Armageddon General Discussion Board

Quote from: KankWhisperer on July 22, 2010, 08:09:23 PM
You just notice us more because free dwarves are unlikely to be ordinary. We get rich or die trying. We are the hopeless underdogs of a race that only manages to exist because of slavery. Left to our own devices we would die out unless we established our own city. We don't got time to bleed (breed)! All of our actions are steeped in significance because one of our death is the equivalent of fifty deaths of other species. Oh we who bear the burden of being walking storylines I salute you and mourn you. The only thing that keeps me from rage quitting right now is that elves also don't make it to Arm 2. (Maybe that has changed. I am trying to ignore Arm 2's existence as much as possible)

Quote from: Titania on July 22, 2010, 12:36:19 PM
The hard part of being a dwarf is having to justify to yourself or others why you are doing something where as a human just does it for the fuck of it.

Inspired by a couple of posts, I'm compiling a list of roles that people have trouble with, and will try to identify why it is that players struggle in the sorts of roles.

Here is my list

Dwarves - Dwarves are supposed to be stubborn and focused, but instead are often played as gruff and fiesty.  This comes from Tolkien, and players just can't get past that.
Half Giants - Supposed to be socially-shifty dullards with the maturity of a child, but people often play these characters as buffoons.
Children - Zalanthan human children are supposed to be resourceful and self-reliant, but people just end up playing adorable Dickens-whelps.  It got so bad that staff banned people from playing children's characters.

In the case of Half-Giants in particular, I think that part of the blame lies on the people that play around half-giants.  We encourage poor role-playing.  Let's face it, a lot of people who are playing half-giants can't resist the urge to play a humor roll, or a dopey side-kick, attempting a comedic response.  But it actually takes a lot of intelligence to put on this sort of act.  Marylin Monroe, for example, wasn't dumb.  She acted dumb.  She could still drive a car or fill out a tax form or read the Wall Street Journal.  The dumb thing was an act. 
Half Giants can't act dumb.  They're just plain dumb.  They lack the smarts to put on a stupid act. 
I don't think that humans would put up with giants clowning so much.  In game, Giant PCs tend to dominate the conversation in the room that they're in.  This is wrong.  I think that if you were a Zalanthan human accustomed to interacting with giants, you would grow rapidly tired of their antics and would expect them to remain quiet most of the time.  Zalanthan humans are racists who view Half-giants as racially inferior.  You know half-giants opinions are?  No, you don't.  Because you don't care. 

Taken together, most people who play the three roles that I've outlined tend to play extroverts, however I don't think that extroverted dwarves, extroverted giants or extroverted children fit Zalanthas.  I'd guess that most of these characters would have their own motivation for avoiding attention from Zalanthan human adults, and that Zalanthan human adults probably wouldn't tolerate a lot of nonsense out of these sorts. 

I've personally found 'city elf' to be a mildly troublesome role to figure out. Which, perhaps, may be part of the reason for a supposed dearth of them. Not sure if being more of an extrovert would hurt or help me there. Half-elf or moderately mutant is probably where I'm most comfortable with how others treat me, oddly. Relatively normal human's just a bit overwhelming somehow.

I don't agree with the entire post.

QuoteDwarves  - Dwarves are supposed to be stubborn and focused, but instead are often played as gruff and fiesty.  This comes from Tolkien, and players just can't get past that.

So, your saying that these things are mutually exclusive?

I would have to say you are wrong, being stubborn has nothing to do with pretty much anything else in personality. You can be any one of disneys seven dwarves and  10,000 more past that and still be stubborn and focused.

QuoteHalf Giants  - Supposed to be socially-shifty dullards with the maturity of a child, but people often play these characters as buffoons.

Although I agree that 99.9999999% of half-giants are played HORRIBLY, I don't agree with your blerb or the rest on the matter.

Again, because I think your wrong on what they are coming across as. Buffoons? If you watch say, americas funniest home videos, you will find that 50% 80% are often very young children. Most people think that very young children, or even people with the mind of a child to be very funny.(You would laugh at retards if it was not considered politically incorrect)

Now, how humans interact with them....I don't really think they would expect them to be quiet. I think they would have learned to ignore them. You simply do not anger somebody that can pull your head off.

Honestly, this sounds like someone venting, not a legitimate discussion, because the logic being presented is, frankly, very flawed.

Quote from: gfair on July 27, 2010, 11:50:09 PM
Honestly, this sounds like someone venting, not a legitimate discussion, because the logic being presented is, frankly, very flawed.

Be that as it may, I would agree with him that there are very, -very- few properly portrayed children PCs and half-giants.

I think most dwarves I've seen have been fine though.... I don't remember anywhere in the docs stating that dwarves weren't allowed to have personalities.... So long as their eye's always on their focus.

Maybe some constructive stuff on how to better understand these 'trouble' roles would be welcome. I for one have difficulty with elves, dwarves, and half-giants, and see only a handful in my entire time playing that felt true to the documents. Truth to say, it is -tough- roleplaying these races, and I give a lot of props to those players who actually try and keep with the documentations.

Quote from: Semper on July 28, 2010, 12:11:54 AM
Maybe some constructive stuff on how to better understand these 'trouble' roles would be welcome. I for one have difficulty with elves, dwarves, and half-giants, and see only a handful in my entire time playing that felt true to the documents. Truth to say, it is -tough- roleplaying these races, and I give a lot of props to those players who actually try and keep with the documentations.

Yeah.... Same here.

The only insight I could offer is about human children.

Ahem.... At around thirteen, you're considered an adult, or not far off from that.

Act like it.

k thx

::Edit:: Can't seem to find the docs supporting it.... But I know I've seen it somewhere.

Will post when I get it.

Quote::Edit:: Can't seem to find the docs supporting it.... But I know I've seen it somewhere.

Pretty sure it was a post by...Sanvean, I think?  It was awhile ago, if that's the case.

Merchant Roles. I love my characters, but I hate the amount of time required by all parties involved for everyone to be happy. I feel like if I don't play 5-6 hours a day, i'm behind. Not to mention if you don't have that time to commit, you're the jackass.

Yet another example of "Armageddon: The Grind".

I agree with Reiloth.

Also complete 'd-bags', I cannot bring myself to be a complete stone killa or immoral (amoral?), no matter how hard I try.

Quote from: Tuannon on July 28, 2010, 07:15:10 AM
I agree with Reiloth.

Also complete 'd-bags', I cannot bring myself to be a complete stone killa or immoral (amoral?), no matter how hard I try.

Me too. And I don't like that. The one time I played a really mean pc, I ended up getting promoted. The problem is, once promoted I fell into my rl managment style, which is often pretty even handed and conciliatory. I'd like to think that given enough time I'd have found my mean again. Alas, I got carrued before I could find out.

It's really hard to overcome all that social conditioning to play nice.

I think extroverted anything fits Zalanthas. The idea that humans all treat half-giants a certain way that the OP describes is not supported by the documentation. There are plenty of ways to be racist towards half-giants, and I've not only done it myself in the past, but seen it done by others. Racism against half-giants tends to go along the lines of exploitation - whether it is an elf tricking a half-giant into paying 100 coins for a rare piece of preserved kank dung, or a templar promising sexy half-giant prostitutes to all half-giants that join the militia, racism is happening, because those characters keep in mind how absolutely gullible half-giants are supposed to be. I don't think it's necessarily wise to brush off or ignore the needs of what is essentially a child that could throw a very violent temper tantrum.

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 28, 2010, 12:18:33 AM
::Edit:: Can't seem to find the docs supporting it.... But I know I've seen it somewhere.

Will post when I get it.

Here is a post supporting the idea that PCs are never actually children: http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,7901.0.html

Specifically:

Quote2. For characters 13-17 years old it MUST be stressed to the player when the character is accepted that this PC is to be played as a young adult not an old child.  On a world like Zalanthas where death is common and poverty is near-universal few people have sheltered childhoods (or anything that would even resemble a childhood by modern standards).

Quote from: Reiloth on July 28, 2010, 04:52:15 AM
Merchant Roles. I love my characters, but I hate the amount of time required by all parties involved for everyone to be happy. I feel like if I don't play 5-6 hours a day, i'm behind. Not to mention if you don't have that time to commit, you're the jackass.

Yet another example of "Armageddon: The Grind".

I wouldn't worry about it too much. The truth which is said many times on the GDB is that consistency > quantity. If you're playing the same hour or two every Monday, the same hour or two every Tuesday, etc. then you're easy to catch, and people will get used to you and will know how to find you more easily.

Half-Giants are, hands down, my biggest fucking pet peeve on this game.  When I played half-giants, I gave it my damnedest to be an utter imbecile.  If given an order, I'd look at how I could potentially misinterpret the order due to phrasing or something I had heard IC'ly recently.  If given a situation, I'd knee-jerk react to it no matter what.  I had idiotic superstitions, an amazing lack of forethought, and did my absolute best to be a highly powerful lump on a log that had all the cognitive ability of a dog on xanax.

Most of the HGs I seen played are either played as fully intelligent humanoids (this is most commonly the case, and is continued in game to this day) or as complete assclowns with a character depth equal to a malformed thimble.

Fucking pisses me the fuck off.  HGs should be karma 6, easy, because it's goddamn obvious that most people can't fucking grasp how to play one correctly.

Half-giants are a really tough balancing act.  Also, I think you really need to interact with one a fair amount before judging them as playing too intelligently.  Don't forget that they are supposed to be pretty good at mimicry.  A half-giant who spends a lot of time around a well-spoken person will sound convincingly well-spoken themselves.  You really need to pay closer attention to notice if/how there's a lack of originality and comprehension about what they're saying before you run off to the forums and moan about half-giants not being played stupidly enough.

Furthermore, they are still adult, sentient beings capable of self-sufficiency.  They're not robots that have to do/believe everything they're told and have to be told to do everything.


Dwarves... well, I think the "Dwarves." thread covered my thoughts pretty well.  They're not meant to be bland, soulless, machines either.

I'll add, though, that I had an extroverted dwarf character.  He felt that making (certain) friends and being socially active and visible were conducive to his focus, and so he was.

Oh, as for children, well... that's most certainly a horse long dead and well beaten.  I still remember the exact PC that caused the staff to implement that policy, though.  :D

I thought she was well-played and very entertaining, but I did see how the concept was rather exceptional to the setting.

I find half-giants very hard to get involved in.  I don't be a half-giant, I just watch him.

I disagree with what the OP said in regards to dwarves. I also believe that HGs are the toughest to play properly. I've tried but it seems that no matter how I try to go about it, I'm not happy with how it is coming acrosss to others. I pretty much feel the same in regards to -most- HGs I've interacted with. There are very few good ones.

Perhaps this should be titled, "Roles that people bitch about."   Or even more accurately, "Roles that people disagree about."

The most amusing thing is how much I disagree with some of the pompous bitching that declares "this is how it should be" and then gets it, in my opinion, quite wrong.  Perhaps instead of railing at other players, players should write their own RP guides with positive hints and ideas and then post them for feedback.  Nah.  Let's just make sweeping statements about how everyone else gets it all wrong and how much they suck.

Quote from: Thunkkin on July 28, 2010, 11:52:14 AM
Perhaps this should be titled, "Roles that people bitch about."   Or even more accurately, "Roles that people disagree about."

The most amusing thing is how much I disagree with some of the pompous bitching that declares "this is how it should be" and then gets it, in my opinion, quite wrong.  Perhaps instead of railing at other players, players should write their own RP guides with positive hints and ideas and then post them for feedback.  Nah.  Let's just make sweeping statements about how everyone else gets it all wrong and how much they suck.

Everybody disagrees here on the GDB, so there isn't much point in naming it that. Never seen a thread where the first three people went "I agree!".

I think the problem with many of these difficult roles is that there is no history, IG support, or background really to get a good understanding of them.

For example, what the hell does the average non-slave half-giant's childhood look like, and what are common experiences for them? Not to mention the utter lack of documentation for dwarf and city-elf tribes.

If not for Arm 1, at least in Arm 2, I hope they flesh out these racial backgrounds a lot better. It would be a bonus if we got some better documentation in Arm 1 too though.

I use to have a hard time with a city elf concept. Being more or less glued to Allanak seemed like an incredible handicap.
There was no solid support for a city elf tribe, the Heruch Kemad had always been elusive to get into/app into to say the least.

Ding. Staff adds a city elf clan.

Add experience playing the game for the last ten years and having a good idea of what the various play areas have to offer..
the various endings you can suffer.

Being cuffed to Allanak all of a sudden doesn't seem so bad. It's an incredibly diverse playing sphere that is well worth a character's
span from beginning to end.

I got a little tired of competing with beetles and bamuk in the desert, they do not offer much of a challenge.

Quote from: Malifaxis on July 28, 2010, 10:23:55 AM
Half-Giants are, hands down, my biggest fucking pet peeve on this game.  When I played half-giants, I gave it my damnedest to be an utter imbecile.  If given an order, I'd look at how I could potentially misinterpret the order due to phrasing or something I had heard IC'ly recently.  If given a situation, I'd knee-jerk react to it no matter what.  I had idiotic superstitions, an amazing lack of forethought, and did my absolute best to be a highly powerful lump on a log that had all the cognitive ability of a dog on xanax.

Thank you.  I feel like this method of playing a half-giant is more consistent with the docs.

Quote from: Cutthroat on July 28, 2010, 07:57:12 AM
There are plenty of ways to be racist towards half-giants, and I've not only done it myself in the past, but seen it done by others. Racism against half-giants tends to go along the lines of exploitation - whether it is an elf tricking a half-giant into paying 100 coins for a rare piece of preserved kank dung, or a templar promising sexy half-giant prostitutes to all half-giants that join the militia, racism is happening, because those characters keep in mind how absolutely gullible half-giants are supposed to be. I don't think it's necessarily wise to brush off or ignore the needs of what is essentially a child that could throw a very violent temper tantrum.

Yeah.  Actually, you make an excellent point.  But here is where I think that the average player fails -- in the same way that a Zalanthan human child would have learned to be quiet and self-reliant by the time they reach their teen-age years, I think that the average half-giant would have learned to stay out of the way more.  I think that half-giants who are a little bit too bubbly would be murdered before reaching maturity. 
I also think that exploiting a half-giant would be more difficult than you imply.  After all, they don't accumulate wealth that you can rob them of, and they require quite a lot of supervision in order to keep them on task, as Malifaxis post suggests.  At the end of the day, they don't have a lot of loyalty to you and will be willing to switch sides once your back is turned without taking the time to think through their actions.

Quote from: Reiloth on July 28, 2010, 04:52:15 AM
Merchant Roles. I love my characters, but I hate the amount of time required by all parties involved for everyone to be happy. I feel like if I don't play 5-6 hours a day, i'm behind. Not to mention if you don't have that time to commit, you're the jackass.

Yeah, I agree with you.  I really love playing mercantile types.  This was good for me while I was unemployed.  It almost seems to me that certain roles somewhat require you to take time off of work and family in order to play them well.  So true.

Quote from: Tuannon on July 28, 2010, 07:15:10 AM
Also complete 'd-bags', I cannot bring myself to be a complete stone killa or immoral (amoral?), no matter how hard I try.

Yeah.  I've heard other players complain about this.  Not sure what I could say that would help.  Would it make you feel any different if you knew that some other players have a masochistic bent to them and somewhat enjoy it when you beat up on their characters?

Quote from: Barzalene on July 28, 2010, 07:41:03 AM
The one time I played a really mean pc, I ended up getting promoted. The problem is, once promoted I fell into my rl managment style, which is often pretty even handed and conciliatory.

Actually, this is not unrealistic.  History is filled with examples of outlaws who turned responsible either when they had children or were forced into leadership positions.  You may very well have handled the role well. 

Quote from: Marauder Moe on July 28, 2010, 10:50:40 AM
I'll add, though, that I had an extroverted dwarf character.  He felt that making (certain) friends and being socially active and visible were conducive to his focus, and so he was.

Yeah, this is a good point.  I like the fact that you're playing an extroverted dwarf as a deliberate decision to fit in character rather than just playing that way as a default.

