Armageddon General Discussion Board

I've been wanting to make some points on this matter for a while, and some recent ranting on "omg people took their karma back" on another thread ( http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,31227.500.html ) is bringing it up again. Please note that this thread is not for complaining about how many magicker characters there are; yes, we all know there are a lot, and certainly more than the documents on magick being "rare" would seem to indicate. The question is, why is this so? Why do PCs who have the karma to do so apparently preferentially choose to play magicker guilds, over playing mundanes?

The problem we usually get into here on the GDB is that we want people's choice of what guild to play to be a moral decision--as if it makes one a better person to play mundanes, or to play Amos types. We collectively seem to want to believe that we're better players, or care about the game more, if we are toiling away in the "mundane trenches." People will loudly declare that they NEVER play apped leader characters (it being assumed that apped leaders have all kinds of huge advantages and are massively coddled by the imms), or that they NEVER play non-mundanes (because it's so much tougher and gritty and harsh to play mundanes).

But the choice of guild is NOT a moral or ethical question. Personally, I've seen truly awesome players (those who really strive to contribute to the game world and don't use their guild as a PK-win card) in non-mundane roles; crappy players (those who don't give a fuck about the game world and are mostly out to PK or profit themselves) in non-mundane roles; and the same for mundane roles and apped leader roles, too. Choosing to play a magicker character does not indicate that the player is morally weak, uncaring about the game, or selfish. In converse, choosing to play a mundane does not indicate that the player is some kind of OOC hero.

So why DO players choose to play non-mundane guilds? Especially those who seem to mostly play non-mundanes? I think there are a handful of reasons that are "morally" neutral and really make sense from the standpoint of human nature. These are system issues; places where the system of ARM has broken down to produce an undesirable effect. I'll list them in what I see as most influential to least influential:

1. Magicker guilds advance and branch skills more quickly than mundanes, and achievement is a powerful motivator to the majority of players. The easier advancement of magicker guilds is not IC info, we've discussed this many times on these forums. This was a purposeful design decision by the imms a few years ago. I'm not interested in debating the right or wrong of this, what I want to do is look at how this interacts with human nature.

The majority of players enjoy coded skill advancement very much, and improving a skill or branching a skill brings a very concrete feeling of accomplishment. Let's be honest about it--when you're playing a warrior, skill advancement feels like walking through quicksand. Although it can be rewarding over the very long term to play any of the mundane guilds and really improve, if what a player wants is a quick feeling of advancement and accomplishment, then playing mundanes is NOT how to get that. It's like the difference between playing WoW and some of its competitor MMOs; WoW wouldn't be nearly so popular if leveling up were much slower.

I'm pretty convinced that if we wanted to encourage players to choose to play mundanes, we'd have to make advancing and branching skills in these guilds much more entertaining. Currently, it's often just a drag to do, and far more dangerous than the methods by which a magicker can advance skills. And it's no surprise to me that players would want to avoid that skill-slog and the associated danger, and instead play magickers.

2. Players want to feel like they will have a chance to participate in a meaningful way in the big plots of the game. Anyone who's been playing for a while and been involved in major plots will have observed that they are mostly supernatural in nature. And, well, when it comes to supernatural stuff, it's no surprise that magickers are just more useful than mundanes are. From the standpoint of human nature, who the fuck wants to be left on the sidelines just because they aren't equipped with the right guild for the job?

Again, if we want to encourage players to choose to play mundanes, we have to collectively create plots that are mundane in nature and big enough to be interesting and involving to many. And leaders must choose more frequently to engage mundanes in their plots in meaningful ways, rather than going the easy way and just using the nearest non-mundane.

3. Players get tired of playing the same old guilds all the time, and want to try new things. There are only 6 non-karma guilds; that's not really a lot of options. Players like to practice with different skills, try out new areas of the game, discover cool IC stuff. When you've played a warrior a few times, and a ranger a few times, and an assassin a few times, and a merchant a few times...it's completely inevitable that you'll want to try out some other guilds.

I think the only solution to this is more and better plots that use mundanes. In 2.ARM, with a different class system, this issue may be mitigated. But until then, we just need to be collectively more creative about our plots and character concepts.

4. Players want to feel special and different. This is pretty basic human nature. Not everyone gets off on playing yet another Amos. There are plenty of players who want special items, cool unique loot stuff, to be important, to get put on the history page, to achieve crazy supernatural IC stuff, to be the best warrior in the world, etc. In fact, I'd wager this desire affects every one of us. Playing a magicker or other non-mundane is an easy way to show off karma or an approved special app. If playing in Allanak, it makes one immediately desired by the templarate and/or other organizations.

The only way to mitigate this is, ultimately, to make most karma guilds feel non-special, or only as special as mundane guilds. I'm somewhat hoping that this is what happens in 2.ARM, with wider acceptance of magickers.


I think if we can come to better understand why players disproportionately (from the standpoint of the docs and player population both) choose to play karma guilds, then we can talk about how players can be encouraged to play mundane guilds more frequently as well. But again, it's not a MORAL question. It's simply human nature behind these phenomena, nothing more.

I think you're reading way, way, way too much into this.

Some players have been here upwards of ten years. Perhaps they've played tons of rangers, warriors, assassins, etc. and are playing mages currently? So what if there are alot of mages in the game right now?

Also, I don't understand how making mages feel "non-special" will help anything. I'm -very- interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter. Will you please elaborate?

Nothing needs to be balanced out, or tweaked, or nerfed (magickers have already taken their shots).  Frankly, I don't think anything needs to be fixed. This is a game that we all purportedly play for fun, so let people play whats fun for them, hrm?

You also speak of players creating new plots for mundanes, but this is an issue I think really warrants no discussion on an OOC forum. Let things play out IC, eh? If a mundane pc wants to push forward a plot, they will.

All this conjecturing is really just hot air, in my opinion.

Perhaps people play magickers simply because concept of magickers on Armageddon is itself interesting to play?

PS. (not necessary only about OP, but about this issue in general) I am getting terrible tired of post about "we have too many magickers" and "we don't want it". Not because I disagree or want you to like it. Simply because constant whinning about this issue has to be quite uncomfortable for people who actually play magickers for this or that reason. Apparently, even people who asked to have karma removed first asked to get it back to play magickers. Apparently, people just -want- to play them sometime. Do we have to speak about it again and again?

All the time I hear how number of PC magickers contradicts docs. It doesn't. How many players currently play magickers says nothing about docs similary as lack of PC slaves doesn't mean docs are wrong in number of slaves in cities. You see too much Gemmers? Come on, they have whole -quarter- in Allanak. Number of NPCs, number of buildings and size of the quarter really doesn't indicate there is just a handful of magickers in whole Nak.

EDITed to clarify.

Just throwing out some thoughts after reading it though I don't exactly disagree Gimf, it might sound like it.  Anyways... this is what I get for having to much free time on the computer at work.

Quote1. Magicker guilds advance and branch skills more quickly than mundanes, and achievement is a powerful motivator to the majority of players.

This is definitely a factor I'm sure and yes, we all do love to branch skills but I don't it's that big a deal. At least for me it's more about playing the character then it is the guild.  Don't get me wrong, the guild is HUGE... but I'm not choosing one over another because I get more skills or skills more quickly.

Also I'm inclined to say if it en't broke don't fix it.  I know many people will say it is.. but truly, it's pretty much fine the way it is now.  I would love to see some extra skills in my mundane classes but I don't think it's a make or break deal.

Quote2. Players want to feel like they will have a chance to participate in a meaningful way in the big plots of the game.

I'm not sure what to say other then mundanes and magickers both have the chance to participate in plots.  I mean, yes there have been some instances where 'gickers came through and the mundanes stood on the sidelines but then again if you ask me I don't consider the gith battles and whatnot a PLOT so much as it was an HRPT/RPT.  Plots are going on all the time, big or little, and I feel if you nudge your way into one or just play your character as you will everyone has a fair chance of getting sucked in at some point.

QuoteAnd leaders must choose more frequently to engage mundanes in their plots in meaningful ways, rather than going the easy way and just using the nearest non-mundane.

Uhmm... at least I know from the leadership positions I've played I don't really seek out non-mundanes to do my dirty work.  Perhaps that's a clan issue more then a leader/player one.

Quote3. Players get tired of playing the same old guilds all the time, and want to try new things.

I agree with this.  Still not quite sure of the problem though.

Quote4. Players want to feel special and different.

I don't think one has to play a special app, a sponsored role, or a karma race/guild to feel special and different.  At the end of the day it's about having fun though, not about what spells you can cast.

I think things are pretty good right now but perhaps that's just me.  I like Zalanthas and like the people I play with for the most part.  

These are just some thoughts.

Brandon

Quote from: Lakota on July 11, 2008, 01:15:06 PM
I think you're reading way, way, way too much into this.

Some players have been here upwards of ten years. Perhaps they've played tons of rangers, warriors, assassins, etc. and are playing mages currently? So what if there are alot of mages in the game right now?

Actually she addressed that.  Players do try them once they're getting sick of mundanes, it happens and isn't necessarily a problem.

Quote

Also, I don't understand how making mages feel "non-special" will help anything. I'm -very- interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter. Will you please elaborate?

Mundanes and magickers can be special simultaneously, they just need to be special in different ways.

Quote

You also speak of players creating new plots for mundanes, but this is an issue I think really warrants no discussion on an OOC forum. Let things play out IC, eh? If a mundane pc wants to push forward a plot, they will.

There are lots of player run plots that feature mundanes.  I think she was probably addressing larger staff run plots in that case.



All in all, I agree with the assessment.  And I plan to play a magicker at some point.  I think I prefer mundane types for reasons of play style, but I'd like to at least try one.  I'm pretty sure I can do a good job, but I'd rather everyone not assume I'm a terrible rper the moment I play one, based on my class choice. ;)

It's actually a surprisingly hard problem to solve, because I think that gimf's analysis nails a lot of the reasons for their popularity. As long as they're secretive, powerful and cool people will want to play them. It is a game after all.  Maybe that isn't such a bad thing, and to some extent is something that we have to accept.   Take some steps to limit their population, but you can't deny access to  them too much, this isn't really supposed to be a lifestyle so much as a casual escape or hobby.

Wow, I don't think she's so wrong about it, I was just pondering earlier retiring my long lived character, because I find myself seeking #1, #2, #3, and er, #4 from her list more and more and my current mundane character is just not doing this for me, anymore, as proud as I am of playing him and how much I like him, once in a little while :(

I love my current character, but I'm feeling more and more like I could get the same sort of roleplay from a generic chatroom, and for me, it seems like something 'special' would make me feel like I'm playing a mud again more than a chatroom roleplay.

Quote from: Elgiva on July 11, 2008, 01:17:37 PM
Perhaps people play magickers simply because concept of magickers on Armageddon is itself interesting to play?

I know this is the only reason why I've played magickers.

I would add to this:

When you're playing an obvious special application character or a karma-required guild, other players treat you much, much better.

For instance, when my rogue magickers get caught and killed by the templarate, I usually get a nice, drawn-out, well-emoted scene with some effort put into it that's worth the while.  Pickpockets and burglars? Brief interrogation, few cursory emotes, and an execution. The same thing goes with ordinary characters:  show up with obvious magickal effects on, and pretty soon everyone is upping their game, emoting like crazy.  Just showing up doesn't cut it.

Further, it extends to how other characters treat your character in confrontations.  If you're perceived as some ordinary Joe, people have a much higher tendency to behave badly and stretch the limits of IC believability...if they know you're a magicker, when you emote being atop a distant dune, they'll (usually) respect that shit and not try to sap you out of the blue.

Quote from: staggerlee on July 11, 2008, 01:21:31 PM
Mundanes and magickers can be special simultaneously, they just need to be special in different ways.

I agree. My favorite role to this date was playing a Jihaen. My second favorite was a magicker. I love them both -almost- equally, with the Jihaen getting the edge. However, I loved them both for different reasons.

What I don't get is this notion that we somehow should lower magickers in order to bring a balance between the mundanes and non-mundanes. I find this preposterous.

Quote from: staggerlee on July 11, 2008, 01:21:31 PM
There are lots of player run plots that feature mundanes.  I think she was probably addressing larger staff run plots in that case.

Why should the staff be responsible for plots? They're here to facilitate and moderate, not hold our hands. They're proctors, so I think we should let them stay out of player affairs as much as possible and help guide our plots along when npc/immeraction is needed.

Most plots in the game are run by players.

If anyone's pissed at the fact that the majority of major plots are magickal in nature, perhaps you should consider the fact that Zalanthas is ruled by sorceror kings, defilers, and a big fucking dragon. Sorry, but a ranger with max scan just isn't going to push a plot along that deals with sorcery and juujuu. If anything, the overbearing sense of magick in the world will only increase as the game draws to a close. That's because the end is nigh, and in all probability, some cataclysmic event, more likely than not magickal in nature, will destroy everything. By all means, run your mundane plots. All the magick in the game certainly isn't stopping me from pursuing MY own mundane goals.

Quote from: staggerlee on July 11, 2008, 01:21:31 PM
Take some steps to limit their population, but you can't deny access to  them too much, this isn't really supposed to be a lifestyle so much as a casual escape or hobby.

I would have absolutely no problem with karma being used up in increments before slowly regenerating over the course of a few months. I've been a proponent for this in the past, and think it has the potential to help the game. That being said, I don't think we'll see this any time soon.

None of those reasons apply to me. I play magickers because I just plain love magick. I play wizards and necromancers and the like in every fantasy game I pick up.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there's other motivations that you're not including. Some of just simply love magick-based RP. A portion of the playerbase will still prefer magickers, regardless of the coded powers and restrictions applied to them.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on July 11, 2008, 12:49:47 PM

1. Magicker guilds advance and branch skills more quickly than mundanes, and achievement is a powerful motivator to the majority of players.

2. Players want to feel like they will have a chance to participate in a meaningful way in the big plots of the game.

3. Players get tired of playing the same old guilds all the time, and want to try new things.

4. Players want to feel special and different.

I think most of this can be summed up in saying that magickers are easier/quicker/more time efficient.

Time efficiency is the key.  I like non-magickers (I hate the term mundanes) because they're hard.  They can't go up to something and blast it.  They have to wait, they have to plan, and too often, they have to back off and try again when things go wrong.  When going up against magickers with non, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  The mouse has a chainsaw, and the cat has an orbital laser cannon.   If the mouse gets to the cat, the chainsaw is going to turn it into little kitty bits, but if the cat ever trains that orbital laser cannon on the mouse, it's toast.  So the mouse has to devote a lot more time and patience to killing the cat.

Let's just face it, this is a game.  If people can devote less time to tedious tasks, they'll do it.  Magickers can flit all over the world at minimal expense and drastically reduced time compared to those who have to foot it or ride.  Why wouldn't people want that?  It gives them more time to interact and do something they'll actually enjoy.

Personally, I'd enjoy the trip, but then I'm an odd one.

Quote from: Elgiva on July 11, 2008, 01:17:37 PM
I am getting terrible tired of post about "we have too many magickers" and "we don't want it". Not because I disagree or want you to like it. Simply because constant whinning about this issue has to be quite uncomfortable for people who actually play magickers for this or that reason. Apparently, even people who asked to have karma removed first asked to get it back to play magickers. Apparently, people just -want- to play them sometime. Do we have to speak about it again and again?

I believe that you misread my post. I have the impression that you're not a native speaker of English, so let me try to re-state my main point. Very often, on these forums, when we are arguing about mundanes and magickers, players attempt to categorize those who choose to play magickers as if this is a MORAL (ethical) choice; the choice to play a non-mundane is stigmatized. Those who choose to play magickers are "bad" players and deserve to be PKed because they are "bad" for the game.

However, I very strongly believe that this choice is not moral or ethical at all, but rather can be explained by the interaction of the particular guild system of ARM and basic human nature. The problem lies in the system, not in the moral failings of the players.

Quote from: FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit on July 11, 2008, 01:39:05 PM
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there's other motivations that you're not including. Some of just simply love magick-based RP.

This is not a system issue, therefore there's no reason to discuss it. A personal preference based on actual love of magick lore-type-stuff does not need nor would it accept correction.

Quote from: Lakota on July 11, 2008, 01:35:01 PM
If anyone's pissed at the fact...

Lakota, chill and re-read. This is not about being pissed. It's about identifying rational reasons behind observed group behaviors.

Quote from: Synthesis on July 11, 2008, 01:31:21 PM

That's all very interesting and kind of saddening. So it would seem that we collectively demonize the players of non-mundanes on the forums, yet treat them better in game?

Quote from: Dalmeth on July 11, 2008, 01:47:07 PM
Let's just face it, this is a game.  If people can devote less time to tedious tasks, they'll do it.  Magickers can flit all over the world at minimal expense and drastically reduced time compared to those who have to foot it or ride.  Why wouldn't people want that?  It gives them more time to interact and do something they'll actually enjoy.

Personally, I'd enjoy the trip, but then I'm an odd one.

