Armageddon is a Social game.

[RogueGunslinger]

Sometimes I feel like the thing that makes Armageddon such a great game is also what keeps me away from it. The best part of Armageddon is the social interaction between players. But I always want to avoid people until I think my character is "ready" for that interaction. In a way this forms a sort of in-game social anxiety, where I avoid people so as not to ruin this perfect meeting in my mind. But then I never get my character to that "ready" state, because I'm so bored from avoiding interaction that I stop playing.

In the end it's my own damn fault. I need to just join a clan and get myself into experiences with other players.

Not much else to say. This would have been a Random Armageddon Thought. Feel free to discuss.

[650Booger]

I know the feeling, for example playing a heavy mercantile character who, at the start of play, can't actually craft anything successfully.  it takes some RP gymnastics to explain why kadius would hire a clothworker who rips every garment.

[valeria]

I hear this. When I'm trying to decide on the next character to play, or waiting on the approval to go through, I spend more time than I'd like to admit playing out how their future social interactions might go in my head. To prepare, I guess? Odd social anxiety for the win.

[mansa]

I was running the dungeons and dragons starter edition with a bunch of new players, and I was a first time GM, and the question came up then.

Why are these characters hanging around each other and why do they rescue each other?  Why don't they just run away and split up?

I didn't have a good answer, but I put this up to the players - it's a social game and we play together.  Make up your own reasons to be in this gang.

I wish I had better answers but this question as to why characters should play with each other still bothers me a bit

[Marauder Moe]

I hear this. When I'm trying to decide on the next character to play, or waiting on the approval to go through, I spend more time than I'd like to admit playing out how their future social interactions might go in my head. To prepare, I guess? Odd social anxiety for the win.

>.>

<.<

-_-

+1

[Heade]

Sometimes I feel like the thing that makes Armageddon such a great game is also what keeps me away from it. The best part of Armageddon is the social interaction between players. But I always want to avoid people until I think my character is "ready" for that interaction. In a way this forms a sort of in-game social anxiety, where I avoid people so as not to ruin this perfect meeting in my mind. But then I never get my character to that "ready" state, because I'm so bored from avoiding interaction that I stop playing.

In the end it's my own damn fault. I need to just join a clan and get myself into experiences with other players.

Not much else to say. This would have been a Random Armageddon Thought. Feel free to discuss.

You know, I don't really have this problem. Oftentimes, the people my PCs meet early on in their life, when they're struggling to pay for food and water, and have little gear to speak of...those are the people that often end up being my PC's lifelong friends/enemies/lovers/employers/employees. That early experience with your PC, when they really aren't "ready", is often a bonding experience.

But I also approach my PCs organically. I generally prefer Indie play, but won't necessarily avoid joining a clan if the right IC circumstances come along. I do make PCs with a rough OOC plan, but that plan is subject to change via RP. So, I don't avoid RP early on. Instead, I engage in what RP I can engage in early on. I might greb rocks for a city crafter who doesn't want to leave the city, or get them hides, or buy them things from rinth shops they don't want to risk visiting...whatever. Or, ask for these same services from others if I'm on the other side of the table. I might team up with someone else in the same boat as me to greb rocks together, or hunt chalton, or ask someone to take me between Morin's & Luir's. There are all sorts of interactions that end up being relationship building exercises early, that simply aren't the same once you're particularly self-sufficient.

And the reason is simple: It's harder to trust someone who doesn't need anything from you. That need, that interdependency builds trust that is far more difficult to attain once your PC is a badass. No one trusts a badass.

The opportunities for another PC to "save your life" also diminish as you get better, and more skilled. Those early periods of social development are often, in my opinion, an extension of my PCs "background" and "growing up", to where, people you meet and "grow up" with often form bonds and relationships that are much more difficult to attain later on. The bond of friendship that develops between two soldiers who train together, from the greenest of greenhorns to later become grizzled veterans, is a deep thing. And it's very different to the relationship between a superior officer, and that same soldier, who served together for the same period of time.

By avoiding RP until "ready", in my opinion, you avoid all the varying levels of relationship dynamics like these along the way. If your goal is to play a solo/hermit hunter with no friends, I guess that's a good way to go, though.

[najdorf]

Yeah I know the feeling. I used to avoid people until my preferred weapon skill was master.

[flurry]

Why are these characters hanging around each other and why do they rescue each other?  Why don't they just run away and split up?