Quote from: Semper on July 28, 2010, 12:11:54 AM
Maybe some constructive stuff on how to better understand these 'trouble' roles would be welcome. I for one have difficulty with elves, dwarves, and half-giants, and see only a handful in my entire time playing that felt true to the documents. Truth to say, it is -tough- roleplaying these races, and I give a lot of props to those players who actually try and keep with the documentations.

Sure, coming up soon.  Sorry.

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 28, 2010, 12:11:19 AM
I think most dwarves I've seen have been fine though.... I don't remember anywhere in the docs stating that dwarves weren't allowed to have personalities.... So long as their eye's always on their focus.

Oh, absolutely.  I think the game would be worse of if everyone started playing their dwarves in the exact same way.  I think it's good that dwarves each have personalities.  My complaint is that they all seem to have the same personality.  They're all Gimli, basically brash hard-boiled pirate Scottsmen.

Quote from: Nahara on July 27, 2010, 08:09:08 PM
I've personally found 'city elf' to be a mildly troublesome role to figure out. Which, perhaps, may be part of the reason for a supposed dearth of them. Not sure if being more of an extrovert would hurt or help me there. Half-elf or moderately mutant is probably where I'm most comfortable with how others treat me, oddly. Relatively normal human's just a bit overwhelming somehow.

Yeah, I get that.  I had trouble playing city-elves for like the first year that I played.  But then I started to find my niche.  There are a few things that I had to settle on:

Most people who play roles in Arm either want to be bad-assed, criminally-accomplished, successful crafters, socially important or to live a long time. Because of their coded-stat situation and the fact that human authorities, human criminals and human soldiers will never take them seriously, it's pretty safe to say that a city elf will never achieve any of this.  If you're going to play a city elf, you have to resign yourself to playing what most of us would view as a "roleplay only" role.  Personally, I've had a lot of fun playing an elven drunkard, an elven spice-head, an elven beggar and an elven spy.  Even then you cannot expect too live too long because someday the militia/templar PCs will just get too bored and decide to waste you.  If you can learn to enjoy this sort of role, then you can be happy with an elf.  If you cannot learn to enjoy this, then I agree that you're better off playing a human.

I'm not saying that if you follow this advice, it will make you into a great elf, I'm just pointing out what's helped me to have more fun with the role and to get recognition from other players.

Oh yeah, one more word of advice.  I think that people who play elves need to realize that their characters are constantly exposed to racism and will likely tune it out most of the time.  You're used to being insulted by humans and it doesn't bother you.

Quote from: Semper on July 28, 2010, 12:11:54 AM
Maybe some constructive stuff on how to better understand these 'trouble' roles would be welcome. I for one have difficulty with elves, dwarves, and half-giants, and see only a handful in my entire time playing that felt true to the documents. Truth to say, it is -tough- roleplaying these races, and I give a lot of props to those players who actually try and keep with the documentations.

Fair enough.  But as a disclaimer, I felt fairly confident pointing out a couple of complaints about the game, but by no means am I trying to tell people how to roleplay.  Since you asked...

Half-Giants - Don't talk to much.  Don't make jokes that other players are going to laugh at.  Occasional jokes hurt nothing, but pounding a few jokes in a row makes you into the goofy side-kick.  Don't be too useful.  Players should understand that they cannot rely upon your character without supervision.  If people begin to follow you, lead them into ruin.  If people begin to trust you, change sides.  Your character may likely have been beaten or abused by humans while you were still young and still learning your place in the world.  Your character may mistrust humans and may have an irrational fear of them.  Make agreements and then forget to honor them.  Spill people's secrets.  While you understand basic math, counting and cooking, these sorts of tasks absolutely test your mental abilities and it takes you much longer to do something like making a sandwich than a human would.  Don't plan anything.  Panic occaisionally and freak out.  Make irrational conclusions about your physical environment.  You do not understand planning, finance, politics or mechanics, and these things don't interest you.  You cannot follow adult human conversation.
If you want to make an elite soldier, a wealthy hunter or a ninja bodyguard, you're probably better-off playing a human.

Dwarves -- Don't talk too much.  Don't engage in recreation.  You understand human politics, humor, conversation, and finance but these things don't interest you unless they have something to do specifically about your focus.  Humans really don't interest you unless they have something to do with your focus.  You don't change course easily.  Be prepared to waste lots of time pursuing courses of action that a human would immediately perceive as wastes of time or dead ends.  You lack diversity.  Diversity doesn't interest you.  You don't understand human popular culture unless it has something to do with your focus.  As long as you're pursuing your focus, it wouldn't bother you to be naked in public.  As long as you're pursuing your focus, it wouldn't bother you if bugs were crawling on your face.  You don't think that chocolate tastes good.  You don't have an opinion on chocolate.  You don't know who Lady Gaga is.  If you lived in a democracy, you don't vote. 
If you want to make an elite soldier, a wealthy hunter or a ninja bodyguard, you're probably better-off playing a human.  Joining one of the game clans is likely out of character for you.

Children - play the same way as you would play an adult except talk less.  You have less experience and therefore less confidence, poorer judgement and worse-decision making skills.  You are tough and self-reliant.  You've traded sex for food at least once.  You've beaten up somebody smaller than you at least once.  You're more open-minded than you will be as an adult and more socially liberal, by Zalanthan standards. 

I think that a lot of the documentation can be personally interpreted and really to be quite honest, none of the HGs or dwarves in game that I've met and have interacted with have been badly roleplayed -- in fact, I enjoy my interactions with them far more than I do of other human or elf PCs.

I wonder where this thought came from, though. You should play for your enjoyment, and if you're not enjoying it, don't play it. But definitely don't let other people tell you you're doing something incredibly wrong unless you know you are or have been told by staff or a clan leader about characteristics, mannerisms, etc.

I think your view on dwarves is a bit strict....

Drinking at the bar, socializing, making friends, etc., etc., etc.... All of those very well could help with the dwarve's focus.

All depends on the focus....

Oh, where to start.

QuoteHalf-Giants - Don't talk to much.  Don't make jokes that other players are going to laugh at.  Occasional jokes hurt nothing, but pounding a few jokes in a row makes you into the goofy side-kick.  Don't be too useful.  Players should understand that they cannot rely upon your character without supervision.  If people begin to follow you, lead them into ruin.  If people begin to trust you, change sides.  Your character may likely have been beaten or abused by humans while you were still young and still learning your place in the world.  Your character may mistrust humans and may have an irrational fear of them.  Make agreements and then forget to honor them.  Spill people's secrets.  While you understand basic math, counting and cooking, these sorts of tasks absolutely test your mental abilities and it takes you much longer to do something like making a sandwich than a human would.  Don't plan anything.  Panic occaisionally and freak out.  Make irrational conclusions about your physical environment.  You do not understand planning, finance, politics or mechanics, and these things don't interest you.  You cannot follow adult human conversation.
If you want to make an elite soldier, a wealthy hunter or a ninja bodyguard, you're probably better-off playing a human.

Alright,  Dude, have you read all the racial RP docs of the races in question? And is this really your take on the matter? I mean really, Don't talk alot? Children and mentally handicapped people tend to talk CONSTANTLY.
Don't be too useful? Again, that depends on what your PC is being useful for and how well trained, the docs clearly state a HG can learn tasks and will repeat what works, sometimes to the exclusion of other things. A HG is PERFECTLY useful to many tasks. Moreso then maybe any other race. A HG does NOT know his place in the world, he is not capable of such abstract thought. Mistrust also requires Abstract forethought combined with memory...far beyond the mental capability of a HG. Crafting, Again, HGs learn in a step by step method, a HG can learn to make a sandwich and if he has done it enough times he will do it better then most anybody else...just don't ask him to change the recipe.

QuoteYou do not understand planning, finance, politics or mechanics, and these things don't interest you.  You cannot follow adult human conversation.

Though the HG would not understand them, he would actually be GREATLY interested in them, specially if the people around him act as if they are interested.

Half-giants are not capable of understanding such things as love, hate, trust, mistrust etc, they don't understand honor, friendship or pretty much anything they cannot see, hear, taste, touch. They can feel them, they do not understand them. But they are great mimics, they will take on the mannerism and culture of the people around them, they will do it well. They are capable of SEEMING to keep up adult conversation, to the point of using the correct words at the correct times.

QuoteDwarves -- Don't talk too much.  Don't engage in recreation.  You understand human politics, humor, conversation, and finance but these things don't interest you unless they have something to do specifically about your focus.  Humans really don't interest you unless they have something to do with your focus.  You don't change course easily.  Be prepared to waste lots of time pursuing courses of action that a human would immediately perceive as wastes of time or dead ends.  You lack diversity.  Diversity doesn't interest you.  You don't understand human popular culture unless it has something to do with your focus.  As long as you're pursuing your focus, it wouldn't bother you to be naked in public.  As long as you're pursuing your focus, it wouldn't bother you if bugs were crawling on your face.  You don't think that chocolate tastes good.  You don't have an opinion on chocolate.  You don't know who Lady Gaga is.  If you lived in a democracy, you don't vote.
If you want to make an elite soldier, a wealthy hunter or a ninja bodyguard, you're probably better-off playing a human.  Joining one of the game clans is likely out of character for you.

Alright, now, dwarven personality is 100% up to the player, so most of your post on the matter really should be removed. A dwarf has a focus, a dwarf never leaves his focus, a dwarf always thinks about his focus.

That all being said, A dwarf could talk nonstop, of course it would be about his focus most the time, a dwarf could refuse to talk at all...well, unless it is about his focus...a dwarf could talk constantly about anything BUT his focus, if his belief is that talking about it might harm his focus. Etc etc. You only lack diversity IF being diverse will not help your focus. A dwarf would have an opinion on chocolet, Unless in doing so it would harm the focus, a dwarf may do other things for fun that don't apply directly to focus, A dwarf may do other things for utility that do not apply directly to focus. Though he will not put much energy into it or do it for very long.

Now, If your Dwarf wants to be an elite warrior, that is likely his focus, Same for the rest of the examples, So, your best bet is to play a dwarf. The only time joining an in game clan would be out of char is if the dwarf knew ahead of time that it would somehow stop him from completing his focus.

Oh, And there is nothing at ALL in the docs saying a dwarf does not know how to have fun or is in any way against the idea. So, enjoy your recreation, just remember you have a focus to return to.

This isn't meant as a slam on dwarven players. It's not. There've only been about 5 dwarves I've particularly enjoyed roleplaying around since I started playing about 2.5 years ago. It feels, too often, like people feel that when playing a dwarf, you have an automatic license to:

1. Not use capitalization.
2. Not use punctuation.
3. Hoard. Every dwarf I've known very well IG has had issues with this.
4. Pursue things codedly to the exclusion of even simple emotes to denote anything about what you're doing.

While I understand that the roles you're playing are tailored around the one specific idea/goal that is your character's focus, it doesn't justify all of these things in nearly every dwarf.

Regarding HGs:

I've actually seen several HGs who were really, really well roleplayed, although it might be fun to see a few who put a higher premium on other things beside killing. As an aside, regarding your old (OLD) post, Moe, I think a half-giant linguist is a brilliant idea, with their mimicry. Another thing: I don't actually see the comic sidekick thing as prevalent as it's made out to seem, although I think that half-giants can really be quite funny, it seems most of it is through unwitting social missteps. What I -have- seen is a lot of people who play half-giants who speak very poorly. Poorly to the point of making me wonder who they were speaking with often in the past that they picked this up from. I believe malaprops would probably be the more apt choice in such situations, as opposed to, say, talking like tarzan. Or maybe getting 'a' and 'an' mixed up in context, etc, etc, etc.

Elves... I have seen the gamut on. Some are really well role-played, some are not. My opinions on elves are too long to go into in any depth here.

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 28, 2010, 05:46:54 PM
I think your view on dwarves is a bit strict....

Drinking at the bar, socializing, making friends, etc., etc., etc.... All of those very well could help with the dwarve's focus.

All depends on the focus....

The way I read it is anyone not human or elf shouldn't be talking. Haha. ;)

Really, people can be stubborn and talk a lot. I can think of many examples.

Quote from: jriley
Most people who play roles in Arm either want to be bad-assed, criminally-accomplished, successful crafters, socially important or to live a long time. Because of their coded-stat situation and the fact that human authorities, human criminals and human soldiers will never take them seriously, it's pretty safe to say that a city elf will never achieve any of this.  If you're going to play a city elf, you have to resign yourself to playing what most of us would view as a "roleplay only" role.  Personally, I've had a lot of fun playing an elven drunkard, an elven spice-head, an elven beggar and an elven spy.  Even then you cannot expect too live too long because someday the militia/templar PCs will just get too bored and decide to waste you.  If you can learn to enjoy this sort of role, then you can be happy with an elf.  If you cannot learn to enjoy this, then I agree that you're better off playing a human.

I came in here to say pretty much what X-D said, but I wanted to touch on this.

This seems a little more pessimistic than what actually is possible with a c-elf. There are organizations that are tolerant of elven employees, there are PC c-elf tribes in both major cities, and there are unofficial employment opportunities in organizations that don't officially hire elves, if the leader is smart. Maybe a long time ago this was true, but for the past few years there have been a handful of what I'd say were successful c-elves, and that's only the ones I know of. I think we don't often see successful elves because it's not a popular race choice, but it is very possible to for a patient player to play a good city-elf doing something that you would say a human would be better at doing.

Quote1. Not use capitalization.
2. Not use punctuation.

I think this is huge. I'm of the thought these days that no proper capitalization and punctuation is becoming almost an acceptable thing in the game. Does it really take that much effort to capitalize and put periods at the end of your sentences? Some situations I can understand, but -every- sentence becomes jarring.

Back on topic -- Isolated Magicker Roles. They're high karma for a reason.

In my experience and opinion, playing a Tuluki commoner can be difficult from the social side of things. Tuluk's society with its castes is very different to what most players are familiar with - somewhat similar to the difficulties of understanding and playing with a tribal mindset, I suppose. There are clear and very strict differences between the castes, but a lot of people seem to have difficulties taking into account the sometimes subtle (hah) differences in social status based on affiliation, heritage and reputation within the common caste. It's quite odd, really, as it reaches from the upper echelons of the Merchant Houses to the lowest of the low among free men and women. It's something I see being ignored or misinterpreted frequently enough to think that it's something people have trouble with.

I've always enjoyed a well-played half-giant.

Well played seems to be a giant that:
o doesn't understand complex and/or abstract ideas
o takes things very literally, unless they've been specifically taught not to at least once.
o mimics the people it looks up to.
o chooses one or two 'best friends' to mimic.
o is flighty and often unintentionally disloyal unless carefully brainwashed/handled by its 'friends'.
o speaks normally, but screws up words or puts them in the wrong order.

Quote from: X-D on July 28, 2010, 05:57:13 PM
Oh, where to start.

QuoteHalf-Giants - Don't talk to much.  Don't make jokes that other players are going to laugh at.  Occasional jokes hurt nothing, but pounding a few jokes in a row makes you into the goofy side-kick.  Don't be too useful.  Players should understand that they cannot rely upon your character without supervision.  If people begin to follow you, lead them into ruin.  If people begin to trust you, change sides.  Your character may likely have been beaten or abused by humans while you were still young and still learning your place in the world.  Your character may mistrust humans and may have an irrational fear of them.  Make agreements and then forget to honor them.  Spill people's secrets.  While you understand basic math, counting and cooking, these sorts of tasks absolutely test your mental abilities and it takes you much longer to do something like making a sandwich than a human would.  Don't plan anything.  Panic occaisionally and freak out.  Make irrational conclusions about your physical environment.  You do not understand planning, finance, politics or mechanics, and these things don't interest you.  You cannot follow adult human conversation.
If you want to make an elite soldier, a wealthy hunter or a ninja bodyguard, you're probably better-off playing a human.

