Honestly that's the biggest issue I have with people rolling characters in "as an antagonist". Like sure, antagonize when it makes sense but in a shades of grey grimdark crapsack world, no one should be leaned more than 80% antagonist nor protagonist and the terms lose meaning anyway because in a mud no one should be "the protagonist" so when you make "an antagonist" you basically pit yourself in auto friction against most of the player faction then wonder why they don't want to engage with that. Because you're low key playing someone psychotic. I mean, the NPC humanoids in the Rinth are still humanoids. And it's fine if you want to have a rich inner life. But people don't typically enjoy encounters with psychopaths and arguably avoiding that is perfectly in character. (General you in all instances here).

I just want to say that I don't feel like making sure that people properly roleplay out motivations and being at least be considerate of the players that they are being antagonistic towards = making the game meek. Nobody is arguing that PKs should never happen, people are just saying that it should be properly roleplayed out, and that it shouldn't just be a first resort. After all, Armageddon is a roleplaying game.

For example, what would you say is more "harsh and brutal"?

A. A character doesn't give a raider the Sid in his bag, and the raider immediately does "kill amos", causing him to die and reroll a new character. (Not even going to bring up how this sort of experience might just put people off the game, which I know it has.)

B. A character disrespects a Templar, rather than the Templar outright killing the person, they use magick to burn and maim half of their face, scarring it irreversibly. This character now has to go on to roleplay this experience and use it to develop their character further.

I'd say that the second option is not only more brutal, it's more memorable and enjoyable for both sides. Everyone enjoys having some sort of event that changes their character. Perhaps Amos goes on to hate templars and plot against them. Or maybe they develop a crippling fear of templars and become meek and subserviant.

Either way, the second option allows the player to continue playing the game and develop the character in a way that is plenty "harsh". Not only this, but it gives better atmosphere to new characters/players, because that scarred Amos can go on to talk about and share his experience IC.

Even if you want to roll an "Evil" character, I would like to say that you should still respect the fact that this is a collaborative experience. The more people who actually are kind specifically oocly to other players, the more enjoyable experience it is for everyone. When I say "oocly kind", I mean remembering that there is a person behind every PC. The best sorts of antagonists are ones that people love to hate, even more so than this is an antagonist that people can empathize with. Maim, kill, pillage, or whatever you want to do, but roleplay .

Quote from: eska on Today at 05:26:31 PMArmageddonMud has always been a harsh game. I don't see any reason to change Zalanthas into a meek world. There is perma-death and PK. There are rules. Just trust the staff.

This.

Amen!!!

I now see why veteran players tend to stay away from GDB. This thread started as discussing Changes to PK guidance and now we are talking about why we should bring or not mdesc hiding masks or why people PK.
As a over 20 years Armer, I had some PCs PKed in some shitty ways. It's Zalanthas and there's always death at the corner. So I learnt not to whine and to move on.
ArmageddonMud has always been a harsh game. I don't see any reason to change Zalanthas into a meek world. There is perma-death and PK. There are rules. Just trust the staff.

Quote from: Usiku on Today at 01:38:16 PMThis thread has gone sooo far off piste.. But anyway... just hypothetically, if we were ever going to implement mdesc covering masks, I feel like they could not and should not be infallible. Like there's always a chance other people might catch a glimpse of your eyes, hair, a tattoo and so on.. and you shouldn't know. That's how I would want it to be implemented anyway. But we have a whole trello board of coding backlog already, so you know, pipe dreams.

The answer to this question is Peek

This thread has gone sooo far off piste.. But anyway... just hypothetically, if we were ever going to implement mdesc covering masks, I feel like they could not and should not be infallible. Like there's always a chance other people might catch a glimpse of your eyes, hair, a tattoo and so on.. and you shouldn't know. That's how I would want it to be implemented anyway. But we have a whole trello board of coding backlog already, so you know, pipe dreams.

To be clear this has nothing to due with players being inherently selfish but rather people have difference of opinions to what good and bad is for the scenes and for game. I too doubt few players and staff come here to purposely grief but their actions may still be interpreted differently by others or have unexpected harmful outcomes.

All I am saying is when it comes to a new powerful mechanic like anonymity, both rules and gameplay need to be taken into account. Some events, both good and bad, have been rare in the past because people cannot escape IC consequences very easily. This may unintentionally change that with unexpected outcomes. Again, even then I admit we may need more anonymity abilities at this point, but I still think it should handled with time limited skills that require time to improve.

I have experienced everything from players/groups having access to weapons or items they should not have (and staff EVENTUALLY stepped in and removed the item), to people Mortally Wounding someone in a public room, then performing the kill in another room so that the log shows they were killed in a 'better area', to people leading their would be attackers into Red Storm Alleys or other "bad areas" so that NPCs will help them out.

The simple fact is that the code won't matter, and a help file won't matter. It will be up to staff doing the things they're promising (not playing PCs themselves, actually observing things in game, and being available to intervene when things are needed). It only takes one player to "do whatever the game's code LETS them do" to ruin people's stories. And staff's only recourse is to punish the one doing the abusing (who will just use a VPN and make a new account), while the 10 days played PC's owner has to deal with it.

I don't think the help file will change anything. I don't think "requiring a wish up" will change anything. And having your mdesc hidden will just allow people to feel better about NOT killing immediately, because we can't shake the idea that "Perma-death PK is allowed" seems to mean "Fortnite in text"

I understand why some players feel that a majority of others are inherently selfish players or that staff are the same way. I am looking forward to doing my part to prove that peoples' time and energy will be valued in Season 1. Creating memorable rivalries and scenes is my favorite part of this game that is very unique, because of the stakes involved.

QuoteI'm thinking in the future I'll make a post about playing sponsored roles and antags in a way that's fun for the players involved. I know I haven't played many of these in Armageddon, but my time as a Dungeon Master for around 10+ years gives me a good idea I'd like to think, it's very much in the same area of the DM vs Players debate. And I just think it'll be a good discussion to have because it's important to see other perspectives on these things, especially staff.

@Kavrick That sounds like a lovely idea.