Karma Timer Proposition - Gemmed

[DesertT]

In an effort to NOT continue derailing another thread, I feel that karma timers should be put back in.

As the documentation states:  Magick is a mysterious and very rare power on Zalanthas.

Allowing people to role gick after gick after gick does not seem to be inline with encouraging documentation.

Allow me to extend this olive branch however.  What if selecting to be Gemmed at character creation, credited you back one karma point?  This would allow zero karma players to experiment with magick as a gemmed touched.  This would lessen the severity of the "karma jail" while also encouraging more folks to play a Gemmed as opposed to a rogue gick.

I imagine this might be easier to code in or whatever, instead of forcing folks to role a non-magicker every other character, or whatever ideas are out there.

Thoughts?  Feedback?

I know you all love me!!

[Fragmented]

-1

Sorry. I very much enjoy having the freedom to play what I want, when I want, be it mundane, or magicker. I think if someone keeps rolling Krathi psycho over and over and over, staff will notice and ask them to back off. I hated, HATED that OOC feeling of stress when I invested 3 karma, knowing that one little mistake would cost me at minimum 30 days to even get an ESG, up to 90 if I wanted to play something else 3K.

[mansa]

You need to answer these questions:

What system is telling the player that they cannot play that character, and what rules justify that system?


If the system is "time limitation", then the players will wait until time is satisfied and then continue.
If the system is "population limitation", then the players either wait until other players have been removed from the game and take their spot, or they will choose another open spot in the game.

[Riev]

The decision has flip-flopped a number of times, since the flattening of karma and an attempted introduction of CGP and "building the character you want".

The decision was mulled over a bunch previously, before landing here. What has happened that you think its okay to say it should be reverted, now?

[DesertT]

What has happened that you think its okay to say it should be reverted, now?

When people are inquiring about ways to make magick spell casting more elongated, that seems to be an indicator of an over-abundance of gicks.

Same when Staff says there are something like a third of players playing a gick of some sort even though documentation says it should be very rare in Zalanthas.

When I see a karma three gick take a shot at a sponsored role, fail, then just store and role again instead of facing IC consequences, that's an indicator.

When people store militia characters because of an over-abundance of gick raiders and adversaries, that's an indicator.

I'm further addressing Zealus' concern about only veteran players with high karma having the opportunity to know and play gicks.  If you start out as a gemmed, you get the bonus of shaving 1-point off your creation cost.  That seems a more than reasonable compromise.

[whengravityfails]

It's still a terrible idea. The consolation prize is a touched Gemmed? That's more of an insult than anything. Touching the karma jail should be a non-starter after seeing how many people it brought back - and how many it would once again drive away.

Whatever the solution is is not this or lengthening the casting time of spells and likely ought to be targeted at players who are actually doing the things you list.

[HazelHomewrecker]

Whatever the solution is is not this or lengthening the casting time of spells and likely ought to be targeted at players who are actually doing the things you list.

This.

If you have an invasive species of weeds growing in your yard, you yank them out by the roots every time you see them, until they're gone. You don't rip apart all of the healthy yard and replant turf instead.

If your issues are PLAYERS doing things, abusing the system, and abusing their coded power in an OOC, meta-esque way, you punish THOSE players. You don't make blanket adjustments for everything as a whole, especially when it'll be a net-negative effect on the players who AREN'T doing that.

[DesertT]

Maybe the answer is to limit rogue magickers like they do desert elves.

I feel like that would be even more limiting though.

[Halaster]

I feel that karma timers should be put back in.

Karma timers are not going back in.

[Krath]

-1

Sorry. I very much enjoy having the freedom to play what I want, when I want, be it mundane, or magicker. I think if someone keeps rolling Krathi psycho over and over and over, staff will notice and ask them to back off. I hated, HATED that OOC feeling of stress when I invested 3 karma, knowing that one little mistake would cost me at minimum 30 days to even get an ESG, up to 90 if I wanted to play something else 3K.

[DesertT]

I feel that karma timers should be put back in.

Karma timers are not going back in.

Is there talk about limiting them like desert elves and other clans?

[Kialae]

We got like 12 people playing the game these days. Let people play what they want or they'll go away. Simple as that.

[DesertT]

We got like 12 people playing the game these days. Let people play what they want or they'll go away. Simple as that.

32 on right now.  Wonder how many of those use magick...

[BadSkeelz]

Guessing about 15.

Magick stopped being rare or mysterious a long time ago.

[Lotion]

If karma regen was changed so that a person's karma level was the maximum karma they could spend at chargen and they could generate up to 3x or so their karma level in karma that would be pretty nice. It still time gates how many witches can be created very quickly but also heavily mitigates karma jail.

0k -> 0 max
1k -> 3 max
2k -> 6 max
3k -> 9 max

it still allows players some leeway if they quickly splat a gick and allows "long lived characters" to be much more greatly rewarded

[SpyGuy]

I'm all aboard the 'there's way too many mages out there' train.  Some parts of the player base feel so strongly about karma timers that it just won't happen.  And I'm unsure if role caps are the way to go either, desert elf one certainly wasn't popular. 

Problem is staff decisions that have led to a game world where mages are objectively better subclasses with little coded cost.  The social cost of late (from my mundane perspective) is also barely enforced if at all.   I've frequently felt more isolated as the mundane in the game surrounded by magickers than is fun. Except for the short lived Tuluki, every mundane character I've played since subclasses came in has had their story defined by magick.  Hard to avoid when 50%+ of the PCs outside Tuluk are mages. Magic is no longer rare, special or even interesting in the high magick environment Zalanthas is today.

Why is that important?   The mundane experience is what new players enter the game to see.  Most sponsored roles require mundane aides or clans like the militia or Byn to be healthy to push plots forward.  People should play what they want sure but something is seriously out of balance when choosing mage is many players' default choice.

[Pariah]

So the general consensus is Karma Timers bad.

Halaster said he's not going to put them back anyways.

Others have agreed that there is too many witches rolling around.

Do we look at limiting them like d-elves in tribes?  Won't that be similar to Karma timers?

Or do we do nothing for fear certain people won't like anything?

[BadSkeelz]

Staff should be asking players why they're playing magickers and outside of cities, listening very carefully to the responses, and then seeing what positive actions can be taken. Instead of limiting players, find out what is making players play outside "normal" roles. Why is the playerbase so skewed towards independents, magickers, and independent magickers?

Conversations have been swirling around this question for awhile now, but having a frank discussion about it on the GDB is difficult. It's very prone to getting moderated because (at least in my opinion) a big reason for the drift out of the cities and mundanes has been how Templar PCs and Staff have handled themselves for the last ten years.

[Pariah]

Staff should be asking players why they're playing magickers and outside of cities, listening very carefully to the responses, and then seeing what positive actions can be taken. Instead of limiting players, find out what is making players play outside "normal" roles. Why is the playerbase so skewed towards independents, magickers, and independent magickers?

Conversations have been swirling around this question for awhile now, but having a frank discussion about it on the GDB is difficult. It's very prone to getting moderated because (at least in my opinion) a big reason for the drift out of the cities and mundanes has been how Templar PCs and Staff have handled themselves for the last ten years.

This comes up every day on the discord.  Templar hate.

[Kialae]

What is the grievance about magickers, anyway? Are people constantly creating 3 karma magickers and killing your characters? Or do you just not like people having fun the way you do?

[DesertT]

If we incentivized being a Gemmed, maybe that would help.

Thus my suggestion on taking the Gem at chargen giving you a rebate of one karma.

Maybe we institute rogue mage limits (like delf tribes), but not Gemmed?

Just spitballing here.

[Pariah]

Nah. The Templars already got a massive army of witches to play with, don't make them more.

[najdorf]

give mundane new subguilds higher caps. lets assume hide is 80 at max but 90 at a mundane subclass (one of brokkrs new)

and i would always play a mundane for the rest of my arm times

[Krath]

People don't play gemmed because of templars and the gem slap. Gemmed are slaves...period..in most cases worse. Ungemmed slaves cam escape and do things, if you're a gemmed, you will get gem slapped. Don't do what a templar says? Gem slapped. According to the docs, slaves aren't playable.

Want more gemmed, Remove the slap.

That being said, i may be mistaken, way back when, the gem was used to allow magickers to trade within allanak and let folks know they are safe. If I am wrong please correct me.

[whengravityfails]

What is the grievance about magickers, anyway? Are people constantly creating 3 karma magickers and killing your characters? Or do you just not like people having fun the way you do?

As far as I can tell it's the latter. One day someone on staff mentioned the amount of magickers in game and a few people have been in hysterics since - not because of anything done, mind you, just because of the numbers.

As far as incentivized playing a Gemmed goes...there's very little incentive you could give to people who don't want the oppressive city vibe in the first place when being Gemmed is pretty much the absolute worst as far as that goes. You cannot avoid being fucked with by Templars, period.

[Kestria]

Unpopular opinion.