Exactly, if I'm playing a Merchant class and it takes me months to even have the chance at the smallest of wagons, or if it takes me months, if not YEARS of play to have my own shop, with absolutely nothing to spend your money on once your bank account reaches 10000+ (which is quite easy as a merchant), and that at some point you just realize that you're playing "Waiting for others to log on" because you can't do any of the exciting things all of your buddies are doing, then you can see why I would be tempted to go and play a magicker, where I'll be *doing awesome spell #1* and *awesome spell #2* after only weeks, if not days, of playtime and be involved in the coolest of plots.

I've never noticed players upping the ante when a magicker is about. The level of rp usually stays about the same, and is very consistent in my opinion.

The only time I see this happen is when an npc gets animated.  ;)

Quote from: Gimfalisette on July 11, 2008, 01:48:24 PM

Quote from: Elgiva on July 11, 2008, 01:17:37 PM
I am getting terrible tired of post about "we have too many magickers" and "we don't want it". Not because I disagree or want you to like it. Simply because constant whinning about this issue has to be quite uncomfortable for people who actually play magickers for this or that reason. Apparently, even people who asked to have karma removed first asked to get it back to play magickers. Apparently, people just -want- to play them sometime. Do we have to speak about it again and again?

I believe that you misread my post. I have the impression that you're not a native speaker of English, so let me try to re-state my main point. Very often, on these forums, when we are arguing about mundanes and magickers, players attempt to categorize those who choose to play magickers as if this is a MORAL (ethical) choice; the choice to play a non-mundane is stigmatized. Those who choose to play magickers are "bad" players and deserve to be PKed because they are "bad" for the game.

However, I very strongly believe that this choice is not moral or ethical at all, but rather can be explained by the interaction of the particular guild system of ARM and basic human nature. The problem lies in the system, not in the moral failings of the players.

I don't think I misunderstood. I wanted to point out that IMHO the main reason is that people want to play an interesting concept (which is a reason your post doesn't mention and is IMHO main reason for many players). I added my opinion about whole issue simply because I am really getting tired of this issue discussed over and over - I'm sorry it sounded as if I am talking just about your post and I edited my previous to point out I meant discussions about "Many People Play Magickers" in general.

Synthesis wrote:

QuoteWhen you're playing an obvious special application character or a karma-required guild, other players treat you much, much better.

I've never noticed that, and I've played a lot of special apps and karma roles. In fact, I noticed pretty much the opposite; people are eager to kill you quickly, with little to no emotes or communication, because they perceive you as more dangerous (I'm assuming).
I'm just saying, our experiences clearly differ. Anecdotal evidence is shoddy evidence.

Quote from: Elgiva on July 11, 2008, 02:04:32 PM
I don't think I misunderstood. I wanted to point out that IMHO the main reason is that people want to play an interesting concept (which is a reason your post doesn't mention and is IMHO main reason for many players).

OK. I'm sure it's true that that is ONE reason people play magickers; they just have a particular concept or like magick. However, it is not any reason that I have ever played a magicker or been drawn to play a magicker. Nor is it the reason I have observed many other people stating, e.g. Malken.

If you don't want to discuss topics like this, you're not required to do so. However, I am also not required to not post or discuss, just because you are tired of a topic :)

The main reason I played my last magicker character was because:

1. I wanted to try out a fun new guild I'd never played before!

And...

2. I want to try out as many of my concepts for Arm 1 that I'm pretty sure I won't be able to do in Arm 2. I've got a good deal of confidence that the new game will still let me play most, if not all, of my mundane ideas, but I wanted to try out some of the non-mundane ideas just in case the structure of mages is so radically different in the new game that I couldn't end up playing the concept I wanted.

I agree. Excitement and progression in both skills and plots for mundanes and magickers should be the same. Isn't that your key point here?

People who just get new karma are usually anxious to try out something new they've never played before.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 11, 2008, 02:37:37 PM
I agree. Excitement and progression in both skills and plots for mundanes and magickers should be the same. Isn't that your key point here?

That's definitely one of the key points. It's human nature to go where the "sugar" is. We can't change human nature through any amount of yelling at each other on the forums; so instead, we should work with human nature so that the system produces the desired outcomes. Currently, we have a system that is tuned to produce many non-mundanes.

Magickers are for posers. Srsly.

I have to admit, I've been actively avoiding playing a magicker, no matter how much I want to, because I feel like all the mundane players are going to see me and go, "Oh God, not another magicker here to ruin our atmosphere."  Personally, I'm not bothered at all by the current amount of magickers--I just don't want to add to it because I honestly feel like I'd be inconveniencing a good portion of our playerbase by doing so.

I don't really like that feeling, but what can I do?

My opinion is that #1 and #2 are the big ones.

As far as #1 goes...first off, not only do they develop faster, but they end up more than capable of taking out almost anyone.  ALMOST (it's there, yes, they can be beaten.).  Speaking even from a non-playerkilling perspective (yes, there are plenty of mages who don't pkill), they are vastly more powerful than the average and even above average mundane.

This is how it's intended.  However, this is also why it becomes a problem when there are too many.  It changes the status quo.

#2 -  This is huge.  Plotlines run by players in particular seem almost dependent on mages.  Mundanes, in many scenarios, become almost like tag-alongs.  Plots are routinely -based- around the presence of mages, and the mundanes become little more than glorified bodyguards.  I've seen it many...many...many times, and when trying to show the displeasure that most common folk would likely feel at that, was harassed and looked down on.  Multiple characters were treated in this way by multiple other characters.
        Not only that, but as a leader PC, a noble to be more precise...I actively tried discouraging the use of mages over mundanes.  I didn't rule it out, but tried to keep it low profile...and was scoffed at, ignored, and 'corrected' by templars running missions.

As long as mages are plentiful, powerful, and carrying no social drawback in their use...I'll always gripe about it.

I disagree with the idea that in order to be involved in major plots one should be playing a magicker. I think that those who believe this is are fooling themselves. I've only ever been involved in the major stuff with non-magicker pcs.
My personal attraction to playing a magicker is that when playing a magicker pc you can do things that noone else can do, Armaggedon's magick system is without a doubt the coolest one I've ever experienced, I generally play magick-using pcs in other roleplaying games, 3rd Edition D&D sorcerors are my favorite. That said, there are only a couple of the magicker classes that I've played that I personally enjoy, whirans and drovians are more my style than alot of the others. Even though those are two of my favorites, I really haven't played that many of them. Most of my roles have been warriors and rangers.

If there were any adjustment to be made and I'm not saying that I believe there should be, I think progression in non-magicker classes should be sped up a bit if anything.

That's it, you guys have convinced me, I'm storing my mundane guy and going to play that Whiran concept I had months ago.

Quote from: Armaddict on July 11, 2008, 03:17:26 PM
Plotlines run by players in particular seem almost dependent on mages.  Mundanes, in many scenarios, become almost like tag-alongs.  Plots are routinely -based- around the presence of mages, and the mundanes become little more than glorified bodyguards.  I've seen it many...many...many times, and when trying to show the displeasure that most common folk would likely feel at that, was harassed and looked down on.  Multiple characters were treated in this way by multiple other characters.
        Not only that, but as a leader PC, a noble to be more precise...I actively tried discouraging the use of mages over mundanes.  I didn't rule it out, but tried to keep it low profile...and was scoffed at, ignored, and 'corrected' by templars running missions.

As long as mages are plentiful, powerful, and carrying no social drawback in their use...I'll always gripe about it.

As a noble, you yourself can create those social drawbacks, Armaddict. I've seen it done and did it myself, and it does work. As soon as we throw our hands up as players and stop enforcing those social drawbacks ourselves, they start to disappear. Staff don't have time to constantly reinforce them on their own.

Plenty of plots revolve around magick. When they do, I think it's natural that magickers are going to be the solution to the problem. Just as you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, you don't send Bynners against a sorcerer or whatever the Big Magick Meanie du jour is. You CAN, but it'll be harder to get efficient results.... and most PCs are more concerned with the ends than the means.

On the other hand, there are plenty of plots where magick isn't needed and can be excluded. For example, take a major event I had a chance to influence (and this happened over a year ago, I believe, but I'll still be vague)...

House Borsail wanted a certain group of bandits in the desert to be slaughtered, as proof of its might, power, etc etc. These bandits were pretty tough cookies, and had themselves a nice hideout. Borsail needed to enlist the help of a templar to bring them down. I'm sure that the templar could have used some of his mages to totally pwnz0r the rogue bandits, and indeed he even suggested that. It would have been a lot easier and more expedient, and perhaps ensured the absolute and total destruction of the rogues better than mundanes could have.

But as Borsails, we absolutely forbid it. There would be NO use of magickers in defending the House's honor, no matter what. House Borsail would never rely on such foul, disgusting creatures. The templar would have lost our support if they'd been used.

End result: the gemmed stayed home, a nice sized army of mundanes rode out, and heads were stomped -- a major plot conducted completely mundane.

This can happen again in Allanak - it just requires the right PCs to exert the right pressure in the right situation. You can also have major RPTs without magick in Tuluk...... always.

Uh...actually, ale-six...if that's the one I'm thinking of...we used all sorts of mages for it, against my wishes as well.

I -did- try and make the social drawback, and as mentioned, it was disregarded and talked about as foolish.  The templarate has not -needed- noble backing for a long time, at least not from PC nobles.  Which very much does put a lot of it into the hands of clan immortals.  Not solely, but at least some reinforcement for good behavior regarding it, a few guidelines, and some urging for some sort of plot where mages don't overshadow everyone else would be awesome.  Along with somehow fixing this status quo problem where PC nobles, and their money, are not particularly needed by templars at all.  I won't go into it here...but the justification that templars don't need to oblige to nobles in return for funding  (as it says in documentation) because they are templars who serve Tek and nobles are just nobles is being overdone, from any of my more recent observations.

Granted, it was not always this way.  But it was disturbing, to see just how much of everything required mages, and how much of everything that didn't -require- them have it justified solely by the tactical advantage with no thought given to the social outlook of things at all...a social outlook that has been allowed to morph and change drastically from where it was.



Edit:  Er, whoops, no...I remember the event you're talking about now.  I was thinking of another group of bandits, heh.

Edited again:  Southern perspective.  Just perspective of a player, not any definitive, researched thing, I don't know all going on everywhere...so don't get to uppity against me if you disagree :P

Gimf's points are likely pretty accurate. That -is- what the thread was about, right?

Quote4. Players want to feel special and different

Sort of.  I want to play a magicker sometime for the "underdog" possibilities. An Amos who flees from who he is.
And to have a peek at that side of mud.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on July 11, 2008, 12:49:47 PM
1. Magicker guilds advance and branch skills more quickly than mundanes, and achievement is a powerful motivator to the majority of players.

Yup. Also, there are more skills to branch with magickal classes than mundane classes (except possibly merchant.) On the other hand, magickers "max out" faster and leave less options open for long-term development. I always respect the maxxed warriors a lot more than maxxed mages, because it's a lot harder to get that good.

Quote1. Players want to feel like they will have a chance to participate in a meaningful way in the big plots of the game.

Again, if we want to encourage players to choose to play mundanes, we have to collectively create plots that are mundane in nature and big enough to be interesting and involving to many. And leaders must choose more frequently to engage mundanes in their plots in meaningful ways, rather than going the easy way and just using the nearest non-mundane.

I think this is doable, and being done.

Quote from: ale six on July 11, 2008, 04:48:28 PM
Yup. Also, there are more skills to branch with magickal classes than mundane classes (except possibly merchant.) On the other hand, magickers "max out" faster and leave less options open for long-term development.

I'm sure that's true, however I don't think it's a major positive motivator for people to play mundanes when the average life expectancy of characters is so low. Given the choice of playing 10 days and not making much progress, or playing 10 days and making a LOT of progress, I think most players would (and do) choose the quicker-advancement route.

QuoteI think this is doable, and being done.

I hope so. I haven't seen it, but I'm not omniscient. I don't want to talk about plots a ton here (how to run them and involve people--community brainstorming), because it's not really the point of the thread, so I will probably start a different thread for that.

Quote from: NoteworthyFellow on July 11, 2008, 03:12:23 PM
I have to admit, I've been actively avoiding playing a magicker, no matter how much I want to, because I feel like all the mundane players are going to see me and go, "Oh God, not another magicker here to ruin our atmosphere."  Personally, I'm not bothered at all by the current amount of magickers--I just don't want to add to it because I honestly feel like I'd be inconveniencing a good portion of our playerbase by doing so.

I don't really like that feeling, but what can I do?

I've sometimes considered playing magickers and had that same feeling. Others I know have told me they feel it too. I have a real problem with any segment of the playerbase being demonized, or feeling like they need to apologize, merely for trying out something different.

What I'd really like to see, ultimately, is playing mundanes made much more attractive. I'm not interested in nerfing magickers, and clearly the "social stigma" control can't fully work in a world where the PC populace is 50% magicker. (Social stigma works on the premise that a PC magicker is a lonely outcast magicker...but it's plenty easy to find other outcasts and hang out now.)

Problem #1, the fact that mundanes are more difficult and less rewarding to play from a coded perspective, players can't solve that. It's a code issue. IMO, mundanes need more skills, more interesting skills, and more rewarding branching patterns.

Problem #2, plot involvement for mundanes, players can at least partly solve that by running more mundane plots and requesting mundane plots from the imms.

Problem #3, players wanting variety. Of the 15 guilds commonly known to be available to players through karma or special app (not counting apped leader roles), 6 are mundane. That's only 40%. Add in the fact that many of these guilds share skills, and that's even less variety in mundane guilds. It's inevitable that players will chafe at this small selection and want to try other things. There's nothing really that players can do to resolve this--except possibly instead of special-apping non-mundanes, we should be more frequently special-apping interesting mixes of mundane skills.

Problem #4, players wanting to feel special. If mundanes had more mundane-only plots, that would help. As I've said, in 2.ARM, if players can be only half-magicker, and magickers are more accepted in society, then non-mundanes will be less "special" and I think that will be helpful. Jhunter previoiusly stated (in another thread) an opinion that this would make those who are fully magickers rather than hybrids even MORE special, and I think that's OK too. (Assuming we don't then have a world that's again full of magickers.)

1. Magicker guilds advance and branch skills more quickly than mundanes, and achievement is a powerful motivator to the majority of players.

I feel like this is one of the hugest problems related to magickers. Magickers will often spam-cast over and over again just to see the new power level appear in their stat list. As a result, most magickers have branched all their spells within a month or so of existence (not playtime). I think a way to correct this would to remove the power level on the skill list (after all, us mundanes don't get percentages, why should they get the closest thing to it?) and randomly saying words of power to find the combination to your new spell should have some sort of drawback. That'll hinder someone from branching and immediately learning the new words of power.

2. Players want to feel like they will have a chance to participate in a meaningful way in the big plots of the game.

I often find that even when playing a magicker, the mundanes still control a lot of everything. Some people get the wrong idea and make magickers for this purpose, however. Maybe if more clans would opt less to use them, that'd be better.

3. Players get tired of playing the same old guilds all the time, and want to try new things.

I'm guilty of this as much as everyone else here. There's not much to say about this one.

4. Players want to feel special and different.

I think this is one of the biggest reasons people play magickers. They ride on the fact that it's "rare" and ends up turning it into anything but.

Quote from: Archbaron on July 11, 2008, 05:11:06 PM
I feel like this is one of the hugest problems related to magickers. Magickers will often spam-cast over and over again just to see the new power level appear in their stat list. As a result, most magickers have branched all their spells within a month or so of existence (not playtime).

As opposed to those training fighting skills, who only have to type one command and then sit back while the character does all the work? That's somehow just better?

As for speed of advancement, I have to wonder if you've ever played an elementalist after a claim like this. Some of the second tier magicks come in quickly. That's about it.

And, in fact, spam casting is not necessarily rewarded in terms of advancement either.

Since I can't really elaborate with IC details, I'll just tell you Archbaron, you're very inaccurate with how long it takes. It's a very broad range, and seemed almost random at times.

The biggest difference in variables that people are forgetting is that you can train magick just about anytime you are alone, without any danger. For mundane skills, you have to be risking your life against npc's, using supplies, or finding other pc's to spar with.

In my opinion, magick doesn't branch faster than mundane, maybe faster than it did since the fix.... It just appears as though it does, because it has less requirements to train. Also keeping in mind the wisdom difference makes, and that I bet most people do not prioritize wisdom with their non-magicker roles.

Quote from: Is Friday on July 11, 2008, 06:21:39 PM
Since I can't really elaborate with IC details, I'll just tell you Archbaron, you're very inaccurate with how long it takes. It's a very broad range, and seemed almost random at times.

The biggest difference in variables that people are forgetting is that you can train magick just about anytime you are alone, without any danger. For mundane skills, you have to be risking your life against npc's, using supplies, or finding other pc's to spar with.

In my opinion, magick doesn't branch faster than mundane, maybe faster than it did since the fix.... It just appears as though it does, because it has less requirements to train. Also keeping in mind the wisdom difference makes, and that I bet most people do not prioritize wisdom with their non-magicker roles.

Yes, I do feel that. There is less threat to train magick, it seems. But I have seen magickers become insanely strong way too insanely fast, sadly.