This made me think of Jack's iconic speech from LOST: "If we can't live together, we're going to die alone."

[Harmless]

The game is definitely social and basically all online games carry with them a conscious awareness that someone else is possibly watching. This game is the best online RP I know of because the possibility for roles to be unique is the best of all other games, due to free-form RP ability. The more freedom (within restriction) that we get, the ability to play out a story in a long tale that both repeats itself yet somehow stays fresh (mostly DUE to other players' unexpected turns and movements), is why after more than 10 years of playing, it still scratches my itch (AKA addiction) for a roleplaying experience.

But, it is also stressful, just like socializing can be stressful in real life. Sometimes I can't tolerate a role because of where it is going. I need rapid and satisfying "outs" in those cases, such as a good death or a good use of >rebel. I used to do strictly background roles, lots of breed hunters and such, or elves. The low expectations of non-humans was a relief. But by playing those roles, it was like an introduction to deeper relationship building. I probably learned to form bonds via my usual "I'm shade with anything" attitude-bearing breed who looks like a human archetype I did at least 10 times in various iterations.

I admit I also once preferred Tuluk because it was quieter and had a more easygoing initial approach to RP. When I started in Nak, I would almost always play independents who had nothing to do with the Nak social game. Obviously, when Tuluk closed, I was forced to play my city concepts in Nak, and since my city concepts typically involved clans, I started RPing in Nak clans (merchant, noble, etc). At first, it was hard -- I might feel "outed" as being a Tuluki with a faux pais or I might be called a "breed" even if I wasn't because I would obsess over my failures or be overly humble, or what have you. Somehow, I eventually learned to play a bit more of a confident role, though, and rose to the rank of First Trooper and such, but I always gave out once leadership became a regular responsibility (ahem, part-time job)

Then, I learned that when joining a clan or group, I am happier if I play as a character with a role/background that will make it less likely you'll be asked to lead too early, giving yme a chance to learn the clan's patterns before being expected to "perform" as a pro. Examples are being young or being of an atypical race or skillset for the role. This way, I can be social in groups I still feel uncomfortable in.

However, a deep part of me still just wants to be a loner, and I still go back to those roles constantly, in between my forays into the political scene.

I greatly enjoy this free-form, permanent-death RP enforced MUD. It's because it is all those things, and a social game, that I enjoy it. The text format helps to dumb down the feedback overload I get from socializing in real life (which is why LARP is not an option for me, and just strikes me as a nightmare). The risk of permanent death, that I might lose all that I worked for, is why it is especially enjoyable. I'd play more pen and paper but I can't keep a group or stay in one.

[Cind]

It's harder to trust someone who doesn't need anything from you. That need, that interdependency builds trust that is far more difficult to attain once your PC is a badass. No one trusts a badass.

Ah, this brings back memories. Playing a person in need is usually temporary for me (and everyone else) and its in that transitional period that the best friends are often made. Nothing brings people together like need--- especially people from different parts of the city or races, who if rich, would have a hard time finding reasons to trust each other.

[Heade]

It's harder to trust someone who doesn't need anything from you. That need, that interdependency builds trust that is far more difficult to attain once your PC is a badass. No one trusts a badass.

Ah, this brings back memories. Playing a person in need is usually temporary for me (and everyone else) and its in that transitional period that the best friends are often made. Nothing brings people together like need--- especially people from different parts of the city or races, who if rich, would have a hard time finding reasons to trust each other.

Exactly.

[Eyeball]

In any case, I'm starting to get the impression that some sort of hole has been punched in parry/shield use/defense code-wise, so that a character is going to be taking a certain mount of hits no matter how skilled she is or who/what she's up against. If true, that means that the Age of Heroes is over, and all combat characters are vulnerable to simple attrition. No glorious one-man stands, just being somewhat better than the next guy at best.

Which would mean the last of the Achiever goals is dead. Congratulations, Social/Killer players, your victory is complete.

[Dar]

I know the feeling "well" and often succumb to it myself. When I play leaderships, or resource rich characters, I often help others to break through that barrier by engaging them with some things whatever hooks they can later use while remaining loners until they decide they dont want to anymore. But yeah. I often have a temptation to stay loner with my characters.

[Synthesis]

Personally, I kind of like coming in with a new PC and faking being a noob.

[only_plays_tribals]

Personally, I kind of like coming in with a new PC and faking being a noob.