In a world where magick is seemingly to become the norm. Perhaps instead of making it harder to combat it.. simply accept it and change the worlds view. Magick has always been around.. there wouldn't be half as many issues with magick if the OMG MAGICK BAD was slowly peeled away to just be like.. ok.. so.. they are a growing thing now.
Cities have it, templars have it, kings have it.. tribes have it, [REDACTED] have it..
In thousands of years this world hasn't shifted its stance at all.. I'd say ease the overwhelming fear of normal witches.. focus the fear on nilazi, sorcerers, mind worms, defilers etc.
Then it wouldnt be an ooc issue for people either.

On a side note, I wonder how much hate I will get for saying this haha

[SpyGuy]

I'm beginning to think you don't come to these discussions willing to hear others' opinions Gravity.  Anyone who has a problem with the state of magic in the game, if they express their opinions, they 'don't want to let others have fun'.  Now they're 'in hysterics'. If they offer solutions they're 'uncreative'.  Please show some respect to people who disagree with you.

This is not new.  Staff released similar numbers in 2020 that showed about the same 30% playing magickers.  And that was BEFORE Tuluk reopened.  The balance outside Tuluk is way worse now.  Does this mean these people are bad players?  Not at all. Does mean my enjoyment of the game is in the gutter because it doesn't follow to its own documentation of magick being rare and special? Yes.

And before someone accuses me of whining about karma roles I can't play, I have three karma and have for years.

My problems with magick in no particular order:
-The subclasses offer a huge power boost with limited cost.  They can greatly outshine mundanes and have for many RPTs and other events.  They don't even need meat shields because subclass mages can be combat gods themselves
- Hidden gick storylines are trite and repetitive at this point.  First couple were  fun but when it's 10+ on a character it's draining
- A majority of PCs in a play area being mages means two things.  First, it's unlikely any mage hate will be RPed because in general I don't see mages hating other mages.  Apparently staff even had to add coded effects to Nilazi interactions because these 'trusted' players decided they don't need to follow the docs. Second, any mundane will be overshadowed in combat/stealth/etc among those magickers unless they happen to fill a needed niche
- It's unavoidable if you leave Tuluk's walls.  Didn't used to be that I commonly saw magick on my PCs but it sure has been common these days.  Meeting multiple sorcerers on a PC, a dozen friendships broken because they were a witch, random sightings outside. All very common in my experience to the point they're not at all special
- I've seen enough poor play from high karma roles to no longer trust that the karma system is an effective tool to enforce following documentation
-'Are we the only ones who aren't witches?' should not be a conversation I'm having on multiple characters.  Think playing a gemmed is isolating?  Try playing a magick hating commoner outside Tuluk.
- Magick was to me an issue in 2020 when I came back after a long break. My first time seeing it after subguild changes and it was everywhere.  I left the game because it no longer interested me to see magick become so commonplace.  Tried again then left a second time with the same bad taste in my mouth.  Have now come back a third time because the game was dying but it may be this is no longer a place for players like me. All that time staff have continued to buff mages and put them at the center of play.  No one should be surprised about half the other problems the game has


In conclusion, I'm not trying to shit in your cereal.  Glad you like mages and the game now.  Staff, particularly Brokkr and Halaster, took a shit in my cereal by buffing mages to the point where they dominate the game.  Enjoy mage mud folks


Edit:  To Kestria's point, Apocalypse MUD did magick better.  Only full guilds.  By documentation you could be buddies with a Viv and even work together.  Armageddon's documentation really doesn't allow this right now.  Should it?  Be better than what we have now imo

[JohnMichaelHenry]

Unpopular opinion.

In a world where magick is seemingly to become the norm. Perhaps instead of making it harder to combat it.. simply accept it and change the worlds view. Magick has always been around.. there wouldn't be half as many issues with magick if the OMG MAGICK BAD was slowly peeled away to just be like.. ok.. so.. they are a growing thing now.
Cities have it, templars have it, kings have it.. tribes have it, [REDACTED] have it..
In thousands of years this world hasn't shifted its stance at all.. I'd say ease the overwhelming fear of normal witches.. focus the fear on nilazi, sorcerers, mind worms, defilers etc.
Then it wouldnt be an ooc issue for people either.

On a side note, I wonder how much hate I will get for saying this haha

co
This makes sense to me. Especially with a smaller player base than we are used to. Already divided by race, region and status, let's make the path to finding allies easier.

[DesertT]

The path to finding allies -is- already easier.  Rogue gicks aren't a scarcity.  When they find each other, it's like, "Hey Pal, let's hook-up and get each other's backs!"

If there were a way to make playing a Gemmed more attractive, like lowering the karma-cost to play one, maybe that would help even things out a bit.  I mean, there is a whole QUARTER of Allanak dedicated to just them.

[mansa]

This was brought up in January 2023 here:
"Reinstating the karma timer" - https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,58900.0.html

There was a major thread 15 years ago that wrote about, "The game world is written so that magickers are rare and feared, but I keep seeing people become friends with magickers."
"Reminder of what your character knows and feels" - https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,28005.0.html

Karma itself was implemented to limit the number of characters with magicker skills.
...Once a certain threshold was passed, the limiting factor of Karma wasn't doing its job, so...
Karma timer was created, to help limit the number of characters with magicker skills.
...But that had a side effect of players just waiting out their karma timer, and not engaging with the game until they can play again.


The big question is:
Who is allowed to have the most powerful characters in the competitive, player-versus-player, permanent character death game.  And how do I win?

[Krath]

If there were a way to make playing a Gemmed more attractive, like lowering the karma-cost to play one, maybe that would help even things out a bit.  I mean, there is a whole QUARTER of Allanak dedicated to just them.

This is not the issue. The issue is Gemmed are slaves and have strong restrictions. People would rather play tribal/rogue gicks because while they are solo, they are not slaves.
Additionally, Anytime gemmed try to get together and do something for themselves, not related to templarate or a noble house, it is shutdown or big bad templar starts forcing them to do X Y or Z. If a group of rogue gicks wanted to do something, they could without being forced to do what they do not want to.
And no, making player clans and warehouses only available in Nak and Tuluk is not the answer.

[Krath]

Maybe this is a different thread...Next Point, with the multiple spells removed from the different magickers: Empower, summon, raise dead, paralyze, etc full guild magickers are Full Guild Magickers LITE and in 90% of the cases much much weaker than a mundane magicker subclass.

There were, or seemed to be, less magickers in the past because it was extremely hard to get them to a point where they were great. Right now, the magicker subclasses plus a full mundane main are extremely OP. Taking in account the new combat slowdown and damage nerf, every reason to be a mundane, from a Playing to win PVP  and PVE standpoint, is effectively gone now.

A suggestion I heard was this...
1. Remove magick subguilds
2. Reinstate full magickers, with all the spells, with the option of the zero karma subguilds

[HazelHomewrecker]

So the general consensus is Karma Timers bad.

Halaster said he's not going to put them back anyways.

Others have agreed that there is too many witches rolling around.

Do we look at limiting them like d-elves in tribes?  Won't that be similar to Karma timers?

Or do we do nothing for fear certain people won't like anything?

...There's not a 'general consensus' that the karma timer being removed is a bad thing. A lot of people enjoy it being gone, I enjoy it being gone, I know other people who like not having to wait anymore.

The issue is that people may or may not be abusing the system in ways that I personally haven't witnessed, but have heard of plenty of times. The solution really should just be handling those specific bad eggs, all it would take is for staff to take a nice long look at who is doing what, and move from there. There's no need for the Karma timer to be re-added, because the only thing that will do is make people toss in throw-away characters that get stored the very hour that their karma regens.

In my personal opinion, at this point, you shouldn't be able to make a magic PC immediately after playing one, and the same should apply to all 2+ karma (excluding 1 karma thing like elves because who cares about elves amirite) options. Maybe that could be an alternative to these blanket adjustments?

[DesertT]

This is not the issue. The issue is Gemmed are slaves and have strong restrictions. People would rather play tribal/rogue gicks because while they are solo, they are not slaves.

You're proving my point.

The Gemmed need more incentive to be played.  Playing a magicker where it's supposed to be extremely rare to play a magicker should be supported and have a perk.  The role isn't as fun as a rogue gick, typically.

Putting limits on rogue gicks while allowing a larger, sizeable gemmed population is more thematic in my opinion.  Magick out in the wild, very rare.  Magick in Allanak which has dedicated a whole Quarter of the city to them, sensible.

We're already doing this for delves, tribals, even noble houses and merchant houses have player number restrictions.

But rogue gicks currently do not.

And don't say that we should punish those that are taking advantage.  I think a majority of players have exceptions that they take advantage of to their play, whether it's skill timers, OOC knowledge, grinding or otherwise.

Too many folks would be losing karma and then crying out for other aspects of abuse to be equally punished.

This is one of the reasons why I liked the karma timer, but that's been taken off the table.

[Krath]

I hear what you are saying. I think we are on the same page, I believe, based on my experience both as Gemmed, ungemmed and mundane, reducing the amount wild magickers being allowed at a given time will push more players away and I do not think it will change the problem of no one really wants to play gemmed. From an OOC standpoint, I believe, it would push people further away from wanting to play gemmed.

Outside of House Jal and Oash, there is no real purpose for gemmed pcs in the game. Even then, those nobles have to fight tooth and nail for magick based plots and "quest" as it is.