Quote from: Armaddict on July 11, 2008, 03:55:26 PM
Uh...actually, ale-six...if that's the one I'm thinking of...we used all sorts of mages for it, against my wishes as well.

I -did- try and make the social drawback, and as mentioned, it was disregarded and talked about as foolish.  The templarate has not -needed- noble backing for a long time, at least not from PC nobles.  Which very much does put a lot of it into the hands of clan immortals.  Not solely, but at least some reinforcement for good behavior regarding it, a few guidelines, and some urging for some sort of plot where mages don't overshadow everyone else would be awesome.  Along with somehow fixing this status quo problem where PC nobles, and their money, are not particularly needed by templars at all.  I won't go into it here...but the justification that templars don't need to oblige to nobles in return for funding  (as it says in documentation) because they are templars who serve Tek and nobles are just nobles is being overdone, from any of my more recent observations.

Granted, it was not always this way.  But it was disturbing, to see just how much of everything required mages, and how much of everything that didn't -require- them have it justified solely by the tactical advantage with no thought given to the social outlook of things at all...a social outlook that has been allowed to morph and change drastically from where it was.



Edit:  Er, whoops, no...I remember the event you're talking about now.  I was thinking of another group of bandits, heh.

Edited again:  Southern perspective.  Just perspective of a player, not any definitive, researched thing, I don't know all going on everywhere...so don't get to uppity against me if you disagree :P

I agree with your assessment for the most part, and it fits my limited experience.  However, I'm not sure that kind of debate is really the point of the thread.
The issue on the table is more about how players treat the idea of playing magickers from an ooc perspective, and not how the staff or game world react to them ic.

I believe it was more of an attempt to create an understanding between players than critique the current situation ic or the actions of the staff.

Not saying you don't have a point, just that it's getting a lot sidetracked from the rather valuable one that thread could otherwise make. New thread perhaps?

Quote from: Archbaron on July 11, 2008, 06:25:10 PM

Quote from: Is Friday on July 11, 2008, 06:21:39 PM
Since I can't really elaborate with IC details, I'll just tell you Archbaron, you're very inaccurate with how long it takes. It's a very broad range, and seemed almost random at times.

The biggest difference in variables that people are forgetting is that you can train magick just about anytime you are alone, without any danger. For mundane skills, you have to be risking your life against npc's, using supplies, or finding other pc's to spar with.

In my opinion, magick doesn't branch faster than mundane, maybe faster than it did since the fix.... It just appears as though it does, because it has less requirements to train. Also keeping in mind the wisdom difference makes, and that I bet most people do not prioritize wisdom with their non-magicker roles.

Yes, I do feel that. There is less threat to train magick, it seems. But I have seen magickers become insanely strong way too insanely fast, sadly.

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, the same can be said for any guild. The fact is, a certain percentage of people are going to spam-cast/powergame to get their PCs to a certain skill level (be it "until they branch ___" or "until they can reliably survive in ___" or "until they are maxed at everything").

I don't necessarily think this percentage of people is higher for magicker guilds--it's just easier to measure and a lot more visible when you have a powerful mage than it is a powerful warrior/ranger/pickpocket.

Back when I was playing a ranger who was also a clan leader, it took me until 43 days played to branch a certain skill. I have no idea whether or not branching that skill at 43 days is considered slower than usual or average or what. But I do know that sometimes, that character would hire employees in newbie gear and they would have branched the same skill within a week or two of playing. Am I saying that all those people were powergamers? No, absolutely not. I'm just pointing out that it is just as possible for mundane characters to become insanely strong very quickly. (I'm not going to say 'too' strong 'too' quickly because it's not my judgement, as a player, to make.)

The thing is that magickers only need one stat to be good at, wisdom, and I'm willing to bet that 99.9% of the magickers prioritize wisdom, which also affects how fast you gain new spells and skills.

I don't care who plays them or doesn't or how many their are, as long as the fear of magickers remains part of the game. It's subjective, and selfish, but for me it's one of the things that makes Arm feel like Arm.

Quote from: Barzalene on July 11, 2008, 07:34:13 PM
I don't care who plays them or doesn't or how many their are, as long as the fear of magickers remains part of the game. It's subjective, and selfish, but for me it's one of the things that makes Arm feel like Arm.

This thread is at least in part about validating that whatever YOU like about ARM, it's OK for you to like that thing ;)

Fear of magickers is something that a lot of players...both those who play magickers and those who play mundanes...often express enjoying about ARM. IMO, fear of magickers is an ambience goal that is currently not well-supported by the game's design. Now, often here on the forums we get into pointing fingers about that--it's the mundanes' fault because they OOCly know too much about magick, and don't RP accordingly! Or, it's the magickers' fault because there are too many of them and they don't RP accordingly!

But it is not really any person's fault or moral failing. Mundane players are OOCly weary of magick, and know much more about magick than they used to. It's human nature to be unimpressed with things one has seen many times. In fact, with the current state / system of the game, asking mundane players to RP "as if" they had no knowledge or prior experience of magick is akin to asking any player to RP correctly with the rest of the playerbase and also have full knowledge of everyone's OOC identity. It's a major kill to immersion and good RP.

Ah, yes, there was some derailment there staggerlee.  I could only be making it worse, but let me try to apply it more to the thread in a short explanation of what I was getting to.

It's very easy to get into magickers because of the reasons stated in the OP, in my opinion.  However, it is only getting worse because there are things getting ignored (okay, not ignored, but often tossed aside or trivialized) that -normally- make the great appeal of mages a little harder to stomach.

The tormented, beaten down magicker, the one who is struggling with what they are, is much easier to play when they aren't put on a pedestal.  Essentially, mages become a more powerful, more versatile, more useable class without having much to batter down those advantages.  The advantages are built into the classes, built into the code, while the drawback requires consistent play on the part of leaders, reinforcement from those who can see things being underplayed, and the all around interaction they receive from the average meeting with the mundanes.

The mages do have their drawbacks to counter their advantages.  They are many.  It's just that they aren't coded in and enforced, they require adherence to history, to documentation, and the willingness to make things a little harder on yourself in favor of keeping the gemmed held in the light they are supposed to be.  (And yes, that mold can be broken.  But when the mold is broken more and more consistently, it becomes easy to disregard the existence of those drawbacks altogether.)

Is that...more in line with things?  Or should I just back out with that train of thought?

Quote from: Synthesis on July 11, 2008, 01:31:21 PM
I would add to this:

When you're playing an obvious special application character or a karma-required guild, other players treat you much, much better.

For instance, when my rogue magickers get caught and killed by the templarate, I usually get a nice, drawn-out, well-emoted scene with some effort put into it that's worth the while.  Pickpockets and burglars? Brief interrogation, few cursory emotes, and an execution. The same thing goes with ordinary characters:  show up with obvious magickal effects on, and pretty soon everyone is upping their game, emoting like crazy.  Just showing up doesn't cut it.

Further, it extends to how other characters treat your character in confrontations.  If you're perceived as some ordinary Joe, people have a much higher tendency to behave badly and stretch the limits of IC believability...if they know you're a magicker, when you emote being atop a distant dune, they'll (usually) respect that shit and not try to sap you out of the blue.

I would like to just QFT this so people see it again. I have seen, on numerous occasions (And... heh... done it myself) that when a magicker or karma-required class comes along, the emoting and respect starts flying. When some ranger with newbie boots comes up, people just seem to shrug it off.

Quite frankly, the reason I would play a magicker now is  because the last mundane I had died due to me playing at 3am and being stupid. So, I figure I may play a magicker just to see if it feels any better than dying to stupidity.

I submit that while Gimfalisette's points are valid, they solutions to them are not ideal. The way magickers are currently structured allows them to play in a way similar to popular games, like MMOs.  I don't mean to slander it.  I mean to say they can be played in pop-in, pop-out manner, with solid gains received during play.  I'm still going on about time efficiency.  Magickers are largely independent.  They are the most powerful characters in the game, they don't need the strength of numbers and therefore don't have much need of clans.  As someone else stated, they don't even need the usual procedures of training that mundanes must endure.   Magickers are highly mobile.  My limited knowledge in magick tells me this much.  If they can't be just about anywhere in the world in ten minutes, they can make an effect there.  This allows easy grouping and interaction with people you want to actually play with.  Everything is streamlined with magickers.

I personally think non-magickers are plenty cool.  They can do plenty things magickers can't.   So it's not a matter of giving them skills like necksnap and tripleshot that'll draw players away from magickers.  My solutions are vague at best.  Remedying the hurry up and sit method of travel might be one method, where you could walk an animal at a slow pace instead of having an essentially preset stopping point.  It'd even allow you the time to pump out an emote or two before moving on to the next room.  Mostly, a change in game mechanics is what is necessary.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on July 11, 2008, 07:43:08 PM
But it is not really any person's fault or moral failing. Mundane players are OOCly weary of magick, and know much more about magick than they used to. It's human nature to be unimpressed with things one has seen many times.

This doesn't necessarily address the problem of magick.  It's boring.  That's right.  All those spells are boring.  Can you end the unholy darkness that has suddenly descended upon you?  Can you hope to block the incoming fireball with your shield?  No.  Magick is boring for everyone else who has to watch it.  Allow people, that is non-magickers, too, to prepare themselves against magick.  Make lasting effects have a focus which can be acted upon by anyone.  Be it a simple object that must be destroyed or some manipulation of the Way.  Maybe the spell roots in people's minds and all present must expel it before it dissipates (good idea for Drov spells).  Just don't make me sit there and accept what's happened.  Let us all do something about it.

Also, as a final note, a good player tends to increase everyone's level of play.  It's not just karma.

It would be cool if magick had a lasting effect on players it touched, and perhaps for the caster, too. I've always dreamed of actually being cursed by a magicker.

How about adding a few 'cursing' spells to the list of magick but it would be totally random, every magicker would receive randomly one of these cursing spells and it would not be related to their elemental.

Like, say, a curse that makes you desire food much faster than normal, taking you to 'starving' at an alarming rate, and any type of magickers could receive it at the start, but they would never know what they'd get
until they are in-game.. Perhaps this would add a slight touch of 'mystery' to the magickers? Sure, you'd know that the Gagahuan 'giker you just met probably knows how to Gaga you to death, but you don't know
which of the curses he's capable of casting on you if he so wishes it.

That would be cooler if these curses were tied to mundane commands, like look, contact, and anytime the staff wanted to intervene and manually add a small annoying curse to whoever just touched the magicker in an emote.

random curses along this line of thought:
You start seeing random things that aren't there after tasting the same drink you had when the magicker touched you, and lose the curse when you piss it out. (i.e. let's have it start 1 IC day after the incident, and end the 2nd IC day.)

It would be a great roleplaying addition to add speculation, pursued superstitions,  and terror to the general populace.

Sorry for not reading all the posts, but they where kinda long and I just wanted to say a few quick things, so sorry if I repeat anything.

I have two things I'd like to say.

First to everyone who goes 'oh there are so many magickers about.'

Yes, the documentation states that magickers are rare and yada yada yada.  But think about it for a few seconds.  PCs THEMSLEVES are rare.  For every 1 PC there are hundreds of NPCs and Thousands of vNPCs (Maybe more Could reach into the millions for all I know).  So sure, magickers are common among the PC population, but they aren't common among the world population, which fits quite well into the documentation.

Second, to the OP.
I'd like to add the fact that non-mundanes allow you the chance to do something unique to that guild.

Anyone can wear armor, wield a shield, and hit someone with a weapon, so warriors main function isn't all that special. Perhaps they get a few warrior unique things later on in life (no idea) but they are all still things that basicly anyone -could- do.  Same goes for all the other mundane guilds.  Lots of skills overlap between them, and from what I can tell, they all end up at about the same place as far as what they can do.

Magickers on the other hand can do very impressive and unique things.  Only a water elementalist is going to be able to create a barrier of water or whatever it is water elementalists can do.

So yeah, you mention that the non-mundane classes are special, but I think it is the way in which they are special which is important.  Each individual elementalist can do things no other can.  Each mundane guild however has few things that really set them apart (especially at high levels, from my limited knowledge)

(haven't read the entire thread so if I said something someone else said or missed something I'll probably make another post)

Magickers are a karma class.  Karma is a measure of trust, not a measure of how well you roleplay.  There have been fantastic roleplayers that just couldn't be trusted because they abused the system.  I'm  just stating that up front, I'm not pointing fingers.

The feel and environment of the game is in large dependent upon the players at large.  A desert world where resources are scare.  Where certain aspects of the game world just are, and the main thing reinforcing these things are the players and the way they react.  Certain things can be coded, other things (like fear/acceptance of magik) can't be.  Hate for elves, or a dwarf's focus can't be regulated by the code.  If someone chose to roleplay their half-giant as stupid or smart is up to the player and can't be regulated by the game.

When you have karma for something, that is the staff saying "We have faith that you understand these things about the game and believe you will roleplay accordingly".  The game/code allows for a wide range of abuse from karma races/guilds, having the karma for it means that you are trusted not to abuse them.  That means that just because the code allows something, doesn't mean that you should do it.

There is also the factor of 'the exception'.  And by this I mean playing against the Zalanthan norm. Generally when you play the exception to the rule, it is not good and in the end can change the perception of the game.  I'm not saying you should never play 'the excpetion' but if you find yourself regularly doing so, it probably isn't good.  One extreme example of this is the elf that rides mounts.  Sure there isn't any code in the game that keeps elves from riding mounts, it's just documented that elves don't ride so no one does.  If one elf decided that it would 'ok' if he rode a mount and others around them accepted it, that would lead other people to think "Hey If he rides with his elf, it can't be that bad if I ride with my elf.  This is an extreme example I know, but it is the same thing with anything in the game.  When people go against the norm and do something, it becomes familiar and is can become socially acceptable by the players around them.  It's important that players try to keep a firm image of the world in their mind, that just because someone else is breaking the norm, that it makes it 'ok' to do it yourself.   It is the staff's job to keep tabs on this kind of thing but we can't possible keep tabs on everything everyone does, and we try to trust you guys to do the right thing (pointing to karma=trust/ability to roleplay within the scope of the game).

More recently the staff has been less stringent on who gets karma and who doesn't.  Should we restrict karma more to people that don't represent their karma guild/race as they should?

As to the perceived popularity of magicker PCs, it could be that some people just have some character concepts that they've always wanted to try and are doing so before Arm 1 is finished.

(apologies for any typos as my brain is going numb from reading so much GDB).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LeLAELIxKY

It's not a rick roll.  Though someone was asking for a re-roll and we thought about sending them a rickroll url.

I totally understand the appeal of playing a magicker, for all of the reasons the OP listed, and a couple more.  I'm jealous that I don't have the karma options to play one myself.  But a large aspect of a magicker's appeal should be the special-ness -- which ceases to be quite so special when everyone and their brother is a magicker.

The D-elves and muls actually seem more special to me, because both races seem to require extra steps and legwork to get apps approved.

In my ideal Armageddon, magickers would be apped in the same way as Templars and nobles, with the same kind of responsibly to the player-base.  I've seen a few badly RPed non-mundanes, with sparse knowledge of the gameworld. I've seen many more magickers who are merely average players, without an extraordinary quality to their RP or an dedication to assisting other players in having fun. I do begrudge them their right to play non-mundanes, because they've made it impossible for me to think of non-mundanes as the Big Scary at this point.

On an OOC level, I find myself thinking of them as I would a guy running an Aim-bot in a first-person shooter. Magick/psionics as a cheat-code.

In contrast, it's really easy for me to react to Templars and nobles as the Big Scary, because the players behind these roles are, with very rare exceptions, recruited from the ranks of the 'best' players in the game.

I think that the issuing of karma characters through the automated system should be refreshed in a different way.  It'll help with the issue where the same characters apply for the same class(es) again and again and again.  Besides, you can always special app for a psi after your sorcerer died.

I'm partial to a system that refreshes 1 karma point per 2~6 weeks.  But, that's a different thread for a different time.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on July 11, 2008, 01:48:24 PM
Very often, on these forums, when we are arguing about mundanes and magickers, players attempt to categorize those who choose to play magickers as if this is a MORAL (ethical) choice; the choice to play a non-mundane is stigmatized. Those who choose to play magickers are "bad" players and deserve to be PKed because they are "bad" for the game.

However, I very strongly believe that this choice is not moral or ethical at all, but rather can be explained by the interaction of the particular guild system of ARM and basic human nature. The problem lies in the system, not in the moral failings of the players.

I totally agree with this. There's nothing wrong with choosing to player a magicker. I know I feel no guilt in doing so (although personally I enjoy playing mundane characters more).

Having said that, I think it's counter-productive to play magickers repeatedly while wishing magick were more rare. That doesn't make it "bad" or "wrong" to play them, it just means they won't be as rare.

I think the reaction to the great karma take-back in Random Thoughts was not so much about people playing magickers again. I think that was more about a perception, fair or unfair, that it was somewhat hypocritical.

More closely on-topic, I'm not sure if you're suggesting that most people with the option prefer to play non-mundanes.  Some do, of course.  I'm not sure if most do. I don't. At the same time, I don't play mundanes exclusively, and I intend to try out some of the magicker options I haven't yet tried (which is most of them).