[Alesan]

I don't have to fake it.


I'm definitely on the fence about the "newb" period on a new PC. My social game is not up to snuff, and so until those relationships start to form, which can take up to a month of RL time, I can get very frustrated with the game.

Because by and large, those chargen-dressed characters receive far less attention than someone who's amassed some gear and looks established, and has been around consistently for a certain amount of time.

[TheWanderer]

In any case, I'm starting to get the impression that some sort of hole has been punched in parry/shield use/defense code-wise, so that a character is going to be taking a certain mount of hits no matter how skilled she is or who/what she's up against. If true, that means that the Age of Heroes is over, and all combat characters are vulnerable to simple attrition. No glorious one-man stands, just being somewhat better than the next guy at best.

Which would mean the last of the Achiever goals is dead. Congratulations, Social/Killer players, your victory is complete.

I, too, was critted. The Age of Heroes is truly over. All this relentless twinking is for naught.

On another note, can someone PM me directions to Cenyr??? All I see are dunes.

[Eyeball]

I, too, was critted. The Age of Heroes is truly over. All this relentless twinking is for naught.

Yes, I figured someone would say this. To which the standard reply is, "why don't you go play a MUSH" if enjoying developing a codedly powerful character in a code-based game is synonymous with twinking.

EDIT: As it stands, commoners don't have much to strive for in the game. Money is useless to a commoner beyond a certain point. Status is capped at the Sergeant level for the most part. There's not a lot out on the sands to motivate exploration. And being codedly powerful seems to have been reduced as well. I guess there's the basic survival game left. How long can you go before you die in a Templar's mission, for example?

[TheWanderer]

Eh. Dumb reply.

People prefer twinks and outwardly powerful characters in this setting because that coded power presents an advantage to be lorded over other players in a perma-death, storytelling environment. It's much more versatile and interesting here than anywhere else. It's one of the reasons Templar roles receive the most applications (I mean, aside from the fact that they're probably the best-implemented sponsor role).

I can see the appeal of doing it in this game (even if I'd personally want to dash my head against a wall if I gave it an attempt). I don't see the appeal in a MUSH.

Anyway, what you're talking about would just be hearsay. It's possible stuff's been quietly reduced so dwarves aren't solo killing meks! I dunno. It's always been a -little- jarring to meet warriors that casually solo kill everything in the world without breaking a sweat, though. Regardless, I assure you killing the social roles can be done with ease! So, uh, take solace in that?

OH, right. I forgot to stay on topic. Uh. Yeah, I commiserate with you folk and your social awkwardness when it comes to dealing with other socially awkward nerds. Much love.

[Marauder Moe]

I feel like Armageddon is partially a game where you need to make your own fun rather than rely on coded goals for your satisfaction.  If you can't have fun playing your character without money/rank/power/magick, you're not going to have fun with those things.


Anyway, I've never felt like I needed to skill-up before interacting.  The only times I feel "not ready" are when I haven't gotten a chance to go shopping yet, which is much less of a problem now that we have pretty well-stocked newbie shops. 

I've had pretty good success just jumping into conversations.  The key is playing it right.
*Don't TELL your backstory.  Don't even show it.  Just hint at it and make other characters pry for details.
*Converse with purpose.  Go in with a goal of obtaining some information; current Byn sergeants, safe/dangerous grebbing spots, templars to look out for, etc.
*Express strong opinions rather than seeking conformity.  Take a verbal shit on 'gickers/elves/breeds/whatever undesirables.  Decide that Allanak needs better bards. Remark about how the ale at this place tastes like dwarf-piss.  Talk about how nice it must be to work for House Fale.  Tell someone their cloak is ugly.

[Bebop]

I play the game in a super social light.  I'm bored if there aren't social sparks flying.

On the flip side, sometimes I'm like ugh who are these virtual people?  I don't even like real people.  And it gets to be a bit much for me.  Usually at that point I try to find some way to jump the shark to get myself out of the funk.

But yeah, I can play any other video game for world, fps etc.  I go to Arm for the political intrigue and social aspect - playing different character styles and for the fun interactions.

[Eyeball]

Eh. Dumb reply.

People prefer twinks and outwardly powerful characters in this setting because that coded power presents an advantage to be lorded over other players in a perma-death, storytelling environment. It's much more versatile and interesting here than anywhere else. It's one of the reasons Templar roles receive the most applications (I mean, aside from the fact that they're probably the best-implemented sponsor role).