Alright,  Dude, have you read all the racial RP docs of the races in question? And is this really your take on the matter? I mean really, Don't talk alot? Children and mentally handicapped people tend to talk CONSTANTLY.
Don't be too useful? Again, that depends on what your PC is being useful for and how well trained, the docs clearly state a HG can learn tasks and will repeat what works, sometimes to the exclusion of other things. A HG is PERFECTLY useful to many tasks. Moreso then maybe any other race. A HG does NOT know his place in the world, he is not capable of such abstract thought. Mistrust also requires Abstract forethought combined with memory...far beyond the mental capability of a HG. Crafting, Again, HGs learn in a step by step method, a HG can learn to make a sandwich and if he has done it enough times he will do it better then most anybody else...just don't ask him to change the recipe.

QuoteYou do not understand planning, finance, politics or mechanics, and these things don't interest you.  You cannot follow adult human conversation.

Though the HG would not understand them, he would actually be GREATLY interested in them, specially if the people around him act as if they are interested.

Half-giants are not capable of understanding such things as love, hate, trust, mistrust etc, they don't understand honor, friendship or pretty much anything they cannot see, hear, taste, touch. They can feel them, they do not understand them. But they are great mimics, they will take on the mannerism and culture of the people around them, they will do it well. They are capable of SEEMING to keep up adult conversation, to the point of using the correct words at the correct times.

QuoteDwarves -- Don't talk too much.  Don't engage in recreation.  You understand human politics, humor, conversation, and finance but these things don't interest you unless they have something to do specifically about your focus.  Humans really don't interest you unless they have something to do with your focus.  You don't change course easily.  Be prepared to waste lots of time pursuing courses of action that a human would immediately perceive as wastes of time or dead ends.  You lack diversity.  Diversity doesn't interest you.  You don't understand human popular culture unless it has something to do with your focus.  As long as you're pursuing your focus, it wouldn't bother you to be naked in public.  As long as you're pursuing your focus, it wouldn't bother you if bugs were crawling on your face.  You don't think that chocolate tastes good.  You don't have an opinion on chocolate.  You don't know who Lady Gaga is.  If you lived in a democracy, you don't vote.
If you want to make an elite soldier, a wealthy hunter or a ninja bodyguard, you're probably better-off playing a human.  Joining one of the game clans is likely out of character for you.

Alright, now, dwarven personality is 100% up to the player, so most of your post on the matter really should be removed. A dwarf has a focus, a dwarf never leaves his focus, a dwarf always thinks about his focus.

That all being said, A dwarf could talk nonstop, of course it would be about his focus most the time, a dwarf could refuse to talk at all...well, unless it is about his focus...a dwarf could talk constantly about anything BUT his focus, if his belief is that talking about it might harm his focus. Etc etc. You only lack diversity IF being diverse will not help your focus. A dwarf would have an opinion on chocolet, Unless in doing so it would harm the focus, a dwarf may do other things for fun that don't apply directly to focus, A dwarf may do other things for utility that do not apply directly to focus. Though he will not put much energy into it or do it for very long.

Now, If your Dwarf wants to be an elite warrior, that is likely his focus, Same for the rest of the examples, So, your best bet is to play a dwarf. The only time joining an in game clan would be out of char is if the dwarf knew ahead of time that it would somehow stop him from completing his focus.

Oh, And there is nothing at ALL in the docs saying a dwarf does not know how to have fun or is in any way against the idea. So, enjoy your recreation, just remember you have a focus to return to.

Pretty freakin' spot-on I'd say.

Personally, I don't think dwarves should be quick-witted and talkative because they should be constantly embroiled in an inner dialogue regarding the consequences of any answer or response they give or don't give in social situations.

They should be somewhat reticent, because they should be worried to death about saying the wrong thing.  Even if you, the player, know that this reticence will ultimately be detrimental to the dwarf's focus, your character (the dwarf) cannot escape from his obsession and compulsion to think everything through as far as he or she is able to.

In much the same way all elves love to steal and are too prideful to ride, all dwarves should at least seem to outside observers to be rather slow and dull--maybe not because the dwarf is slow and dull, but because they are constantly involved in a game of grand strategy against the entire world, and it takes an inordinate amount of time to process all of those potential outcomes.  This is fundamental to the dwarven psyche. 

Even if a dwarf comes to the conclusion, "I need to go out drinking with my buddies and make them like me," when he goes out, he will be inescapably tangled in a web of unknowns and what to him may seem like catastrophic pitfalls.  The entire time he's out drinking, he'll be thinking about potential consequences:  what if I get too drunk and pass out and someone robs me?  What if I get too drunk and reveal my plans?  What if a templar comes in and I bow and puke a little on his shoes and he sends me to the Arena for the rest of my life and then I have to plan my escape and I'm going to need to train more if that happens because damn, just about everyone dies in the Arena and if I end up there I'm going to have to fight muls and maybe even a gaj and holy shit, that's not going to be good, maybe I can make friends with a mul when I get there and I can convince the mul to escape with me and then I'll have a mul buddy but I won't ever be able to return to 'nak but maybe that's okay, because maybe I can trade with somebody in Red Storm to get the gems and other materials I need to make this totally awesome codpiece that I need as the first part of the totally awesome suit of armor that I'm going to try to give to Tektolnes so he'll make me the first dwarven templar....A dwarf might be able to plan ahead to seem flippant about things if he's attempting to deceive, but he won't be able to put up that sort of charade for very long, because the compulsion to analyze and predict is ingrained in his psyche.

If you don't like playing dwarves that way, you're really just rolling the characters for the high strength stat.

QuoteIf you don't like playing dwarves that way, you're really just rolling the characters for the high strength stat.

I'm not going to quote the entire post because I'm not in total disagreement on the matter. Playing your dwarf like that is fine. I do not, I cannot see them as some sort of frightened 10 year old girl worrying at any moment the sky might fall.

I do not agree with your final line though...as quoted.

I play dwarves that plan, they plan and they plan and they plan, everything to the finest detail. This is done, at least for the first focus, before I even enter them into chargen. They are not flighty, they do not worry, they are never afraid. The hard part for many people I think, at least with this style is that the dwarf will continue with his plan, he will not deviate from it. Other things happening around him that are not called for by the plan siply do not matter. That does not mean he does not notice, but if they are not part of the plan then they simply do not matter one way or another to his focus..

Another thing is, a dwarf knows he has a focus, he knows he might do this thing for his entire life, that is also part of the plan. Hell, if you wished, you could have many things be part of the plan that are not directly part of the focus. Even a dwarf with a focus to take over the world could have set aside a point in time in his plan to stop and have children.

In the end, there is only one rule to a dwarf in play, and that is what I posted before, Focus, focus, focus, but how you wish to play that out and the personality to go with it is totally up to you.

Anything anybody else says on the matter is simply, at best, a suggestion or them stating preference.

While Synthesis has posted -one- correct way to play a dwarf, I disagree that it's the -only- correct way. As X-D said, the only 100% set in stone thing is FOCUS. Otherwise, they can all have different flaws and personalities, making them go about things completely differently from other dwarves but -always- surrounding their focus.

Quote from: palomar on July 29, 2010, 07:58:06 AM
In my experience and opinion, playing a Tuluki commoner can be difficult from the social side of things. Tuluk's society with its castes is very different to what most players are familiar with - somewhat similar to the difficulties of understanding and playing with a tribal mindset, I suppose. There are clear and very strict differences between the castes, but a lot of people seem to have difficulties taking into account the sometimes subtle (hah) differences in social status based on affiliation, heritage and reputation within the common caste. It's quite odd, really, as it reaches from the upper echelons of the Merchant Houses to the lowest of the low among free men and women. It's something I see being ignored or misinterpreted frequently enough to think that it's something people have trouble with.

I enjoy playing characters of lower social status in Tuluk, and have experienced exactly this. When there's a difference in status, PCs of higher rank often do one of two things:

1) They insist you call them by their first name and treat them as just another bloke. It's difficult to maintain a sense of social distance when so many PCs have a personality that demands they ignore social distinctions. Chosen are friends with Commoners, but neither forget the difference between them; the same should go for a grebber and a Senior Merchant.

2) They decide to express the difference in social status by pointedly ignoring or snubbing any Commoner below them. In a city where nobles regularly work shoulder to shoulder with commoners (at least for the photo op...), this makes absolutely no sense. Power in Tuluk is (ostensibly) based on love of the people; any organization or representative of an organization should wield social standing in such a way as to express and build upon this love, putting on a face of deep concern and interest in the well-being of others. Ignoring someone because you can < giving someone just enough attention that you might call on the friendship and use him later.

How I would like to see social status between the Commoners played out:

QuoteIf you are well-liked and respected within your caste, it is much easier to get things accomplished. Conversely, making a bad name for yourself can easily result in avoidance and hostility (in more extreme cases).

1) The higher your social status, the more likely those above and below you should be to go along with what you want. If someone is senior to you, acquiesce to their will and eagerly seek to gain their favor. You don't have to like them or everything they do, but the only way you should oppose them is through someone else of equal or great social standing.

2) Avoidance and hostility shouldn't be the default. If someone is below you, be patronizing before arrogant. Every caste and every rung on the social tree has a use... don't ignore or abuse someone until they've demonstrated they're of no use to you. Instead, eagerly pay them mind, but carefully remind them of how much you're condescending in talking with them: if they're a good Tuluki, they'll appreciate you for your magnanimity and more perfectly align themselves with your will.

At least, that is how I see it.

I've only played one dwarf, but that dwarf earned me karma, so I think it's safe to say that dwarves can be talkative, social, and interesting so long as it drives them closer to their focus.

My dwarf, a merchant/stonecarver, had a pretty typical focus: Become the best stonecarver in the world.  He spent a lot of time talking about stonecarving, finding sellers and buyers for stone, and looking for other stonecarvers to compete against.  Once he was an accomplished crafter, he even joined House Oash under the promise that he would be given the materials to undertake his most challenging work yet: A giant marble statue for House Oash.  He endured lots of humiliation at the hands of his noble (who regarded my character as his pet) just to see this through.

Sadly, I retired him at 48 days played, so he never got to finish his work.  The point though, is that I think most people forget that dwarves can be social, as a lot of foci can be accomplished easier with a good network of helpers/patrons/friends/whatever.  They may also take pride in their work, chatting incessantly about how they're going to do this or that.

If you want to play a chatty social butterfly, play a human.

I just don't see the point in playing a dwarf at all if you're not going to play its obsessive/compulsive personality to the hilt...what is the point of playing a dwarf character if the personality you give it is functionally indistinguishable from an average human?  Again, unless you're really just shooting for the high strength stat.

Lot's of good points. Can people point their ideas about this role or that to the documents that back it up though? I check back with the documents, and some of what you people say is just contrary to what I read, or non-existent.

In reply to Synth, taken directly from the docs, the VERY first part on dwarf focus/rp.

QuoteThe Dwarven Focus

Dwarves can show great variability in their personality - indeed, almost as much as humans. But one thing that they all share is: The Dwarven Focus.

Next, and just as important

QuoteWhat is the Dwarven Focus?

It is a single, overwhelming goal which motivates every thought and action in a dwarf's life. A dwarf may do things unrelated to the focus - but it will always be at the back of their head, nagging them. A dwarf will never do something contrary to their focus, ever.

And again, later in the docs.

QuoteWhile you are free to design the personality of your dwarf with as much liberty as you would if they were human, you have to keep in mind the focus - how it interacts with the personality of your dwarf, and how their personality affects the focus.

And nowhere in the docs does it say dwarves have obsessive/compulsive disorder.

The dwarven focus is very similar to what OCD or addiction would be for humans.

And sure, the docs give you all this leeway to interpret that.  But again, I have to ask:  what is the point of playing a dwarf who is basically just a very strong human?  I submit the only reasonable answer to this question is to reap the benefits of the high strength stat without having to suffer any real negative consequences for it.

Quote from: Synthesis on July 29, 2010, 04:49:56 PM
The dwarven focus is very similar to what OCD or addiction would be for humans.

And sure, the docs give you all this leeway to interpret that.  But again, I have to ask:  what is the point of playing a dwarf who is basically just a very strong human?  I submit the only reasonable answer to this question is to reap the benefits of the high strength stat without having to suffer any real negative consequences for it.

What is the point of playing a human who is basically a very weak, unfocused dwarf?  I submit the only reasonable answer to this question is to reap the benefits of well-balanced stats.  As you confirm, the docs give leeway to interpret this issue in multiple ways, so clearly any interpretation other than your own must be twinking. 

Not even close, OCD...have you ever met somebody who is truly OCD? As for addiction.....that is a bit closer, more like a functioning addict.

But they have personalities, Some are quiet, some are loud, some talk about everything cept the addiction, some talk about nothing but the addiction, some have families, some do not...wait a minute, I already posted this somewhere.

As for playing one so you can have a human with a high str roll...Heh, considering what you lose stat wise and other dwarf drawbacks,  You would do much better to play a human and order str first. IF that was indeed the reason for playing a dwarf to begin with.

Quote from: Synthesis on July 29, 2010, 04:49:56 PM
The dwarven focus is very similar to what OCD or addiction would be for humans.

And sure, the docs give you all this leeway to interpret that.  But again, I have to ask:  what is the point of playing a dwarf who is basically just a very strong human?  I submit the only reasonable answer to this question is to reap the benefits of the high strength stat without having to suffer any real negative consequences for it.

Yeah, this is what I'm getting at.  I didn't want to accuse people who play dwarves of being twinks because I think that's a very serious accusation, but certainly I question the role-play of people who play dwarves but ignore the OCD aspect of them.  

Also I don't think that human PCs pick on dwarves enough.  Most of us are learning to pick on elves, witches, half-breeds, tribals, and foreigners, but we let half-giants and dwarves off the hook.  

I do want to point out that I actually agree with most of the people who are posting here that think they are disagreeing with me.  I don't believe that there is only one correct way to play a dwarf, I think that there are 100 correct ways.  Doubtlessly there is a lot of depth and subtlety to some of the dwarves that I've interacted with that only the staff have insight into, and that is my reason for not wanting to pick on individual players or to grief anybody.  You know your character better than i do.  

What I do feel certain of is that many players base their dwarven character on other dwarven characters they've seen (many of whom are not played correctly) and just flat out ignore the docs.

I don't think that this represents a crisis, merely something that people should take into account if they are considering making a dwarven character.  The docs are short and deliberately leave things open to interpretation.  They are still worth reading.

That almost negates the whole point of this thread. Things are left wide to interpretation so that we can interpret them as we want. :P So, if someone wants to play a chatty dwarf, let them. They still HAVE to submit a focus at generation, right? That's that, then! ;)

Quote from: Thunkkin on July 29, 2010, 05:00:26 PM

Quote from: Synthesis on July 29, 2010, 04:49:56 PM
The dwarven focus is very similar to what OCD or addiction would be for humans.

And sure, the docs give you all this leeway to interpret that.  But again, I have to ask:  what is the point of playing a dwarf who is basically just a very strong human?  I submit the only reasonable answer to this question is to reap the benefits of the high strength stat without having to suffer any real negative consequences for it.

What is the point of playing a human who is basically a very weak, unfocused dwarf?  I submit the only reasonable answer to this question is to reap the benefits of well-balanced stats.  As you confirm, the docs give leeway to interpret this issue in multiple ways, so clearly any interpretation other than your own must be twinking.  

Humans aren't supposed to have any especially unique racial attributes.  If you want to be a normal guy, play a human.  That's the whole point of humans:  they're the norm.

Dwarves, elves, muls, half-giants, mantis, gith, and halflings all have psychologies that are fundamentally different than a human's.  If you play one of them, your first priority should be to play that psychology.  If you deliberately write a background to minimize the potential negative consequences of that psychology, you're simply engaging in min-maxing behavior.

I'm not saying that every dwarf needs to be completely inept in social situations, but the docs make it clear that they aren't naturally witty, devious, or flexible (and this is supposed to be reflected by their lower wisdom).

Also:

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive-compulsive_personality_disorderObsessive–compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) is a personality disorder which involves an obsession with perfection, rules, and organization. People with OCPD may feel anxious when they perceive that things are not right. This can lead to routines and rules for ways of doing things, whether for themselves or their families.