The four reasons make a lot of sense to me. The biggest draw for me, by far, is variety. I don't care as much about a quick road to coded advancement, or plots (which I think are pretty equally open to both mundane and others). I think there are some definite positives to playing mundanes instead, though. You're always going to have some people who prefer that, too.

Is the system such that most people prefer to play magickers?  I don't know. I kind of doubt it. Maybe the staff can weigh in with some numbers. But definitely some do, for the reasons given in the first post.

As far as advancement goes:

If you spam-play an assassin, pickpocket, burglar, ranger, or warrior in about the same way you would spam-cast with a magicker, the time differences in advancement really aren't that much different.  The only difference is that it's probably a lot more dangerous to do so with mundane characters.  (However, I'm pretty sure the danger level for a rogue, non-gemmed, non-tribal mage is pretty damn high.)

I mean, I've had a flash-in-the-pan 2-day d-elf ranger with a PK count in the double digits, being hunted the world over, known as a notorious raider.  I've had a pickpocket that had fully branched his skill tree in 6-8 days.  I've had a merchant who was almost fully branched and was banking HUGE amounts in under 10 days.  I've had an assassin that could almost one-shot fools in under 5 days.

Of course, you won't necessarily be playing -well- in either case--mundane or magicker.  I think the perception of magickers being easier to advance comes from the fact that often, magickers are bored and lonely, and thus spend a lot of time just doing skill-related stuff.  Mundane characters often spend a -lot- of time just sitting around shooting the breeze, not doing anything in particular. 

Sure, there's still a hard cap on how fast you can advance with either a mundane or a magicker (skill timers), but it's pretty amazing how fast you -can- advance with a mundane, should you choose to press the envelope.

Edit:  I'm not suggesting you go out and try it.  My point is that the perceived differences are somewhat larger than the reality of the situation.

/agrees with Synthesis.
Also, I've played magickers who basically did nothing but practice their spells all day. It was a simple eat/sleep/chat with an aquaintance/cast cycle. I should, by all accounts, have been a terrifying master of the arcane by the end of this. But I've played more than a few magickers to the 10-day mark like this, and they all died to the first angry PC/cilops/four-room fall that came their way.
Either I suck at this game, or the power of arcanes has been somewhat exaggerated on this board. People who are playing magickers in hopes of being extremely powerful, extremely fast, are probably playing them for the wrong reasons.

Quote from: Synthesis on July 12, 2008, 02:03:32 PM
I mean, I've had a flash-in-the-pan 2-day d-elf ranger with a PK count in the double digits, being hunted the world over, known as a notorious raider.  I've had a pickpocket that had fully branched his skill tree in 6-8 days.  I've had a merchant who was almost fully branched and was banking HUGE amounts in under 10 days.  I've had an assassin that could almost one-shot fools in under 5 days.

I realize the point you're trying to make, but there's a good reason things like there aren't supposed to be posted on the GDB.

Quote from: flurry on July 12, 2008, 03:11:38 PM

Quote from: Synthesis on July 12, 2008, 02:03:32 PM
I mean, I've had a flash-in-the-pan 2-day d-elf ranger with a PK count in the double digits, being hunted the world over, known as a notorious raider.  I've had a pickpocket that had fully branched his skill tree in 6-8 days.  I've had a merchant who was almost fully branched and was banking HUGE amounts in under 10 days.  I've had an assassin that could almost one-shot fools in under 5 days.

I don't think this is anything to brag about.

Edit:  I'm not bragging...I'm just giving examples of how fast you can advance your skills, should you have a good IC reason to do so.

Edit: Wow, that was fast.


On topic:
If I enjoyed playing mages, I would. I don't. Not everyone prefers supernatural RP.

QuoteThe biggest draw for me, by far, is variety. I don't care as much about a quick road to coded advancement, or plots (which I think are pretty equally open to both mundane and others). I think there are some definite positives to playing mundanes instead, though. You're always going to have some people who prefer that, too.

This goes for me as well, specialy the bolded part.  Also, almost the only time I will play 2 mages in a row is if the first one dies under 10days played (which for me is like 3 hours played to many) But mundanes I will often play two, three four in a row no matter how long they lived.

Quote from: flurry on July 12, 2008, 12:10:56 PM
The biggest draw for me, by far, is variety. I don't care as much about a quick road to coded advancement, or plots (which I think are pretty equally open to both mundane and others).

Could you elaborate on this?  Why is there more variety in magicker play?  I'm inclined to think there is no real variety that doesn't have to do directly with coded power.

No variety in mage play...Huh, if that was the case I could say the same for mundane.

Quote from: Dalmeth on July 12, 2008, 05:23:37 PM

Quote from: flurry on July 12, 2008, 12:10:56 PM
The biggest draw for me, by far, is variety. I don't care as much about a quick road to coded advancement, or plots (which I think are pretty equally open to both mundane and others).

Could you elaborate on this?  Why is there more variety in magicker play?  I'm inclined to think there is no real variety that doesn't have to do directly with coded power.

What's wrong with coded power? I think that by variety she meant that every magicker classes can develop 10+ spells that are totally different from one another. I don't think it's possible to elaborate without revealing said spells, though.

I wouldn't mind if mundane skills increased a little faster than they do now when employed responsibly. It's easy enough to powergame up at a fast pace, but for those doing it the "right" way, it's a long road. Desiring a highly-skilled character is okay, especially considering that interesting things tend to come to such characters more often than they do to Amos Streetsweeper who's a burglar with skills sitting at the starting base. Interesting stuff can happen to him as well, but I bet Malik the Fully Branched Ranger has more to pick and choose from, all else being equal.

Quote from: Dalmeth on July 12, 2008, 05:23:37 PM

Quote from: flurry on July 12, 2008, 12:10:56 PM
The biggest draw for me, by far, is variety. I don't care as much about a quick road to coded advancement, or plots (which I think are pretty equally open to both mundane and others).

Could you elaborate on this?  Why is there more variety in magicker play?  I'm inclined to think there is no real variety that doesn't have to do directly with coded power.

Sorry, what I meant is that I like playing a variety of roles. So I play magickers sometimes because it's different. I like trying all sorts of different things.

Quote from: Malken on July 12, 2008, 06:31:37 PM
What's wrong with coded power? I think that by variety she meant that every magicker classes can develop 10+ spells that are totally different from one another. I don't think it's possible to elaborate without revealing said spells, though.

There's nothing wrong with coded power, it's just that she mentioned she didn't care about a quick rode to coded advancement, which is synonymous to coded power.  As Synthesis stated before, skill advancement is entirely a matter of how much time you put into it, so the rate of progress really isn't that much of an issue.

Quote from: X-D on July 12, 2008, 06:01:08 PM
No variety in mage play...Huh, if that was the case I could say the same for mundane.

I didn't say that.  I meant to say there was no variety separate from that of non-magickers.  The primary difference is that magicker spells give instant gratification where non-magickers take a bit more planning and quite a few more supplies.  I'm still sticking to the point that time efficiency is a key factor in the player trend toward magickers.

The title is silly, because everyone knows that Rangers are players' preferred guild.  ;D  Every time I've seen an imm say how many of each guild there are logged in right at the moment, there have always been more rangers than anything else.  More rangers than all the karma guilds combined.

Even in today's wild and woolly End Times, I'm sure that karma guilds make up much less than half of all active PCs.  So I'd say that players prefer non-gickers to gickers.

Personally, I play supernaturally gifted characters about 40% of the time.  Certainly not because they are more powerful, because mine never live long enough to get powerful -- I'm much more likely to branch as a Ranger or a Merchant than as any kind of Elementalist, Templar, or Sorcerer.



I think that the problem is mainly one of perception.  People that have the karma to play karma guilds may think they are being very responsible if they only play magickers 20% to 50% of the time -- the majority of their characters are not magickers.  However, most players also perceive the setting as one where magickers should make up 10%, 5% or even just 1% of the population.  Nobody wants to play 99 mundane characters before getting a chance to try a magicker though.  If players perceived the setting as one where it was reasonable for 30% of the population to have some crazy magickal or psionic potential, there wouldn't be a problem.




===>  Karma restrictions may actually inflate the number of unnatural characters, by making them seem more powerful and more special than they really are.  Out of the box the most powerful commoners are Warriors, the most versatile are Rangers, and the wealthiest are (northern) Merchants.  It takes time for a mage to actually be useful, and for most practicing is still going to be a lonely and boring time -- most of the time they will be much more isolated than other guilds while practicing their craft.

In MUDs without karma restrictions, the (mostly) non-magical guilds like warriors, rangers, thieves, merchants, and so on have no problems recruiting new members.  There isn't a shortage of mages, psions, clerics and druids either, but the "mostly magical" don't seem to out number the "mostly non-magical".

===>  The sharp division between magickal and non-magickal guilds may also inflate the the number of primarily magickal PCs, or at least the perception of their numbers. It is very hard to "dabble" in magic in this game.  If you try to be a regular guy who knows or does a little magick or hedge magick on the side, you are going to suck -- you are going to suck at being a regular guy and also suck at doing magick.  You just can't be a wise woman or a hedge mage who is mostly one thing, but also knows a few useful spells or charms.

In many other MUDs, there are semi-magickal guilds like bards, paladins, monks, etc., who are mostly non-magickal, but do know a few spells or have some mystical abilities. They pull away some players that might otherwise choose fully magickal guilds like mages, clerics and psions.

===>The enforced ignorance of the setting means Magick is the only obvious way for a commoner to be a Sage, Scholar or Philosopher.  (Advanced Merchants can get fairly scholarly when they get past tinkering and into engineering, but that takes a very long time.)  Dirt poor commoners simply aren't supposed to have time to wonder why the world works the way it does, but most magickers do spend time thinking about it, because they have to figure out how to use their own abilities with limited instruction.  A good portion of players are nerds, and sometimes nerds want to be nerdy.  Being a mage is the closest an illiterate character can come to being a nerd.   :D 



I hope that A2 will solve some of the current problems.  Karma will be gone, at least for a while, so new players won't have the perception that playing mages is a reward.  Magickal subguilds may allow people to play characters that have a touch of magick without needing to be a full wizard.  De-criminalizing literacy could allow scribes and historians to exist and be nerdy, without needing to be noble or magickal.  Perhaps the setting will even make allowances for a larger number of people have magical abilities, which would narrow the gap between how many mages people think there are, and how many mages people think there ought to be.

Quote from: Angela Christine on July 12, 2008, 09:26:18 PMNobody wants to play 99 mundane characters before getting a chance to try a magicker though.

*sob*

QuoteIf players perceived the setting as one where it was reasonable for 30% of the population to have some crazy magickal or psionic potential, there wouldn't be a problem.

Sure. But part of the appeal of this setting is the scarcity of overt magic effects.  Mainstream fantasy games have gone in the opposite direction -- more magic, flashier magic. It's nice to see a fantasy game that takes a more subdued approach.

More of a thing for Arm.2: I would be satisfied with a Mystic class that had very subdued magic.  They can perform a ritual to make a character heal a little faster, fight a little better (or worse), send messages through the Way a longer distance. Simple things, subtle effects. Anyone can make a Mystic, but only the rare individual is allowed to make a full on flashy fire-ball tossing magicker.

I don't agree that time factor has anything to do with it Dalmeth...at least for myself and pretty much anybody I know. Most of us can power up a mundane as fast or faster then a mage, assuming the need is there. Cept the mundane has a much better chance to survive to become powerful. No matter what many believe, most people go through MANY mages before they get one of any real power.

Also, as AC stated, Rangers and warriors are easily the most populus class IG and you might be suprised how many people with 7 or 8 karma still play mostly rangers and warriors.

Quote from: Armaddict on July 11, 2008, 03:17:26 PM
This is how it's intended.  However, this is also why it becomes a problem when there are too many.  It changes the status quo.

        Not only that, but as a leader PC, a noble to be more precise...I actively tried discouraging the use of mages over mundanes.  I didn't rule it out, but tried to keep it low profile...and was scoffed at, ignored, and 'corrected' by templars running missions.

Changing the status quo is a big one. Players feel they need to compete or do whatever. I also liked that the aforementioned noble disliked mundanes, but it seemed to me the templars used them out of sheer pragmatism.

Just a few things to comment on :

Quote from: Angela Christine on July 12, 2008, 09:26:18 PM
In MUDs without karma restrictions, the (mostly) non-magical guilds like warriors, rangers, thieves, merchants, and so on have no problems recruiting new members.  There isn't a shortage of mages, psions, clerics and druids either, but the "mostly magical" don't seem to out number the "mostly non-magical".

In other MUDs, magickal classes are typically have some sort of competitive balance with other classes.  I don't really think this example  applies.

Quote from: Angela Christine on July 12, 2008, 09:26:18 PM
===>  The sharp division between magickal and non-magickal guilds may also inflate the the number of primarily magickal PCs, or at least the perception of their numbers. It is very hard to "dabble" in magic in this game.  If you try to be a regular guy who knows or does a little magick or hedge magick on the side, you are going to suck -- you are going to suck at being a regular guy and also suck at doing magick.  You just can't be a wise woman or a hedge mage who is mostly one thing, but also knows a few useful spells or charms.

I have consistently been in favor of the magickal world being open to more than just magickal guilds.  A few specially crafted charms, maybe a hallucinogen that also lets you see a few real things, these sorts of things where while they are magickal, they aren't very magickal, and they allow you to approach the magickal world without a magicker class.

Quote from: Angela Christine on July 12, 2008, 09:26:18 PM

In many other MUDs, there are semi-magickal guilds like bards, paladins, monks, etc., who are mostly non-magickal, but do know a few spells or have some mystical abilities. They pull away some players that might otherwise choose fully magickal guilds like mages, clerics and psions.

Armageddon isn't like many other MUDs.  Magic and insane non-magical maneuvers are considered from a perspective of play style, not so much as it relates to your character's place in the physical and social structure of the world.  It's not that they are magical or not, but that they play differently that really draws people.

Quote from: Angela Christine on July 12, 2008, 09:26:18 PM
===>The enforced ignorance of the setting means Magick is the only obvious way for a commoner to be a Sage, Scholar or Philosopher.  (Advanced Merchants can get fairly scholarly when they get past tinkering and into engineering, but that takes a very long time.)  Dirt poor commoners simply aren't supposed to have time to wonder why the world works the way it does, but most magickers do spend time thinking about it, because they have to figure out how to use their own abilities with limited instruction.  A good portion of players are nerds, and sometimes nerds want to be nerdy.  Being a mage is the closest an illiterate character can come to being a nerd.   :D 

I disagree entirely with this.  There is a complete lack of philosophical authority on Zalanthas, which makes it ripe for anyone to come up with just about anything.  Rangers with all their skills have the capability to become the nerdiest of all in areas of geography, geology (all that foraging), and anatomy (skinning, bandaging).  I honestly don't know why more people don't do that sort of thing.  It's great material to play out a teaching scene.

Honestly, the first benefit to being a magickal sage over a non-magickal one is the greater ability to lord it over everyone else through fear.  It may be pessimistic, but you can't ignore the effect of  social position of magickers on your play.

Synthesis had a great post.

I think the fact that you can play a magicker while your idling appeals to a lot of people too.  Try using backstab and only be half-paying attention to what you're doing, or any of the combat skills for that matter - you'll be dead pretty fast.  A magicker character can sit in his temple while his player is at work and just cast without worrying about any consequences and think up a bit of a plot or develop his character with a 'think' every ten or twenty minutes.

Magickers are a good fit for people who play at odd times or idle a lot, mundanes just can't train or develop without the player paying attention and interacting with other people.  Rangers have difficulty just marching out and hacking out a life from the very start on their own without getting killed by their prey, especially in the southlands and assassins and warriors have a very tough, dangerous time as well at the beginning unless they're part of a clan.

As far as skill advancement, I've never understand why a magicker can practice his magick skills in an empty room but I can't practice backstab on a dead body or throw on a fence post.  But I prefer it that way, it makes for more excitement.  If magickers had to advance that way as well there would be -a lot- less around as they would actually be found out before they are titans.

Quote from: roughneck on July 14, 2008, 12:38:21 PMAs far as skill advancement, I've never understand why a magicker can practice his magick skills in an empty room but I can't practice backstab on a dead body or throw on a fence post.  But I prefer it that way, it makes for more excitement.  If magickers had to advance that way as well there would be -a lot- less around as they would actually be found out before they are titans.

On the downside, you'd see a lot more rogue magickers wandering about, casting on the roads, casting in view of the gates, being more 'visible' in general...
And isn't that what's pissing people off? Too much magick?

Nobody minds casting outside the gates and getting their ass kicked for it.

People are sick of seeing demi-gods roaming everywhere.

Aside from that even, if they had to cast for real all the time it means for the spells they needed a target for, we'd weed a lot out of them as their target turns around and whops their ass and people would switch to mundanes because it's frustrating and we'd be back to the docs.  As far as magickers go I'm all for a 'survival of the fittest' approach rather than the current where we bottle feed them to power.

If it gets bad again, make a player driven RPT where you gather up everyone on and form a torch brandishing lynch mob.


