of other ways to deal with the situation.

And for some dumb fucking reason, staff thinks it's a-okay for leader 2 to just kill you in a backroom. Nevermind all the servants and slaves that know exactly what's going down past the doorframe. Nevermind that leader 2 is directly interfering with house operations. Nevermind that you'll never consider interacting with leader 2 again because they'll kill you if they don't get to micromanage your character.

[Akaramu]

Sounds like leader 1 is to blame in that case, not leader 2. Sounds like they weren't secretive enough and didn't take necessary steps for your protection. These days, if I consider joining a clan, I screen the leader as much as they're screening me, maybe more. If they smell of incompetence and / or inexperience, I avoid. (Sorry, noobles).

This is also one of the reasons I don't do life oaths - I will not, ever, let myself be stuck in a clan with a leader I don't OOCly enjoy working for. I want to be able to leave if the leader I trust decides to store.

The same thing can happen if you're unclanned. Templar 1 orders you to do something, templar 2 messes with everything templar 1 is involved in. Killing minions is easier than killing other templars - unless you ALSO talk to templar 2, and convince them of the benefits of your continued existence. Or you're an indie grebber who gets hired for a secret job with Salarr, something that -really- pisses Kurac off. Again, killing the minion is easier than killing the Salarri who hired you.

[Jingo]

The situation was a bit more complicated than presented but nothing that should have resulted in a death without warning.

And it wasn't leader 1's fault. Leader 1 was also sick of leader 2 getting involved in their affairs. And they had every right to pursue their own plot lines without leader 2's involvement.

And no. Backroom killboxes are not cool. They are never acceptable.

[TheWanderer]

Lol. People honestly aren't randomly doing arrows to the neck for boots, are they?

And something, something, kill everybody you have a disagreement with and snuff that flame.

[Armaddict]

Edit:

I need to break the habit of trying to patiently explain my thought processes in hopes of coming across more clearly.  It results in more misunderstanding and contention over little details that don't matter.  But the gist of it is: Don't let jaded players with different viewpoints on the game make you feel like you're playing the game wrong.  Staff will let you know, and you can have that discussion with them.  If you feel something warrants a death-action, go with your best rendition of game world reinforcement by your understanding and means.

[Jingo]

Edit:

I need to break the habit of trying to patiently explain my thought processes in hopes of coming across more clearly.  It results in more misunderstanding and contention over little details that don't matter.  But the gist of it is: Don't let jaded players with different viewpoints on the game make you feel like you're playing the game wrong.  Staff will let you know, and you can have that discussion with them.  If you feel something warrants a death-action, go with your best rendition of game world reinforcement by your understanding and means.

Yeah I get it. And I apologize for ALWAYS being vitriolic in my language. I imagine a lot of people take it personally when it's really just meant to convey my feelings.

[TheWanderer]

I guess we can all just go with our gut and solely rely on former players to critique us, which people doubtlessly will. Though having a greater number of interesting, inspired players who knew the first thing about sustainable conflict would also be cool. Alas.

There's a steep learning curve (I was on it) and not everyone opts for it.

I'm more conscientious of my actions nowadays when it comes to a game that has a strong tendency to wane - like in recent months. I think there's a need to consider whether you're going to be the player that walks into a scene with the sole intent to kill for boots (as an example) or be the one that supplies alternative paths to the victim and lets them have a hand in a possible addition to their character's story.

In its current state, this game isn't built to handle a multitude of people that resort first to killing. There's a recent situation in mind that I think the player could have eased up on the reins. But I'm sure the game's exciting as fuck for them again. I think leaders have a greater responsibility to fan those flames, but whatever.

I haven't been playing much lately, but hopefully we're back over 35 at peak and people can do whatever the fuck they want.

[Armaddict]

In its current state, this game isn't built to handle a multitude of people that resort first to killing.

I will disagree, but only because from an overhead view (rather than a personal one), long-lasting power blocs are often more of a turn-off than anything due to how set in they are and the lack of availability for even abstract player-constructs to be affected by consecutive PC's.

Death keeps the game world turnin' and churnin'.

