Bring back the uniquely Zalanthan Drovian, Elkrosian and Nilazi

[Delirium]

Also just to be clear, Nilazi, Drov and Elkros haven't been retconned. They still exist.

Please.  Do you really think that's a satisfying platitude?  We see the writing on the wall.  You're erasing them from the face of Zalanthas for OOC reasons, just like kanks.

Um... I suggest you're assuming the worst and thinking inside the box of "elementalists".

[Nergal]

Also just to be clear, Nilazi, Drov and Elkros haven't been retconned. They still exist.

Please.  Do you really think that's a satisfying platitude?  We see the writing on the wall.  You're erasing them from the face of Zalanthas for OOC reasons, just like kanks.

Can you explain how you've come to that conclusion? I have stated earlier in the thread that those element's elementalists could be reintroduced to players if they are reworked first. Or do you believe that's not a truthful statement?

[Molten Heart]

.

[Mazy]

Moe was being facetious? It just doesn't translate well without verbal tone. I read it like, "AH HA! I see the writing on the wall here, you're pulling the kanks on us again! KANKING US I SAY! " Tongue in cheek.

A smiley-face would've fixed it all. Maybe I'm wrong though.

[BadSkeelz]

I don't think he's being facetious. Players tend not to react or take in to account virtual parts of the world unless they're at coded risk from them. Saying "something is virtual but not playable" is practically saying it has no impact on the game at all. Cases in point:

Elves being mistreated in Allanaki public (despite elves forming 50% of the population and having social networks that make messing with one a dicey prospect)

Mages running up and down the North Road or the grasslands within sight of Tuluk, magikced up to the gills, knowing there will be no response.

Using master stealth to disappear in a brightly lit hallway filled with soldiers.

[Silteyes]

Like Nessalin has stated, there have been different eras in Armageddon, especially with regards to magick.  If you think this is the first time we have only had fire, water, earth and wind elementalists to play as PCs, you are seriously mistaken.

It is an easy state to be in, when you don't have an informed opinion about things.  The power, or span of abilities benefiting from synergies like the old elementalist guilds did, is not the point of any of this.  The point is, can you drive the story in interesting and impactful ways with the subguild magicker abilities we currently have available to us?  Can we drive interesting and impactful stories without elkros, drov and nilazi elementalist guilds/subguilds?

If you answer "No", my guess is that you are uninformed.

[Akaramu]

It is an easy state to be in, when you don't have an informed opinion about things.  The power, or span of abilities benefiting from synergies like the old elementalist guilds did, is not the point of any of this.  The point is, can you drive the story in interesting and impactful ways with the subguild magicker abilities we currently have available to us?  Can we drive interesting and impactful stories without elkros, drov and nilazi elementalist guilds/subguilds?

If you answer "No", my guess is that you are uninformed.

Have you tried this yourself with a subguild elementalist?

I've played quite a lot of mage PCs, so I wouldn't say I'm uninformed. Speaking from personal experience, it's harder to make an impact now than it used to be. At least as a gemmed. It's harder to even survive for any meaningful amount of time unless you pick guild_merchant and never leave the city.

[Marauder Moe]

I was not being facetious. 

Can you explain how you've come to that conclusion? I have stated earlier in the thread that those element's elementalists could be reintroduced to players if they are reworked first. Or do you believe that's not a truthful statement?

I believe it's less than truthful.  In regards to this topic, it feels like that statement is pandering lip-service to cover for an unpopular decision.  You guys are always arguing AGAINST bringing back those elementalists.  You don't even go as far as to say "We want to bring them back, but..."

Therefore, I'm lead to believe that staff do not want them to return.

[Rathustra]

Xalle's comment had nothing to do with the return of particular elementalists. Kanks are a poor comparison - you'd have been better to say something about mantis or gith.

[Feco]

I hope there is discussion staff-side about ways to reintroduce these elements into play.  I really want to see them returned to play.

I think a problem here is that we can't make very detailed suggestions, publicly.  To do so would be to potentially spoil, in advance, the nature of the elements, which I think should remain somewhat secretive.

[Mazy]

I'm not against bringing those back. I want it to happen desperately, even if I never even play one. From everything that's been said in the thread, there's no indication of the quasi-elements being phased out.

I understand there's some reason to be apprehensive since a lot of stuff has been phased out over the years: enslavement, Red Fangs, sexually deprived plot elements, *with a teardrop and sniff* Tuluk, full sorcerers and full elementalists.

Drovians, nilazi, and elkrosians won't be on that list of things to be steamrolled or retconned. These aren't necessary for driving story, this is absolutely true. But they're part of the game world and lore, and we can't just forget about this without some backlash.

@Silteyes. Saying people "uninformed" and implying they don't drive stories isn't very conducive to this discussion. Honestly, stories can happen from a lot less. Some of best stories come from when the staff make a very conscious effort to bring the world alive in dynamic ways that it can't usually be animated in. Some of my favorite stories were from playing in the Byn with Pikks, Murdle, and Nial(SP?) as a mundane, going into the silt sea and having many other misadventures. I wasn't driving stories then, nor am I ever. When playing Arm, we're never truly "driving" in the sense I have control. We can scheming creatures, yes. But we're part of a dynamic world that steers itself, and it'll be moving still after our characters die. I know people will disagree with me, but I personal think the stories are better with more "elements" to them.

[Akaramu]

Maybe staff would appreciate if someone made the effort and sent in a request with detailed spell change / subguild spell list suggestions. I'd do it but I have 0 experience with Elkrosians and Nilazi, and my Drovian cast about 5 spells ever...

[Xalle]

I was just trying to clear up a misconception that seemed to be forming that they had been retconned, to try and head off misunderstandings about the current gameworld. It wasn't meant as a platitude.