I can see the appeal of doing it in this game (even if I'd personally want to dash my head against a wall if I gave it an attempt). I don't see the appeal in a MUSH.

Anyway, what you're talking about would just be hearsay. It's possible stuff's been quietly reduced so dwarves aren't solo killing meks! I dunno. It's always been a -little- jarring to meet warriors that casually solo kill everything in the world without breaking a sweat, though. Regardless, I assure you killing the social roles can be done with ease! So, uh, take solace in that?

OH, right. I forgot to stay on topic. Uh. Yeah, I commiserate with you folk and your social awkwardness when it comes to dealing with other socially awkward nerds. Much love.

I hope you eat your wheaties tomorrow, or whatever else makes your day better for you.

[TheWanderer]

Don't rankle on me. I think you're detecting more of a tone than I intended. That was a genuine response to your apparent frustration with others and their whole "go play a MUSH" bit, with my "dumb reply" line being directed at the bit. This game has qualities that make it inherently more interesting to be a maxed out character here than in some MUSH. Reasons listed were the honest truth, even if people don't like to admit it.

What conflicts between the two of us, I assume, is that I don't much care if people can't solo meks, bahamets, horrors, 30-man onslaughts, and so on. Those seem like party endeavors in a "grounded" fantasy setting. Or something done with some sweet ass magick effects.

But thank you! I hope you get some posts supporting your coded aspirations, or whatever else makes your day better for you in general.

[Synthesis]

Post-defense-nerf, warriors have never been bulletproof...and that was in like...2006.

I haven't played around enough with Enforcer/Raider/Fighter to say whether their top-tier defense matches up with where a top-tier warrior's was, but...beyond that, I don't know what you're getting at.  After September 2006, a top-tier warrior has -always- run the risk of a random headshot, even from a critter you could pwn 99% of the time.

I don't know of any ordinary PC that has legit soloed meks or silt-horrors post defense-nerf.  Both of those can land single hits for 100+ damage, and nobody's defense is good enough to make a living off that risk.  I had a dwarf ranger who could solo bahamets if he had to, but it was always a sketchy proposition, and bahamets are a lot less dangerous than mekillots and silt-horrors.  My 60-day warrior still occasionally had to flee from rantarri, gwoshi, tarantulas, tembo, dujats...depending on their stat roll.  (And trust me, once you kill enough of mob X, you can tell what their agility roll is within the first few rounds of combat, and you know their strength roll the first time it hits you.)  Since then, defense seems to have gotten another slight situational nerf, but...I'm still on the fence about whether what I'm seeing there is a real pattern or just data noise and misperception.

[Riev]

I was running the dungeons and dragons starter edition with a bunch of new players, and I was a first time GM, and the question came up then.
Why are these characters hanging around each other and why do they rescue each other?  Why don't they just run away and split up?
I didn't have a good answer, but I put this up to the players - it's a social game and we play together.  Make up your own reasons to be in this gang.
I wish I had better answers but this question as to why characters should play with each other still bothers me a bit

"Alright, so you're all in the bar. What do you do?"
"I go upstairs to my room, avoid everyone, and retire as a farmer."


But in reality, I have struggled with this before. There aren't really any "adventurer's guild" places, or standard quests. Arm isn't like DnD... you're not playing the level 10 fighter in a world of level 1 NPCs. You're not a special character because you're a PC vs and NPC. The lore of the game states that every character, (v)NPC or not, has the same stat ranges, abilities, and potential.

Which to me, means Arm is a Social Game as OP mentioned, moreso than a text based Dungeons and Dragons game. Sure you can skill up and git tuff, but it doesn't mean anything. You're not being hired to kill that wyvern that has been plaguing the trade routes established in Mal Krian. You're not in a group of people who need to investigate a new system of tunnels opened up by a recent salt worm.

Those are best left to the NPCs of standing. Go get their water, slave.

[Jihelu]

A session 0 is required to really set the tone, I always feel like. If you decide not to have a session 0 and the game is mostly for fun?...Please for the love of god don't do what Riev hinted at in his post and go upstairs and retire.

This is an adventure game! If you aren't going to actively come up with a minor backstory atleast have a character willing to take risks and explore!

I usually like being related to another character either in occupation or by blood. I was a dragonborn nobles guard once. Was fun. He was a paladin, I was a cavalier.