[dumbstruck]

I hear what you are saying. I think we are on the same page, I believe, based on my experience both as Gemmed, ungemmed and mundane, reducing the amount wild magickers being allowed at a given time will push more players away and I do not think it will change the problem of no one really wants to play gemmed. From an OOC standpoint, I believe, it would push people further away from wanting to play gemmed.

Outside of House Jal and Oash, there is no real purpose for gemmed pcs in the game. Even then, those nobles have to fight tooth and nail for magick based plots and "quest" as it is.

I mean, they're also the new elf caste in Allanak as everyone who stopped playing city-elves stopped. And we all know how Allanak /loved/ city elves and how /enjoyable/ that was for the people playing. (Not at all playing into why DESERT elves wound up capped, for sure, as people who liked playing elves that weren't miserable, too, just migrated to where it made them happy to do it)

[Lotion]

If the system is "population limitation", then the players either wait until other players have been removed from the game and take their spot, or they will choose another open spot in the game.

lol instead of pking for shanty town apartments in luir's we'll pk for gick slots

[whengravityfails]

If the system is "population limitation", then the players either wait until other players have been removed from the game and take their spot, or they will choose another open spot in the game.

The issue is that I truly do not think this will happen and a fair amount just will sit out until something they want to play is open again. If I had to wait out playing a rogue magicker, I would have chosen a delf - but now they're capped. My fallback would be a tribal, but now the PC tribes ones are soft capped too. After two tries at playing a Gemmed and hating it (Templars, of course) there's no way I'm doing that again without some major changes. So at that point it becomes "Play something I don't have any appetite for or work on the huge backlog in my Steam library while waiting for something interesting to open up".

The idea of a mage hunter subclass secret society sounds like the best option yet. It adds to the game's choices, it does not subtract. It adds an element of danger.

 

[BadSkeelz]

The idea of a mage hunter subclass secret society sounds like the best option yet. It adds to the game's choices, it does not subtract. It adds an element of danger.
 

This is what Templars and Nilazi are supposed to be doing instead of trying to kank them.

[whengravityfails]

The idea of a mage hunter subclass secret society sounds like the best option yet. It adds to the game's choices, it does not subtract. It adds an element of danger.
 

This is what Templars and Nilazi are supposed to be doing instead of trying to kank them.

I agree, but that's a whole different problem. I'm still astounded that coded repercussions had to be added to discourage Nilazi-elemental magicker buddy interaction. That just seems like such a no brainer. Templars, meh. I've got nothing good to say so I won't.

[Mellifera]

Nah. The Templars already got a massive army of witches to play with, don't make them more.

Strongly agree with this, and disagree with the statements that gemmed need more incentives. As it stands there have been changes which have placed gemmed vastly above any rogue when it comes to potential magickal power, which is incentive enough in my opinion. They also get the advantage of a guaranteed magickal community, the protection of city walls and law, and the possibility of clanned employment where they can actually utilise their magick. These are all huge advantages and incentives over a rogue mage. Their restriction primarily lies in being controlled by the Allanaki templarate, which in my experience most people are fine with given the many benefits otherwise. If people are playing gemmed less than they were before, I think that's probably a consequence of people playing in cities less in general. Mages are already a minority among PC's. Templars are also close to being sanctioned sorcerers with extra martial skill on top, they hardly need more walking nukes to play with.

The idea of a mage hunter subclass secret society sounds like the best option yet. It adds to the game's choices, it does not subtract. It adds an element of danger

There is absolutely no shortage of staff backed, powerful, armed organisations which seek to very publicly hunt and kill mages, that element of danger is already very present. Every society on Zalanthas kills mages. The two major cities have templarates and militias with supernaturally empowered individuals who are incentivized by lore and practical gain to hunt mages when they can find them, and every other clan frequently has their own reasons to kill mages they discover. Many indie characters will kill mages if they discover them too, for no reason other than the fact that they're mages. Even the tribes that have their own magick roles (which are typically hard capped around 2) essentially never extend that tolerance to outsider mages, and that non-tolerance is often fatal as well. We even have a whole element devoted to nullifying and murdering mages. If you play a mage, rogue or not, tribal or not, there is an ever-present knowledge that you may be slaughtered at any time, by essentially anyone, anywhere.

Outside of House Jal and Oash, there is no real purpose for gemmed pcs in the game.

I honestly don't understand why people often bring up the 'purpose' of roles in the game. We're playing for fun, there's no real purpose behind any sort of character. They exist because they're fun to play and create roleplay. Or are you saying more that there's not a lot for them to do? I'd disagree with that too, they essentially have as much to do as any indie character with the addition of magick plots, and they even have the opportunity to be clanned, like you said, into Jal and Oash.

On another note, I think a return to having only full guild mages might genuinely be a good option, especially if they had access to normal subguilds, especially the extended ones. People are concerned about balance, and giving mundanes their own advantages that mages don't have, and that's what having only full-guild mages once did. I feel the same about psions frankly, and sorcerers of course have already seen some return to being able to have full guilds. If all mages did have access to full guilds, that may also create a situation where it would be more reasonable, in my opinion, to create more incentives to play gemmed characters, like cheaper karma costs. At the same time I understand this movement to subguilds has been a thing for a long time, and staff have their reasons for it, and are probably understandably resistant to throw it away.

I don't think reintroducing karma timers or adding caps is the answer. We'll only push people away. People should be able to play the sorts of characters they want to.

[Inks]

I've seen people creating back to back similar personality pk concept magickers. I was always against removing the timers. Not just for gemmed. Either way though. Meh.

[Pariah]

So the general consensus is Karma Timers bad.

Halaster said he's not going to put them back anyways.

Others have agreed that there is too many witches rolling around.

Do we look at limiting them like d-elves in tribes?  Won't that be similar to Karma timers?

Or do we do nothing for fear certain people won't like anything?

...There's not a 'general consensus' that the karma timer being removed is a bad thing. A lot of people enjoy it being gone, I enjoy it being gone, I know other people who like not having to wait anymore.

That's exactly what the consensus is, that karma timers BEING IN THE GAME, are bad.

You got all worked up over agreeing with me.

[Riev]

So the general consensus is Karma Timers bad.

Halaster said he's not going to put them back anyways.

Others have agreed that there is too many witches rolling around.

Do we look at limiting them like d-elves in tribes?  Won't that be similar to Karma timers?

Or do we do nothing for fear certain people won't like anything?

...There's not a 'general consensus' that the karma timer being removed is a bad thing. A lot of people enjoy it being gone, I enjoy it being gone, I know other people who like not having to wait anymore.

That's exactly what the consensus is, that karma timers BEING IN THE GAME, are bad.

You got all worked up over agreeing with me.

What, the borg consensus? A consensus is a general agreement. There is no general agreement on the karma timers one way or another. Everyone has their opinions.

It is not a consensus just because it agrees with your views.

That being said, it agrees with mine, too. The issue is that some people want the restriction, so how DO you restrict them without taking away choice?

[HazelHomewrecker]

I also think I just misread what Pariah said in the moment, it's no big deal.

[Pariah]

I assumed it was that you were high.

[Pariah]

So the general consensus is Karma Timers bad.

Halaster said he's not going to put them back anyways.

Others have agreed that there is too many witches rolling around.

Do we look at limiting them like d-elves in tribes?  Won't that be similar to Karma timers?

Or do we do nothing for fear certain people won't like anything?

...There's not a 'general consensus' that the karma timer being removed is a bad thing. A lot of people enjoy it being gone, I enjoy it being gone, I know other people who like not having to wait anymore.

That's exactly what the consensus is, that karma timers BEING IN THE GAME, are bad.

You got all worked up over agreeing with me.

What, the borg consensus? A consensus is a general agreement. There is no general agreement on the karma timers one way or another. Everyone has their opinions.

It is not a consensus just because it agrees with your views.

That being said, it agrees with mine, too. The issue is that some people want the restriction, so how DO you restrict them without taking away choice?

Sorry, I'm using both Discord chats and gdb to see that almost everyone seems to think "Karma timers bad."

Sure there is opposition, there always will, but I don't think it's out of line to say MOST are like, "Fuck you don't take away my ability to play what I want when I want."

[MarshallDFX]

I removed some posts from this thread because it was becoming adversarial and rude.  Please treat your fellow community members with respect.

[Armaddict]

What if instead of karma 'spending', we instead used something like 'cooking'? 

You create a mage character.  You can include elements of randomness.  You can choose to have them enter with a gem.  You have modifiers to the 'cook time' based off of whatever factors we decide, i.e. Do you have an active character that is being played, have you played 3 mages in a row, are you choosing your elements or choosing random elements, what is your karma level, etc.

This is a process separate from your current character.  We just remove the mage options from those.  Once 'cook time' is complete, you are free to play the 'cooked' character.  We could allow or disallow multiple cooked characters in queue.  We could tweak so that you can get bonuses to cook time, but you manifest after a set or random period of time, etc.