The primary symptoms of OCPD are a preoccupation with details, rules, lists, order, organization, and schedules; being very rigid and inflexible in their beliefs; showing perfectionism that interferes with completing a task; excessive focus on being productive with their time; being very conscientious; having inflexible morality, ethics, or values; hoarding items that may no longer have value; and a reluctance to trust a work assignment or task to someone else for fear that their standards will not be met.

And

Quote from: Current Diagnosis and Treatment: Psychiatry
   

Obsessive–Compulsive Personality Disorder
Essentials of Diagnosis
DSM-IV-TR Diagnostic Criteria

   1. A pervasive pattern of preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and mental and interpersonal control, at the expense of flexibility, openness, and efficiency, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:
          *is preoccupied with details, rules, lists, order, organization, or schedules to the extent that the major point of the activity is lost

          *shows perfectionism that interferes with task completion (e.g., is unable to complete a project because his or her own overly strict standards are not met)

          *is excessively devoted to work and productivity to the exclusion of leisure activities and friendships (not accounted for by obvious economic necessity)

          *is overconscientious, scrupulous, and inflexible about matters of morality, ethics, or values (not accounted for by cultural or religious identification)

          *is unable to discard worn-out or worthless objects even when they have no sentimental value

          *is reluctant to delegate tasks or to work with others unless they submit to exactly his or her way of doing things

          *adopts a miserly spending style toward both self and others; money is viewed as something to be hoarded for future catastrophes

          *shows rigidity and stubbornness

That sounds an awful lot like what I'd expect from the average dwarf.

Quote from: Cutthroat on July 28, 2010, 06:14:26 PM
This seems a little more pessimistic than what actually is possible with a c-elf.

Sorry about that.  Can you elaborate?  I was just friendly advice to our bro who was complaining about having trouble with c-elves.  Basically I went through the same thing he's going through.

I mean when I tried to play a c-elf in the Byn...I had trouble participating in desert training because I can't ride a kank.  And then the staff made a questionable rule banning elves from riding a wagon, which prevented me from participating on missions at all.  In my mind this locked the role of the elf-soldier to just being a gate guard. 

How were you able to make the role of the urban elf work for you?

Quote from: palomar on July 29, 2010, 07:58:06 AM
In my experience and opinion, playing a Tuluki commoner can be difficult from the social side of things. Tuluk's society with its castes is very different to what most players are familiar with - somewhat similar to the difficulties of understanding and playing with a tribal mindset, I suppose. There are clear and very strict differences between the castes, but a lot of people seem to have difficulties taking into account the sometimes subtle (hah) differences in social status based on affiliation, heritage and reputation within the common caste. It's quite odd, really, as it reaches from the upper echelons of the Merchant Houses to the lowest of the low among free men and women. It's something I see being ignored or misinterpreted frequently enough to think that it's something people have trouble with.

Argh!  I had no idea.  I'm probably one of the people who is doing it wrong.  Are you allowed to elaborate?





Oh yeah, and I thought of a couple of other roles that players, younger players especially, seem to struggle with.

Bad-asses - When some people attempt to play bad-assed characters, then end up playing bullies.  I actually like having a lot of mean bullies running around in game but I think a lot of people aren't doing this on purpose.
Crime Lords - A lot of players who are trying to play the role of the crime lord end up being far far too confrontational and brash around non-criminals, junior-criminals and average-joes.  However in order to achieve recognition from law-enforcement, rival criminals and business entrepeneurs, a certain amount of regal is necessary.

Yeah, the "no city-elves on wagons or skimmers" rule is just stupid.

Consistency is one thing, but when it overlaps into the realm of "now you're being a dick," that's where I draw the line.

Quote from: jriley on July 29, 2010, 05:24:55 PM

Quote from: Cutthroat on July 28, 2010, 06:14:26 PM
This seems a little more pessimistic than what actually is possible with a c-elf.

Sorry about that.  Can you elaborate?  I was just friendly advice to our bro who was complaining about having trouble with c-elves.  Basically I went through the same thing he's going through.

I mean when I tried to play a c-elf in the Byn...I had trouble participating in desert training because I can't ride a kank.  And then the staff made a questionable rule banning elves from riding a wagon, which prevented me from participating on missions at all.  In my mind this locked the role of the elf-soldier to just being a gate guard.  

How were you able to make the role of the urban elf work for you?

I haven't for myself, actually - my entire statement was based on my own observations of other c-elf PCs over the past few years, as well as my observations of several PCs in leadership positions that acknowledged the "usefulness" of elves in various positions. My point was that there are players all around that are willing to make a person's c-elf role work, but it often takes a lot of effort for both parties. You don't need to resign yourself to certain flavor roles; with patience, it appears that one could do a lot with a c-elf without ever having to leave the city.

Obsessive–Compulsive Personality Disorder
Essentials of Diagnosis
DSM-IV-TR Diagnostic Criteria

  1. A pervasive pattern of preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and mental and interpersonal control, at the expense of flexibility, openness, and efficiency, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:
         *is preoccupied with details, rules, lists, order, organization, or schedules to the extent that the major point of the activity is lost Meaning that one does not apply

         *shows perfectionism that interferes with task completion (e.g., is unable to complete a project because his or her own overly strict standards are not met)So, that one does not apply

         *is excessively devoted to work and productivity to the exclusion of leisure activities and friendships (not accounted for by obvious economic necessity)

         *is overconscientious, scrupulous, and inflexible about matters of morality, ethics, or values (not accounted for by cultural or religious identification)Nope, not that either, a dwarf simply would not care for the most part

         *is unable to discard worn-out or worthless objects even when they have no sentimental value Does not apply

         *is reluctant to delegate tasks or to work with others unless they submit to exactly his or her way of doing things

         *adopts a miserly spending style toward both self and others; money is viewed as something to be hoarded for future catastrophes Normaly does not apply, unless it is a money based focus

         *shows rigidity and stubbornness

So, lets see, the average dwarf would have maybe 2 of the 4 items needed to be considered OCD.
Pretty sure that means they are not normaly OCD.

ON TO CRIME LORDS!
I happen to agree on this point, there have been very few good crime lords. The funny thing is though, there have been more then you would expect, A good crime lord would not be seen by most as a Crime lord. Hell, Samos was one of the best Crime Lords in recent arm history.

Any others I can't mention because to recent or still alive.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees, X-D.

Quote from: Synthesis on July 29, 2010, 05:44:08 PM
I think you're missing the forest for the trees, X-D.

I completely get what you mean. Other than the moral part, it seems extremely apt, in spirit, if not in letter. That's part of the reason I couldn't ever play a dwarf. It's far too limiting, and I don't think that I could have an enjoyable time playing the role in a fashion that does justice to the race, outside perhaps five or six foci. Though, I may wind up playing one with one of those with one of my next characters, just to explore it.

I don't think so, I've known enough OCD people, they are something else. And if your claiming the forest then don't post a quote showing the trees.

But hey, I gave you the addict comparison. I think it is a very good match actually. The types of addicts run from Weed to Meth and even all of them act differently but the same.

Still, in the end the need is the same in all.

I should note that I was incorrect in my first post w.r.t. OCD.

Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder is separate from obsessive-compulsive disorder, though it's been theorized (without strong clinical evidence) that the one leads to the other in some cases.

You might know people with OCD, but OCPD is what dwarves are like.

(OCD is the stereotypical obsessively-frequent hand-washer)

When I play an hg my focus is to be easily influenced and manipulated and emotionally driven.

Really, I think the whole point of the race is that they were created to be an incredibly powerful but easily manipulated war/work tool.

I've found the easiest way to do this is to play your hg as somewhat emotional, or at least lacking an ability to understand/hide/control his/her emotions.  So after deciding what my giant loves, what upsets him, what scares him etc. I make sure to communicate that to the players around me through emotes and dialogue.

You're never lonely as a hg, everyone has a task for a towering killing machine to take care of for them and if you drop some hints about what your pc cares about and what can be used to leverage or motivate him/her you'll never be bored and everyone involved will have fun.

I disagree that having a focus means they have OCPD.  I think a dwarf -could- have OCPD which may help or hinder their focus, but they do not have to go hand in hand. That's where the having differing personalities and having just as much variation as humans comes into play, as per the documentation. I think some of you have a too rigid and strict view on how it should be, not allowing for -any- variation whatsoever. Kind of like how some of you turn fear and dislike of magick into "Tuluki HATRED" all over the world. Both are in part correct, but not the rule for -all- pcs.

Oh, and as far as the silly "playing a dwarf to be a strong human" comment, they have a few coded drawbacks built in as well so if one is doing that it is kind of stupid considering (as X-D said) you can make a human and prioritize strength. That would give you the strength with none of the coded or rp drawbacks that come with dwarves.

Yeah, dwarves have so many coded drawbacks that they're always the second most-represented race in the PC population, despite supposedly being only 2% of the overall vNPC population.  Clearly the playerbase is just a bunch of newbs who can't grasp how awesome humans are.

Don't get me wrong, I fucking love BLASTING shit in the FUCKING FACE with uber dwarf strength...but...meh...they just seem cheap to me now because there are always far, far too many of them in the PC population.

Sure, you might be able to prioritize strength on a human, but you two know damn well that a dwarf who prioritizes strength will fucking own a human who prioritizes strength, until you get to maybe 50+ playing days, where agility might actually make a difference.  And that strength difference is -devastating- in open-field PK situations, where reeling is a must for the warrior class.  Hell, my last human warrior made it to 60 days and never managed to PK anyone outside of an apartment (except for that one person who was already in terrible shape, and the one dude who deliberately suicided on me), because it's so goddamn easy to flee from combat.

I mean, shit...how many humans have there been in the Byn where the Sergeant was like, "Okay, nobody spar with -that- guy, because he might accidentally kill you?"  I know there have been quite a few dwarves.  Hell, I had a fucking ASSASSIN dwarf that only the sergeant would spar, because his strength was so high that if he landed two successive blows with SPARRING weapons, it could kill you...and even if it didn't, your sparring day was over, at the very least.

Dwarves are fucking awesome in melee combat. Easily the best 0-karma race, until you get to very high days' played.  Anyone who says otherwise is a) confused or b) trying to play dumb so they don't get nerfed.

Or simply know better.

I feel suddenly very enlightened about combat and stats in this game after reading this thread.  :-\

Quote from: Synthesis on July 29, 2010, 04:49:56 PM
The dwarven focus is very similar to what OCD or addiction would be for humans.

And sure, the docs give you all this leeway to interpret that.  But again, I have to ask:  what is the point of playing a dwarf who is basically just a very strong human?  I submit the only reasonable answer to this question is to reap the benefits of the high strength stat without having to suffer any real negative consequences for it.

I don't see how high strength (and lower wisdom) helps a merchant/stonecarver (using my earlier example based off of a previous character).  Besides, it sounds like you're interpreting social = human, when that simply isn't the case.  There are plenty of ways to make your dwarf distinguishably dwarf-like to self and others without being a social shut-in.

The point of my post was that dwarves needn't constrain themselves so heavily, and they needn't spend all day twinking skills and avoiding social interaction.

Quote from: Aaron Goulet on July 29, 2010, 09:57:11 PM

Quote from: Synthesis on July 29, 2010, 04:49:56 PM
The dwarven focus is very similar to what OCD or addiction would be for humans.

And sure, the docs give you all this leeway to interpret that.  But again, I have to ask:  what is the point of playing a dwarf who is basically just a very strong human?  I submit the only reasonable answer to this question is to reap the benefits of the high strength stat without having to suffer any real negative consequences for it.

I don't see how high strength (and lower wisdom) helps a merchant/stonecarver (using my earlier example based off of a previous character).  Besides, it sounds like you're interpreting social = human, when that simply isn't the case.  There are plenty of ways to make your dwarf distinguishably dwarf-like to self and others without being a social shut-in.

The point of my post was that dwarves needn't constrain themselves so heavily, and they needn't spend all day twinking skills and avoiding social interaction.

I totally agree with this. What if a dwarf's focus is to, oh, win eighty dart contests in a row? Or to become a masterbard? Those are very social focuses. ;/

Quote from: Aaron Goulet on July 29, 2010, 09:57:11 PM

Quote from: Synthesis on July 29, 2010, 04:49:56 PM
The dwarven focus is very similar to what OCD or addiction would be for humans.

And sure, the docs give you all this leeway to interpret that.  But again, I have to ask:  what is the point of playing a dwarf who is basically just a very strong human?  I submit the only reasonable answer to this question is to reap the benefits of the high strength stat without having to suffer any real negative consequences for it.

I don't see how high strength (and lower wisdom) helps a merchant/stonecarver (using my earlier example based off of a previous character).  Besides, it sounds like you're interpreting social = human, when that simply isn't the case.  There are plenty of ways to make your dwarf distinguishably dwarf-like to self and others without being a social shut-in.

The point of my post was that dwarves needn't constrain themselves so heavily, and they needn't spend all day twinking skills and avoiding social interaction.

Obviously if you're a noncombatant, it doesn't apply.  At that point...sure, you're making an interesting character, but just because your dwarf is a merchant doesn't mean he's going to be a social butterfly.

Also, being bad at socializing doesn't mean not socializing at all.  In a trading context, it would mean doing things like getting flustered easily during bartering exchanges and storming off or refusing to trade any further.  Perhaps a stubborn insistence on prices and refusing to change them, because that's the price your dwarf has spent MONTHS arriving at, and anyone who can't appreciate the objective reasonableness of that price point can go to HELL, because that's the PERFECT price, so stop trying to elf-talk me!

I usually see -far- fewer dwarf pcs than I do elves so I don't know where you're coming up with your numbers but...whatever. Dwarven pcs whose focus represents a particular "job" tend to be very good at them unless their character flaws hold them back. Whether or not it is a combat based role or otherwise. They do, by physical makeup tend to be better at jobs that require physicial strength or endurance...(slavery...soldiers, guards, etc) which fits the documentation. I don't think this means that a player who plays a dwarf in one of those positions with a focus that fits with it (pretty much required to play a dwarf) is metagaming or in some way being a powergaming twink.

There are -supposed- to be more elves, because they're supposedly about 40% of the population.

So, let me introduce you to some basic statistical analysis, here.

You see, there's this thing called the Chi-Square Test that compares expected values to observed values, to determine whether there is some significant deviation from what you expect to be the mean for your data.

Now, for dwarves, given that they are about 2% of the population, we would expect them to be about 2% of the PC population.  There are what...about 200? unique logins per week...so that means there should be about 4 dwarven PCs at any given moment.  I think we can all agree that there are currently more than 4 dwarf PCs out and about.  This means that, for some reason, there are more dwarves in the game than we would expect, given the documentation.

For elves, which should be about 40%, we should see EIGHTY FREAKIN' ELF PCS at any given time.  I think we can all agree that this isn't the case.  Again, another deviation from expected values.

Even if there are 10 dwarves and 50 elves, dwarves are STILL over-represented, despite the fact that there are 5x as many elves, because there should be 20x as many elves as dwarves.

You see how this works, or do I need to draw you a picture?

The prevalence of dwarves has far more to do with what roles they're ICly allowed than their strength stat.

I think you're being a bit unfair Synthesis. Is the burden on us as players to properly represent the documentation in regards to mere numbers in game, or are we not allowed to play what appeals to us anymore?

Quote from: Kiara on July 30, 2010, 02:18:01 AM
I think you're being a bit unfair Synthesis. Is the burden on us as players to properly represent the documentation in regards to mere numbers in game, or are we not allowed to play what appeals to us anymore?

Nope. What's going to happen now is when you get into chargen, you're randomly assigned a name, sex, age, race, guild and subguild by the whims of expected values and averages.

Quote from: Synthesis on July 30, 2010, 01:03:32 AM
There are -supposed- to be more elves, because they're supposedly about 40% of the population.

Bit over 31%, actually.

I try to avoid dwarves for much the same reason as Synthesis. I mean, yeah, it's nice to be able to plop in something like warrior/nomad or ranger/guard and just utterly slaughter the world for a while, but it's so advantageous as to almost feel like bug abuse.