[Riev]

Anyone who takes my suggestion, while playing a game of DnD, deserves the ridicule they would receive.

My point, which I think you kind of passed by, was that the game is incredibly social. Tabletop games, even without a Session 0, have ways of bringing players together, but you're bringing together 3-6 people who are all interested in what you're providing.

Armageddon cannot do that. It can only say "Here is the world, inhabit it." There are Adventurer's Guilds. There are no "Hunt this Beast for city favor" etc. You are not the DnD player in Armageddon. You are the NPC that the DnD player interacts with.

Sure, sometimes you're the current Guild Face, and have some power codedly and lore-wise behind you, but you're never the DnD player.

Sometimes you're the hardened Byn Sergeant who whips beggars and thieves into a fighting force, but you're never the DnD player that hires the Sergeant and gets half the troop killed in a gnoll attack.

Its a difficult transition, and one I never was fully able to make.

[Delirium]

Sometimes you're the hardened Byn Sergeant who whips beggars and thieves into a fighting force, but you're never the DnD player that hires the Sergeant and gets half the troop killed in a gnoll gith attack.

... says you...

[Miradus]

Why would you hire the Byn to do anything? It would have to be only a social thing. They are utterly useless at everything else.

Let's say I'm a useless merchant and I decide to relocate from Nak to Luir's. To cross the Red Desert I would like some protection from raptors, thank you very much.

I hire ONE GUY out of the Gaj and he deals with any raptors we see (or stray gith left over from some storyteller attack on the Garrison).

I hire a squad of Byn to do it (for probably around the same price as that one guy) and it takes three times as long and we often suffer wave after wave of gith attacks. I'm actually LESS likely to make the move successfully because of the involvement of other players.

Your success in Armageddon is largely proportional to how limited you scope your goals and how willing you are to keep off the radar of everyone else. So yes, it's a social game. A social game in which you inversely are punished by the involvement of others.

The only reason I ever roll out of chargen intending to be social (with a criminal or a merchant) is if I've already decided my goals aren't going to be achievable but I'm willing to spend my time and effort spectacularly failing around others or I'm willing to be a human crafting vending machine to allow others to achieve whatever goals they set (usually just buying some bling).

My recent dissatisfaction with the game comes from mostly that. In a permadeath game, you need some sense of achievement. You can't build anything. You can't transition from a mundane to a mighty alchemist or sorcerer. You might be able to go from farmboy to famous warrior, but you're then limited to sitting around in the Gaj explaining to newbies how famous you are.

There's only a few areas I haven't explored in the game and they're so heavily loaded with kryl that it's impossible to move around in there, even with a 100 day character. I've run out of shit to do in this game.

[Vex]

The game seems more anti-social than social, and its been rubbing off on me.

I'm preferring to avoid more and more pcs, the longer I play the game. I don't think I could ever, ever again, play a warrior, because you have to interact with everyone, for everything you need, almost all of the time. I find the idea intolerable, lately.

I find being out of doors, and away from towns, makes the game easier to enjoy, as when I DO run into someone, they're usually just like me: out in the boonies, to avoid the loonies. And if they're of the type of people, I try to avoid? There aren't fifty half-giant npc soldiers sitting around, every few rooms, keeping me from kicking their teeth in. I do find, it makes for more polite interactions, more often than not.

There would be a lot more incentive to play in cities, if everyone wasn't so ironclad protected from an ass kicking, by the crazy number of npc soldiers. The number of smug "social role" assholes, who need to be beaten, looted and left dead and naked in an alley, is getting troubling. I may need to play another elf, soon...

[yousuff]

I may need to play another elf, soon...

Do a rolecall, preferably more compatible with the documents than my own were I'll be down for it if you'd have me

[Miradus]

Though I gotta say, Vex/Yousuff, I feel a little funny about the meta of a rolecall with the intent of culling the social-asshole herd some ...

I'm totally in.

We'd just need to show some restraint. And the expectation is we'd all eventually die horribly because we'd be facing heat from both the lawful and criminal world.

There's even some lore for this that makes it more legit ... revolutionaries and secret cultists abound.

.. but ... show some restraint. More maiming than killing. And not just because that guy was rude in the Gaj that one time.

[Bebop]

What would define the social-asshole herd, pray tell?

[Marauder Moe]

It is a wonderful thing that Armageddon supports many different interests and playstyles.