It just seems like rather than JUST limiting the number of mages or whatnot, we could automate a system that rewards mundane play (via cook time modifier), allows you to plan for characters in advance, and rewards variety.  I dunno, it may end up not that great, but it's something that I don't think I've seen proposed before and it feels like it might be more tolerable knowing that you're making your next mage even as you play something not-a-mage.

[Riev]

If I have a character cooking, then as soon as its ready, I probably will store my current character.

If I have a special app that I know is coming, often times I won't play because all my energy is in this 'new' character I spent a lot of time preparing for.

Even the 'cook' time is going to make me not want to really play, because I'd rather not play than try to force the RP on a character I don't care about.

[Armaddict]

If I have a character cooking, then as soon as its ready, I probably will store my current character.

If I have a special app that I know is coming, often times I won't play because all my energy is in this 'new' character I spent a lot of time preparing for.

Even the 'cook' time is going to make me not want to really play, because I'd rather not play than try to force the RP on a character I don't care about.

Which is where modifiers come in, something that is made possible by adding values over time in a progress fashion rather than hardset wait times or karma regeneration.  For example, there can be a modifier for 'stored previous character for cooked timer', where the storage is automated as well, but puts a modifier onto your next cook time.  Modifiers can be added for being in-game (i.e. While logged in, cook timer moves at 50% increased point generation).

I mean, if there's literally nothing that will make you play the game except for being able to play the mage regardless of the current state of the game (i.e. Population limit/Karma Regeneration) or expectation of character contribution for being what it is in the setting (i.e. limitations on karma spending/how it's used/multiple mages in a row, etc), then you really don't have much respect for the game at all.  It's just your playground.  You're not roleplaying at that point, you're insisting the world do what you want, everything and everyone else be damned.  Which is hilarious, because every time something gets brought up to try and curb that long-time concern, that's what people are accused of; just trying to ruin other people's fun.

Regardless, a key point to remember is that there are not just 2 sides to this issue, there are tugs and pulls in every which direction, which is why discussion is helpful.  Come up with -new- ideas.  Come up with compromises.  Remember to search for a solution that gives multiple sides what they want, and still things to be unhappy about, because that's a sign of a good compromise.  Come to the table ready to sacrifice something, or stop sitting at that table.

-I- would just throw good hard caps on all of it.  I'd make it discretionary.  I'd have it all sorts of draconian-controlled, because this can and does break the setting that most enjoy in exchange for personal enjoyment.  So I make compromises.  I try to come up with ways that are limiting but not stifling.  I try to come up with ways that make it so that even in non-magickal roles, magicker-preferring players can still find fulfillment during interims.

Just saying 'I'm not gonna play if you limit this' just makes me want to direct you to the door.

[Riev]

Show me the door. Go ahead and do it. Because I have an opinion on how I dislike an idea.

Cool man. Go draconian.

[DesertT]

Show me the door. Go ahead and do it. Because I have an opinion on how I dislike an idea.

Cool man. Go draconian.

To be fair, how many times have people used that threat, or posted a "final" good-bye thread, just to come back a week or month later.

So there's the door.  See you in a week or three.   

But honestly, I think we've all seen what happens without a karma timer.  We get a large population of the player base playing mages (if they're not in a sponsored role) and that's quite contrary to documentation.

I've tried to extend an olive branch by saying Gemmed should be more common, so offer a "karma rebate" for Gemmed, but hardly anyone seems to appreciate that idea.

Continuing down this path seems to be leading us to a point where the majority of the mundanes playing, will be sponsored roles (if they're not already).

Currently, it seems the more popular opinion is that Gemmed aren't worth playing if you can play a rogue and have freedom, and of course, Templars Bad.

How do we increase interest in playing a Gemmed (where a whole QUARTER of a City-State has authorized them to live and breathe (aka breed)?

How do we reduce the percentage reputation of the playerbase that are playing rogue mages so that it coincides with documentation?

It seems the reasonable step is to place limits like there have been on pretty much every clan (minus the Byn).

Otherwise, we're going to get to the point where amongst the player population, the mundane will be the minority (outside of sponsored roles).

[Armaddict]

Edit:  Whatever, it's quibbling.  People can read whatever they want to read.

Does anyone else have ideas for alternatives or new systems, automated or not, that can help maintain the overall setting that draws people as well as creates some sort of balance that also lets people enjoy magickal aspects of the game?

[zealus]

Show me the door. Go ahead and do it. Because I have an opinion on how I dislike an idea.

Cool man. Go draconian.

To be fair, how many times have people used that threat, or posted a "final" good-bye thread, just to come back a week or month later.

So there's the door.  See you in a week or three.   

But honestly, I think we've all seen what happens without a karma timer.  We get a large population of the player base playing mages (if they're not in a sponsored role) and that's quite contrary to documentation.

I've tried to extend an olive branch by saying Gemmed should be more common, so offer a "karma rebate" for Gemmed, but hardly anyone seems to appreciate that idea.

Continuing down this path seems to be leading us to a point where the majority of the mundanes playing, will be sponsored roles (if they're not already).

Currently, it seems the more popular opinion is that Gemmed aren't worth playing if you can play a rogue and have freedom, and of course, Templars Bad.

How do we increase interest in playing a Gemmed (where a whole QUARTER of a City-State has authorized them to live and breathe (aka breed)?

How do we reduce the percentage reputation of the playerbase that are playing rogue mages so that it coincides with documentation?

It seems the reasonable step is to place limits like there have been on pretty much every clan (minus the Byn).

Otherwise, we're going to get to the point where amongst the player population, the mundane will be the minority (outside of sponsored roles).

The reality is, that with a karma timer, a large chunk of the players do not play.
Adding a Karma timer just because you enjoy mundanes is not the solution you think it is.
Magickers can be in any clan. It's not just gemmed. Heck, some are in tribes, where they are very limited.
I do agree that playing back to back mages exclusively might be curtailed. But within reason. If you die 4 times within 10 mins? I don't see the harm at all.

[Riev]

I think some time ago, Mansa had a decent suggestion that revolved around setting a "hard limit" of how many of each magicker you want in the game, and if the game is at that limit, you cannot create the character. If it is a special application, staff maybe can turn it on for you, but based on {criteria}, if there are too many Vivs in game, you cannot create one.

Now, the exact criteria, and how to tell people there are too many vivs without saying "There are 4 in game currently. KILL ONE AND YOU CAN PLAY ONE" I don't know what to do. But I'd rather a "There's too many currently" than "you played one last month so you can't play one now".

[wizturbo]

The percentage of open magickers in the world is very small.  Probably representative of the rarity we'd like to see.  The issue is the number of rogue magickers, because subguild mages are really good, give up very little, and are super easy to keep secret.

The solutions should be around this issue in my opinion, not around restricting people's ability to play a class.  Limiting supply will just limit the number of players interested in playing.  Let's impact demand instead.

Some thoughts along these lines, without trying to imply any direct solutions:

• A suite of abilities/roles that historically uncovered secret mages in the past have also been nerfed or removed from the game.  With nothing replacing these 'rogue detectors' it's much easier to hide as a manfested rogue.
• Subguild magick makes some of the most self sufficient characters in the game, moreso than mundane classes focused on this.
• Most subguild magick dramatically improves the combat survival of any character, by an order of magnitude.  In a permadeath game, this is extremely desirable.  I'd argue the survivability you gain is actually greater than the increased risk you face from anti-magick PC's who might try to kill you.

[Armaddict]

Is the answer to create a lot of IC 'secret' but visible plots centered around gemmed hunting ungemmed?  Adds conflict, adds story possibilities, adds 'things to do' for both rogues and gemmed, etc?

ETA:  Not to say this doesn't already happen.  But I mean that prospect that I've touched on a few times where this becomes gemmed's actual purpose as a backdrop against everything else that may come their way, including if we opened up other clans to have their own gemmed.

[DesertT]

The reality is, that with a karma timer, a large chunk of the players do not play.
Adding a Karma timer just because you enjoy mundanes is not the solution you think it is.
Magickers can be in any clan. It's not just gemmed. Heck, some are in tribes, where they are very limited.
I do agree that playing back to back mages exclusively might be curtailed. But within reason. If you die 4 times within 10 mins? I don't see the harm at all.

I challenge your initial sentence.  I flat out don't believe it.  You can say a large chunk, but what does that look like?  Half?  I know that I don't wait for a stupid karma timer.  Never have.  When I have an idea that the karma timer said I wasn't ready to app, I would just hold and play something else fun, because that's what this is:  a fun game.

And I do have a problem with people dying four times in ten minutes when all they're doing is rolling up a karma three, taking a shot at a sponsored role, failing, dying/storing, then doing it again.

People get excited about being selected for a sponsored role, and they DON'T have the option to just role another one similar to the one they just had.  They have to wait for an opening an apply again.

What if all I want to do is play nobles?  Why should I have to wait for a role call?  Just let me role noble after noble after noble.  It's okay.  They're mundane anyway.

Or what if someone just wants to play templars.  How far are we going to take this?

We already have a limit on how many delves there can be, and how many players have we lost?

Doesn't seem like any when I check the WHO command since that change.