To not derail and stay on topic:  I don't really play mages because they really bore me.  And the reasoning is precisely what was quoted just above, you don't really have to do anything and go anywhere, once you find your 'spot'...and everyone finds the same spots.  It feels dirty to just end up emoting and exploring the depths of your plane until you're confident enough to go out and either stir some trouble or...*yawn* delve deeper.  Bleh.

Gimme a sword, a beetle and a skin of water and I can make my enjoyment for days.

Quote from: roughneck on July 14, 2008, 01:47:29 PM
Nobody minds casting outside the gates and getting their ass kicked for it.

People are sick of seeing demi-gods roaming everywhere.

Aside from that even, if they had to cast for real all the time it means for the spells they needed a target for, we'd weed a lot out of them as their target turns around and whops their ass and people would switch to mundanes because it's frustrating and we'd be back to the docs.  As far as magickers go I'm all for a 'survival of the fittest' approach rather than the current where we bottle feed them to power.

From what I have seen, a lot of the magicker PCs live fast and die young. I would not be surprised if the turnaround rate for magickers is just as high as it is for mundanes. Clans, organizations and sometimes tribes tend to promote longevity, of course.
As for casting for real every time... You'd either see magickers teaming up more often to practice on eachother where possible, or you'd see them direct their play towards hunting. Personally, I'd rather run into a fairly strong Krathi who's been able to practice in his temple than discover the trail of burninated scrabs in the sands. Also, I believe it took a very very long time to become a skilled magicker in the past and IMHO I would not prefer to see a return to that. It is a different discussion though.

Quote from: palomar on July 14, 2008, 02:10:19 PM
Also, I believe it took a very very long time to become a skilled magicker in the past and IMHO I would not prefer to see a return to that. It is a different discussion though.

I would.

They're karma classes for a reason, they're supposed to be challenging roles and require a ton of patience and maturity both ICly and OOCly.

It's been a few years since last I played a magicker, but I remember it being very difficult to survive with my first one, even as a gemmed mage, so when I did finally manage to become successful it felt very rewarding.


I remember one of the main reasons people didn't play mages as much in the past was because they were such hard characters to play, and only the really patient and intelligent could survive to the point they became something to be feared.

Quote from: Ender on July 14, 2008, 02:46:33 PM

Quote from: palomar on July 14, 2008, 02:10:19 PM
Also, I believe it took a very very long time to become a skilled magicker in the past and IMHO I would not prefer to see a return to that. It is a different discussion though.

I would.

They're karma classes for a reason, they're supposed to be challenging roles and require a ton of patience and maturity both ICly and OOCly.

It's been a few years since last I played a magicker, but I remember it being very difficult to survive with my first one, even as a gemmed mage, so when I did finally manage to become successful it felt very rewarding.

I would hate for it to go back to being that difficult. It was so difficult it wasn't even fun IMO. Unless I played gemmed (and sat in a temple bored for RL hours, days, weeks, on end, mine were always killed by some dickwad who wanted to lord the fact that I was a pathetically weak mage over me and kill my pc. I personally would rather be able to get somewhat decently skilled without having to hide out by myself and be bored forever to keep my pc from behing killed by the first asshole that comes along.

Quote from: palomar on July 14, 2008, 02:10:19 PM
From what I have seen, a lot of the magicker PCs live fast and die young. I would not be surprised if the turnaround rate for magickers is just as high as it is for mundanes. Clans, organizations and sometimes tribes tend to promote longevity, of course.
As for casting for real every time... You'd either see magickers teaming up more often to practice on eachother where possible, or you'd see them direct their play towards hunting. Personally, I'd rather run into a fairly strong Krathi who's been able to practice in his temple than discover the trail of burninated scrabs in the sands. Also, I believe it took a very very long time to become a skilled magicker in the past and IMHO I would not prefer to see a return to that. It is a different discussion though.

But why is it fair that a magicker can cast and train hostile spells without the need of a target, even a dummy target, and then say that assassins should not be able to train backstab on other players, not even dummies?

If you think about it, an assassin who would spend his whole life training in his 'temple' and then go forth and bring destruction to the world with his newly twinked up backstab skill isn't so different than a magicker is allowed to do right now..

Quote from: jhunter on July 14, 2008, 02:53:06 PM

Quote from: Ender on July 14, 2008, 02:46:33 PM

Quote from: palomar on July 14, 2008, 02:10:19 PM
Also, I believe it took a very very long time to become a skilled magicker in the past and IMHO I would not prefer to see a return to that. It is a different discussion though.

I would.

They're karma classes for a reason, they're supposed to be challenging roles and require a ton of patience and maturity both ICly and OOCly.

It's been a few years since last I played a magicker, but I remember it being very difficult to survive with my first one, even as a gemmed mage, so when I did finally manage to become successful it felt very rewarding.

I would hate for it to go back to being that difficult. It was so difficult it wasn't even fun IMO. Unless I played gemmed (and sat in a temple bored for RL hours, days, weeks, on end, mine were always killed by some dickwad who wanted to lord the fact that I was a pathetically weak mage over me and kill my pc. I personally would rather be able to get somewhat decently skilled without having to hide out by myself and be bored forever to keep my pc from behing killed by the first asshole that comes along.

That's where the issue of balance comes from.  Do we want magickers to be easier or do we want them to be rare?

The desired 1-10% of the game population of magickers would easily return to that if it went back to the way it was, because not many people would find them fun.  I have a type of personality that allows me to patiently play those kinda PCs, so it wouldn't really be something I would mind.

Quote from: Malken on July 14, 2008, 02:55:08 PM
But why is it fair that a magicker can cast and train hostile spells without the need of a target, even a dummy target, and then say that assassins should not be able to train backstab on other players, not even dummies?

If you think about it, an assassin who would spend his whole life training in his 'temple' and then go forth and bring destruction to the world with his newly twinked up backstab skill isn't so different than a magicker is allowed to do right now..

The laws of magick are not as restrictive as Zalanthan physics.  Backstabbing is a feat of athleticism while magick is an act of conjuration and allows practicing without real world effects.  Information supporting this can be found in the magick FAQ's, particularly the reach helpfile, which is accessable by anyone.  Practicing magick without a target demands creativity but is possible.  Practicing backstab (in the physical sense) without a target is not possible.

Now, back to the argument about magickers being difficult: 

Magickers are just as hard to advance now as they were in the past, in my opinion.  Surviving with a magicker is not as difficult.  Why?  Because of the generally lower fear given to magickers there is a greater acceptance and an overall negligence toward rogue magickers.

Quote from: Ender on July 14, 2008, 03:07:49 PM

Quote from: jhunter on July 14, 2008, 02:53:06 PM

Quote from: Ender on July 14, 2008, 02:46:33 PM

Quote from: palomar on July 14, 2008, 02:10:19 PM
Also, I believe it took a very very long time to become a skilled magicker in the past and IMHO I would not prefer to see a return to that. It is a different discussion though.

I would.

They're karma classes for a reason, they're supposed to be challenging roles and require a ton of patience and maturity both ICly and OOCly.

It's been a few years since last I played a magicker, but I remember it being very difficult to survive with my first one, even as a gemmed mage, so when I did finally manage to become successful it felt very rewarding.

I would hate for it to go back to being that difficult. It was so difficult it wasn't even fun IMO. Unless I played gemmed (and sat in a temple bored for RL hours, days, weeks, on end, mine were always killed by some dickwad who wanted to lord the fact that I was a pathetically weak mage over me and kill my pc. I personally would rather be able to get somewhat decently skilled without having to hide out by myself and be bored forever to keep my pc from behing killed by the first asshole that comes along.

That's where the issue of balance comes from.  Do we want magickers to be easier or do we want them to be rare?

The desired 1-10% of the game population of magickers would easily return to that if it went back to the way it was, because not many people would find them fun.  I have a type of personality that allows me to patiently play those kinda PCs, so it wouldn't really be something I would mind.

Not desired by me. I have no problems and have never had any problems with too many magickers. I'm fine with 25%-30% of the pc population being magickers. (If that were the case, which it isn't and I highly doubt has ever really reached such percentages for any length of time.)

Quote from: jhunter on July 14, 2008, 03:28:26 PM
Not desired by me. I have no problems and have never had any problems with too many magickers. I'm fine with 25%-30% of the pc population being magickers. (If that were the case, which it isn't and I highly doubt has ever really reached such percentages for any length of time.)

There's a schism of older and newer players here.  The new guys frankly don't seem to care about the current magicker population, because they haven't known Arm for what it can be when the playerbase is 10% or less magickers.  A lot of people plainly can't comprehend it.

At the current ratio there are many loose cannons running around.  I'm fine with the current balance of magickers only if there are more clear and strict guidelines about interactions between magicker and non-magicker classes.  I'm particularly refering to confrontational scenes where combat is going to occurr.  The non-magicker can't resist the urge (I've done this too) to walk in and smash the magicker because the magicker usually insta-flees or insta-deathspells you.

If the game isn't going to go back to the old ways I want some reform.  I want reform.

Agreed Seph. I personally think the idea of a mage hunter is, quite frankly, rediculous. I know of one individual who hunted only a certain type of mage because his class was better suited to hunt them. He knew their ooc weaknesses and capitalized on them. I find that bad form.

Leave the mage hunting to templars and, well, other mages.

Quote from: Lakota on July 14, 2008, 03:47:32 PM
Agreed Seph. I personally think the idea of a mage hunter is, quite frankly, rediculous. I know of one individual who hunted only a certain type of mage because his class was better suited to hunt them. He knew their ooc weaknesses and capitalized on them. I find that bad form.

Leave the mage hunting to templars and, well, other mages.

I think a well-played mage hunter/witch hunter is just fine; hell, a PC clan made entirely for the purpose of being witch hunters would be pretty fun.  In a world where magick is hated and feared, it makes sense that someone would want to wipe out as much of it as possible--and after someone realizes that a magicker dies just as dead as a real person (see what I did there?), they're going to want to kill them to just that level of dead.

However, the story of the mage hunter who only hunted the mages his guild could easily kill is pretty much shitty, yeah.

Quote from: Sephiroto on July 14, 2008, 03:42:19 PM

Quote from: jhunter on July 14, 2008, 03:28:26 PM
Not desired by me. I have no problems and have never had any problems with too many magickers. I'm fine with 25%-30% of the pc population being magickers. (If that were the case, which it isn't and I highly doubt has ever really reached such percentages for any length of time.)

There's a schism of older and newer players here.  The new guys frankly don't seem to care about the current magicker population, because they haven't known Arm for what it can be when the playerbase is 10% or less magickers.  A lot of people plainly can't comprehend it.

At the current ratio there are many loose cannons running around.  I'm fine with the current balance of magickers only if there are more clear and strict guidelines about interactions between magicker and non-magicker classes.  I'm particularly refering to confrontational scenes where combat is going to occurr.  The non-magicker can't resist the urge (I've done this too) to walk in and smash the magicker because the magicker usually insta-flees or insta-deathspells you.

If the game isn't going to go back to the old ways I want some reform.  I want reform.

I'm hardly a new player.  ::) I personally think the changes regarding magickers and magick were a huge improvement to the game. Lack of magick and magicker characters were never one of my reasons for playing Armageddon. I absolutely hated trying to play a magicker pc before and have mundane pc players show no fear and pk almost all of mine. At least now, they have a fucking reason to really be afraid.

Yes, but the pendulum has swung too far in the "making mundanes obsolete" direction.

We don't have to go back to what was, but we do need something.

KARMAGEDDON: SERIOUS BUSINESS ^.^

The conversation seems to have devolved to the level of "what I want/prefer versus what you want/prefer." jhunter (and others) wants magick to be easier to skill up and doesn't mind lots of magicker characters and likes the game better since changes to the magick system were made; Ender (and others) wants magick to be harder to skill up and does mind lots of magicker characters and thinks the game was harmed by changes to the magick system. Who is right? No one, because the discussion is about personal preference.

System design should never be done based on personal preference, unless the system is being designed for only one user.

System design should be done by looking at the desired end results, and building components of the system which are calculated to create those results.

Currently we have a magick system (taking into account both code and roleplaying to docs) that is designed to do the following:
-- Produce rapid, non-risky gains in achievement and accomplishment for magicker characters, which is minimally perceived by the playerbase to make these guilds desirable for "achievement play" above mundane guilds.
-- Make magicker characters more useful, and sometimes solely useful, for certain types of tasks in the game world.
-- Require roleplay to be the only cap on usefulness or involvement of magicker characters. (There is no coded enforcement of these things.)
-- Produce proportionately greater numbers of non-mundane characters over time, as newer players acquire the karma to play them. (The rate of karma gain is undoubtedly greater than the rate of new players entering the game.)

And so forth. The system we currently have does not produce results that are in keeping with the docs' mantra of "rare, special, feared."

My preference would be to see the system re-designed (or designed anew in 2.ARM) to introduce non-punitive changes that would move our results back toward keeping with the docs.

The conversation always was about what people prefer.

I know that the OP was attempting to make a positive discussion which did not leave room for the usual finger pointing about how other people play things wrong. The discussion was directed at the reasons for people choosing to play magickers so instead of making people feel defensive about their choices we could, instead, find other sorts of solutions -- eg. making mundane guild's branching be faster, stimulating more mundane-only plots, or making karma guilds feel less special. 

However the whole thing assumes that there is some problem to be solved and I, personally, don't believe there is a problem.  Consequently, this thread looks like just another one of the anti-magicker flavour to me.

Gimfalisette, it is clear that you prefer there to be far fewer magickers or you would not be suggesting things that would increase the number of non-magickers.

Quote from: jhunter on July 14, 2008, 03:57:55 PM
I'm hardly a new player.  ::) I personally think the changes regarding magickers and magick were a huge improvement to the game. Lack of magick and magicker characters were never one of my reasons for playing Armageddon.

I'm not really new here, either.  I don't think there are too many magickers.  I do think there is too much of a culture of "tell players how to play their mages" on the GDB.  It's as old as "raider" threads, and about as exciting in general.

I look forward to the changes coming in Armageddon Reborn which I think will (over time) solve many of the "magicker" problems.  The only one I think it can't solve is "get your stinky magicker out of my game."

I expects that when players discover that A) Playing a half-magicker doesn't make you very powerful, and B) Playing a full magicker doesn't make you special because the half-magickers are taking your business (half-warrior, half-magicker acting a magick support for 2.byn, for example), then only people with a really good reason to be powerful mages will bother.  I think over time, the number of mages will go down.

As someone else said, Rangers are the preferred class.  As has been said before in this thread, mages are only the preferred class of some players.  And of those players, only some of them do so because nuking your character is fun.

[derail]There's been a lot of discussion about how to make magickers more feared.  The solution is simple.  Remove all karma restrictions on them.  Give new players krathis and elkrosians and sorcerers.  Quickly, very quickly, mages will be feared.[/derail]

Morrolan

Quote from: Medena on July 14, 2008, 04:26:02 PM
The conversation always was about what people prefer.

I know that the OP was attempting to make a positive discussion which did not leave room for the usual finger pointing about how other people play things wrong. The discussion was directed at the reasons for people choosing to play magickers so instead of making people feel defensive about their choices we could, instead, find other sorts of solutions -- eg. making mundane guild's branching be faster, stimulating more mundane-only plots, or making karma guilds feel less special. 

However the whole thing assumes that there is some problem to be solved and I, personally, don't believe there is a problem.  Consequently, this thread looks like just another one of the anti-magicker flavour to me.

Gimfalisette, it is clear that you prefer there to be far fewer magickers or you would not be suggesting things that would increase the number of non-magickers.

I'm not sure if you missed that I'm the OP or not.

My true personal preference is that we do either of two things:

-- Change the documentation and the world so that magick is not supposed to be rare / hated / feared in order to align it with the system we now have which produces large numbers of non-mundane PCs.

OR

-- Change the system we have in order to align it with the documentation and the world so that it produces many fewer numbers of non-mundane PCs.

Currently we are just schizophrenic about the issue, and our insanity causes us to point the finger of blame at other players. We have the constant dissonance of attempting to play by the docs (and wanting others to play by the docs, so we can retain immersion), while we're trying to do this inside a system that doesn't produce the result the docs say we should see.

I'm personally sickened by the influx of magick in some parts of the world. It really ruins the atmosphere and makes your mundane feel outnumbered.

Gimf, preferences are always going to play a very large part in who picks what class. While the points you outline in your OP are all true, there's really no way of telling if those factors are more important than personal preference. Some people might play 'gickers regardless of the game, some people might refrain from playing magickers because they don't like them in their incarnation, some people might play them only because they like the current incarnation. Some people might love the fact that tons of magickers are running around, while some might refrain from playing for precisely that reason.
The reasons you list for playing magickers are, in my opinion, not very good reasons. There's a great line in the elf docs:
Desert Elf Misconceptions wrote:

QuotePlay a desert elf if you want to explore the world: No. This is wrong. This is like playing a mul, because you want to have a badass warrior; sure, the race enables you to do that, but you're missing the whole point of it.