Dwarves have social drawbacks, sure, but they're basically all of the 'you just can't work here' sort. No one particularly hates on dwarves like they do on sharpears/roundears/gickers/breeds/other-city-guys.

Not that I'm calling for the nerfbat or anything, but if you can roleplay focuses properly dwarves are total ezmode.

Dwarves may be a little tougher than humans out of the gate but I don't think it's -that- much of a difference.  If you want to talk about playing a ranger on easy mode, roll a delf where you not only get mad stats but also tribal imm-love, protected territories and devoted clan buddies.

Let the NPC's represent the stats, the same as professions and guilds.  In pc's you have a mssive over representation of warriors, hunters, thieves, assassins, muggers, raiders, nobles, magickers and every other role that's a little fun and adventerous.

Given the roles PC's fill - typically soldier, hunter, mercenary etc. - I think it makes sense to see an over representation of dwarves who I think would be put to work by any mercenary group out there looking for some extra muscle.

Dwarves are like people from the Polynesian islands, I don't know very many myself but if you cruise by the offensive line of a professional football time get ready to meet some Tongan and Samoan ex-pats.

Quote from: roughneck on July 30, 2010, 05:13:01 AM
Given the roles PC's fill - typically soldier, hunter, mercenary etc. - I think it makes sense to see an over representation of dwarves who I think would be put to work by any mercenary group out there looking for some extra muscle.

Dwarves are like people from the Polynesian islands, I don't know very many myself but if you cruise by the offensive line of a professional football time get ready to meet some Tongan and Samoan ex-pats.

This is a very good point.

Quote from: Synthesis on July 29, 2010, 10:15:36 PM

Quote from: Aaron Goulet on July 29, 2010, 09:57:11 PM

Quote from: Synthesis on July 29, 2010, 04:49:56 PM
The dwarven focus is very similar to what OCD or addiction would be for humans.

And sure, the docs give you all this leeway to interpret that.  But again, I have to ask:  what is the point of playing a dwarf who is basically just a very strong human?  I submit the only reasonable answer to this question is to reap the benefits of the high strength stat without having to suffer any real negative consequences for it.

I don't see how high strength (and lower wisdom) helps a merchant/stonecarver (using my earlier example based off of a previous character).  Besides, it sounds like you're interpreting social = human, when that simply isn't the case.  There are plenty of ways to make your dwarf distinguishably dwarf-like to self and others without being a social shut-in.

The point of my post was that dwarves needn't constrain themselves so heavily, and they needn't spend all day twinking skills and avoiding social interaction.

Obviously if you're a noncombatant, it doesn't apply.  At that point...sure, you're making an interesting character, but just because your dwarf is a merchant doesn't mean he's going to be a social butterfly.

Also, being bad at socializing doesn't mean not socializing at all.  In a trading context, it would mean doing things like getting flustered easily during bartering exchanges and storming off or refusing to trade any further.  Perhaps a stubborn insistence on prices and refusing to change them, because that's the price your dwarf has spent MONTHS arriving at, and anyone who can't appreciate the objective reasonableness of that price point can go to HELL, because that's the PERFECT price, so stop trying to elf-talk me!

I agree, that would be a good approach to the dwarven mindset, if prices are something your dwarf cares about.

I'm a bit unclear on your definition of the term 'social butterfly'; are you referring to social skills, the amount of social interaction the character partakes in, notoriety, or something else?

The point that what players choose to play doesn't necessarily have to reflect the distribution of races in the vNPC population is a fair one.

However, when the statistics are SO skewed, I think we should ask ourselves whether or not this has a negative impact on the game, and whether the rules imposed on certain races are perhaps too onerous, or if perhaps certain races need to be nerfed or have more serious restrictions put on them.

This is particularly the case with elves.  There are an awful lot of things people think they can get away with (and do get away with, usually) with respect to their interactions with elf PCs, because they know that most elf PCs only have a virtual tribe, or at most two or three PC tribe-mates.  If every time  you rolled into the Gaj there were 6 humans, 3 elves, and a dwarf instead of 6 humans, 3 dwarves, and an elf...I think it's fairly easy to imagine that this would immediately change the way people do business with elves in a way that would be much more realistically in-line with the docs and the theme of the game.

To continue the football analogy:  what if you tried to make a football team, but all you could find was guys who could play defensive and offensive linemen, because nobody wanted to play the tall, skinny guys who make good wide receivers and cornerbacks?

Quote from: Synthesis on July 30, 2010, 10:48:09 AM
This is particularly the case with elves.  There are an awful lot of things people think they can get away with (and do get away with, usually) with respect to their interactions with elf PCs, because they know that most elf PCs only have a virtual tribe, or at most two or three PC tribe-mates.  If every time  you rolled into the Gaj there were 6 humans, 3 elves, and a dwarf instead of 6 humans, 3 dwarves, and an elf...I think it's fairly easy to imagine that this would immediately change the way people do business with elves in a way that would be much more realistically in-line with the docs and the theme of the game.

I'll admit that you make a very, very good point here. I'd love to see elves have a stronger presence in game, especially city elves.

Trouble is, we're dealing with playability. Players will play what they enjoy the most. What sort of slippery slope will we create if we start limiting the number of starting races allowed in game at once?

The preferred strategy isn't to impose hard limits on what people can play, it's to modify the desirability of said races so that people choose to play them or not to play them.  I think this could be done fairly easily without straying too far from the docs.

Examples:  give city-elves the desert-elf running ability, but nerf their total stamina points slightly, to reflect their lower endurance.  Allow city-elves to ride on wagons and skimmers.  Add more and diverse coded city-elf tribes that aren't blatantly criminal.  Buff elf wisdom and agility stats so they're more attractive.  Give all city-elves city sneak and hide. Etc. etc.

Quote from: Kiara on July 30, 2010, 02:18:01 AM
I think you're being a bit unfair Synthesis. Is the burden on us as players to properly represent the documentation in regards to mere numbers in game, or are we not allowed to play what appeals to us anymore?

I don't think that Synthesis is being unfair.  I think he's saying that "too many people play dwarven characters," and that "most people who play dwarven characters either have a cheesy focus or ignore your their focus."  To that I would add "dwarves don't face enough in-game discrimination."

Basically, he's not telling you how to play your character.  He's pointing out how a lot of people are abusing a certain situation.  Nobody is calling anybody a twink, a cheat, a bad roleplayer, a problem player or anything.  He's setting the bar where awesome is.

Playing an awesome dwarf is tough.  Most people fail at this.  It's not a crime to make mistakes.  But role-play standards here at Armageddon are tough and if you're going to drive what is the Zalanthan equivalent of a tank, you're opening yourself up to polite critique from people if you're doing it wrong.

Quote from: roughneck on July 30, 2010, 05:13:01 AM
Let the NPC's represent the stats, the same as professions and guilds.  In pc's you have a mssive over representation of warriors, hunters, thieves, assassins, muggers, raiders, nobles, magickers and every other role that's a little fun and adventerous.

I disagree.  When there were too many magickers running around the game, people complained and this shamed some of the players into toning it down.  When there were too many tribeless d-elf spam-raiders running around (like a few years ago) staff raised the bar for d-elf role-play and this helped.

Some of us are mature enough to have restraint on our own but some of us are not.  If this is not drawn to our attention, we will never learn.  


As an aside, when I was playing my last character here are the stats of the Hunters in the clan:

three humans
one half giant
three dwarves

Please note that the non-humans outnumbered the humans.  Half-giants and dwarves don't really belong in the clans.  Half-giants don't have long-term loyalty to anybody, nor are they diligent workers.  Dwarves won't abandon their focus for long periods of time to do somebody else's work unless they're slaves.  

This is why there are complaints.  Some of the role-play is outright cheezy.  No one is filing player complaints because it's not bad to the point where it's disruptive.  People seem to be stating at several places that nobody wants the nerfbat to come out.  This is a solveable problem.  Discussion and dialog can fix this sort of situation.  

I don't fault people who are new.  I don't fault people who take their second character (or maybe their third or something) and want to go make the big bad dwarven Bynner/Hunter Warrior.  This is cool.  That's a fantastic way to learn the game.  But by the time you've been playing for a year you should either be playing mundane human characters for the most part, or if dwarves are really your thing you should be closely adhering to the role-play docs.  

Edit: Kiara Nobody is calling for a staff bail-out yet.  The problem hasn't gotten that bad.

Idealistically I'd have city elves have a list of coded tribes in the docs to pick from, like desert elves. I understand that this is highly unlikely in the current incarnation of the game. I don't think city elves are broken as individual PCs, but I do agree with Synthesis that the docs are not very well reflected in the game as far as city elves go. More tribes is the only solution, I think. Elves need a tribe/clan in order to really bring out the role, and yet have very very few options. Clans and tribes also have quiet periods, so it's entirely possible for a city elf to have no coded clan/tribe options.

I think elf wisdom and agility is already high enough to make playing one attractive, it's all the other stuff that makes playing them unattractive to many players. Namely the lack of tribes. In fact, that's the only thing they need really.

Derail: Was there ever a straight answer from the staff about elves and skimmers? I remember looking for the answer a while back and never finding it.

First, celf agi/wis are quite high enough already.

Though I think they should have more coded clans and they should get sneak and hide.

As for HG and dwarves not belonging in clans...Um...HG belong in clans more then any other race.

Being in a clan has pretty much nothing to do with loyalty, and even a HG can understand he needs a job. Not to mention, being the mimics they are, they would follow along with the crowd, Hey, everybody has jobs, I need to have a job. Having a job also means less thinking, Why, because somebody tells you what to do, when to do it, how to do it. Even IRL a HG would be a drill sarges wet dream.

Dwarves would actually wish to join a clan for the same reasons. Hey, if I go work for Tor, I get free food, water, room, I only have to work during these set times, leaving me more time to work on my focus.

As to players reflecting the world in numbers....First, if you really think there are fewer mages now then a year, 2 years, 3 years etc ago, you would be sadly mistakin. Next, it is a game, I don't play humans, not because of stats or percs or skills, but because I am one, and I am playing a fantasy game,  If the PC pop was 100 dwarves, I would not care in the least, it is only a tiny % of a % of the total world pop, and if you remember the game world as a whole you would realize that they do not stand out at all.

I don't know. I'm of the opinion the PC population should at least somewhat mirror the NPC one.

Imagine for example having 5 sorcerers and psionicists IG at once, or seeing equal amounts of gemmed mages and mundanes in a tavern. That would definitely throw me off.

One of the concerns with too many dwarves, I feel, is that players aren't playing them for the right reasons. If you are playing a dwarf, similar to playing the other lesser-represented races in the game, you should be keeping in mind how your roleplay represents your race/guild. Exceptions exists, but when everyone starts being the exception, it ruins the intent and feel of the game.

Comparing apples and dogs.

Races are not the same as classes.

We know roughly what the race ratios are, we do not know the class ratios, and I doubt staff is going to say.

It very well could be that the game world only has a total of 10 sorcs virtual or otherwise at any given time, Or there could be 80,000.

Even as far as races go, when we have 180,000 players and 100,000 of them are dwarves, then I'll agree that things might be a bit off.

Till then, try and keep that virtual world in mind. You might see ten dwarves, but you also see 200 humans, 160 elves,  29 breeds, etc etc etc.

Quote from: X-D on July 30, 2010, 12:27:50 PM
First, celf agi/wis are quite high enough already.

I was under the impression city elf wisdom was nerfed. I could be wrong.

The only race that I know had a wis agi nerf in the last 8 years is no longer playable.

Yes, city-elves got a wisdom nerf a while back.

I still don't see what the big deal about PC population percentages not being in line with Zalanthas population percentages.

If you see a lot of dwarf PCs, your PC shouldn't be thinking "Wow, there are a lot of dwarfs."  He should be thinking "Wow, I know a lot of dwarfs."

Replace dwarfs with whatever you see fit.  It's a subtle distinction, but I think if you adopt it you'll be happier with the state of the game.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on July 30, 2010, 01:23:21 PM
I still don't see what the big deal about PC population percentages not being in line with Zalanthas population percentages.

If you see a lot of dwarf PCs, your PC shouldn't be thinking "Wow, there are a lot of dwarfs."  He should be thinking "Wow, I know a lot of dwarfs."

Replace dwarfs with whatever you see fit.  It's a subtle distinction, but I think if you adopt it you'll be happier with the state of the game.

I concur. If you're in a tavern and happen to be sitting with three dwarves, remember that you're surrounded by a mass of vNPCs, most probably human. A PC is just one more individual in a much larger crowd, particularly if you live in a major population center.

Quote from: Kiara on July 30, 2010, 12:50:40 PM

Quote from: X-D on July 30, 2010, 12:27:50 PM
First, celf agi/wis are quite high enough already.

I was under the impression city elf wisdom was nerfed. I could be wrong.

Quote from: Synthesis on July 30, 2010, 12:59:56 PM
Yes, city-elves got a wisdom nerf a while back.

Yes and no. City elves used to have a bug that caused them all to roll Absolutely Incredible. They still have the highest wisdom of all open races and it really shows.

Quote from: Spoon on July 30, 2010, 03:27:15 PM
Yes and no. City elves used to have a bug that caused them all to roll Absolutely Incredible.

Not to my knowledge. Are you sure?

Quote from: Akoto on July 30, 2010, 02:00:01 PM

Quote from: Marauder Moe on July 30, 2010, 01:23:21 PM
I still don't see what the big deal about PC population percentages not being in line with Zalanthas population percentages.

If you see a lot of dwarf PCs, your PC shouldn't be thinking "Wow, there are a lot of dwarfs."  He should be thinking "Wow, I know a lot of dwarfs."

Replace dwarfs with whatever you see fit.  It's a subtle distinction, but I think if you adopt it you'll be happier with the state of the game.

I concur. If you're in a tavern and happen to be sitting with three dwarves, remember that you're surrounded by a mass of vNPCs, most probably human. A PC is just one more individual in a much larger crowd, particularly if you live in a major population center.

QFT. Just because there are a lot of anything doesn't mean the vNPC population doesn't even the documentation out. I think this topic is seriously devolving now: if someone is playing a certain race horrendously, report them. But the documentation is probably purposefully open ended to give people an option. We can't all be as great roleplayers as other people want us to be. Sometimes there is a fine line between exemplary roleplay and enjoyment of a game.

Quote from: Kiara on July 30, 2010, 03:29:32 PM

Quote from: Spoon on July 30, 2010, 03:27:15 PM
Yes and no. City elves used to have a bug that caused them all to roll Absolutely Incredible.

Not to my knowledge. Are you sure?

How long ago was that?

Quote from: spicemustflow on July 30, 2010, 03:52:25 PM

Quote from: Kiara on July 30, 2010, 03:29:32 PM

Quote from: Spoon on July 30, 2010, 03:27:15 PM
Yes and no. City elves used to have a bug that caused them all to roll Absolutely Incredible.

Not to my knowledge. Are you sure?

How long ago was that?

Here's the link: http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,14076.0.html

A little over 5 years ago.

Yep. Back then I had an elf who smoked his wisdom right down to good.

Spoon, reread the thread posted by Xygax linked above by Synthesis.  It doesn't say there was a bug that made them all roll AI.  There was a typo that made it so that their wisdom really could be higher.  (Imagine it being listed like this:  old c.elf wisdom range=10-30, new c.elf wisdom range=10-20.  Numbers completely made up.)

I guess I rolled high, whoop! (I got this confused as current elves kept their stats at the time, my PC's being high :P)

Assassins... Im not smart enough to get them to the level needed to be succesfull.

I wonder who died and made most of you who decides what good Dwarf RP is. Especially if you say you never play them.

(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:-3yd8uda_wR_0M:http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/19815000/ngbbs4a85ea1bb0a5e.jpg&t=1)

I have trouble with rogue magickers...  The guild sniffers always get me, no matter what subguild I choose.

Ehh...before everything got all hot and heated, and back to the original matter...