Now we're having a similar response to limiting magickers as we did to delves and we think the end result will be any different?  People just griping about not getting EVERYTHING they want and continuing to play the best MUD out there for those of us who like to think that we're hard-core because we play a perma-death mud that's been around since before HOW MANY OF YOU were born?  (Halaster not included).

[dumbstruck]

What if all I want to do is play nobles?  Why should I have to wait for a role call?  Just let me role noble after noble after noble.  It's okay.  They're mundane anyway.

People should absolutely open up all the noble houses in Allanak and let people freely app in until there's 2-3 in each of them and cap them there and let people play them and that's up do about 20 noble spots if people want to play them. It's more than d-elves, more than human tribals, and a reasonably small number of each, small enough each could even already have their own bedroom without requiring new building and enough people that they'd all have peers and rivals to play off of. I encourage this.

And unlike TEMPLARS, they don't have the ability to jail and execute people publicly for funsies without something happening, they don't have call on the nukes (the gemmed), can't use a command to pk a subset of people who can't fight back (again, the gemmed), and more.

Yes, let's do this please.

Modify to add:

I've literally already said that this would have me playing both a mundane and in the city, basically fast as a shot. I can't be the only one.

Additionally though, you don't have to 'believe or disbelieve', about the karma timer as you're talking about here:

The reality is, that with a karma timer, a large chunk of the players do not play.

Right here: https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,58484.0.html It has hard numbers. 9 don't play, 9 will make something they actively don't like and only play it until the timer is up, and less than half were unaffected, at 16. So if 1/4 of people tapping out, and another 1/4 literally making throwaways that literally only last until they can play what they like or want to is what you think is what is good for the game or what it needs, idk what to tell you. Sure the chars now might be more magickal but you're not seeing a cool 1/4 of the pcs actively be designed as throwaways your plots will never go anywhere with because someone said they had to play something else.

[Jimpka_Moss]

Nowhere in the documentation does it say 'PCs with magick is very rare and mysterious'. Nowhere. DesertT, you're seem to be starting fro ma false premise to begin with. If every single player in the game was a magicker, that wouldn't budge the percentage of magickers in Zalanthas a single percent.

If you want something to 'thin out' or 'challenge the status quo' of many Players choosing magick classes and not gemmed or mundane, I suggest having an IC reaction be present in the game world, rather than OOC restrictions be placed on players.

Perhaps a cluster of magickers in an area draws ire or unwanted magickal calamities. For instance too many krathi and vivaduans gathered together in Vrun Driath, ungemmed, causes dangerous steam geysers, or elementals to come at them. The greater the combined power of the PC gickers, the greater the calamity. The gem removes this possibility.


Something like this would encourage people to get gems, to escape the uncertainty and have magick be dangerous, for everyone involved. Everyone, including the user. No more cuddle groups unless you're willing to risk it. Less shitcloak imposters only there for a year because of the risks invovled. Magick would not be just rare, and now even more mysterious, it would be dangerous.


And if you want more gemmed, by the way, someone make some cooler Templars. Please, they're all just the same as the PCs I see, same emotes, same goals, different faces.

[Patuk]

To be fair, how many times have people used that threat, or posted a "final" good-bye thread, just to come back a week or month later.

So there's the door.  See you in a week or three.   

Not as often as they do in fact leave, judging by player numbers being not even half of what they were when I got here.

[BadSkeelz]

To be fair, how many times have people used that threat, or posted a "final" good-bye thread, just to come back a week or month later.

So there's the door.  See you in a week or three.   

Not as often as they do in fact leave, judging by player numbers being not even half of what they were when I got here.

To be fair, the numbers were essentially halved in the last 4-5 months as fallout from Staff actions. They do seem to have hit the players of mundane characters relatively hard; perhaps they were already on the cusp of quitting given the general gameplay and narrative state of Armageddon even 6 months ago.

[Patuk]

To be fair, how many times have people used that threat, or posted a "final" good-bye thread, just to come back a week or month later.

So there's the door.  See you in a week or three.   

Not as often as they do in fact leave, judging by player numbers being not even half of what they were when I got here.

To be fair, the numbers were essentially halved in the last 4-5 months as fallout from Staff actions. They do seem to have hit the players of mundane characters relatively hard; perhaps they were already on the cusp of quitting given the general gameplay and narrative state of Armageddon even 6 months ago.

Eh, I'd say the copper war strong disagreement at the time was a pretty good show of mundane chicanery, where the GMHs (remember them? Anyone?) were concerned. It will always go down as the time staff decided the legions must commit senseless suicide, sure, but people did in fact.... Try.

[Armaddict]

Nowhere in the documentation does it say 'PCs with magick is very rare and mysterious'.

Magick is a mysterious and very rare power on Zalanthas, about which the general public knows very little, and generally fears and hates a great deal.

Literally the first line from the website documentation on magick.

ETA:  Please remember that this has been a topic for over a decade and a half, if not longer, as far as how to both make it appealing and also not the centric part of the game.  This conversation can be better than 'f u, I hate mages' and 'f u, if I don't play mages the game is boring'.  Let's get creative.  Again, these threads are generally not prophecies, someone bringing up points about mages good/bad does not make change.  What we do get to do is catalogue good ideas, offer criticisms of ideas (hopefully in a manner that actually works from a game design component) with the desire to improve them or find something better, and to demonstrate that we are capable of entering a defined world and roleplaying with each other in it.

[Jimpka_Moss]

Maybe .... Maybe I wasn't very clear.


PC's means player characters.


Players, themselves, are not the general public of Zalanthas. We get to know stuff.... it's kind of a perk of playing, remembering your past char's lives. Zero PC's can do this, btw.

I feel reasonably certain none of our players are hating on magick-using player characters oocly because documentation tells them.

Nowhere in the documentation does it say 'PCs with magick is very rare and mysterious'.

PCs with magick is a mysterious and very rare occurrence on Zalanthas, about which the general discussion board knows very little, and generally fears and hates a great deal.

Literally the first line from the website documentation on magick.

Oh, there it is. See... Now I get it. Thanks mate.


edited for snark and syntax.

[Armaddict]

Maybe .... Maybe I wasn't very clear.


PC's means player characters.


Players, themselves, are not the general public of Zalanthas. We get to know stuff.... it's kind of a perk of playing, remembering your past char's lives. Zero PC's can do this, btw.

I feel reasonably certain none of our players are hating on magick-using player characters oocly because documentation tells them.

Nowhere in the documentation does it say 'PCs with magick is very rare and mysterious'.

PCs with magick is a mysterious and very rare occurrence on Zalanthas, about which the general discussion board knows very little, and generally fears and hates a great deal.

Literally the first line from the website documentation on magick.

Oh, there it is. See... Now I get it. Thanks mate.


edited for snark and syntax.

I'm confused.  What role do you see a setting having in a long term, consistent RPG where emphasis is on the roleplay rather than a party-going-on-an-adventure campaign?  I mean...if we were playing Waterworld RPG, would it be so that you could play the person who knows where dry land is, over and over?  Or is it the badass waverunner and boat fights and seedy floating bars?

Our focus when roleplaying is to be non-representative of the setting?

[dumbstruck]

I'm confused.

If every single player in the game was a magicker, that wouldn't budge the percentage of magickers in Zalanthas a single percent.

My estimate of the numbers:

Total population - 1,700,000 humans and demihumans.

Allanak, its farms and the Labyrinth: 776,000
300,000 humans (3% noble, 2% templar, 50% slaves)
200,000 elves (5% slaves, 10% tribeless)
100,000 dwarves (20% slaves)
95,000 half-elves (10% slaves)
80,000 half-giants (70% slaves)
1000 muls (95% slaves, the rest in the 'rinth)

Tuluk and surrounding villages: 665,300
250,000 humans (2% noble, 2% templar, 35% slaves)
180,000 elves (5% slaves, 10% tribeless)
80,000 dwarves (30% slaves)
80,000 half-elves (5% slaves)
75,000 half-giants (75% slaves)
300 muls (95% slaves, the rest in the ruins etc.)

Tablelands:  65,000
30,000 humans (98% tribal)
33,000 elves (99% tribal)
2,000 others (80% tribal)

Red Storm:  3,500
1,000 humans
1,000 elves
500 half-elves
700 dwarves
200 half-giants
100 muls


This is my estimate, but I also read once that Zalanthas' population is approximately one million.

What would you say is 3% of a million? That's 30,000. So, even if there was only a 3% of the population ("rare", right? It's considered fairly rare in the medical community when discussing a lot of medical things, how rare would you need something to be rare? 3 in a 100 good?) So, from what I'm seeing is, you think that in some way your pc seeing a few magicker pcs, even a lot of magicker pcs somehow over represents this 30,000 possible magickers, when realistically, even every pc in the game being a magicker would not be enough to alter that more than a fraction of a percent.  To treat it as though it's on 150 players to always be broken down in a way to accurately represent minute fractions of a populace of a million at all times to suit your whims when even using the numbers from the setting every single pc being a single guild wouldn't shift the numbers meaningfully... feels like that ignores the game world population doesn't it?