Similarly, I'd say that if you playing a magicker to A) run rough-shod over mundane characters or B) because you think you'll be able to get involved with more plots as a magicker or C) because you're bored of mundanes, then you're similarly missing the whole point of it. These reasons might get you to play one or two magickers, but the 'serial magicker players', the 'problem players' (like me), probably play magickers for some other reason. For reasons that rooted in personal preference.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, or that you don't have a valid point. The reason this conversation keeps drifting toward personal preference is because matters of personal preference are equally valid. I suspect they might have an even greater impact on the number of magickers than the 'system' in place.

I have had to delete IC information twice now in this same thread. Watch what you post. If this continues, I'm locking the discussion.

Come on, Gimf.

What about the whole issue that the playerbase will never be a correct reflection of the actual world demographics?  PC's are special.  They are more likely to be free citizens rather than slaves.  They are more likely to be human, half-elven, dwarven, half-giant, or mulish (realistically, about half of the population should be elven).  They are more likely to be wealthy nobles' servants.  They are more likely to leave their home cities.  They are more likely to die young and violently.

And, of course, they are more likely to encounter supernatural beings or to actually be such things.

Instead of calling the "reality" of Armageddon vs the "reality" of Zalanthas "unrealistic" or "inconsistent", why can't we just call it "interesting"?


EDIT: And instead of believing that the docs describe Armageddon, just read them as describing Zalanthas.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on July 14, 2008, 04:44:10 PM
Come on, Gimf.

What about the whole issue that the playerbase will never be a correct reflection of the actual world demographics?  PC's are special.  They are more likely to be free citizens rather than slaves.  They are more likely to be human, half-elven, dwarven, half-giant, or mulish (realistically, about half of the population should be elven).  They are more likely to be wealthy nobles' servants.  They are more likely to leave their home cities.  They are more likely to die young and violently.

And, of course, they are more likely to encounter supernatural beings or to actually be such things.

Instead of calling the "reality" of Armageddon vs the "reality" of Zalanthas "unrealistic" or "inconsistent", why can't we just call it "interesting"?


EDIT: And instead of believing that the docs describe Armageddon, just read them as describing Zalanthas.

I have to agree with this.  Of course, there still has to be some balance.. but I'm probably not going to play a commoner that does common stuff all the common time.  I don't think I've ever done that.. yeah, I probably should try it occasionally, but let's not go too far in the 'mundane' direction either.  And when I say mundane, I mean commoners who do nothing but sweep poop all day as opposed to a commoner that travels or fights or whatever... you know, the 'fun' stuff.  ;)

QuoteHowever the whole thing assumes that there is some problem to be solved and I, personally, don't believe there is a problem.

Please refer back to the documentation and compare it to how things actually go, without using such justifications as "Players enjoy this or that and this is a game." or "Players don't represent the NPC population; all the players could be mages and the documentation would still be accurate."

You've been around for awhile.  You know how this goes.

QuoteWhat about the whole issue that the playerbase will never be a correct reflection of the actual world demographics?  PC's are special.

QuoteThere is also the factor of 'the exception'.  And by this I mean playing against the Zalanthan norm. Generally when you play the exception to the rule, it is not good and in the end can change the perception of the game.

Now, that quote from Myrdryn is reply is out of context a bit, but if you have not, I'd suggest rereading his post.  It does not go for one side or the other, but it does bring into play something that is important.  If people continue to assume that 'PC's are special' and that documentation and cultural aspects can continue to be removed or taken out at a whim because it's not an aspect you particularly like as a player...you are doing your own part towards removing the flavor of the game.  "Well it's -only- me, it's not that big of an impact."  It is.  You support doing it further.  I don't mind exceptions either, but when it's getting to the point that you're justifying it, instead of saying, "Yeah, this one is different, not normal.  I'll go back to the normal state of the game after this one dies.", you are creating your own little trend to follow.

QuoteInstead of calling the "reality" of Armageddon vs the "reality" of Zalanthas "unrealistic" or "inconsistent", why can't we just call it "interesting"?

Because if you're taking 'interesting' and making it overrule 'somewhat real', 'consistent', 'long-lived', 'well-managed', 'well-documented', 'role-play intensive'....don't you end up with an interesting game that is -not- exactly Armageddon?

Quote from: Marauder Moe on July 14, 2008, 04:44:10 PM
Instead of calling the "reality" of Armageddon vs the "reality" of Zalanthas "unrealistic" or "inconsistent", why can't we just call it "interesting"?

EDIT: And instead of believing that the docs describe Armageddon, just read them as describing Zalanthas.

I don't really have an adequate way to respond to this...don't have the words exactly, because the feeling is so deep. Yet another noble's aide, or well-off indie hunter, doesn't break my immersion; yet another mindbender intrusion, or abduction by a sorceror, or magickal attack by a powerful being, does break my immersion. Also, when I think of character concepts, even though I am naturally drawn to playing mundanes, my primary thought/feeling about playing them anymore is: "But mundanes are helpless and irrelevant." And pretty often, the thought occurs to me, "If I can't play mundanes and not feel helpless and irrelevant, then maybe I should quit playing ARM."

I'd love it if I, as a player, would feel something similar to what the documentation states that my character should feel upon encountering a magicker outside of such safe environments as taverns and bazaars. It would be awesome if I could be frightened, surprised and mystified when my character sees one of these destroyers-of-worlds. After dozens upon dozens of such encounters, especially around the time some six months ago when they literally happened on a daily basis, I now just feel a bland, jarred annoyance except for the occasional exception where the magicker is very well-played and can create an atmosphere. Things seem to have improved somewhat since that dreadful period where in the end the playerbase practically rebelled, but it's still quite far from how I feel it should be.

I don't understand where people are still complaining about too many magickers. I've still not experienced that problem myself. 99% of the non-magicker pcs I've played since I started playing Arm' back in '95 have gone their entire lives without experiencing magick in any form. Even if I had experienced it more, I'd still fear for my pc if they encountered a magicker outside Allanak.


Personally, I would prefer that the documentation were altered to specify that views on magick aren't the same everywhere and that player numbers may not reflect the exact ratios that virtual and coded npcs do. I sincerely wish that people would get the idea out of their head that pc numbers are supposed to be some sort of an exact reflection of the general statistics listed in the docs. Or remove that part of the docs entirely.

Jhunter:

First off...don't worry, dude, I recognized you as an old player :)

Main point:  I'm actually not attacking the population of magickers so much as the repetition through which some people choose to play them.  Even that is a minor point.  Every few years, there were brief spurts of activity on the GDB complaining about the social ramifications of being a mage.  Limited employment options, lack of PC interaction and so on and so forth.  What was not understood was that, as Seph pointed out...that -was- the role.  It had an entirely different dynamic that some players simply couldn't cope with, but that would not end involvement in the game.  It simply made the mage the specialized role, not one to be played by the player who was drawn to the game because in D&D, they always played a mage.

I realize the magick system of Armageddon is...-amazing-.  But it needs to be remembered that even if that is the sole-reason for being here, the role shouldn't be changed to allow those players who only want to play mages to feel involved.  Leader PC's need to keep the social things in line.  Templars and nobles need to maintain the social order as well as play their character, not make everything an exception to involve as many people as possible and so on and so forth.

Again, from Myrdryn's post here:

QuoteThe feel and environment of the game is in large dependent upon the players at large.  A desert world where resources are scare.  Where certain aspects of the game world just are, and the main thing reinforcing these things are the players and the way they react.  Certain things can be coded, other things (like fear/acceptance of magik) can't be.  Hate for elves, or a dwarf's focus can't be regulated by the code.  If someone chose to roleplay their half-giant as stupid or smart is up to the player and can't be regulated by the game.

This is what I was getting at with earlier posts.  There are coded advantages for these classes, and that is not my complaint.  That is how it is intended and how it is SUPPOSED to be.  What worries me is that their drawbacks are far more dependent on the playerbase to act consistently with documentation and the flavor of the game.  In other words, insuring that "Zalanthas" remains "Zalanthas" while people play "Armageddon".  (Sorry Moe, had to poke that again :P)

(Edited to add:  Essentially...when things are played well, the status quo fluxes but generally returns back within a relatively short period of time.  What I've been observing is a constant sway in one direction that results in less and less remembrance and observation to the 'norm', because the -perception- of the 'norm' is changing, while the norm itself is not.  Go back to the norm, and the population will go back to the fluxes that were far more familiar without disrupting the depth of the world created as it was.  Interestingly enough...if this is a stupid line of thought that is just clung to by some of the old players, this problem could easily be fixed by simply changing documentation with notes of how the culture is evolving.  But if that's not what's intended...it really shouldn't even seem like that would happen unless the exception is being played far enough to change the perception...and back to the beginning with that whole deal.)

Quote from: Gimfalisette on July 14, 2008, 04:32:47 PM
Currently we are just schizophrenic about the issue, and our insanity causes us to point the finger of blame at other players. We have the constant dissonance of attempting to play by the docs (and wanting others to play by the docs, so we can retain immersion), while we're trying to do this inside a system that doesn't produce the result the docs say we should see.

This is exactly the problem that many people don't think exists.

The documentation says one thing, while the system actually encourages another.  And subsequent discussions around this topic always have people in a tizzy because they believe that change will always result in the most negative outcome possible.  Group A doesn't want their ability to play magickers removed, while Group B don't want their ability to play within the game world as documented to be so greatly diminished by the immense footprint of magickal game play.  Each group strives for something that, unfortunately, limits the fun of the other.

And, yet, both seem to point at the documentation to support their side of the argument.

Players that seem to prefer a low magick world point toward the rare and mysterious nature of magick as described by the documentation, even though the system has been slowly designed to accomplish the opposite.

Players that seem to prefer a high magick world point toward the fearful and superstitious nature to which mundanes should be expected to be held, even though the system has been slowly designed to accomplish the opposite.

Looking at the reasons why people choose the magicker class can help to isolate features of the class and magicker role that are the most attractive, perhaps so that those features could be retained when considering future systems or compromises.  Just remember that people (who have an issue) generally aren't angry at any magicker players, or even the magick system in general, but at the situation.  And that doesn't make this an anti-magick or anti-magicker thread.

As to the notion that the PC's are comprised of "special people", this has always felt like a rationalization to go against the spirit of the game rather than occasionally drawing outside of the suggested guidelines.  Yes, if we were to base our characters on a roll the dice against the actual population demographics, there would hardly be anyone but slaves and poverty level common folk populating the game.  However, the idea that the documentation is aimed at Zalanthas while we players are actually playing a sub-game called Armageddon that completely ignores said documentation on a whim results in exactly the type of game some of us don't want to play.

I want Zalanthas.  You can keep Armageddon by that definition.

Quote from: jhunter
I don't understand where people are still complaining about too many magickers. I've still not experienced that problem myself. 99% of the non-magicker pcs I've played since I started playing Arm' back in '95 have gone their entire lives without experiencing magick in any form. Even if I had experienced it more, I'd still fear for my pc if they encountered a magicker outside Allanak.

Conversely, I've witnessed consistent magickal characters in and outside of cities on a regular basis with nearly every single character I've played in the last 5 years, whether it be in the north or south.  Experiences vary.

-LoD

Quote from: FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit on July 14, 2008, 04:36:39 PM
There's a great line in the elf docs:
Desert Elf Misconceptions wrote:

QuotePlay a desert elf if you want to explore the world: No. This is wrong. This is like playing a mul, because you want to have a badass warrior; sure, the race enables you to do that, but you're missing the whole point of it.

Similarly, I'd say that if you playing a magicker to A) run rough-shod over mundane characters or B) because you think you'll be able to get involved with more plots as a magicker or C) because you're bored of mundanes, then you're similarly missing the whole point of it. These reasons might get you to play one or two magickers, but the 'serial magicker players', the 'problem players' (like me), probably play magickers for some other reason. For reasons that rooted in personal preference.

While this is partly true, there's an important difference in the fact that desert-elves are normally not allowed to go exploring the world willy nilly. If they leave the area they're more or less confined to without a very valid reason, there's likely to be both IC and OOC repercussions, and I think that most of the players who have played desert-elves for any length of time has at some point been contacted by a staff member asking why they were somewhere they didn't belong. Magickers, however, aren't bound by such rules. In fact, they aren't bound by any rules other than what IC restrictions may be imposed on them in a few places around the world. If they do play a magicker to, as you put it, run rough-shod over mundanes, as has been the case with an unsettlingly large number of magickers, they will at most leave an trail of OOCly angry players behind.

On this mud you're not even really required to roleplay encounters since you can spam-walk after someone, kill them immediately upon entering the room, and claim that you were roleplaying since your actions reflected your character's intentions. We have no rules of engagement, no punishment for the players who make no effort to make such encounters interesting even for the victims, so a number of players don't try. Magickers aren't the only ones guilty of this, but it's infinitely more prominent when they do it since they tend to have the ability to utterly obliterate any mundane without much chance of them escaping. At least a raider normally has to defeat you in combat, giving you a chance to both escape and to possibly overpower them.

I have no beef whatsoever with the portion of the magickers who add to the game and make it more fun. I think that should be a requirment for someone playing this kind of character. The ones who create storylines, the ones who run plots and have a great influence on the game world - you know, the ones we remember and fear, even if we've only heard their names. They belong in the game and they have a very important part to play, fulfilling the documentation and so on. Unfortunately they're about one out of every ten magickers, the rest being either twinks who hurt the game, complete non-factors who sit in a cave somewhere out of anyone's reach, or are utterly uninteresting, interchangable gemmed mages whose names we never even learn. They tend to do none of the above while contributing greatly to the negative aspects of what magickers are, leaving a game that is crowded with supposedly rare menaces and affecting the game in other unfortunate ways. I believe that the laughable ease of becoming powerful as a magicker contributes greatly to this factor, because it attracts the kind of player who wants great coded power but has no particular interest in doing something with it other than furthering their own desires. If magick was truly difficult and time-consuming to master, I think we'd see a larger ratio of the positive type of magicker, the ones who are willing to and capable of fulfilling their purpose in the game world. These proverbial White Rantarris and their gemmed counterparts who aren't forgotten a week after they disappear.

I don't see it as a one or the other kind of deal. Magick could be balanced so that it doesn't take eight months to reach power or two weeks to fully branch. I fully believe that a compromise could be found so that those who want to play productive magickers aren't deterred by an almost certain death before they reach their goals while the weaker souls aren't tempted by the promise of immeasurable power before they've even spent their starting coin. Assassins aren't worth much until quite a long way down the road, leaving truly accomplished and notorious assassins about as rare as they should be. It seems to me that the "magicker players", for lack of better, have become too comfortable with this unreasonably easy journey to power that they're not even willing to consider a system that isn't so effortless. It's a shame, especially since it's plain to see how devastating the negative effects have become.

Quote from: jhunterI don't understand where people are still complaining about too many magickers. I've still not experienced that problem myself. 99% of the non-magicker pcs I've played since I started playing Arm' back in '95 have gone their entire lives without experiencing magick in any form. Even if I had experienced it more, I'd still fear for my pc if they encountered a magicker outside Allanak.

Yes, jhunter, but you've always been the inexplicable exception who never sees any of the things that are so blatantly wrong with the game that everyone else has conceded to it. I've come to believe that you're either blind or just extremely stubborn.

QuoteConversely, I've witnessed consistent magickal characters in and outside of cities on a regular basis with nearly every single character I've played in the last 5 years, whether it be in the north or south.  Experiences vary.

-LoD

Which is fine. I just hope that you are not expecting that, living in Allanak, your pc isn't going to ever see magickers. I think every Allanaki would likely have seen several gemmed mages throughout their lives. They might not have witnessed magick but I believe they most definitely -all- would've seen gemmed mages.

Quote from: some guy on July 14, 2008, 05:40:22 PM

Quote from: jhunterI don't understand where people are still complaining about too many magickers. I've still not experienced that problem myself. 99% of the non-magicker pcs I've played since I started playing Arm' back in '95 have gone their entire lives without experiencing magick in any form. Even if I had experienced it more, I'd still fear for my pc if they encountered a magicker outside Allanak.

Yes, jhunter, but you've always been the inexplicable exception who never sees any of the things that are so blatantly wrong with the game that everyone else has conceded to it. I've come to believe that you're either blind or just extremely stubborn.

Please refrain from flaming me for expressing my experiences with the game. My currently pc lives in Allanak and has only seen one gemmer in the last few RL months. That sounds like much less than I would expect to see.

Oh yes, and a few people on the GDB do not make up -everyone else-. The people that actually post on the GDB are only a percentage of the playerbase, there are plenty of people that don't bother with the GDB and just play the game. Mostly because of people getting snarky with those that don't agree with them.

I wouldnt say that magickers are players preferred guilds.  Granted I dont have enough karma to make a magicker, but even if I did, I would never really play a character.  I might run one or two, just so I can get a feel of the spells, and know their limits, but even without that it sorta gives them an aura that my characters dread, as anything can happen, at least thats what they think.  Magickers for me would be the most boring class, eventually, even if they get really good, and expert at combat magick, what is the fun in playing when you can just oneshot anyone with spam spells, or paralyse them and kill them with a single blow to the head.  Granted they can do other things, but it isnt truly fun, there is little risk, and one doesnt value something that is easy to obtain, as much as something that is hard.  I do realise that assassins can also kill someone in one hit, but to get to that level, they must survive for -a long time- and do everything perfectly, and even then there is a chance it might not work.