I agree.  Half-giants are fucking -hard- to play, particularly when you're trying to avoid moving to one of the two extremes Malifaxis explained.  Though I do disagree with the description of his half-giant, at least as a standard (note:  There should be just as much variance in this as any other race, personalities differ, as well as the things the half-giant -does- have a solid grasp of.  Some may be be a complete ignoramus in conversation but show an utter stroke of brilliance in a sparring ring, not because of their strength, but because they are well practiced in using their size and strength.  It's intuitive, not an active intellect sort of thing, but something that they -have- learned over time with experience.  Others may be remarkably caught up in conversation and actually contribute, so long as they aren't asked to -create- something on the spot in their mind.  But they can repeat things they've heard, they can apply things they've heard, and they can pay attention.  So on and so forth).

As a standard...I think half-giants are -not- useless lumps of flesh who charge and fight and say 'Er, Duhhhhhh.' whenever someone asks a question.  They grasp basic things, and are roughly on the equivalency of a young adult in the Armageddon life.  In other words, they have their instincts, they have their intuition, and can act on it.  The problem comes with multi-tasking and remembering which information is pertinent to what, as in they may learn a lesson, or be given an order, and accidentally extend it to an area where it is no longer applicable.

Yes.  Hardest role in the game, for the sheer amount of brain crunching you have to do to not only think that way, but -remember- to think that way.  It's easy to slip out of it.


Edited to add:

By the way, I say they aren't useless lumps of flesh who charge and fight.  That's true.  But that would likely remain the IC stereotype aside from chosen few who actually had the time and patience to find those little things the giant was good with, and picked up on more easily.  A role I'd love to see for a giant would be one that is around a very subtle character often, and easily picks up on those subtleties, sees the genius of them, and tries to imitate, formulating their own subtlety that is not subtle at all and blatantly obvious.  Ability to perceive but not recreate.  That'd be fun.

Quote from: Aaron Goulet on August 01, 2010, 08:30:26 PM
I have trouble with rogue magickers...  The guild sniffers always get me, no matter what subguild I choose.

Lie about your capabilities.  Drop hints that you're a burglar.  For special occasions, see if you can special-app something with a couple of low-capped extra skills.

But yeah, I haven't really made this work yet.

Quote from: brytta.leofa on August 01, 2010, 08:42:31 PM

Quote from: Aaron Goulet on August 01, 2010, 08:30:26 PM
I have trouble with rogue magickers...  The guild sniffers always get me, no matter what subguild I choose.

Lie about your capabilities.  Drop hints that you're a burglar.  For special occasions, see if you can special-app something with a couple of low-capped extra skills.

But yeah, I haven't really made this work yet.

You can get by as a merchant with a crafting skill until someone starts talking at you in Cavilish.  I hate guild sniffing overall, though, and hope that Arm 2 is a point-based character creation system for that very reason.

Quote from: Aaron Goulet on August 01, 2010, 10:04:28 PM

Quote from: brytta.leofa on August 01, 2010, 08:42:31 PM

Quote from: Aaron Goulet on August 01, 2010, 08:30:26 PM
I have trouble with rogue magickers...  The guild sniffers always get me, no matter what subguild I choose.

Lie about your capabilities.  Drop hints that you're a burglar.  For special occasions, see if you can special-app something with a couple of low-capped extra skills.

But yeah, I haven't really made this work yet.

You can get by as a merchant with a crafting skill until someone starts talking at you in Cavilish.  I hate guild sniffing overall, though, and hope that Arm 2 is a point-based character creation system for that very reason.

My first magicker was a special apped tuluki viv/crafting subguild, her mother was a merchant, and she spent her life on the road with her, apprenticing to carry on the family business, until her mother died. The special app only had one thing special about it: Cavilish.

Between crafting and knowing Cavilish, it wasn't long before she'd bullshitted her way into Kadius as a crafter.

Never had any problem with guild sniffing myself. Althought I've never tried to pass another guild off as a merchant. Maybe that's not entirely true, I've had rangers and warriors work as solo merchants but I've never tried to pass them off as guild merchant.  Otherwise, I've passed off mages as newbie rangers (mainly by not getting into combat in front of others) among other things.  I highly disagree that it's as rampant as a few people say it is. I think some people are paranoid about it and it skews their perception so they are seeing guild sniffers everywhere, when there are not.
"That guy just spoke to me in a language I don't understand, he's trying to see if I'm really the merchant guild! GUILD SNIFFER!!!" The fact of the matter is, the other player likely believed you were guild merchant and was trying to speak to you in their spiffy "merchant-speak" because they assumed you could. I still believe that cavalish should be available through the linguist subguild.

Quote from: jhunter on August 02, 2010, 10:45:33 AMI still believe that cavalish should be available through the linguist subguild.

Not Linguist, but I think there absolutely needs to be a "Trader" subguild with Cavilish, value, and haggle.

I've said this for a while now.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on August 02, 2010, 11:04:29 AM

Quote from: jhunter on August 02, 2010, 10:45:33 AMI still believe that cavalish should be available through the linguist subguild.

Not Linguist, but I think there absolutely needs to be a "Trader" subguild with Cavilish, value, and haggle.

I've said this for a while now.

That would be fine too. But, I still think that a linguist should be capable of speaking just about every commonly used language in the known world. I think when one chooses linguist they should be able to select three languages from a list to begin with. Cavilish should be on that list.

I think they should get cav and Bendune.

Why you ask, because, if you pick human, your only getting 2 languages from the sub, not 3, and if you pick dwarf, celf, breed, your only getting 1 language.

Quote from: X-D on August 02, 2010, 11:22:21 AM
I think they should get cav and Bendune.

Why you ask, because, if you pick human, your only getting 2 languages from the sub, not 3, and if you pick dwarf, celf, breed, your only getting 1 language.

This.

Yeah, X-D, but you're getting one of your languages maxxed when it wouldn't have been before, so that you can actually be understood in more than one language.  All those races you listed start with one language understandable and the other almost understandable only.

Quote from: spawnloser on August 02, 2010, 01:20:34 PM
Yeah, X-D, but you're getting one of your languages maxxed when it wouldn't have been before, so that you can actually be understood in more than one language.  All those races you listed start with one language understandable and the other almost understandable only.

Haven't played a city-elf or a dwarf lately, have you?

Synth beat me to that one.

Dwarves and celves start with 2 mastered languages.

Really?  Yeah, I haven't played one of those in a little while.  That does kinda suck.  Then again, I used to love the Linguist subguild.  Now, though, with the Way, non-verbal communication and with enough others in the world that speak a language my characters understand, I've become disenchanted with that subguild for other reasons.  This just seals the deal for me.  Oh well.

I always thought the coolness factor of the Linguist sub-guild was the enhanced ability to pick up new languages.

Quote from: Armaddict on August 01, 2010, 08:36:10 PM
Yes.  Hardest role in the game, for the sheer amount of brain crunching you have to do to not only think that way, but -remember- to think that way.  It's easy to slip out of it.

Yeah, I like what you have to say about half-giants.  You can understand why I'm immediately suspicious upon meeting one.  It's kind of like Heller's Catch 22.  Half-Giants are so difficult to play and offer so few rewards (in terms of game influence) that you have to question that anyone playing one is serious.  It takes real dedication to do something like that well.

Quote from: Aaron Goulet on August 01, 2010, 10:04:28 PM
You can get by as a merchant with a crafting skill until someone starts talking at you in Cavilish.  I hate guild sniffing overall, though, and hope that Arm 2 is a point-based character creation system for that very reason.

Yeah, I agree with this post.  I think there are several strong cases for moving towards a point-based system.  For example, many players seem dissatisfied with their stats, which are still mostly random.  Other players complain about the race/class options available to them.  And still other players are unhappy that they can't have certain combinations of skills that are not available to the available guild/subguild combinations. 

Of course, then people will just begin to sniff whether or not you have certain skills.  It won't make the problem entirely go away.  Instead it will just make it much more difficult for someone attempting guild sniffing.

Quote from: askaran on August 01, 2010, 06:56:07 PM
Assassins... Im not smart enough to get them to the level needed to be succesfull.

Yeah, I definitely feel you there.  It took me more than five years of somewhat consistent efforts to figure out how to properly do the assassin thing.  My knowledge related to this is among my most carefully guarded secrets.  In the end, the particular combination of building, attack methods and twinking associated with successful assassins seems somewhat illogical and not altogether fair. 

(spoiler below)
Kind of like where you're watching the Sixth Sense and you're supposed to determine that the Bruce Willis character is actually a ghost, but nobody has told you that you're supposed to be looking for anything.  I think there is a disconnect in terms of what the staff have used regarding the guild design, the level of brutality that players are willing to accept when a low-level assassin comes flying out of the dark at their 40-day Kurac Merchant, the level of effort that most players will be willing to spend in building a Sirhan-Sirhan (assassin) which is a fundamentally disposable character in the first place and the actual tolerance that staff have if you take a 50-day assassin and start building up a body count.

In essence, I think that we all want to live in a harsh harsh world until the moment when we turn around and see somebody pointing an axe at our throat, smiling at us.

Quote from: brytta.leofa on August 01, 2010, 08:42:31 PM

Quote from: Aaron Goulet on August 01, 2010, 08:30:26 PM
I have trouble with rogue magickers...  The guild sniffers always get me, no matter what subguild I choose.

Lie about your capabilities.  Drop hints that you're a burglar.  For special occasions, see if you can special-app something with a couple of low-capped extra skills.

But yeah, I haven't really made this work yet.

I've actually gotten pretty far doing these.

But it's too hard in Tuluk for IC reasons.

My last half-giant I played more like Leonard from Memento than Sean Penn in I am Sam.  But that's just me.

I don't like most human commoners.
Half the women are beauty queens, and half the men are too.
Guess there must be a lot of flouride naturally in zalanthas water for all the nice teeth.

I don't like how hard you have to work to stay a lowly no body.
Some people complain about the disproportionate amount of PCs are dwarves and HGs.
How about the disproportionate percentage of PCs who get snapped up by every
organization because they need PCs even if its unrealistic. There is hardly any such
thing as elite because PCs are needed so badly.

So few dwarf or HG females?? Again with people don't want to play ugly so they don't.
People want to play dwarves so they do.

Approximately 100% of whores are women. Does that mean there are no male whores?
(I instantly hate anyone who saunters)

There is plenty of things to complain about but you know what, sometimes it becomes
a playability issue. And asking two whole races to sit down and shut up so we can hear the
humans talk is stupid. I like funny Half Giants too and the docs say "Possessed of astounding degrees of curiosity and kindness"
To me that could be interpreted as joking with friends and astoundingly curious things are not quiet in my imagination.

Uh so many things to argue about on this thread. Dwarves have a lot of drawbacks. Took me six months  and 40+ days played to branch something a human even can do in a month fairly easy. There is a definite glass ceiling for them which (if you live long enough) will come into conflict with your focus and you character will resent it.

Quote from: KankWhisperer on August 02, 2010, 08:12:33 PM
I don't like most human commoners.
Half the women are beauty queens, and half the men are too.

I like most characters I see.  People put a lot of thought into them.  People put a lot of thought into what they're doing.  We all get better at this with practice and experience...and from critique on the GDB sometimes, too.

But yeah, our averages are totally whacked.

Male whores, they do happen. There's a market, opportunities. But - it's a hard role whether you're male or female, since it's so social-dependent - there's no falling back on code to do your job. Ain't no NPC shop to buy sex. That'd be pretty weird. I personally have a hard time getting over my OOC nervousness on the topic enough to try and sell my PC's body with great enthusiasm, male or female.

So whore: a role at least one person (me) has trouble with. I'm fascinated with the concept, but.

I like playing female dwarves. I also like making their descriptions so that they're reasonably attractive sorts. Why? I'm a tall, skinny, flat-chested person in real life. I'll relate to an elf or half-elf, physically, more. But if I'm looking for unlike myself, if I want to indulge in being what I'm not, you really can't beat a dwarf for short, curvy, muscular, wide-hipped, broad-shouldered, ruthlessly determined, incredibly focused, sheer concentrated kick-ass femaledom.

... I really ought to play more dwarven females.

Half-giants tend to put a smile on my face, male or female, I've seen a fair number of both, I enjoy the encounters. I'm not sure I'd play them often myself if I had the chance, I prefer interacting with people better at it.  ;) Most of my experiences with half-giants are giving me pretty good impressions actually.

Role I have trouble with: Teeth.

I've played commoners who, after a time playing them, I realized I kinda messed up the description if they lived like this before I possessed them. Working on it.  ;) A reason for not mentioning teeth at all, is that the tooth problems that would be rampant on Zalanthas, kind of freak me out. I'd prefer not to describe my teeth, in most cases. This is weird, considering what the teeth of this girl I liked once were like, but I guess I'm just squeamish about teeth in some situations. Assume they're in approximately the state of the rest of my body I suppose. If I mention they are particularly white, it probably means I make a habit of swishing with plains-ox urine or some similar, ah, treatment.  ;) Seriously, ask me for hygiene advice if I'm playing someone remarkable in some sense in it! It sounds like it could lead to some fun interactions. How does one keep a nail from growing too long? Long nails are a liability in most cases. Biting them, may work. May lead to problems, especially if it becomes a nervous habit. It's just one solution. If my nails are in my character description, I've thought about them, and how that character deals with them.

I leave teeth out of my descriptions.

Yeah, Zalanthan people have bad teeth.  However, it's hard for us as players not to judge a character's attractiveness by our own standards, so I don't think it's a big deal if descriptions are somewhat slanted towards those standards.

I either leave teeth out or they're very fitting for Zalanthas, I don't think I have a problem there.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on August 02, 2010, 09:36:53 PM
I leave teeth out of my descriptions.

Yeah, Zalanthan people have bad teeth.  However, it's hard for us as players not to judge a character's attractiveness by our own standards, so I don't think it's a big deal if descriptions are somewhat slanted towards those standards.

I played a character with teeth so bad they were mentioned in the sdesc, and was regularly mocked by every f-me to cross my path. It was great: I assumed that, with Zalanthian dental care being what it is, they were not attacking me because of my teeth, which were average or a bit below average for my class; I therefore determined that they had a secret reason for mocking me, and dedicated my energies to undermining and destroy them.

I wonder sometimes if people just thought I was vain, but I imagine most never caught on.

Went from troublesome roles to dental hygiene. Nice.

Quote from: Armaddict on August 01, 2010, 08:36:10 PM
Ehh...before everything got all hot and heated, and back to the original matter...

I agree.  Half-giants are fucking -hard- to play, particularly when you're trying to avoid moving to one of the two extremes Malifaxis explained.  Though I do disagree with the description of his half-giant, at least as a standard (note:  There should be just as much variance in this as any other race, personalities differ, as well as the things the half-giant -does- have a solid grasp of.  Some may be be a complete ignoramus in conversation but show an utter stroke of brilliance in a sparring ring, not because of their strength, but because they are well practiced in using their size and strength.  It's intuitive, not an active intellect sort of thing, but something that they -have- learned over time with experience.  Others may be remarkably caught up in conversation and actually contribute, so long as they aren't asked to -create- something on the spot in their mind.  But they can repeat things they've heard, they can apply things they've heard, and they can pay attention.  So on and so forth).

As a standard...I think half-giants are -not- useless lumps of flesh who charge and fight and say 'Er, Duhhhhhh.' whenever someone asks a question.  They grasp basic things, and are roughly on the equivalency of a young adult in the Armageddon life.  In other words, they have their instincts, they have their intuition, and can act on it.  The problem comes with multi-tasking and remembering which information is pertinent to what, as in they may learn a lesson, or be given an order, and accidentally extend it to an area where it is no longer applicable.

Yes.  Hardest role in the game, for the sheer amount of brain crunching you have to do to not only think that way, but -remember- to think that way.  It's easy to slip out of it.


Edited to add:

By the way, I say they aren't useless lumps of flesh who charge and fight.  That's true.  But that would likely remain the IC stereotype aside from chosen few who actually had the time and patience to find those little things the giant was good with, and picked up on more easily.  A role I'd love to see for a giant would be one that is around a very subtle character often, and easily picks up on those subtleties, sees the genius of them, and tries to imitate, formulating their own subtlety that is not subtle at all and blatantly obvious.  Ability to perceive but not recreate.  That'd be fun.