[Feco]

In its current state, this game isn't built to handle a multitude of people that resort first to killing.

I will disagree, but only because from an overhead view (rather than a personal one), long-lasting power blocs are often more of a turn-off than anything due to how set in they are and the lack of availability for even abstract player-constructs to be affected by consecutive PC's.

Death keeps the game world turnin' and churnin'.

+1

[Hauwke]

The only reason I dont kill those mouthy breeds and shitheads at the bar is because crimcode some days. It really, really is as simple as that. If I was allowed to plant a sword in fucktard-breed #30349485 I would bone-sword the idiot so hard.

I think the world needs to be grittier, I have pretty much twice in a row made long lasting combat pc's. Its quite ridiculous how easy it is to do. Someone try and kill me already.
Edit: No one has purposfully come after me and tried to kill me ever, despite the fact I intentionally play annoying characters. I have gotten away with stupid things just becuase I actually had the balls to ICly say something to someone.

[Feco]

Nothing like 2 warriors, a sand dune, and a couple bone swordz.

[boog]

I'm with TeeDubs, here. I'm always very conscientious. I prefer not killing, if only to give others a chance to kill me.

People take this game super seriously. And I also hate killing as a first resort. But, maybe that's because I prefer people be able to tell the stories of their character a little longer, to get some good content out of them. Reduce, reuse.

Y'all who kill just to kill kill me. I get it. I totally do. Sometimes, the situation calls for it. But if you snuff your every rival, you have no one left to play with or plot against, and that's just sad!

Meh. Let's face it, I guess, I'm always with TeeDubs on errythang. He puts our shared viewpoints into far more legible content. I bow to his superiority.

[Akaramu]

People take this game super seriously. And I also hate killing as a first resort. But, maybe that's because I prefer people be able to tell the stories of their character a little longer, to get some good content out of them. Reduce, reuse.

You know... I still have to send you that log, about that aide character of yours, and my most amazing Arm story to date... 

[Armaddict]

No one said just go around ganking willy-nilly.  I did say that I find the role-play culture that tells players to avoid real solutions (including death) to their conflicts is ultimately just as not-helpful as someone who -is- ganking willy-nilly.

I did say stop thinking of it as this drastic discredit to the game or that it's somehow shorting the game on roleplay.  It's not.  There are vast opportunities -created- through character death.  That's not the same as me saying 'just fuck it, kill everyone who pisses you off', because that would be silly.  But I am saying that 'Aw, but that's another player and we shouldn't kill characters' isn't really a good method either.  If nothing else, that only furthers the stagnation of a pool.

But if you snuff your every rival, you have no one left to play with or plot against, and that's just sad!

This is one of those things that gets said a lot of the time that really makes very little sense.  To put that in perspective, that's like me saying that you should kill more people otherwise you're depriving other people of enemies and friends by not getting character recycling going.  Running out of rivals is not a thing in Armageddon, unless everyone lives too long and you get on a working relationship with everyone.

[boog]

People take this game super seriously. And I also hate killing as a first resort. But, maybe that's because I prefer people be able to tell the stories of their character a little longer, to get some good content out of them. Reduce, reuse.

You know... I still have to send you that log, about that aide character of yours, and my most amazing Arm story to date... 

Yes, please.

You're the reason I tend not to PK anyone anymore. I'd never done it before. I had no idea what I was doing. It was my first sponsored role ever, and it definitely taught me a lot about the responsibility of a sponsored role to consider, very carefully, what you do and how you bring other players into the fold ... or take them out.

This is one of those things that gets said a lot of the time that really makes very little sense.  To put that in perspective, that's like me saying that you should kill more people otherwise you're depriving other people of enemies and friends by not getting character recycling going.  Running out of rivals is not a thing in Armageddon, unless everyone lives too long and you get on a working relationship with everyone.

No one wants to play around people, sponsored roles or not, who have a reputation for just snuffing out anyone who crosses them in the slightest. While the overarching themes of Armageddon are Murder, Corruption, and Betrayal, a heavy emphasis on just one of those aspects turns people off: this is a roleplay intensive MUD, and the richest play comes from the best stories. Constantly killing those stories makes for a dull time.