To me magickers are just the easy route, and I prefer earning something worthwhile.

QuoteThe people that actually post on the GDB are only a percentage of the playerbase, there are plenty of people that don't bother with the GDB and just play the game. Mostly because of people getting snarky with those that don't agree with them.

Not to derail, but this is indeed true. :P

Hey LoD, didn't you used to say that back in the old days before karma, when magickers would hang out in the middle of Tuluk and practice spells, things weren't so bad and magick was still kinda scary?   ;)

Anyway, I certainly don't mean to say that "PCs are special" means we can completely ignore the documentation.  I just mean we should accept that we can't match it completely, or at least that the game would be pretty boring if we did.  We don't ignore the documented world of Zalanthas, we simply augment it and emphasize the more interesting aspects (which for many people is magick, apparently).


Also, as Gimf pointed out, this really isn't an argument about the playerbase reflecting the game world.  People are perfectly fine to play a game where humans and wealthy commoners are disproportionately represented.  However, for some reason, the prevalence of supernatural guilds irks people.  It might be more productive to try and get to the root of that feeling rather than go around in circles about the disparity between the game and the world/documentation.

To side with Jhunter a moment... I've not always played in the off-peak time period, but I can say that since playing in this period... which is usually anywhere from 1am-7am PST, I can say that I have not seen a magicker on in this time period in almost a year. If I had been playing consistently in this time-zone for my whole Armageddon career, instead of just recently, it would set in my head a rarity of magick-players. However since I have played on peak-times I know this to be gravely false.

But I could easily see a group, albeit it small, of players with little to no magick exposure just because of play-times.

And this group could easily be saying: I don't understand what the big deal is, I've seen maybe 1 or 2 magickers in my entire time playing.

Where the group that deals with the 60-70 player peak time may experience 6-7 magickers, and that is still only representing 10% of the pbase. Which is generally fairly low.

I've seen plenty of magickers, albeit gemmers but I've seen more who weren't. Even attacks by magickers have been rare, and of everyone in Allanak I'd know this kind of thing due to my role and my daily login rate. There really is no problem at all, at least southside.

As for the gemmers, they do their roles admirably, and have never seemed to break my low-fantasy immersion with their presence or magicks.

Not hard to see why there are so many different view points and why it's such a difficult issue to get anywhere with.
For those that have experienced some of them, just look at the culture and documentation, regarding acceptance, belief, and treatment of magickers throughout the locales of Zalanthas. It's a tremendous hodge podge running the full gamut of possibilities. Take these cultures and the regions in which they live, add to that the extent of the lands to which their sphere of influence is (or in which their people may be seen), and you have immediate and severe conflcts. The fact that these conflicts have not been resolved over the timeline of Zalanthas is unrealistic, and so players end up stepping outside the culture/docs to be able to play.

As large as the known world is, it's a small sandbox when you consider how many civilizations/cultures there are in it, and players don't much like being restricted to their section of the sandbox. To expect the culture and belief your current character is supposed to have is prevalent one small step outside your sandbox, let alone 15 rooms away, usually ends up being not true. This is a hard thing to swallow, let alone roleplay in because 15 rooms doesn't take very long to travel through.

Hard to have a consistent, easily playable world, when in one room it's okay to run with krathi man, in the next vivadu man is your spiritual advisor, in the next sorcereror is your tree hugger protector, in the next we kill all magickers, in the next they have their uses but they are disdained.

QuoteHowever, for some reason, the prevalence existance of supernatural guilds irks people.  It might be more productive to try and get to the root of that feeling rather than go around in circles about the disparity between the game and the world/documentation.

This would make it more true to my opinion of it.

Quote from: jhunter on July 14, 2008, 06:39:18 PM

QuoteHowever, for some reason, the prevalence existance of supernatural guilds irks people.  It might be more productive to try and get to the root of that feeling rather than go around in circles about the disparity between the game and the world/documentation.

This would make it more true to my opinion of it.

You attempt to make this argument in pretty much every thread where magickers are discussed, but that doesn't make it more correct. There are plenty of us who are fine with the concept of non-mundanes and magick, with the fact that they are in game, and with the fact that our mundane characters may encounter this stuff. That, however, does not mean that there's not some point where it's just too much. Quick and dirty analogy: I love chocolate, I eat chocolate, I respect your right to enjoy chocolate as you like, but if I eat too much of it my system freaks out. My abstention from chocolate or restriction of it in my diet does not mean I wish it would go entirely away.

Also, why is it that when we talk about mundanes and non-mundanes, people always seem to come armed with the idea that this interplay is a zero-sum game? Why do we seem so set on that belief? People immediately begin cries of "don't nerf me, man" and "you just don't like magickers!"

But a -system- is not necessarily a zero-sum game. There's nothing that says one group of players must gain an advantage and another group lose some advantage, when it comes to the overall system. (Unless, of course, the system in question really IS a zero-sum game.) I happen to believe that ARM is a "sum" game, and that what's good for the overall playerbase is really the thing to shoot for.

Someone, I think it was Jhunter posted that they have been in Allanak for a few RL months and have only seen one magicker...

I wish I played how you play...

I have been in Allanak twice, for one IC night each time, in the past RL month...Now thats only two IC nights...and I have seen seven non-mundanes.

Four were gemmers, and three I knew were non-mundanes from finding out with past characters that they are non-mundanes.

You can argue, "Well if your current pc doesnt know they are magickers/psi's, then technically its not the same."....

From an IC standpoint, you are correct, technically I have only seen four gemmed mages.

From an OOC standpoint, I have spent about 30 minutes in Allanak in the past RL month, and seen seven non-mundanes roaming about.

And I was only visiting the local tavern for a quick ale. *shrugs*

That's why I don't believe anything that jhunter says anymore when it comes to magickers..

Quote99% of the non-magicker pcs I've played since I started playing Arm' back in '95 have gone their entire lives without experiencing magick in any form.

And only seen one gemmer in Allanak for a few RL months?

Give me a break.. I'm really believing that most magickers discussion NEVER get anywhere because of jhunter himself, coming up with facts like these.

I know I'll be called a troll for saying something like that or trying to start a flame, but I'm really not, I really believe this to be a fact.

This may be a different reason then most people, but the reason I play magickers predominantly now, more then before, is because for the most part I play in Allanak, and ever since the removal of the old desert-code, back when fire-ants, jozhal, tarantulas, and so forth roamed in what I viewed as a realistic manner, the desert has been relatively devoid of creatures. I have forayed into the desert numerous times, with numerous characters and can sometimes go a real-life week without seeing a scrab.

The only thing hostile about the desert nowadays is the weather.

So magickers offer something else to do in Allanak, besides being a non-combat experiencing guard, aide, or crafter. At least magick is entertaining... and provides a level of intrigue when dealing with other players.

Quote from: Malken on July 14, 2008, 07:00:25 PM
That's why I don't believe anything that jhunter says anymore when it comes to magickers..

Quote99% of the non-magicker pcs I've played since I started playing Arm' back in '95 have gone their entire lives without experiencing magick in any form.

And only seen one gemmer in Allanak for a few RL months?

Give me a break.. I'm really believing that most magickers discussion NEVER get anywhere because of jhunter himself, coming up with facts like these.

I know I'll be called a troll for saying something like that or trying to start a flame, but I'm really not, I really believe this to be a fact.

Believe what you want. I don't care. It doesn't change my experience with the game any. Just because my experience with the game differs from yours doesn't make mine any less real. What possible motive would I have for lying about it? I do not appreciate being called a liar for no apparent reason than to be a jerk to me on the board.
It -is- completely true that about 1 out of every 10 pcs I've had has experienced magick. I do -not- count -seeing- a gemmer in Allanak as "experiencing" magick.

Quote from: jhunter on July 14, 2008, 07:13:43 PM
Believe what you want. I don't care. It doesn't change my experience with the game any. Just because my experience with the game differs from yours doesn't make mine any less real. What possible motive would I have for lying about it? I do not appreciate being called a liar for no apparent reason than to be a jerk to me on the board.
It -is- completely true that about 1 out of every 10 pcs I've had has experienced magick. I do -not- count -seeing- a gemmer in Allanak as "experiencing" magick.

QuotePlease refrain from flaming me for expressing my experiences with the game. My currently pc lives in Allanak and has only seen one gemmer in the last few RL months.

You wrote only two hours ago that your current pc lives in Allanak and has only seen one gemmer in the last few RL months, then you write that "seeing" a gemmer in Allanak doesn't count as experiencing magick.. Either way, it just shows to me that your examples are always in the extreme
and that you seem to be 0.1% of the playerbase, yet you are also the most vocal one opposed to changes in the magick system and I think this is the reason why we haven't had any changes in so long.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but your numbers never seem to make sense to me.. I hope someone can explain better for me if you think I'm being a jerk.

My point between the two posts is that I've only even seen one magicker in two RL months living in a place that magickers are allowed to live in. I haven't at all "experienced" magick with the pc. Meaning, that I haven't seen a spell cast, a spell effect or anything that would appear that magick has been used toward my own pc or  another pc in my presence.

Red Storm doesn't count!

I also would not consider it "experiencing" magick if my PC had merely seen a gemmer. Experiencing, to me, means that my PC is directly affected by some magickal or non-mundane effect. By my definition, I have only had 1 PC in my 2+years of play who never experienced anything non-mundane. The rest of my PCs have been the chosen target of non-mundane stuff quite frequently, both in Allanak and Tuluk.

However, anecdotal evidence of this sort is pointless to talk about, since there's no way to extrapolate it to the rest of the MUD. We just do not have the necessary data to conclude anything about quantities of non-mundanes or their overall effects on the playerbase.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on July 14, 2008, 06:44:23 PM

Quote from: jhunter on July 14, 2008, 06:39:18 PM

QuoteHowever, for some reason, the prevalence existance of supernatural guilds irks people.  It might be more productive to try and get to the root of that feeling rather than go around in circles about the disparity between the game and the world/documentation.

This would make it more true to my opinion of it.

You attempt to make this argument in pretty much every thread where magickers are discussed, but that doesn't make it more correct. There are plenty of us who are fine with the concept of non-mundanes and magick, with the fact that they are in game, and with the fact that our mundane characters may encounter this stuff. That, however, does not mean that there's not some point where it's just too much. Quick and dirty analogy: I love chocolate, I eat chocolate, I respect your right to enjoy chocolate as you like, but if I eat too much of it my system freaks out. My abstention from chocolate or restriction of it in my diet does not mean I wish it would go entirely away.

What I mean is that I'm 100% positive that there are players who feel this way and that they will chime in with those of you who don't exactly feel the way I stated (and say that this isn't what their intended result is) in order to gear things toward where they want. I wasn't saying that all of you who speak up truly feel this way or that this is your reasons for posting as you post. Just that I'm sure there are people who would be perfectly happy to see magick done away with entirely and use some of you points of view on it as a screen to meet their own ends.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on July 14, 2008, 07:40:59 PM
I also would not consider it "experiencing" magick if my PC had merely seen a gemmer. Experiencing, to me, means that my PC is directly affected by some magickal or non-mundane effect. By my definition, I have only had 1 PC in my 2+years of play who never experienced anything non-mundane. The rest of my PCs have been the chosen target of non-mundane stuff quite frequently, both in Allanak and Tuluk.

However, anecdotal evidence of this sort is pointless to talk about, since there's no way to extrapolate it to the rest of the MUD. We just do not have the necessary data to conclude anything about quantities of non-mundanes or their overall effects on the playerbase.

And how many pcs have you had in the last two years? How many Tuluki? How many 'Nakki? How many elsewhere that rogue mages may also be to stay away from the cities?

Quote from: Malken on July 14, 2008, 07:00:25 PM
That's why I don't believe anything that jhunter says anymore when it comes to magickers..

Quote99% of the non-magicker pcs I've played since I started playing Arm' back in '95 have gone their entire lives without experiencing magick in any form.

And only seen one gemmer in Allanak for a few RL months?

Give me a break.. I'm really believing that most magickers discussion NEVER get anywhere because of jhunter himself, coming up with facts like these.

I know I'll be called a troll for saying something like that or trying to start a flame, but I'm really not, I really believe this to be a fact.

Jhunter may be the most eloquent among us who don't want elementalists to be made into obscure and difficult classes that are so boring that "balance" is achieved simply by people not wanting to play them (what a horrible "solution"), but he is most definitely not alone in this.

Quote from: jhunter on July 14, 2008, 07:47:19 PM
And how many pcs have you had in the last two years? How many Tuluki? How many 'Nakki? How many elsewhere that rogue mages may also be to stay away from the cities?

See, my point was that this is all anecdotal evidence and thus not relevant to the topic. Brandishing further numbers at you would only obfuscate that point. Talking about what each of us has individually experienced proves nothing at all.

Quote from: Salt Merchant on July 14, 2008, 07:49:22 PM
Jhunter may be the most eloquent among us who don't want elementalists to be made into obscure and difficult classes that are so boring that "balance" is achieved simply by people not wanting to play them (what a horrible "solution"), but he is most definitely not alone in this.

I have played about 98% of my time in ARM as a mundane (by choice), but I by no means want elementalist classes to be boring or worthless-feeling to play. I would never advocate an approach to the overall system of ARM that would marginalize any group of players. Again, why does everyone insist in seeing this problem as zero-sum? Why, when dedicated players of mundanes bring up a consistent problem, do dedicated players of non-mundanes immediately get into defensive position and turn it all into us vs. them? Wouldn't the whole game be better served if mundane players were happier with mundane play?

First, This needs to be repeated.

QuoteMagickers are just as hard to advance now as they were in the past, in my opinion.  Surviving with a magicker is not as difficult.  Why?  Because of the generally lower fear given to magickers there is a greater acceptance and an overall negligence toward rogue magickers.

Now, I've been playing for a very long time, long before karma in fact. I stopped playing at about the time of the great hack, "95" I think, or there abouts. At that time and before, I would have put the mage count at about half the PCs. I came back late 98 or early 99. Lost 2 PCs in a week then had one last most of a year. With that PC, before he was a day old I saw no less then 10 gemmers. In the time I had him he saw no more then 3 rogue mages but the total number of gemmed stayed basicly the same. Over the last 10 years I've never noticed the number of gemmed mages go much higher then that but often it goes much lower While the number of rogue mages steadily increases (/me points at the above quote then at every person on the GDB complaining about mages). Still, even now I would put the total mage count at under twentyfive. When you consider that our playerbase is over 300 that puts the mage PC count under 10%, Well within what most you people consider reasonable. And under 10% is FAR from a prefered class. Even lumping all the mage classes together. I'd also bet that fully half of the playerbase has at least 2 karma. Now, I'm not on staff, so I could be talking out my ass on these numbers, but I really doubt I am very far off.

I'll make another bet as well. I will bet that the average lifespan of a mage PC is less then half that of the average combined lifespan of mundane PCs.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on July 14, 2008, 07:56:06 PM
I have played about 98% of my time in ARM as a mundane (by choice), but I by no means want elementalist classes to be boring or worthless-feeling to play. I would never advocate an approach to the overall system of ARM that would marginalize any group of players. Again, why does everyone insist in seeing this problem as zero-sum? Why, when dedicated players of mundanes bring up a consistent problem, do dedicated players of non-mundanes immediately get into defensive position and turn it all into us vs. them? Wouldn't the whole game be better served if mundane players were happier with mundane play?

And what will make such players happy? The complaints I've read here can be categorized as follows:

1. Players of mundane characters are annoyed to be attacked so often by elementalists outside of the cities.
... This seems to have resolved itself.

2. Players of mundane characters feel that elementalists have become too "I want to be your friend"-ish to be feared properly.
... seem to me that 1 and 2 are in direct conflict; which do you really want?

3. Players of mundane characters resent being "less powerful" than elementalists.
... I'd argue that they can easily be more powerful... i.e. the leader types with resources and bodyguards at their command. No one seems to complain that templars and nobles are too powerful. Why is that?

4. Players of mundane characters see themselves as being excluded from staff-run plots or at least as being less relevant to them.
... I don't see what the players of non-mundane characters can do about this.

5. Players of mundane characters feel there is an expectation on them to act utterly terrified of magickers every time they are encountered, even in the most benevolent settings.
... I would say this is an extreme viewpoint. Sure, let it be true in Tuluk. In Allanak, where gemmed are a daily sight about the bazaar and Commoner's Quarter, I would replace the expectation with disguised fear and dislike.

6. Players of mundane characters want it to be a low fantasy world and feel there are too many elementalists about, jarring this perception.
... As someone pointed out, seeing a gemmed mage is not the same as seeing magick in use. I think the gemmed have been pretty good at avoiding public displays of magick these days.

So it's not just one thing, it's a whole host of them.

I agree with Gimf on this one, and I also think it is the way the magicker guilds are set up. Right now, the guilds themselves are mundane in the way they progress and how skilled they are at anytime. Magickers don't have exploitable weaknesses in a mundane's eyes. That doesn't make much sense, so let me show you an example or two.