For what it's worth, I think you are spot on (and you play wonderful half-giants).

Quote from: Prodikus on August 03, 2010, 02:08:19 AM
I played a character with teeth so bad they were mentioned in the sdesc, and was regularly mocked by every f-me to cross my path. It was great: I assumed that, with Zalanthian dental care being what it is, they were not attacking me because of my teeth, which were average or a bit below average for my class; I therefore determined that they had a secret reason for mocking me, and dedicated my energies to undermining and destroy them.

If the sdesc is commonly understood to be the most notable characteristics of a character, and according to an old thread roughly half the playerbase doesn't read most mdescs anyway, I think it's fair to say that it was assumed (by and large) that they were worse than they were, if they were notably bad (notable enough to make it into the first impression people get from the character, the sdesc).

I'm very new and all, and no expert, but just commenting on half-giants here for a second.

I'm not totally sure how one is supposed to play a half-giant, but all the ones I've met so far have been very entertaining and enjoyable. They are fun to be around, with their combination of "tear you to pieces like a rag-doll in seconds" strength and usually their personality or manner of speaking in a way that totally conflicts with said power.
However, I would really, really like to see a hideously ugly, bald, nasty dung-smear of a half-giant roaming the lands, with crazy eyes and a taste for flesh and slaughter. Imagine how frightening (and kinda cool) it would be having a notorious, monstrous half-giant out there, stalking the wastes. A real evil lump of Zalanthan biggie humanoid.
Anyway, umm, oh yeah, I like half-giants so far. But I'm no expert.
(and if my post inspires someone to make said man-eating homicidal waste stalker half-giant, please don't eat me. Keep me as a pet, I am very loyal!)

Quote from: Scarecrow on August 03, 2010, 05:16:19 AMHowever, I would really, really like to see a hideously ugly, bald, nasty dung-smear of a half-giant roaming the lands, with crazy eyes and a taste for flesh and slaughter. Imagine how frightening (and kinda cool) it would be having a notorious, monstrous half-giant out there, stalking the wastes. A real evil lump of Zalanthan biggie humanoid.

We've had similar giants in game, raiders mostly, never dung-smeared, or bald to my recollection, but it's not like it mattered. All you would see is
The behemoth strong muscled half-giant enters from the west.
The behemoth strong muscled half giant's bash sends you sprawling!

The behemoth strong muscled half giant's slash strikes you in the head for horrendous damage.

Mantis skull. Needless to say, most people felt a bit cheated by such experiences, and it raised quite a bit of controversy,  badass or not.

They're generally smeared with silt-horror plate instead of dung.

Quote from: Spoon on August 03, 2010, 05:51:54 AM
They're generally smeared with silt-horror plate instead of dung.

Lol, until they discover how uneconomical it is to repair silt horror armor based upon their projected newbie raiding chart. They then opt for desert, or scrub cammos, because half-giant one-shot warlords don't need armor anyway.

Quote from: Scarecrow on August 03, 2010, 05:16:19 AM
I'm very new and all, and no expert, but just commenting on half-giants here for a second.

I'm not totally sure how one is supposed to play a half-giant, but all the ones I've met so far have been very entertaining and enjoyable. They are fun to be around, with their combination of "tear you to pieces like a rag-doll in seconds" strength and usually their personality or manner of speaking in a way that totally conflicts with said power.
However, I would really, really like to see a hideously ugly, bald, nasty dung-smear of a half-giant roaming the lands, with crazy eyes and a taste for flesh and slaughter. Imagine how frightening (and kinda cool) it would be having a notorious, monstrous half-giant out there, stalking the wastes. A real evil lump of Zalanthan biggie humanoid.
Anyway, umm, oh yeah, I like half-giants so far. But I'm no expert.
(and if my post inspires someone to make said man-eating homicidal waste stalker half-giant, please don't eat me. Keep me as a pet, I am very loyal!)

No, they're not fun to be around, especially with their "tear you pieces" strength. If the player feels a bit dickish, you're done. A long time ago, I had such a bad experience with one of them, that the hate is still strong. Since then, I saw several HGs, most were ok, one was fucking brilliant. I think they should have higher karma requirement.

Quote from: MeTekillot on August 03, 2010, 02:57:36 AM
Went from troublesome roles to dental hygiene. Nice.

Dental hygiene -is- a troublesome role.  :D

Half-giants, most of my interactions are fairly just brushes, but if I -do- interact with them in depth, I realize how dangerous their psyche can be, however kind in nature to start with, how much it is possible to care about them and fear for them in a way that would be odd on most any other race, how much depth is actually in these characters. So, yeah. Good experiences, they get me involved.  :)

Quote from: Anaiah on August 03, 2010, 05:09:08 AM

Quote from: Prodikus on August 03, 2010, 02:08:19 AM
I played a character with teeth so bad they were mentioned in the sdesc, and was regularly mocked by every f-me to cross my path. It was great: I assumed that, with Zalanthian dental care being what it is, they were not attacking me because of my teeth, which were average or a bit below average for my class; I therefore determined that they had a secret reason for mocking me, and dedicated my energies to undermining and destroy them.

If the sdesc is commonly understood to be the most notable characteristics of a character, and according to an old thread roughly half the playerbase doesn't read most mdescs anyway, I think it's fair to say that it was assumed (by and large) that they were worse than they were, if they were notably bad (notable enough to make it into the first impression people get from the character, the sdesc).

I see your point, and agree that most assumed they were below average, though that wasn't entirely the intention. But I maintain that most low-class Zalanthians would not be winning a beauty contests anytime soon, and one would most likely take exception if another started throwing stones in their shared glass house. I thought it was a good way of creating sustained, low-level conflict: even if they're flawlessly beautiful, a grebber should expect trouble for mocking someone's physical appearance, when the vast majority of (v)NPCs peers are likely either malnourished or have some sort of physical deformity. Different classes have different standards of acceptable appearance; drawing attention to defects, even exceptional ones, can be problematic, in certain social settings.

Edited because it began with a derail on sdescs. Oops!

I find mages to be a difficult role. From the intense spammage required, to the need to explain the inner mechanics of how these things all work, for some of the roles.

I do enjoy the whole hatred/fear thing. Nothing is more fun then making a magicker who makes everyone around them nervous not with spellcasting and the coded power, but the sheer cantrips and behavior.

Dar, let me ask you this... isn't a warrior just as spammy a role as a magicker?  If you want to branch, you have to practice skills either way, which means crap scrolling past your screen.  It's just the nature of how that scroll is created, like by which commands/situations.  The same goes for Merchants.  "Oh god!  I'm playing a magicker, so I must have to spam cast to branch!"  "Oh god!  I'm playing a merchant, so I must have to spam craft to branch!"  "Oh god!  I'm playing a warrior, so I must have to spam combat to branch!"  Each of those statements has exactly the same amount of truth as the next... which is to say, not much.

Quote from: spawnloser on August 03, 2010, 07:34:10 PM
Dar, let me ask you this... isn't a warrior just as spammy a role as a magicker?  If you want to branch, you have to practice skills either way, which means crap scrolling past your screen.  It's just the nature of how that scroll is created, like by which commands/situations.  The same goes for Merchants.  "Oh god!  I'm playing a magicker, so I must have to spam cast to branch!"  "Oh god!  I'm playing a merchant, so I must have to spam craft to branch!"  "Oh god!  I'm playing a warrior, so I must have to spam combat to branch!"  Each of those statements has exactly the same amount of truth as the next... which is to say, not much.

This is actually very true.  The reason people see them as different is because they generally happen with interaction, while mages, as a nature of the role, often do it in solitude.  Except merchants, where I imagine it's far more similar than people would admit.  I don't know, as I've never played a merchant.

Quote from: spawnloser on August 03, 2010, 07:34:10 PMEach of those statements has exactly the same amount of truth as the next... which is to say, not much.

Well, aside from the fact that skill progression and spell progression seem to work in two completely different ways.

Quote from: jstorrie on August 03, 2010, 08:07:57 PM

Quote from: spawnloser on August 03, 2010, 07:34:10 PMEach of those statements has exactly the same amount of truth as the next... which is to say, not much.

Well, aside from the fact that skill progression and spell progression seem to work in two completely different ways.

I offer a dry retort that suggests that I have secret information about the magick system at which, because of The Rules, I can only hint.  This comment serves only to make me look like a poser and further muddy the water about the actual situation.

Merchants, hands down. Some people are just plain retarded about IC restrictions that merchants usually have no control over.

Call it IC, call it being a douche OOC, call it whatever you want... it's annoying playing that merchant that is getting black-balled in society because Lord Fancypants wants trousers with golden tregil trim tomorrow, no questions asked.

I will maintain that spells are skills and follow the same rules for progression.

Quote from: spawnloser on August 03, 2010, 11:09:44 PM
I will maintain that spells are skills and follow the same rules for progression.

Pretty much.

Just as with any skill, it's repetition, failure, skill-up, branch.

I dont know.

Feels absolutely different to me. Perhaps it is simply a matter of fleshing things out. When warriors, merchants, and whomever practice. It is much easier to bring life to their character while they're doing it. I rarely if ever mindlessly skill spam in those roles, you always are capable of improving skills while trying to do something else. You're not practicing hunt, you're hunting down prey. You're not spamming dual wield, you're following a schedule. You're not practicing hide/sneak, it is simply a smart thing to do to move this way in the rinth. You're not spamming fletchery, you're trying to make a set to provide to your hunter, or simply ... trying to make enough to sell to buy food and materials.

While as a mage, you sit down and you practice for the sole goal of becoming better at this particular spell. Which is great, which is fine. And you've emoted it all out, and thought it through, and felt it through ... but that was ages ago and now it's just plain .. spam.

Quote from: Dar on August 04, 2010, 12:11:56 AM
I dont know.

Feels absolutely different to me. Perhaps it is simply a matter of fleshing things out. When warriors, merchants, and whomever practice. It is much easier to bring life to their character while they're doing it. I rarely if ever mindlessly skill spam in those roles, you always are capable of improving skills while trying to do something else. You're not practicing hunt, you're hunting down prey. You're not spamming dual wield, you're following a schedule. You're not practicing hide/sneak, it is simply a smart thing to do to move this way in the rinth. You're not spamming fletchery, you're trying to make a set to provide to your hunter, or simply ... trying to make enough to sell to buy food and materials.

While as a mage, you sit down and you practice for the sole goal of becoming better at this particular spell. Which is great, which is fine. And you've emoted it all out, and thought it through, and felt it through ... but that was ages ago and now it's just plain .. spam.

Perhaps you need a new take on it. :)

I've only played like.... Two magickers. And they probably only lasted about an hour between 'em....

And I didn't have a goal or -anything- for whatever spells I casted.

BUT!

I could easily see there being a way to not get stuck spamming.....

Got a viv? Don't cast "lulzmakewater" until you get thirsty.

Got a krathi? Don't cast "setthatbitchonfire" until you wanna set a bitch on fire.

Just don't use "nil" ever.

Sure.... You'll probably have trouble doing this as a combat 'gicker, but it's definitely doable. Just treat your combat spells like "backstab".

The only way to get 'em up is to use 'em against stuff. x]

Again, I'm just new, so I can only draw on my own experiences so far, which have thankfully been positive. I can see though how the almost insta-death HG raider attack could  be very aggravating, and not fun at all.

Quote from: Scarecrow on August 04, 2010, 04:57:05 AM
Again, I'm just new, so I can only draw on my own experiences so far, which have thankfully been positive. I can see though how the almost insta-death HG raider attack could  be very aggravating, and not fun at all.

Speaking from first-hand experience, it isn't.  It's like getting killed by an NPC, only you know for a fact that it's actually a player who has been entrusted with a decent amount of karma...  You kind of expect more than getting spam-bashed and killed without warning or apparent reason.

Such statements have usually lead to cyclical debates on whether or not such behavior is correct; I'm not saying that it isn't correct, or that it's poor play...  I'm just saying that, from the recipient's point of view, it is both frustrating and disappointing.

To be fair, it has only happened to me once in my entire Armageddon career, and I have seen many well-played half-giants over the years.

In context, I suppose the biggest downer would not really be the fact the HG killed you like that, but actually that your character (who you may really like, and like his connections too) Is all of a sudden dead before you can react. I guess though plenty of things can do that to you in Armageddon, not just a HG raider attack.

Quote from: Dar on August 04, 2010, 12:11:56 AM
Feels absolutely different to me. Perhaps it is simply a matter of fleshing things out. When warriors, merchants, and whomever practice. It is much easier to bring life to their character while they're doing it.

What bothers me about mages is that those first few days of practice, until you get your survivability worked up, are usually a solo business. And, look, I'll follow a reasonable schedule (not cast for two days straight, etc.), and I'll drop some emotes, but I can't bring myself to put a ton of effort into what I'm doing, probably by myself, in a locked room.

Once you can survive in the Outside, you can actually run around and use your spells rather than just "practicing" them.  And obviously that survivable point happens far quicker for a wiggler than the average mundane.  It's just hard to stick through that initial, cheap-feeling grind.

All of us have been students.  When you go to school, are you grinding your Literature skill?  How about your Biology skill?  Magickers are more cerebral characters and require you to think like a scholar and play like a scholar, for it not to feel like cheap grinding.

Quote from: spawnloser on August 04, 2010, 01:28:36 PM
All of us have been students.  When you go to school, are you grinding your Literature skill?  How about your Biology skill?  Magickers are more cerebral characters and require you to think like a scholar and play like a scholar, for it not to feel like cheap grinding.

+1

Emoting while practicing spells gets extremely boring very quick.  I found myself instead using thinks to contemplate the nature of magick and all during such sessions.

Your magickers will be much more satisfying if you play them like the dumb gits most Zalanthans are, but with the ability blast motherfuckers into pieces.  Will you die young? Maybe, but you'll be enjoying every last minute of it.

Quote from: Is Friday on August 03, 2010, 09:25:38 PM
Merchants, hands down. Some people are just plain retarded about IC restrictions that merchants usually have no control over.

Call it IC, call it being a douche OOC, call it whatever you want... it's annoying playing that merchant that is getting black-balled in society because Lord Fancypants wants trousers with golden tregil trim tomorrow, no questions asked.

This.

I've observed the role is also very people dependent and may require tons of OOC time to manage.

Quote from: Synthesis on August 04, 2010, 01:38:49 PM
Your magickers will be much more satisfying if you play them like the dumb gits most Zalanthans are, but with the ability blast motherfuckers into pieces.  Will you die young? Maybe, but you'll be enjoying every last minute of it.

I agree.

And on a point most won't agree with me on, I wish some became assholes -before- they had a few select things maxxed.

Quote from: Armaddict on August 04, 2010, 03:04:53 PM

Quote from: Synthesis on August 04, 2010, 01:38:49 PM
Your magickers will be much more satisfying if you play them like the dumb gits most Zalanthans are, but with the ability blast motherfuckers into pieces.  Will you die young? Maybe, but you'll be enjoying every last minute of it.

I agree.

And on a point most won't agree with me on, I wish some became assholes -before- they had a few select things maxxed.

I agree with you. It's not just magickers though. I've seen warrior pcs do the same  thing. Get along with everyone until I'm codedly powerful enough to fuck shit up and then -suddenly- I'm a total and complete asshole to everyone because: What are they gonna do about it?

I dont see a problem with it. Especially in labyrinth. Even the scariest of bosses used to be someone elses bitch at some point. If you're being an asshole and cant back it up, then you're not very survival oriented are you?

It's different for magickers though. When they're scary not because they're assholes, or because they want to be scary, but simply because they're ... afflicted, different, unnatural. Even then though it can be understandable. While they are weak/young, they're just like mundanes. While when they're permeated with magick, their behavior, mindset, viewpoints change.

It's not at all about an ego thing.


Granted, in 9/10 of my roles, people should be afraid of my characters when they're suddenly extra nice, then other way around.