[Hauwke]

With my current pc I think I would like a random murder attempt. Encourage it even, if only to shake up the current situation.

[TheWanderer]

Death -is- good at times. That's a fact and I won't argue it. I've definitely thought it was needed within the last few years - even now for a couple PCs. I just don't think it should be arbitrarily dealt and you should responsibly weigh costs and benefits from an OOC standpoint. But that's just a difference in each player.

As I grow older and a little more distant from Arm, I become more critical of it. For instance, I did recently bear witness to an avenue for inciting some welcome conflict and drama, feuding, all that good stuff. Players could have taken opposing sides, involved people in that mess, and turned it into something entertaining. Fun. Generally more than what's become of the area in question.

Then all of those options were quickly closed off with the decision to simply murder the competition. All of that potential was lost. Thus, there was a prompt return to the tepid, stillwater stew of conflict that's continually sipped from in that particular area, one which some seem more than eager to luxuriate in.

Turning and churning the stew is good, but you need to try to fucking cook it completely before you decide to sit down and eat.

[Jingo]

Death -is- good at times. That's a fact and I won't argue it. I've definitely thought it was needed within the last few years - even now for a couple PCs. I just don't think it should be arbitrarily dealt and you should responsibly weigh costs and benefits from an OOC standpoint. But that's just a difference in each player.

As I grow older and a little more distant from Arm, I become more critical of it. For instance, I did recently bear witness to an avenue for inciting some welcome conflict and drama, feuding, all that good stuff. Players could have taken opposing sides, involved people in that mess, and turned it into something entertaining. Fun. Generally more than what's become of the area in question.

Then all of those options were quickly closed off with the decision to simply murder the competition. All of that potential was lost. Thus, there was a prompt return to the tepid, stillwater stew of conflict that's continually sipped from in that particular area, one which some seem more than eager to luxuriate in.

Turning and churning the stew is good, but you need to try to fucking cook it completely before you decide to sit down and eat.

Oh this post. This lovely post.

[BadSkeelz]

Just roll warriors, prioritize strength, and assume every PC (especially powerful PCs) will default to shit play in the least amount of tribulation. Works for me in the longevity department.

[Armaddict]

For instance, I did recently bear witness to an avenue for inciting some welcome conflict and drama, feuding, all that good stuff. Players could have taken opposing sides, involved people in that mess, and turned it into something entertaining. Fun. Generally more than what's become of the area in question.

Then all of those options were quickly closed off with the decision to simply murder the competition. All of that potential was lost. Thus, there was a prompt return to the tepid, stillwater stew of conflict that's continually sipped from in that particular area, one which some seem more than eager to luxuriate in.

This basically reads as it didn't go where you want it to go.  If things were truly as you describe, then there was opportunity for action and reaction, vengeance, grudges, violence, plotting, and everything that conflict promotes.  The assertion that murder cut it short is the assertion that said conflicts should be systematically and purposely marinated, more invested into it, and essentially kept artificially prolonged for some arbitrary amount of time (that apparently you get to decide what the 'appropriate' level is that it has to reach).

Turning and churning the stew is good, but you need to try to fucking cook it completely before you decide to sit down and eat.

Or you could actually realize that if you try and cook it too long you'll burn it, someone else will sit down and eat it, or your particular 'level' of cooking it is a personal one and not an authoritative condition of what it is to be a good stew.

[lairos]

Who determines when death is good or if its not in a situation? Is it staff, the people involved or those who heard/watched it unfold? I am pretty sure unless you specifically made your PC for the very purpose of just dying and were set on killing yourself off that it always sucks to lose a character. Sometimes it sucks for just the player and sometimes it sucks for several players. I believe having a rival/nemesis can lead to some epic times and see a lot more people tend to go that route, but sometimes it just is not in the cards. For example: If someone is trying to kill you IRL you probably would not just stand there and take it. If given a choice to either take a chance that would more than likely get you killed instead or remove the threat would you really take the chance?