[Nergal]

@MarauderMoe:

If players don't think staff are trying to discuss something in good faith, then the discussion is essentially over.

We can't get into much detail publicly, but with respect to what we can talk about, we'd like to share as much of that as possible. I don't personally care if you think staff are lying. What I don't understand is thinking staff are lying and choosing to discuss these kinds of things with them anyway. In case it somehow wasn't obvious, we are trying to open up more of staff's thought process to players. If players can't appreciate that and meet us halfway, we could just stop.

[gotdamnmiracle]

If you guys are willing to entertain the idea of returning the other elements (elk, drov, nilaz) what could we, the players, do to help make that occur?

[Marauder Moe]

I came to this thread because it looked like things were being discussed in good faith.

Then I get an image from Rath that is cryptic at best interpretation, implicitly dismissive and derisive at worst.

Then I see that tired old line from Xalle that these guilds aren't REALLY going away because they still exist as vNPCs.

I guess I ran out of faith.

You've all done nothing to refute my charge that you don't want these guilds to return.  If you can't make your position clear, how are players supposed to know if we should be here debating that decision or debating implementation going forward?

[Nergal]

I am saying for the third time now that we want these elements to be playable (likely as subclasses), if we can come up with a means to fit them into the world in a way that isn't haphazard. Until then, they will remain unplayable.

I am not sure what is not clear about that.

[BadSkeelz]

Low- Fantasy doesn't necessarily mean low magick, it just means the general "main characters" aren't going to be level 18 wizards, fighting dragons and sitting in luxury. It means you are playing the dregs, the low-downs, the people who might get above their station, if temporarily, but the rest of the world has you under its thumb.

Though for what its worth, I like low-magick too. I like it to be creepy and spooky and "well I DO need to get across the desert... do I hire that filthy thing?"

I've seen templars hand out potion fruits like they were a raid leader in World of Warcraft. Magick that is easy and pervasive leads to the loss of its perception as spooky very quickly.

Isn't that from a Dark Sun book?

[Marauder Moe]

I am saying for the third time now that we want these elements to be playable (likely as subclasses), if we can come up with a means to fit them into the world in a way that isn't haphazard. Until then, they will remain unplayable.

I am not sure what is not clear about that.

I'm not sure where the other two times you said this are, but thank you.  That is clear.

[Rathustra]

Low- Fantasy doesn't necessarily mean low magick, it just means the general "main characters" aren't going to be level 18 wizards, fighting dragons and sitting in luxury. It means you are playing the dregs, the low-downs, the people who might get above their station, if temporarily, but the rest of the world has you under its thumb.

Though for what its worth, I like low-magick too. I like it to be creepy and spooky and "well I DO need to get across the desert... do I hire that filthy thing?"

I've seen templars hand out potion fruits like they were a raid leader in World of Warcraft. Magick that is easy and pervasive leads to the loss of its perception as spooky very quickly.

Isn't that from a Dark Sun book?

It's the D&D great wheel. Dark Sun, as a D&D setting, adhered to an adjusted form of the same cosmology - ooze was the trapped moisture of the silt sea, corrupted by the silt, for example. Check out the Dark Sun supplement about elementalists for cool stuff.

[Xalle]

Then I see that tired old line from Xalle that these guilds aren't REALLY going away because they still exist as vNPCs.

I didn't say that, though I see how it might be possible to get the wrong idea of what I meant. I wasn't talking about the guilds/vnpcs at all. I was trying to correct a misinterpretation I thought was growing that the actual quasi elements themselves - the existence of them - was being retconned. 

[BadSkeelz]

I am saying for the third time now that we want these elements to be playable (likely as subclasses), if we can come up with a means to fit them into the world in a way that isn't haphazard. Until then, they will remain unplayable.

I am not sure what is not clear about that.

I think for Elkros (which in my opinion is the coolest of the 'quasi' elements and the only one worth seriously bringing back in some form) you would need to start with reviewing and remaking their spell list. In order for any element to stand on its own it needs variety and a consistent theme. As you've laid out, these quasis all suffered in one or both categories.

To get Elkrosians we need to expand and flesh out the definition of Elkros. Maybe past players of Elkrosians can write in with what they thought "Elkros" to represent and how that played out on their characters. If we can get a more substantial and evocative definition of the element, new spells can be crafted to bring it in to play.

[Nergal]

First time:

To conclude, while these elements are uniquely Zalanthan, they're also a mess from a game design standpoint. Reintroducing them "as-is" would simply be irresponsible. Reintroducing them with changes is not entirely out of the question, but it's not something we're up to yet.

Second time:

I have stated earlier in the thread that those element's elementalists could be reintroduced to players if they are reworked first

I am not promising anything here. I am just saying that it's not on our plate right now, but it's something that's been casually talked about. What is on our plate, with respect to playable options, is the main guild version of the guild revamp. That is mundane-only. When we finish that immense task, we can talk about magickers again.

[Nergal]

Although this is absolutely off topic, I will say that these kinds of discussions aren't going to fly if players can't basically accept that staff are trying to discuss things in good faith. I feel like almost every time I've tried to show players staff's opinion on things over the past 12-18 months, players jump down my throat. I regularly get taken out of context to fuel some players' arguments. One person even has a quote of mine in their signature that is completely out of context. I could moderate all these things that bother me personally but I don't because I have some slim hope that the discussion will eventually turn rational. Staff and players can both probably tell that I'm the staffer who posts the most on the GDB. I am trying my best to give you guys a peek behind the curtain and I feel like it's not really worth it when players express doubt in even the most fundamental basics of what I'm trying to say. Please try to remember that staff love the game too and that we have no reason to lie or screw players over. Thanks.

[WanderingOoze]

ooze was the trapped moisture of the silt sea, corrupted by the silt, for example.

My origins story :O