Hell, even if it was only 1% of the population that'd be 10,000 magickers in Zalanthas, and yet your 1 of 150 pcs can't be justified as being one of 10k because that's setting breaking for... how/why, exactly? Not representing the setting would be trying to use popular music in a way that makes no sense or referencing cell phones. Playing something that exists within the game world within the parameters in which it exists... I'm not sure how that is not representing the game world. Could you enlighten me, perhaps?

[Armaddict]

What would you say is 3% of a million? That's 30,000. So, even if there was only a 3% of the population ("rare", right? It's considered fairly rare in the medical community when discussing a lot of medical things, how rare would you need something to be rare? 3 in a 100 good?) So, from what I'm seeing is, you think that in some way your pc seeing a few magicker pcs, even a lot of magicker pcs somehow over represents this 30,000 possible magickers, when realistically, even every pc in the game being a magicker would not be enough to alter that more than a fraction of a percent.  To treat it as though it's on 150 players to always be broken down in a way to accurately represent minute fractions of a populace of a million at all times to suit your whims when even using the numbers from the setting every single pc being a single guild wouldn't shift the numbers meaningfully... feels like that ignores the game world population doesn't it?

Hell, even if it was only 1% of the population that'd be 10,000 magickers in Zalanthas, and yet your 1 of 150 pcs can't be justified as being one of 10k because that's setting breaking for... how/why, exactly? Not representing the setting would be trying to use popular music in a way that makes no sense or referencing cell phones. Playing something that exists within the game world within the parameters in which it exists... I'm not sure how that is not representing the game world. Could you enlighten me, perhaps?

Is this really the line of logic you want to use here?  I mean...I know what you're saying, but if you apply that same logic to any other arena you're going to run into conflicts.  Dwarves with no need for a focus.  Elves who don't steal and become heads of major houses.  Half-elves being social butterflies fawned upon everywhere.  Templars who are subservient to the demands of commoners.

These can be nice quirks, they are representative of the diversity of things.  But if I play any of those roles repeatedly, so that you constantly have to deal with a deconstruction of the setting...does the setting even mean anything?  If I show people the documentation and explain the world of Zalanthas, should they expect everything to be different than what they read?

I like to play city elves.  Sometimes, people even complain about there being too many elves.  But it's entirely inconsistent, and they are technically under-represented by the numbers you gave.

The documentation and setting are there, setting the backdrop for characters, but it can't just be completely ignored over the long term or you're not playing that setting.  There are surely variances from documentation.  But by and large, the thing that makes games like Armageddon different than a traditional TT is that it's not focused on the 5 people doing stuff in a setting, it's focused on the setting and having dozens or hundreds of people participate in it.  Throwing that to the wind, then counting yourself as just one of 10,000 by documentation when you are forming 1/3 of the available interaction is not exactly genuine in spirit.

I know this is a giant derail, but I think it's pertinent to the overall argument at play; do we get to ignore the documentation and just do what we feel like, and do you not think that's a hard precedent to set in a hardcore rpg?

[dumbstruck]

What would you say is 3% of a million? That's 30,000. So, even if there was only a 3% of the population ("rare", right? It's considered fairly rare in the medical community when discussing a lot of medical things, how rare would you need something to be rare? 3 in a 100 good?) So, from what I'm seeing is, you think that in some way your pc seeing a few magicker pcs, even a lot of magicker pcs somehow over represents this 30,000 possible magickers, when realistically, even every pc in the game being a magicker would not be enough to alter that more than a fraction of a percent.  To treat it as though it's on 150 players to always be broken down in a way to accurately represent minute fractions of a populace of a million at all times to suit your whims when even using the numbers from the setting every single pc being a single guild wouldn't shift the numbers meaningfully... feels like that ignores the game world population doesn't it?

Hell, even if it was only 1% of the population that'd be 10,000 magickers in Zalanthas, and yet your 1 of 150 pcs can't be justified as being one of 10k because that's setting breaking for... how/why, exactly? Not representing the setting would be trying to use popular music in a way that makes no sense or referencing cell phones. Playing something that exists within the game world within the parameters in which it exists... I'm not sure how that is not representing the game world. Could you enlighten me, perhaps?

Is this really the line of logic you want to use here?  I mean...I know what you're saying, but if you apply that same logic to any other arena you're going to run into conflicts.  Dwarves with no need for a focus.  Elves who don't steal and become heads of major houses.  Half-elves being social butterflies fawned upon everywhere.  Templars who are subservient to the demands of commoners.

These can be nice quirks, they are representative of the diversity of things.  But if I play any of those roles repeatedly, so that you constantly have to deal with a deconstruction of the setting...does the setting even mean anything?  If I show people the documentation and explain the world of Zalanthas, should they expect everything to be different than what they read?

I like to play city elves.  Sometimes, people even complain about there being too many elves.  But it's entirely inconsistent, and they are technically under-represented by the numbers you gave.

The documentation and setting are there, setting the backdrop for characters, but it can't just be completely ignored over the long term or you're not playing that setting.  There are surely variances from documentation.  But by and large, the thing that makes games like Armageddon different than a traditional TT is that it's not focused on the 5 people doing stuff in a setting, it's focused on the setting and having dozens or hundreds of people participate in it.  Throwing that to the wind, then counting yourself as just one of 10,000 by documentation when you are forming 1/3 of the available interaction is not exactly genuine in spirit.

I know this is a giant derail, but I think it's pertinent to the overall argument at play; do we get to ignore the documentation and just do what we feel like, and do you not think that's a hard precedent to set in a hardcore rpg?

I don't see a whole Quarter dedicated to Focusless Dwarves or any House helmed by an elf. This seems like a really lazy strawman. He literally clarified that he was talking about the pc population and what it was compared to the virtual population. And you seemed to conveniently misread that. No one's asking to ignore documentation, and honestly can't you do better than pretending like that's what telling people who are angry about seeing 30 of that there are 30000 of that they're breaking documentation when you're clearly not taking the virtual world into your account of how 30 people are skewing a million?

[Jimpka_Moss]

I'm confused.  What role do you see a setting having in a long term, consistent RPG where emphasis is on the roleplay rather than a party-going-on-an-adventure campaign?  I mean...if we were playing Waterworld RPG, would it be so that you could play the person who knows where dry land is, over and over?  Or is it the badass waverunner and boat fights and seedy floating bars?

Our focus when roleplaying is to be non-representative of the setting?

What role do I see a setting like that having? The role that Arm currently fills.

I think I understand what the next sentence is trying to force me into choosing... Not a fan of waterworld, so... I'mma rephrase it. Allow me, please.

If we were playing Desertworld RPG, would it be so that you could play (A black robe templar, A senior Agent, A sorcerous noble bastard who can read and write, Tek, Muk Utep, The Sandlord), or is it the badass deserty stuff, and gith fights and seedy, sandy bars?

It's clearly the second. The singular, one-shot person who had a map on their back is not a demographic in Waterworld. It's not even relatable as an analogy, but it /does/ do a very good job of making two very binary extremes seem to fit your problem with what I am saying.

Are you no longer on the 'It says so in the documentation' wagon? Is that why we're trying this? I'm down to debate, your ETA disclaimer seemed very civil, so...

Next question - Our focus when roleplaying is to be non-representative of the setting?

Nope, never suggested that.

Lemme try some math, math usually helps (sarcasm)



If there are 50000 people in Zalanthas (there are exponentially more, trust me) and every single player chose to play a magicker, and then we got ten to fifteen more newbies AND they started playing magickers too, and we all lived and played and logged in at the same time, that would be 50 magicker players.

That's a less than .1% change to the population of gickers in Zalanthas. I know, I know, it's going to be hard to roleplay this accordingly, it can be earth-shattering to encounter things you don't like when other people do them, but we Will get past this. I even have tips handy.



When you join the Byn, your char should see about 300 bynners daily. Most of those that aren't gickers, aren't gickers. If you suspect a Bynner of being a gicker, and your PC has experience with bynners turning into gickers, rest assured you can act accordingly. Kill them. Kill five, and it will be a .01% change to the drastically reduced, pointlessly small number of 50000 I randomly picked when researching the population of Allanak.


On the way from Merchant's Gate to the Gaj, a PC should see about 6000 people or more, conservatively. You shouldn't see many magickers on the way, and if you do.... how many /is/ that?


Are there magickers in the Rinth? Are there magickers in Tuluk? It seems I couldn't find any myself. A good place to play if running into a magicker is a problem, I believe.


Where's the overpopulation? If everyone is playing rangers, is it up to ME to play a slipknife? You know, to accurately represent their are people with criminal skills?



If this were an RPG where my enjoyment of it mattered, would you rather me point out inaccuracies and falsehoods when discussing the fate of my game, or should I help you find an argument that convinces me using logic and appealing to my reason and my desire for everyone's enjoyment? I don't feel I'm getting either vibe.