I try to give the benefit of the doubt that when something goes down there was a lot more going on than I was aware of and I was just able to witness a small portion of it. More often than not, unless you were directly involved, you know a fraction of what happened. I am not oblivious to the fact that there are those out there who kill just for boots because I have been on the receiving end of that myself, but I don't think that is the majority.

[Jingo]

For instance, I did recently bear witness to an avenue for inciting some welcome conflict and drama, feuding, all that good stuff. Players could have taken opposing sides, involved people in that mess, and turned it into something entertaining. Fun. Generally more than what's become of the area in question.

Then all of those options were quickly closed off with the decision to simply murder the competition. All of that potential was lost. Thus, there was a prompt return to the tepid, stillwater stew of conflict that's continually sipped from in that particular area, one which some seem more than eager to luxuriate in.

This basically reads as it didn't go where you want it to go.  If things were truly as you describe, then there was opportunity for action and reaction, vengeance, grudges, violence, plotting, and everything that conflict promotes.

Be real. It never goes any other way. All problems in this game are solved with a hammer. The ones that try to moderate their approach just get killed. Except in the off time staff step in and shake a finger at you.

And it makes the game unfun if you want to try to have some conflict that doesn't involve luring your enemies into a kill box.

[whitt]

Be real. It never goes any other way. All problems in this game are solved with a hammer. The ones that try to moderate their approach just get killed. Except in the off time staff step in and shake a finger at you.

Not at all true.  Never and All.  Just not so.

[Jingo]

Be real. It never goes any other way. All problems in this game are solved with a hammer. The ones that try to moderate their approach just get killed. Except in the off time staff step in and shake a finger at you.

Not at all true.  Never and All.  Just not so.

If I believed you, I'd probably play again.

[Akaramu]

You're still welcome to join my cuddle puddle, Jingo. The invitation stands.

[Barzalene]

Dear OP, step one to doing your Crackmageddon... don't read this thead
Step two, just play. I find that I play a lot of duds for every pc I play that clicks. I can come up with perfectly good concepts, play in perfectly good clans/locations and just feel bleh. And then you step into another pc and hit the perfect storm and everything is awesome.
The most important thing to remember is to play through the early days. New PCs suck. Once you buy them clothes, they have no where they need to be and no one to be there with. It's a slog at first.

[Riev]

Be real. It never goes any other way. All problems in this game are solved with a hammer. The ones that try to moderate their approach just get killed. Except in the off time staff step in and shake a finger at you.

Not at all true.  Never and All.  Just not so.

Semantics don't win an argument on the internet.


I recently had a PC die due to events that surely could have been played out more. Teased out. Bribes were offered, apologies made and all that, but in the end a player decided that it would make sense for their character to have mine dead as a show of force, than the alternative. It sucks, from a playability perspective, but we've all created and maintained this world where killing your enemy is the most reasonable course of action.

And therein lies the problem Jingo seems to face. We're playing a game, a shared narrative, in a permadeath universe where showing mercy is showing weakness. I can't count the amount of times a Leadership PC has told my underlings that its better to just kill someone in your way, so they don't cause problems later. And in the context of the world, that's ENTIRELY SUITABLE, so complaints against it are wailing at a wall.

But I feel for Jingo. As I get older, I want to participate in a story, in the social aspect as it were. Which isn't easy to do when the "easiest" way to achieve your goal is to simply eliminate enemies. Someone shit shoveling and costing you coin? Kill them. Someone else offering pretty stones to merchants? Kill them when they won't sell to you for cheaper. Someone pays off a group of raiders, similar to how you would the Guild, so they leave you and yours alone? Kill them for collaboration. Its all Zalanthas, man.

[Jingo]

And in the context of the world, that's ENTIRELY SUITABLE, so complaints against it are wailing at a wall.
.

Well. It's suitable for the gonzo clown-show logic that crops up in armageddon. Realistically someone with a reputation for sloppily orchestrated murder isn't going to get by. But this the is same game in which a two word description is enough to accurately identify someone for life and all conspiracies are unravel-able because The Way allows for virtually un-encryptable secret communication.