Mundanes practice and when they get better, they are always that good. Leaving out alterations on PCs such as magick or spice. It doesn't matter if they were asleep 1 second before being in combat, and it doesn't matter if they have been awake for 7 days in a row. Neither of those are my problems. My problems are that magickers and their skills are exactly the same. A krathi can be powerful when they are in the Land of Drov and they will be that -same- power if they are in the land of Krath. I say we fix that, and it will make magickers and mundanes interesting. Now, I can lure a Drovian into the light to weaken him and give me an advantage.

A drovian, a Krathi, a Vivaduan, and a rukkian all fall into a cold, damp, dark hole together. They are all maxed out in their skills and they have all been playing for 32 days and 4 hours playing time. In my idea, this Drovian will become a lot more powerful than the krathi, but will still be about the same skill level as the rukkian, who in turn would be more powerful than the vivaduan who is more powerful than the krathi. The krathi is now the weakest member in the foursome. The Krathi knows this and starts running for the light at the end of the tunnel, with no advantage over the other three, he made it. The other three chase him into the hot, blaring, sandstormy day and now, the Krathi is the most powerful, the rukkian is second most powerful, the drovian is third since the sand is nearly blocking the sunlight, and the vivaduan is last for the lack of Vivadu's strength in the area.


This idea, IMHO, would make magickers and mundanes "balanced." Balance = fun

Quote from: Delstro on July 14, 2008, 08:29:03 PM
I agree with Gimf on this one, and I also think it is the way the magicker guilds are set up. Right now, the guilds themselves are mundane in the way they progress and how skilled they are at anytime. Magickers don't have exploitable weaknesses in a mundane's eyes. That doesn't make much sense, so let me show you an example or two.

Mundanes practice and when they get better, they are always that good. Leaving out alterations on PCs such as magick or spice. It doesn't matter if they were asleep 1 second before being in combat, and it doesn't matter if they have been awake for 7 days in a row. Neither of those are my problems. My problems are that magickers and their skills are exactly the same. A krathi can be powerful when they are in the Land of Drov and they will be that -same- power if they are in the land of Krath. I say we fix that, and it will make magickers and mundanes interesting. Now, I can lure a Drovian into the light to weaken him and give me an advantage.

A drovian, a Krathi, a Vivaduan, and a rukkian all fall into a cold, damp, dark hole together. They are all maxed out in their skills and they have all been playing for 32 days and 4 hours playing time. In my idea, this Drovian will become a lot more powerful than the krathi, but will still be about the same skill level as the rukkian, who in turn would be more powerful than the vivaduan who is more powerful than the krathi. The krathi is now the weakest member in the foursome. The Krathi knows this and starts running for the light at the end of the tunnel, with no advantage over the other three, he made it. The other three chase him into the hot, blaring, sandstormy day and now, the Krathi is the most powerful, the rukkian is second most powerful, the drovian is third since the sand is nearly blocking the sunlight, and the vivaduan is last for the lack of Vivadu's strength in the area.


This idea, IMHO, would make magickers and mundanes "balanced." Balance = fun

So we're back to this again. Making mundanes "more fun" somehow means making elementalists "less fun" (= easy prey to mundanes).

Besides, Delstro, you are wrong in your assumption.

Hopefully this answer is vague enough to not be too IC.

Quote1. Players of mundane characters are annoyed to be attacked so often by elementalists outside of the cities.
... This seems to have resolved itself.

I don't really think this is a problem.  Moreso...I think there are just so few mundane raiders that the non-mundane raiders seem far too populous.  That, and no one likes losing a character to the magicker equivalent of a subdue/kill, so cut a little leeway for those who are holding a grudge.  Everyone does it. :P

Quote2. Players of mundane characters feel that elementalists have become too "I want to be your friend"-ish to be feared properly.
... seem to me that 1 and 2 are in direct conflict; which do you really want?

That's well and good.  Probably even expected of a mage.  I can't speak for everyone in the thread, but my concerns have been in the reactions to those sentiments from mundanes and 'mundanes' who in positions of power.  The ones who uphold the social order of things.

Quote3. Players of mundane characters resent being "less powerful" than elementalists.
... I'd argue that they can easily be more powerful... i.e. the leader types with resources and bodyguards at their command. No one seems to complain that templars and nobles are too powerful. Why is that?

First off, I don't appreciate the word 'resent'.  It sticks out as particularly negative, as if the whole concern is out of jealousy rather than maintenance of the game.  Magickers are supposed to be powerful.  So are nobles.  However, it's worth noting that one has the coded power it is supposed to have, and the other has political power that is supported by coded benefits.  Recently that coded power of the former has been seemingly influencing the political power characters hold.  Again, this is not 'true' evidence, just observations of mine.

Quote4. Players of mundane characters see themselves as being excluded from staff-run plots or at least as being less relevant to them.
... I don't see what the players of non-mundane characters can do about this.

Again, I can't speak for everyone, but at least in my posts...I didn't want this to be conceived as a topic meant to be thrown in the face of mages so much as the entire playerbase.  Some things need to be kept in mind regarding social standing, social order, and drawbacks of the non-mundanes that require roleplay on the part of players.  Not just mages.  Perhaps you could toss ideas in on this problem rather than treating it as a personal attack on you for playing a mage.

My ideas for it thusfar have been lowering the amount of giant plots that 'require' mages.  No more big uber demons who slaughter the mundanes and require magick to destroy.  So on and so forth.  Not to say those plots can't exist, but don't make them -the- plot that everyone has to go into.  Also...smaller RPT's.  Why is there not a weekly rpt for this clan that lasts two hours, where only the mundanes go?  Such as a routine patrol for soldiers, where combat does not necessarily take place, but -something- takes place of interest to them?  At least give more mundanes the ability to find a niche in why they exist, beyond guarding mages in important missions.  Again...I'm not saying this is -always- what's going on, but it's things that are adding to the this shift in perception.

Quote5. Players of mundane characters feel there is an expectation on them to act utterly terrified of magickers every time they are encountered, even in the most benevolent settings.
... I would say this is an extreme viewpoint. Sure, let it be true in Tuluk. In Allanak, where gemmed are a daily sight about the bazaar and Commoner's Quarter, I would replace the expectation with disguised fear and dislike.

This is documentation, not a role-play facet or whatnot.  It really is very cool when there's a bar full of mundanes, and out of nowhere a gemmed takes a seat.  Not three and four gemmed at a time, just one.  Watch the mixed reactions.  When gemmed are consistently doing this, how can the mundane possibly stay true to documentation when it has become such commonplace?  There is the council of mages, the allanaki mage's quarter, and a clan who specifically seeks out mages to employ to try and keep mage interaction up without interrupting the 'schism' that exists between the mundane and non-mundane.

Mages are generally not scared away by that group of mercenaries eyeing them.  They may roleplay discomfort with the persecution, but the fact is...they always come back for more because it's interaction.  So...through continuing to always get more and more interaction from the mundane, we will pretty much have to expect that the 'shininess' of the gemmer in Allanak will fade.

Herein lies what was spoken about earlier.  You spoke of how horrible of a solution it was to make mages undesirable to play...but really, it isn't.  If you don't like persecution, and if you don't like being a powerful creature that most clans won't take due to social ramifications, most commoners won't befriend because of superstition and underlying distrust...why would you want to play the class that is persecuted?  That is what the thread brought up.  With all these drawbacks that -do- make playing a mage hard to play, why do they remain popular?  Either something is not being played out exactly as fully as it should be, which is my opinion...or there are things more appealing to playing mages that overcome those drawbacks, which was outlined in the OP...or...the idea of making a role appealing only to those who enjoy the roleplay of being fully and outright persecuted does not work, because to some the appeals of the mage easily overcome them.  In which case, as I said earlier, either something else needs to come up to discourage play or documentation needs to be changed to reflect the changing of the world.

Quote6. Players of mundane characters want it to be a low fantasy world and feel there are too many elementalists about, jarring this perception.
... As someone pointed out, seeing a gemmed mage is not the same as seeing magick in use. I think the gemmed have been pretty good at avoiding public displays of magick these days.

That is not exactly the issue.  It's hard to have a low-fantasy world where there is a dominant section of the playerbase who love the magick system so much that they can't stand leaving it, making it so that everyone who wants to occasionally play a mage ends up adding to a population problem rather than being a brief surge.  In any case, it is not the visibility of magic that makes fantasy, it's the existence of it.  Dragonlance is high fantasy, yet there are several books that only refer to magecraft and its effects.  However, it -is- becoming more and more commonplace to see enchanted items.  It -is- becoming more and more commonplace for groups of gemmed to come into a bar full of mundanes, and not begin casting spells, but begin speaking of mage-population politics, spells, and so on and so forth.

Low-fantasy is not brought about by a lack of spellcasting, it is brought about by a prominence of things of the non-magickal nature, of making magickal things a true spectacle.  This is very difficult when social order has shifted enough to bypass all the low-fantasy-setting qualms and suspicions of mages, as well as the virtual populace's reaction to it, all in the name of utility.  Yes, mages are more powerful, they will -always- be useful for a mission.  But without taking those role-play-dependent drawbacks into account, then the status quo changes.  Just because you -can- use something, or something -could- be incredibly useful, doesn't necessarily mean you always -should-.  Again, no fault of the mages themselves...this is a global statement to all players, not an attack on mages themselves.

Yes.  In my opinion, the role of a mage should be -harder- to enjoy than a mundane, but not -less enjoyable-.  It is a different role, the same way a mul is a different role.  The same way a noble is a different role.  The same way a warrior who is a -sergeant- is a different role.  All of those roles have certain players who simply say, "Meh, I tried it, but it wasn't for me.  I wasn't having fun."  That mentality used to be far more prominent in terms of the mage classes, but over the course of several years has been on a steady decline, and hence why I say the social order -around- mages has changed,  not the mages themselves.  The outcry for mages to be able to be more useable so they could enjoy the role more was a mistake, in my opinion, which conflicts with many of yours, I know.  But the awesomeness of magick in armageddon, the awesomeness of the spellcasting code...should not overrule the awesomeness of the social stigma placed on you for using it.  If you can take the persecution, can scrape your way into being a mage of social standing against -all- odds and with very few opportunities actually given to you...then you are meant to play a mage.  Not if you're drawn to the coolness of casting spells.

As for how things were back in '98...the number of PC mages you saw means very little to me.  Back then, the social order remained intact.  There was one noble house who hired them openly.  Openly, mind you.  Because the social aspects were very strong on everyone's mind.  The templarate did not hire them as aides.  The templarate borrowed them from that noble house, the vast majority of the time...or if direly needed, they were conscripted out of temples.  The idea is...they were still playing a mage in the atmosphere the documentation describes, rather than the world the documentation is supposed to describe being shifted about because someone wasn't having fun playing a mage when they -really- wanted to play a mage.

Also worth noting:  Almost all of my perceptions and opinions come based out of Allanak.

QuoteThis idea, IMHO, would make magickers and mundanes "balanced." Balance = fun

My simple reply is that classes in armageddon are not based around 'balance', they are based around roles and roleplay.  Mages are supposed to be "generally" more powerful than the mundane, in terms of raw coded ability.  There are always the exceptions from character to character and situation...but balance isn't what's needed.  IN MY OPINION. :P

Quote from: Armaddict on July 14, 2008, 09:09:18 PM

QuoteThis idea, IMHO, would make magickers and mundanes "balanced." Balance = fun

My simple reply is that classes in armageddon are not based around 'balance', they are based around roles and roleplay.  Mages are supposed to be "generally" more powerful than the mundane, in terms of raw coded ability. 

I don't believe it.  My mages get eaten by raptors just as easily as my rangers do.   :-[

That's because they hate you, the way they're supposed to, AC :P

I noticed something in my post above.  Keep in mind that when I say 'you', I'm not talking to people currently playing mages.  It's a blanket statement.  You = not me = everyone currently playing arm and reading posts.  I'm not telling mages they shouldn't be playing mages, I'm just trying to explain that whole 'role' thing and some people not really being suited for them.

All deaths should be subject to circumstance, though.

Long story short. I prefer mundanes.

Quote from: Xio on July 14, 2008, 10:07:59 PM
Long story short. I prefer mundanes.

Man, why can't we all just funnel this OOC hatred for magickers into an IC thing?  I see more complete disgust for the non-mundane on the GDB than I do in the game.

That said, this thread makes me feel like I should go on the GDB and ask permission before I play a mage.  I think I should probably stop reading it.  Regardless, whatever it takes to get people to stop complaining about the state of the non-mundane world in this MUD, I think it should be done, because I sure as hell don't want to feel like I'm inconveniencing a good chunk of the player base when/if I play my first mage ever.

Quote from: NoteworthyFellow on July 14, 2008, 10:35:00 PM
Man, why can't we all just funnel this OOC hatred for magickers into an IC thing?  I see more complete disgust for the non-mundane on the GDB than I do in the game.

That said, this thread makes me feel like I should go on the GDB and ask permission before I play a mage.  I think I should probably stop reading it.  Regardless, whatever it takes to get people to stop complaining about the state of the non-mundane world in this MUD, I think it should be done, because I sure as hell don't want to feel like I'm inconveniencing a good chunk of the player base when/if I play my first mage ever.

I say screw'em. Do your own thing.

Only reason I haven't played a mage is mainly because I just don't feel I have the proper mind-set to play one properly. So I'm going to make another mundane after this current PC and just mess around until I get an idea for what I want to do with the mage. If I get an idea, I'll totally go with it. If I don't, well I'll just keep playing mundanes until I do.

I think it's an 'inconvenience' when someone makes a mage, simply just because their able to instead of actually having any idea and/or plans for the PC besides, "Let's be l33t!"

I had an OOC dislike for magick. When I got the karma to app a mage, I just went for it. I realized most of my dislike for it had to do with my perception of how others played mages. I figured that I could give it a good shot at playing it right* and -then- make a better judgement about them. I'm definitely glad I gave it a try. Just do whatever you're interested in; this game's for recreation, and chances are that if -you- are having fun, players interacting with you will have fun too.

*Right as defined solely by my interpretation of the game documents.

Quote from: Gunnerblaster on July 14, 2008, 10:52:11 PM
Only reason I haven't played a mage is mainly because I just don't feel I have the proper mind-set to play one properly. So I'm going to make another mundane after this current PC and just mess around until I get an idea for what I want to do with the mage. If I get an idea, I'll totally go with it. If I don't, well I'll just keep playing mundanes until I do.

The bolded part is actually the mindset I had years ago, when I asked for my own magicker karma to be removed, after having played several.  I'd been attracted to them, more for the power potential and survivability, than for any real desire for arcane RP and I didn't want the temptation around whenever I made a new character.

After a couple years (mostly inactive) I re-applied to have the karma reinstated and tried them out with a new perspective.  Did my RP skill increase?  Did I add to what I saw as the atmosphere and manner in which 'gickers should be viewed, IG?  I don't know, but I do know that I was playing one for what I felt were the right reasons this time, and that made all the difference..to me, at least.

I admit that I still love the survivability and sheer power that comes with playing a mage, but after having played quite a few over the past year, then switching back to mundanes, I'll have to say that I find there is a lot more..."potential", in mundanes, than I had previously given them credit, for.  Or, perhaps, I should say there is "different" potential.

I am with jhunter. I don't play in Allanak, but I rarely see a magicker in wastes. It was much worse a year ago. I think this trouble kind of solved itself.
Are there too many Gemmers? I don't have any problem with that either. They have whole Quarter in Allanak. As I said before, size of that Quarter and number of buildings and NPCs in that place suggest there is more than just a dozen of Gemmed-magickers in Allanak.
I don't see any world-shaking shakes either. I remember threads about "too many magickers" (or "too many burglars" or "too many of <whatever>") since I started to play Armageddon years ago. I don't think current situation contradicts documentation anymore than -other- things - I mentioned number of PC slaves, I'd add amount of coins some PCs have in banks. According docs most people on Zalanthas are poor and striving to survive. If that many of current PCs have wealthy account at banks, doesn't it contradict docs too? It might. But it doesn't bother anyone, because many enjoy playing rich PC more than poor one. Or... most of citizens never leave the city, right? How many of PCs never left gates of their city? Or what about number of hunters versus number of beggars between PCs? That sure isn't "as in docs" either. Should people play hunters less and spend more time playing some of dirty beggars (without being secret assassins or whatever) then?
You don't like magickers around? Alright. Why don't you do something in game about it? It might be more fun than never-ending complaining on GDB.

I didn't read too much... but I just gotta say, you're forgetting one reason people play magickers, Gim.  Some people just like the concept of magick and like playing those that can do it.  They play magickers because they like playing magickers, pure and simple.

Quote from: spawnloser on July 15, 2008, 04:54:26 PM
I didn't read too much... but I just gotta say, you're forgetting one reason people play magickers, Gim.  Some people just like the concept of magick and like playing those that can do it.  They play magickers because they like playing magickers, pure and simple.

Oh dearlordy. As I've already said at least once in this thread, I did not forget that reason. I simply did not include it because it's not a system design reason, it's entirely personal, and therefore does not need a fix nor would it take a fix. The OP was about systematic influences on the quantity of non-mundanes in game.