[I mean, my goodness, this is actually ridiculous from my point of view. Someone wants to play a role available to them, and someone else says 'No, they shouldn't, we have enough of /these/ virtually' when massive chunks of the game and world are forcibly, forever virtual and inaccessible to players. I'd like to put a hard cap on weapon skills, so there can only be Two master swordsman at a time. I mean the word is MASTER. How does that really represent the population? Bone swords and leather armor and these guys are MASTERS? Uhuh, okay. Everyone can't be an excellent fighter, that's just unrealistic, but every time I go out into the desert, I end up facing an excellent fighter. Jeez, I sit down at the bar, I join the byn, I go to the 'rinth, always an excellent fighter strutting around with their amazing armor. How is that representative of the game world?] -- This is an attempt to make a point. Idc what you play, I try to assume any PC could be a staff avatar and then RP with them accordingly. Roll bone swords forever, idc.

[Armaddict]

I don't see a whole Quarter dedicated to Focusless Dwarves or any House helmed by an elf. This seems like a really lazy strawman. He literally clarified that he was talking about the pc population and what it was compared to the virtual population. And you seemed to conveniently misread that. No one's asking to ignore documentation, and honestly can't you do better than pretending like that's what telling people who are angry about seeing 30 of that there are 30000 of that they're breaking documentation when you're clearly not taking the virtual world into your account of how 30 people are skewing a million?

I'm curious what the strawman fallacy is; the assertion was that there is nowhere that says that there can't be 100 pc mages.  I spoke to the rarity of them being documented.  The clarification was that this is PC's, not setting.  So I asked what the role of setting was in a roleplaying game; do we fit within the setting, or do we do whatever we feel like within the setting regardless of it?  Does that change when speaking of small scale (a party in traditional TT) versus dozens of people collaborating?

I'm glad you brought up the quarter, because that's actually important; the mages are indeed represented in the game.  There is documentation on that quarter, as well.  The quarter is actually quite thematic in displaying the way magick is viewed, controlled, avoided, segregated, etc.  There is avid representation that they exist, which no one has contested.  Does the existence of the quarter justify a shift in the playerbase towards non-representation, i.e. If it's common enough to be a whole quarter, then locked away, does it make sense for it to be present in a large amount of interactions and relationships outside of that segregation?

If so, is the onus on the mundanes to also go against what the description of the world is, because it will be more interesting?  Should we all just say the virtual populace can be afraid of mages, and that is the representation required, and the rest of us should hunt them and show no fear?  Or do you hold the expectation that people react according to documentation of how magick is viewed?  If a tribemate in a desert-elf tribe that is mage friendly decides to kill their brother mage, do we criticize it for what it is or just say they were different and the rest of the tribe is not doing the same, so it's good?  What if they do it over and over?

These are not sidesteps.  They are equivocations of the same argument you posed, but placed into different scenarios that show a discrepancy in expectations.  We create documentation because it determines the behaviors that we're supposed to roleplay around, as players.

I mean, my goodness, this is actually ridiculous from my point of view. Someone wants to play a role available to them, and someone else says 'No, they shouldn't, we have enough of /these/ virtually' when massive chunks of the game and world are forcibly, forever virtual and inaccessible to players. I'd like to put a hard cap on weapon skills, so there can only be Two master swordsman at a time. I mean the word is MASTER. How does that really represent the population? Bone swords and leather armor and these guys are MASTERS? Uhuh, okay. Everyone can't be an excellent fighter, that's just unrealistic, but every time I go out into the desert, I end up facing an excellent fighter. Jeez, I sit down at the bar, I join the byn, I go to the 'rinth, always an excellent fighter strutting around with their amazing armor. How is that representative of the game world?] -- This is an attempt to make a point. Idc what you play, I try to assume any PC could be a staff avatar and then RP with them accordingly. Roll bone swords forever, idc.

I can understand why it would seem ridiculous.  I think it may be because the discussion is often spiked with harsher bits.  I'm not telling you NOT to play roles you enjoy.  But I am saying that if that's the ONLY role you enjoy, it creates a conundrum as far as the setting that we're all engaging in because...we like it.  And I'm asking us to brainstorm ways that we can both reinforce setting and keep those roles enjoyable.  When the majority of interaction does come via players, I believe it becomes sensible to give players the burden of representation of the world, otherwise we are not actually involved in the setting.  We're...more skirting on top of it.

So again, circling back...what are ideas that we can have that both reinforce a low-magick setting by documentation, and allows multitudes of people to enjoy magick without it throwing the experience of that setting out of whack(ETA here for clarification: I mean if there are 10 total people, and 3 only play mages...how can we let the other 7 also try mages without it coming to where the mundane do not experience mundanity)?  Clearly the original posit doesn't work; we don't want karma-spending.  We don't want population limits.  We do want to reinforce a setting and engage in it.  We do want to roleplay our guts out in that setting.

I know it's difficult because of how charged this hate-cycle always gets.  But please, realize this is not an attack.  This is asking people from both sides to be creative on how we can enrich it for as many as possible.  I believe we're a cut above the average roleplaying group, interested in the setting, reasonably intelligent, and gifted storytellers.  It's well within our grasp to solve these kinds of problems.

[Armaddict]

As an addition, I really liked the randomness factor that was brought up in the other thread; I thought it would be neat for things around mage creation to be...unreliable, varied, a little bit chaotic.  Make the character a little bit less 'locked in' on concept, in exchange for potential drawbacks and benefits of their magery.

I also like built in conflict points.  Documentation for most mages has brief (very brief, almost a footnote) mention of elemental rivalries and dimensions.  I think more reliable conflict between mages on those points could either 'OH FUCK, EVEN MORE MAGERY NOW' or provide less stability as a built in component of the character; if the conflict is built in, the risk is higher right out of the gates, and it might make playing a mundane feel more measured and reliable because it's not just personal power at player; it's the forces at work.

I like the idea of spreading out mages into more relationships in the world (i.e. Vivaduans are the big one), but have those relationship circles be -small-.  Think in terms of a tribemember who is kinda shady; they've never let you down, but you aren't fully comfortable with their loyalty, either.  But man, your circle (i.e. Clan/Group), they're the ones who protect you from the masses in a world that gets pissed at you for protecting yourself.

Things of that nature, we can come up with neat changes.

ETA.  Again.  By the way...I expect almost nothing to result from this thread.  I believe I said it earlier as well.  The number of times a thread pops up asking/demanding change and having it happen is incredibly small.  I do, however, think we can move the trend towards productivity and collaboration.  When we remember.  (I forget often, I am not claiming paragonhood)

[SpyGuy]

Snip

Agree with most of what you said here. I've debated starting a new thread on the costs of magick but think it'd just be flooding the boards at this point.  So I'll just summarize here with a list of costs that were once associated with being a mage but no longer are or are not to the same degree:

Karma timers - OOC cost to keep people from repeatedly mages.  Flawed but was a cost
Full guild mages - arguably more powerful but had severe trade offs
Elemental transformation - Meant eventual forced storage
Staff killings - Lost my whiran to (redacted) back in the day. Good death. One way to keep powerful mages down
Remaining hidden - Quite easy these days. No sacrifice of having to rely on a subguild.  Dispel reach only made it easier
Social costs - At this point and proportion of mages in the game, it's as much of a social cost for my mundane to hate your mage as it is for you to be shunned by me.

These are just the costs lost, not to mention the buffs mages have received intentionally and through various tweaks over the years.  I think karma timers and player caps aren't the way to go because people hate them so much.  My preferred 'easy' fix would be introducing full guilds again (with magick subs as special apps).  It wouldn't lower mage player numbers, might even increase them for a bit, but those mages would be playing a significantly different game.  It wasn't that hard to survive as a full class Whiran but it certainly played different.  And I'm pretty sure the players who prefer mages would be happy to try full classes themselves, they'll just need to adapt to the game differently but it gives them a new challenge while adding to the flavor of magick in the game.

[DesertT]

So maybe the answer is going back to an 8-point karma system.

Or are there too many karma 3 players presently?

[ShaiHulud]

So maybe the answer is going back to an 8-point karma system.

Or are there too many karma 3 players presently?

I found less options for me the last 8-3 change, will that happen again 3-8?

[Jimpka_Moss]

@armaddict

That was verbose enough that I've locked in on exactly what the discrepancy between your thinking and my thinking was. There are some salient points that had to be first spoken in order to be addressed.


I can say with confidence, you feel as if a multitude of pc magickers are in rotation in a given play area it can damage the atmosphere of the game, it can make players feel disconnected from the setting, it is and has been causing problems with the way plots are aligned. Yes, I can agree with this, put this way, specifically.


I chimed in to correct a perception that maybe the documentation says we should keep magicker PC's rare because of the rarity of magickers in Zalanthas. I perhaps falsely recognized some sociopathic argument tactics that I was only just projecting, and if so, it's likely because I've come to absolutely hate zalanthan magickers.



Probably a topic for a different post, but if people here are saying 'the current way we do things with magickers, mundanes, and arm is broken' yeah, I'll agree to that, and just add my fourth two cents that a timer won't work. Maybe it /should/, but it won't. I suggest collectively agreeing to change magick. It really, really needs to be different. Margeret Weiss and Tracy Hickman's ten chapter essays on how their magick system works type of different. Elemental contamination, tables of effects for spell failures, weather and environment distortion when too many magickers gather in one area (except the gemmed). If it's creative solutions you need, I can churn them out all day long, just let me know and I'll make a post and they can be picked apart endlessly.