[Miradus]

What would define the social-asshole herd, pray tell?

Hard to put a definition around, but I think we all know it when we see it.

A character can be an asshole and really add to the game. And then a character can do the same things and detract from it.

How would you define it, Bebop?

[Vex]

What would define the social-asshole herd, pray tell?

Well, this is suitably awkward.

[Miradus]

Roll with it.

Progress is made in uncomfortable places.

[RogueGunslinger]

Progress is not how I'd characterize the direction of this thread. If a point can't be made without disparaging other players or the game itself then you aren't making a good point. That's just airing bitter grievances ad nauseam. If you find yourself doing this repeatedly you need to either let it go and find a new hobby, or get on staff and make some changes.

[Miradus]

Well, I thought we were going to have a discussion between what makes a strong villain character and what makes simply an asshole.

Clearly there's some issues here I'm not aware of.

As usual in this forum, there's a context I'm not part to in the discussions and I get the feeling it goes on either in Discord or elsewhere.

[Miradus]

Progress is not how I'd characterize the direction of this thread. If a point can't be made without disparaging other players or the game itself then you aren't making a good point. That's just airing bitter grievances ad nauseam. If you find yourself doing this repeatedly you need to either let it go and find a new hobby, or get on staff and make some changes.

I feel like you're being self-righteous. I've done nothing but try and discuss the game on the discussion forum, and I feel like people attack my post and throw motivations upon me that don't exist.

[Heade]

Well, I thought we were going to have a discussion between what makes a strong villain character and what makes simply an asshole.

Not all assholes have to be villains. Nor villains, assholes. You can be an incredibly polite and socially paletteable villain. You can also be a socially abrasive asshole with a heart of gold. These are all various types of nuance that you may, or may not get to pick up on by RPing with the characters. But, I think, in a social game, we should recognize that these sorts of things exist, and give people the benefit of the doubt. Let's not be judgemental of someone else's RP, when we can't see behind the curtain, to people's motivations and inner thoughts/feelings.

[Narf]

Progress is not how I'd characterize the direction of this thread. If a point can't be made without disparaging other players or the game itself then you aren't making a good point. That's just airing bitter grievances ad nauseam. If you find yourself doing this repeatedly you need to either let it go and find a new hobby, or get on staff and make some changes.

I feel like you're being self-righteous. I've done nothing but try and discuss the game on the discussion forum, and I feel like people attack my post and throw motivations upon me that don't exist.

If I were a gambling sort I'd give 5 to 1 odds he was talking about someone else. You might reread the thread and see if his response better fits another poster.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Be cool, folks.

[Derain]

Have to agree there is definitely a social asshole herd in the major city right now, it's laughable To even try to play there right now.

[RogueGunslinger]

I made a very general comment because the thread was devolving into whining about other players or the game in general. Something that happens frequently on the GDB and gets rather tiresome.

[Derain]

Unless your playing you wouldn't understand some of the frustrations.

[Bebop]

Progress is not how I'd characterize the direction of this thread. If a point can't be made without disparaging other players or the game itself then you aren't making a good point. That's just airing bitter grievances ad nauseam. If you find yourself doing this repeatedly you need to either let it go and find a new hobby, or get on staff and make some changes.

I feel like you're being self-righteous. I've done nothing but try and discuss the game on the discussion forum, and I feel like people attack my post and throw motivations upon me that don't exist.

Okay, so RG's response in no way warrants this level of aggression and calling it gas lighting is a bit ironic since you basically just went off on him and accused everyone else of effectively having some kind of OOC context for some obscure point of subject matter.  WTH, dude?

Then you've got Vex and yourself having a passive-aggressive exchange in regards to my question from earlier.

And I asked about the "asshole herd" you referred to be because what I've seen over my 10 plus years of time in the game is people get their OOC preferences and expectations and then proceed to take it out on people IG instead of being open to ideas and plot lines.  So I was a bit concerned as to what constitutes this for you.

Overall, this thread has gotten really, really aggressive and I'm really confused as to where that aggression is coming from regarding what seems like a really mild topic.

[Vex]

Then you've got Vex and yourself having a passive-aggressive exchange in regards to my question from earlier.

And I asked about the "asshole herd" you referred to be because what I've seen over my 10 plus years of time in the game is people get their OOC preferences and expectations and then proceed to take it out on people IG instead of being open to ideas and plot lines.  So I was a bit concerned as to what constitutes this for you.