[Tisiphone]

Well. It's suitable for the gonzo clown-show logic that crops up in armageddon. Realistically someone with a reputation for sloppily orchestrated murder isn't going to get by.

You need to get out more.

Visit Papua New Guinea some time.

[Jingo]

Well. It's suitable for the gonzo clown-show logic that crops up in armageddon. Realistically someone with a reputation for sloppily orchestrated murder isn't going to get by.

You need to get out more.

Visit Papua New Guinea some time.

Well that's a real good point you got there Tisiphone.

I should have thought of Papua New Guinea before I pointed out how fucking ridiculous player politics are in armageddon. If only I had realized our little text based game was simulating the political, social, economic environment of a modern failed state. But I should have known better, they love fucking murderers there. All tremble in their presence and present their boots in meager hopes they might live but alas they only get backroom killed anyways.

HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO THOUGHTLESS I SHOULD HAVE JUST TOLD MYSELF "GO TO PAPUA NEW GUINEA JINGO, ALL WILL BE MADE CLEAR."

It actually reminds me of that time a templar killed me because they read my background. I was playing a 2 day sorcerer special app that wanted to take things slow. She didn't cast any magick, she didn't even think about magick. But that didn't stop our heroic Lirathan! She came out of her hidey hole just to invite me in for a meeting and kill me.

Boy-oh-boy was a I mad. But I shouldn't have been. She wasn't the self-absorbed, pathetic griefer I thought she was. No!  Because Papua New Guinea!

[Feco]

dam fam

[Barzalene]

I think it's silly and a bit rude that almost nothing posted in this thread even pretends to address the op's concerns. This is however a topic covered in many other threads. Are we just going to drag our agendas into any topic now?

[Riev]

I think it's silly and a bit rude that almost nothing posted in this thread even pretends to address the op's concerns. This is however a topic covered in many other threads. Are we just going to drag our agendas into any topic now?

Probably. Though the OP was trying to find a reason or push that would get them in the mood to come back and play. The "downer" posts are coming from 1d3 people at any given time, and when they voice their concerns in any thread they're in, "Check out Papua New Guinea" is the NICEST form of "You're playing wrong" you can find.

There are no new topics on General Discussion anymore. Discussion is either stamped out, or non-existent. If the same 1d3 people keep posting, and its the only activity in the board? Of course its going to get dragged out. Its like Arm, on the boards. There's nothing happening, no RP going on except in back rooms (Discord back-channels), and when something does happen, everyone clamors into it.

[WanderingOoze]

Me, after reading what the thread turned into.

[Nergal]

With great hesitation, I split the massive derail from the original thread and made a new one. I don't personally feel that an essentially non-existent problem is worth discussing yet again and I'm sure there are many other issues with people's roleplay of late besides the mystical random killing that the thread derailer/new thread OP consistently complains about whenever the opportunity arises.

Jingo, you're welcome to come up with a thread title for your new thread and ask for it to be changed.

[Armaddict]

My apologies.  I read through threads and sometimes respond to posts I see without regard for whether it's contributing to derail or not.  Mostly, I didn't want people to feel boxed into an idea of them 'doing it wrong', is all.

[Akaramu]

My apologies.  I read through threads and sometimes respond to posts I see without regard for whether it's contributing to derail or not.  Mostly, I didn't want people to feel boxed into an idea of them 'doing it wrong', is all.

I do this too. I could not look at a post about how playing flawed characters gets you killed and not respond to it. 

[Jingo]

With great hesitation, I split the massive derail from the original thread and made a new one. I don't personally feel that an essentially non-existent problem is worth discussing yet again and I'm sure there are many other issues with people's roleplay of late besides the mystical random killing that the thread derailer/new thread OP consistently complains about whenever the opportunity arises.

Jingo, you're welcome to come up with a thread title for your new thread and ask for it to be changed.

How does "Nergal's Passive Aggressive Thread Split" sound?

Or figure out any other way you want to mis-characterize what I've been saying.

[BadSkeelz]

Surely it's been a year since the Great Rat Race Rat Fuck and all the characters directly involved are stored or dead (several of them hilariously so)?

[Nergal]

Actually, nevermind.