[Armaddict]

Probably a topic for a different post, but if people here are saying 'the current way we do things with magickers, mundanes, and arm is broken' yeah, I'll agree to that, and just add my fourth two cents that a timer won't work. Maybe it /should/, but it won't. I suggest collectively agreeing to change magick. It really, really needs to be different. Margeret Weiss and Tracy Hickman's ten chapter essays on how their magick system works type of different. Elemental contamination, tables of effects for spell failures, weather and environment distortion when too many magickers gather in one area (except the gemmed). If it's creative solutions you need, I can churn them out all day long, just let me know and I'll make a post and they can be picked apart endlessly.

M'dude, this stuff sounds -awesome-.

[Kaathe]

I keep advocating not for limits but incentives.  Want more mundanes? Inventive it.

How? Lessen the grind below that of grinding magick. At cap magick is always more powerful than mundane skills. So let mundanes reach cap faster instead of how it currently is: slower and more dangerous. Advanced start roles and the new subguilds move us in this direction. I want more, but patience will let us see how these changes impact the ratio. 

[wizturbo]

I'd love it if mundanes progressed in combat skills faster than mages, across all of the classes.  A mundane stalker should progress at the same speed, or even faster, than that of a subguild magicker raider, even if the raider has a higher cap to their skills overall.

[Case]

I like the idea of mages being more random and chaotic. Maybe they could have randomised quests or tasks to do to learn new spells, instead of branching?

I feel that a key fix for some of the frustrations being found by the playerbase could be to remove key skills from guilds and put them more liberally on subguilds. Drop the idea that subguilds are lesser than guilds altogether. Make them two halves of the whole, instead of 90% from the guild and 10% from the sub.

It would serve a few purposes:
1. Make full guild elementalists more viable but not too flexible.
2. Make sub guild elementalists lack diversity of crucial mundane skills. They would need to compensate.
3. Increase mundane diversity.

[Armaddict]

Not trying to be arbiter of the conversation, just chiming in to try and be encouraging of things I like.

I like the idea of mages being more random and chaotic. Maybe they could have randomised quests or tasks to do to learn new spells, instead of branching?

I feel that a key fix for some of the frustrations being found by the playerbase could be to remove key skills from guilds and put them more liberally on subguilds. Drop the idea that subguilds are lesser than guilds altogether. Make them two halves of the whole, instead of 90% from the guild and 10% from the sub.

It would serve a few purposes:
1. Make full guild elementalists more viable but not too flexible.
2. Make sub guild elementalists lack diversity of crucial mundane skills. They would need to compensate.
3. Increase mundane diversity.

This is interesting, just because I've had things touching base with these but somehow never arriving at this same idea.  I've always been a proponent of cutting down guild-skills (I call them bloated), but it never occurred to me to make the present fully capable mundane a product of both guild and subguild combined, making it more of a sacrifice to take a mage subguild.  Perhaps not in overall power level, but in terms of versatility and all-roundedness.

It'd take a whole boatload of discussion on what that would actually be, and not like we are having now since those discussions have been under a different guild/subguild paradigm...but it's totally viable I think.

[LindseyBalboa]

I don't think increasing mundane stats/combat capabilities really is that motivating, unless that's all you care about. It's nice but it would not influence my decision either way. To me it's also veering unthematic as magickers SHOULD be scary af, which creates a new problem while trying to solve 'too many gicks to reflect thematic reality.'

I think instead of focusing on making individual mundanes more powerful the focus should be on the areas in which mundanes are more powerful than magickers in other ways than code/combat. Tuluk and Allanak were both examples of which when they were busier and there was a large playerbase, but neither one of those locations is ideal with a smaller playerbase: they explicitly exclude other mundane parts of the playerbase. 10 people in one city and 10 in another doesn't have the same 'i wanna make a new char there' draw that 20 people does.

Idea:

If Luir's had apartments and were suddenly extremely anti-magick, that could be a place where every current mundane could gather and 'be more powerful' than magickers.

If desirable bring more Allanak and Tuluk noble/soldier/merchant/aide presence into Luir's so there's always that tense feeling: it keeps both cities involved, and offers even more potential employers and mundane hooks in a much more central location to the current active player base.

Luir's already has the added benefit of centralization and a layout that organically encourages congregation in two easy-to-reach public places. That "20 PC population" is easily able to draw more current PCs as well as newly-made PCs. PCs that come into Luir's are visible, quickly see activity if it's there, and know if there is not activity that they will probably see when people arrive. This makes the oft-suggested-activity of tavern sitting in Luir's (or firepit sitting) a low investment activity with a quick return in roleplay.

With no changes to theme or reality, it's a city in which the only excluded group could be magickers by changing the mood to be a little more pro-actively and resolutely against magickers. This could also easily be part of a storyline.

If it proves to have a draw, there's a place for a small rinth/warrens-style slums already that could be built. Add that to previously mentioned apartments and you have a fully functioning, small-grid city for mundanes to rule in with extremely little staff work if that's desirable.

[dumbstruck]

I don't think that will work the way that you think it will. Much of the population in Luir's that is willingly there other than Kurac is.... magickers or tribals from tribes who allow magick, and always has been. Not only that, but without Tuluk or Allanak it's no longer "central" TO anything. And it locks out large swathes of established roles in all noble houses that are mundane and typically have been almost exclusively for well over a decade. This would also torpedo Kurac's relations with damn near every tribe there is which they are surrounded by, as most of these tribes at the very least have a couple mages, some of them which, they actively revere.

Like, definitely feel free to do whatever, but please take those things into account. I don't understand why this has to be Luir's in your idea rather than Tuluk. You'd have access to about the same amount of area as noncitizens do in Luir's, and Tuluk is already completely antimagick, they go hunt and kill magickers last I checked.

Magick as it originally existed was designed to go with a small handful of skills and other than that be nothing but magick, and this let mundanes ALWAYS be better at mundane things than magickers were. The only thing that would be needed to make mundanes better at all the mundane things than magickers are again would be to have magick be full guild magick again and none of the magickers have more than subguild skills. Can a magicker custom craft? Sure. Like clothes or jewelry, or weapons, but never /all of them/. Can a magicker fight? Maybe with an axe (or literally any other one weapon) sure, but only that weapon and definitely not as well as any (t1 combat class) can. Can they find their way in a storm and shoot a bow? Sure, but they'll never be able to brew cures and use poison with it, etc etc etc. Like, it literally fixes itself.

edit: because my tired ass had the word 'literal' or 'literally' in here about six times and it irritated me to reread it, so I removed some usages of it.

[Lotion]

I keep advocating not for limits but incentives.  Want more mundanes? Inventive it.

How? Lessen the grind below that of grinding magick. At cap magick is always more powerful than mundane skills. So let mundanes reach cap faster instead of how it currently is: slower and more dangerous. Advanced start roles and the new subguilds move us in this direction. I want more, but patience will let us see how these changes impact the ratio.

It would be cool if every main guild got -10 to every kpc and then every mundane subguild (including none) got +10 to every kpc. Maybe make it a higher number. If someone makes an elementalist dune trader then their KPC should be poo poo bad

[Pariah]

You have to explain what kpc is when you post these things.  You did the same thing in discord and nobody knew what you're talking about.

[BadSkeelz]

Beat me to it.

[Lotion]

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,59259.msg1090653.html#msg1090653

In the words of Halaster regarding kpc.

For those wondering what this is, it's basically how fast guilds train combat skills.  Nothing in regards to skill gain timers was changed.

I like to imagine that your kpc is an integer and every time you get an offdef fail you roll a really really big die and if the roll is below the relevant kpc then your offdef will go up.

Giving magick characters innately nerfed kpc would discourage powergamers from relying on mundane combat.

[Lotion]

KPC is why a figher's offdef increases faster than that of a laborer.

[DesertT]

edit: because my tired ass had the word 'literal' or 'literally' in here about six times and it irritated me to reread it, so I removed some usages of it.

I want to laugh and make fun of you so bad but.... this hits home!!

Anyway, maybe I should start a new thread about How to Incentivize Gemmed because as it stands, it certainly seems like the majority prefer to play rogue magickers instead.  And I know, mainly because "Templars Bad".

I'd say something bad about Templars, especially the fat ones, but someone might deem that as inappropriate, insulting, and in poor taste, sending me yet another moderation message. 

[dumbstruck]

edit: because my tired ass had the word 'literal' or 'literally' in here about six times and it irritated me to reread it, so I removed some usages of it.

I want to laugh and make fun of you so bad but.... this hits home!!

Anyway, maybe I should start a new thread about How to Incentivize Gemmed because as it stands, it certainly seems like the majority prefer to play rogue magickers instead.  And I know, mainly because "Templars Bad".

I'd say something bad about Templars, especially the fat ones, but someone might deem that as inappropriate, insulting, and in poor taste, sending me yet another moderation message. 

There's a lot of people who are on about this like it's about the templars, and they can definitely be a negative, but in my experience it's basically only a brick in the wall sort of situation where the wall becomes stiflingly unbearable.

[Lotion]

the first templar I experienced was kair kasix and now my brain just associates templar with avoid