It was a slight bit of cheeky, but hardly passive.

[Cind]

I feel like I don't get social anxiety at all, unless its from within the game itself, such as me being an elf, pulling up my hood and walking into Red's during a Kadian party in order to snag food. I have amazing, amazing confidence that never seems to waver. Now that I think about it I'm sure that's not actually normal.

If I haven't talked with someone I don't know for a while then I do feel a little socially awkward with these strangers in the game for the first meeting but its more of a reaction than a feeling.

I'm always nice during OOC. Put a little smiley face on it and everything.

[tapas]

Theoretically it's a social game where we collaboratively build stories.

Except sometimes when you collaborate with another player they get their tits in a twist and just decide to lock you in a back room and kill you instead.

So we have a game about social collaboration where you get punished for collaborating socially. It's really no wonder why some players would rather just decide to avoid other players entirely.

Though, this is the first time I've heard of players avoiding other players because it's too hard to kill them in the city?

[tapas]

Then you've got Vex and yourself having a passive-aggressive exchange in regards to my question from earlier.

And I asked about the "asshole herd" you referred to be because what I've seen over my 10 plus years of time in the game is people get their OOC preferences and expectations and then proceed to take it out on people IG instead of being open to ideas and plot lines.  So I was a bit concerned as to what constitutes this for you.

It was a slight bit of cheeky, but hardly passive.

It's passive aggressive.

[Riev]

So we have a game about social collaboration where you get punished for collaborating socially. It's really no wonder why some players would rather just decide to avoid other players entirely.

This is very pertinent. Due to the nature of the game, the more social you are, the more difficult and frustrating the game becomes. Setting aside the need to update staff, waiting a week before getting responses, and the administrative portion of the game... just collaborating socially with other players becomes frustrating. If your concept requires the input of another person, or the plot line you are pursuing needs that person to log in or be free enough to talk to you, frustration occurs.

Conversely, if your goals are to live out in the Wastes, be solo, and only interact with other PCs as a passing "Hey you're here too? I'll go to the other side, then"... you're bound to have less frustration. However, you won't be able to do anything but interact with the code of the game, and it loses the dynamic reaction.

[cnemus]

My personal strategy for addressing some of the complications of social play is to focus on opportunity as opposed to dependency. Yes, if you absolutely must rely on x to do y, then we find frustration. If however x is only a way to augment y and we can do z no matter what, then the story (even a social one) can move forward regardless. Each PC interaction or staff request can be an opportunity to enhance a given story, but if at all possible I avoid making any single piece essential to anything.

I structure my goals from the outset with this in mind to avoid those frustrating situations.

[Bebop]

So we have a game about social collaboration where you get punished for collaborating socially. It's really no wonder why some players would rather just decide to avoid other players entirely.

This is very pertinent. Due to the nature of the game, the more social you are, the more difficult and frustrating the game becomes. Setting aside the need to update staff, waiting a week before getting responses, and the administrative portion of the game... just collaborating socially with other players becomes frustrating. If your concept requires the input of another person, or the plot line you are pursuing needs that person to log in or be free enough to talk to you, frustration occurs.

Conversely, if your goals are to live out in the Wastes, be solo, and only interact with other PCs as a passing "Hey you're here too? I'll go to the other side, then"... you're bound to have less frustration. However, you won't be able to do anything but interact with the code of the game, and it loses the dynamic reaction.

As usual I agree with, Riev (and tapas apparently!)

I think a lot of this could be alleviated by allowing players to strive for senior roles and leadership positions once more.  I also believe that things should be more player, IG driven instead of so much administrative red tape being required for leadership roles.  It often times feels a bit contrived and thankless on both an IG and OOC level.  I don't think it promotes fresh growth.  It creates stagnation and limits the feeling of possibility when everything needs to go through a staff filter instead of approachable IG PC leaders.

Having come back I feel a lot more stress regarding the social dynamics of the game than I ever have prior.  Before the game was effortlessly fun.  Now it seems a bit of a struggle to perpetuate interest and zeal.  But I feel like I'd have to regurgitate points I've already attempted to make in other threads if I went on.

Edited to Add - I will say I like staff more than I've ever liked staff before.  I just don't think it's healthy for the game to be so reliant upon them and I had always thought the intent had been to get away from staff reliance.  Upon my return the game seems more heavily staff reliant than ever.