What I guess I mean is, when they have their pc be an asshole openly for the -sole- reason that OOC they know they are codedly powerful. It irritates me as a player and I think it's poor roleplaying to some degree. Either your pc is an asshole that -thinks- they can mop the floor with others (and may or may not be able to back it up codedly) or they're not.

Quote from: jhunter on August 04, 2010, 03:33:04 PM

Quote from: Armaddict on August 04, 2010, 03:04:53 PM

Quote from: Synthesis on August 04, 2010, 01:38:49 PM
Your magickers will be much more satisfying if you play them like the dumb gits most Zalanthans are, but with the ability blast motherfuckers into pieces.  Will you die young? Maybe, but you'll be enjoying every last minute of it.

I agree.

And on a point most won't agree with me on, I wish some became assholes -before- they had a few select things maxxed.

I agree with you. It's not just magickers though. I've seen warrior pcs do the same  thing. Get along with everyone until I'm codedly powerful enough to fuck shit up and then -suddenly- I'm a total and complete asshole to everyone because: What are they gonna do about it?

My PC did the opposite of that. He was an asshole to everyone as a fresh face. Now he does his best to get along.

Quote from: jhunter on August 04, 2010, 06:00:50 PM
What I guess I mean is, when they have their pc be an asshole openly for the -sole- reason that OOC they know they are codedly powerful. It irritates me as a player and I think it's poor roleplaying to some degree. Either your pc is an asshole that -thinks- they can mop the floor with others (and may or may not be able to back it up codedly) or they're not.

This is why I'm starting to dislike the "see your skill level" code. :<

Quote from: Qzzrbl on August 04, 2010, 06:19:13 PM

Quote from: jhunter on August 04, 2010, 06:00:50 PM
What I guess I mean is, when they have their pc be an asshole openly for the -sole- reason that OOC they know they are codedly powerful. It irritates me as a player and I think it's poor roleplaying to some degree. Either your pc is an asshole that -thinks- they can mop the floor with others (and may or may not be able to back it up codedly) or they're not.

This is why I'm starting to dislike the "see your skill level" code. :<

Bingo!

Quote from: Qzzrbl on August 04, 2010, 06:19:13 PM

Quote from: jhunter on August 04, 2010, 06:00:50 PM
What I guess I mean is, when they have their pc be an asshole openly for the -sole- reason that OOC they know they are codedly powerful. It irritates me as a player and I think it's poor roleplaying to some degree. Either your pc is an asshole that -thinks- they can mop the floor with others (and may or may not be able to back it up codedly) or they're not.

This is why I'm starting to dislike the "see your skill level" code. :<

Like that never happened before  ::)

You dislike the see your skill level code because it makes people act confrontational...?

Wait, didn't people used to complain about not enough confrontation IG?

This isn't CareBearAgeddon.

EDIT: Except Tuluk.

Quote from: MeTekillot on August 04, 2010, 06:26:03 PM
You dislike the see your skill level code because it makes people act confrontational...?

Wait, didn't people used to complain about not enough confrontation IG?

This isn't CareBearAgeddon.

EDIT: Except Tuluk.

Well, no.  I'm not completely pissed about it, and there's no -real- problem showing itself, but I just all around think that it kind of fosters a more twinkish, shallow aggression based on coded knowledge of skill level (which is weird, since IC'ly, there's no such thing as a skill cap or a 'level' where you've just noticeably improved in status) instead of a more indepth part of a character.  Either way, this is a derail, and a meaningless one (Sorry, I shouldn't have done such a lame post earlier.)  If you want to talk more about it, you can PM me, for the sake of the thread?

Quote from: Feco on August 04, 2010, 02:44:40 PM

Quote from: Is Friday on August 03, 2010, 09:25:38 PM
Merchants, hands down. Some people are just plain retarded about IC restrictions that merchants usually have no control over.

Call it IC, call it being a douche OOC, call it whatever you want... it's annoying playing that merchant that is getting black-balled in society because Lord Fancypants wants trousers with golden tregil trim tomorrow, no questions asked.

This.

The role is also very people dependent and requires OOC time to manage.

That could just be me speculating, of course.  ::)

Both times I played GMH merchants my imms were very supportive. But in the end, they had more important concerns than Lord Fancypants' new jockstrap. It takes as long as it takes. And if you're hassling someone about bullshit, just to be a dick, or because you want to portray your imperious and demanding pc as imperious and demanding, you may end up having to start all over when the player behind that merchant thinks, "Wait... how is this fun?"
However if you have a personal grudge against said merchant, that might be another story entirely.

I'm not really trying to tell you how to play Lord Fancypants as he waits for his jockstrap, I'm just pointing out that in this, there's a lot to be said for understanding that they have to sew each bead on by hand, by the light of liruathu when jihae hides in order for the pattern to align just right.

The issue is that people tend to treat merchant PCs as vending machines.  Merchants don't like feeling like this, and their players dislike it more.

I especially love the chars who ICly complain about the high turn-over rate of the pcs that they make a hobby out of abusing.  Gee.  I wonder why these roles keep turning over and are so difficult to fill?  Hmmmmmm ...

Maybe junior nobles should look at GMH merchants something like this: yes, individually, he's a grubby, dusty commoner, not to mention BOR-ing.  But he's also my lone conduit to the awesomest toys in the world, made with amazing Kadian worksmanship.

Oh, Drov, have you seen the new Kadian gowns, darling? In green, with silt pearls?
Oh, I think I'll just die if that tiresome Proko fellow doesn't get mine finished soon.

Maybe less impatient imperiance and more fanboy/fangirlism.  Not for your sales representative, but for what he's getting you.  The world-spanning monopolies make lovely things that you want.

Quote from: spawnloser on August 04, 2010, 07:55:22 PM
The issue is that people tend to treat merchant PCs as vending machines.  Merchants don't like feeling like this, and their players dislike it more.

*swoon*

Especially when those vending machines are only restocked with stock items, and if you want something that doesn't normally drop when you hit the A4 buttons, you have to call that number on the top of the coin slot, long distance, get an IVR, go through 6 levels of menus to get customer service, and then leave a message on their voice mail. And then, they MIGHT consider filling your order, and if you're really lucky, they'll put it in the machine in your building and not the one three states away.

Y'know, it sounds like the Merchant Workflow would benefit from some serious rework...maybe more functions in the Request Tool, maybe something else.  Sounds like it's too much work for both staff and players.

(But I've never played one.)

Lizzie, that was true genius.

Meanwhile, independent merchants suffer from the fact that the vast majority of craftable items are junk that only NPCs will buy. 

Most people won't even buy your special mastercrafted shit that you obsessed over for an entire RL month to create unless it's skull-carved, gem-encrusted, sigil-engraved, fire-hardened, rune-etched and made from a composite of mekillot bones and silt-horror shells.

Quote from: jhunter on August 04, 2010, 03:33:04 PM
I agree with you. It's not just magickers though. I've seen warrior pcs do the same  thing. Get along with everyone until I'm codedly powerful enough to fuck shit up and then -suddenly- I'm a total and complete asshole to everyone because: What are they gonna do about it?

I so agree, although the whole issue is considerably off-topic. 

That being said, I've noticed that the problem is often worse with PCs that join groups, and play really blandly.  They always make the worst leaders.  Their real personalities never come out until they've been promoted.  If anything, I blame the clan leadership -- they tend to promote the blandest PCs.  They really bland ones never lead well.

As a GMH merchant you are almost guaranteed to face heaps of truly ridiculous abuse and unrealistic expectations. However, I found that your perspective can make a big difference in your enjoyment of the role.

You don't owe anyone your time or business. If it's not worth it to you, it's not worth it. You have responsibilities to your House, yes, and to carry them out it might be a good idea to keep VIPs and other would-be customers happy. But keeping people happy isn't your job. Enduring abuse isn't your job. Your job is to make money and advance your House's (and your own) agenda. And even that, you don't need to do well. (Sure you have OOC responsibilities too, but distributing toys to customers isn't really all that important there either.)

Everything is a tradeoff, and sometimes the abuse isn't worth whatever profit might be on the other side of it. You can ignore customers or give them the run-around. Of course, that may come with consequences, but again -- you get to decide what is worth your time and energy. Especially if you're dealing with someone who is your social equal or lesser, you have a lot of freedom to simply not bother doing business with them at all. If they need to deal with you badly enough, they'll make it worth your time. Or, they'll make you pay for ignoring them. So be it. Again, you don't owe anyone your time or business. It's your choice.

Quote from: Synthesis on August 04, 2010, 10:46:40 PM
Most people won't even buy your special mastercrafted shit that you obsessed over for an entire RL month to create unless it's skull-carved, gem-encrusted, sigil-engraved, fire-hardened, rune-etched and made from a composite of mekillot bones and silt-horror shells.

I haven't played a merchant since crafting went in, so I don't have any reference here, but I have a hard time believing this.  I tend to jump at anything unique, and I feel like a lot of other players do, too.  Fuck skulls and gems; I'd go out of my way for something original that matches my character's image.  Something like a "wind-worn leather duster" for my ranger, or "a bone-framed leather shield" for my warrior, or whatever.

Quote from: flurry on August 04, 2010, 11:28:58 PM
As a GMH merchant you are almost guaranteed to face heaps of truly ridiculous abuse and unrealistic expectations. However, I found that your perspective can make a big difference in your enjoyment of the role.

You don't owe anyone your time or business. If it's not worth it to you, it's not worth it. You have responsibilities to your House, yes, and to carry them out it might be a good idea to keep VIPs and other would-be customers happy. But keeping people happy isn't your job. Enduring abuse isn't your job. Your job is to make money and advance your House's (and your own) agenda. And even that, you don't need to do well. (Sure you have OOC responsibilities too, but distributing toys to customers isn't really all that important there either.)

Everything is a tradeoff, and sometimes the abuse isn't worth whatever profit might be on the other side of it. You can ignore customers or give them the run-around. Of course, that may come with consequences, but again -- you get to decide what is worth your time and energy. Especially if you're dealing with someone who is your social equal or lesser, you have a lot of freedom to simply not bother doing business with them at all. If they need to deal with you badly enough, they'll make it worth your time. Or, they'll make you pay for ignoring them. So be it. Again, you don't owe anyone your time or business. It's your choice.

*swoon*

Everyone likes the same scimitar, the same axe, the same breastplate, etc. etc.  Because they know they work.

To make things interesting, a merchant with access to tons of items needs to try and sell things people don't normally buy.  People flip their shit when the see an uncommon club.  I think the problem is selling is fun at first, gets mundane eventually, and probably a bit boring after you give a super-wicked sales pitch for item #3345.  By that point, they probably have so much money they can ignore people, then people start bitching, then the merchant retires -- the cycle continues.

Otherwise it's a very in-depth/interesting role with lots of room for SEKRET PLOTZ and the like.  The problem is, unlike grebbers, when the character stops doing the grind, it affects other people.

I don't think this is something that can be fixed, it just takes a special person with a special personality to play the role.  If you play a merchant, and find you don't really like it, just store.  Save yourself the headache.

It's a niche role, most definitely.

I had many, many good times with my merchant PC.  Yes, it was a very tough role, but in some regards it was also very rewarding.  It was a great introduction into leadership and politics.  I did eventually burn out, but I wouldn't trade the months of fun I had.

Quote from: Feco on August 05, 2010, 10:12:37 AM
Everyone likes the same scimitar, the same axe, the same breastplate, etc. etc.  Because they know they work.

To make things interesting, a merchant with access to tons of items needs to try and sell things people don't normally buy.  People flip their shit when the see an uncommon club.  I think the problem is selling is fun at first, gets mundane eventually, and probably a bit boring after you give a super-wicked sales pitch for item #3345.  By that point, they probably have so much money they can ignore people, then people start bitching, then the merchant retires -- the cycle continues.

Otherwise it's a very in-depth/interesting role with lots of room for SEKRET PLOTZ and the like.  The problem is, unlike grebbers, when the character stops doing the grind, it affects other people.

I don't think this is something that can be fixed, it just takes a special person with a special personality to play the role.  If you play a merchant, and find you don't really like it, just store.  Save yourself the headache.

It's a niche role, most definitely.

The one thing I think that I see as a downfall all around is yes there are several NEAT and very Interesting items in the game already, that are just sitting there now, and since probably most of the playerbase has not played the game ten plus years, they are unaware they exist. Perhaps the GMH start revitalizing these items make them craftable so that gives the merchants something to aspire for as well, and have the items ON HAND so they can see them or simply a database available ONLY to merchants listing items and materials and have it be "another merchant" telling and teaching them how to make these items.

The one biggest thing I hate is yes, that everyone has the same armor and same weapons depending on slight variances, by giving the merchants more ability to research and make the items easier it will no doubt a) decrease wait times for orders, b) Let merchants mess around and make items rarely seen and make houses a shit ton of sids c) If the item in question isn't craftable, have them post it in the guild forums of the GMH for other players to design or the merchant themselves and submit the recipe vie request tool to get it put in.

There are probably thousands upon thousands of items out there no one has seen or heard that would be neat as hell to play with and past and current Players/Staff spent time on making that are no longer part of the game because no one knows they exist.

Maybe the whole concept of "ordering" things from PC GMH merchants should be abolished.

They should be given an inventory of items (made by vNPC crafters), but they have no control over it.  No more asking the staff to load a particular item (or worse: search the database for something that matches the customer's vague desires).  This inventory would change over time either randomly or by staff manipulation.

Anything special outside that inventory must be crafted by PCs (master or otherwise).

I think this might really turn GMH merchants into real merchants rather than just customer service reps.  (That is, their job becomes "selling" rather than "taking orders".)

Quote from: Marauder Moe on August 05, 2010, 01:53:09 PM
Maybe the whole concept of "ordering" things from PC GMH merchants should be abolished.

I like the ability of introducing new items into the game, thats why we play to make things that affect the world around us. But when a merchants sole job is to create and make for others it turns into a full time job. I know I am guilty of this sending merchants/agents/players into a frenzy with a vague desc of what I want, and thats it, and looking back I feel so bad.

Perhaps introduce an NPC/broker that can create new items for players. Where players can pay one thousand sids or whatever, and have the item created from the "normal" items, that most of the world has access to. put a timer where the players account can not get anything made for a IG year, notice I said account not just the Character.

Have it similar to the character application tool when creating the desc's materials time and from that have the imms approve/make it, and when its ready, have a "runner" distribute it ONLY when they are inside the city. Like a pizza delivery guy. Example below

Broker list:
a) Armor
b) Clothing
c) Weapons
d) Food/misc items

What would you like?
(Player presses A)

Broker says "Ahh some armor, well we can certainly accommodate that, what did you have in mind"

a) Material
b) Wear Location
c) Sdesc
d) Mdesc
e) Special Qualities
x) done
Broker says "Where would you like to start?"

(Player Presses e)

Broker says "Ahh something special, I do like that, it may cost a bit more and take a bit more time but I think we can work something out"

This is where the Board would pop up, or writing utensil where you can notate special qualities or set it a certain house only or something along that lines. Stuff the staff can read and work on if applicable.

(player presses x)

Broker says "Well this item will take 65 days to make, and will cost you 1400 obsidian, we request you pay for it in advance too, is that alright?"
(Have the obsidian taken from the bank or the PC's inventory at time of acceptance"

a) Yes, create this item
b) No do not create
c) Save the item - Ill be back to pay

(player presses c) Player returns four RL days later, and pays for it to get created.

What do you all think, alot of coding for sure. But the ability to have items made without bogging down merchants would be greatly appreciated so they can go around selling stuff.

I'm not suggesting we do away with the master crafting system, where players already can add new items to the game (but at a very slow rate).

I'm suggesting that PC GMH merchants be given an inventory, and if a PC wants something beyond that inventory, either it must be crafted by a PC or they are simply told "No, I don't have anything like that."

Maybe if the customer is a very important person, like a senior noble, or if they can provide a significant bribe/fee in addition to the item cost, then the PC merchant can place a special order with the clan staff.  Junior nobility, blue robes (and northern equivalents), and lower have to just settle for something else, though.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on August 05, 2010, 01:53:09 PM
Maybe the whole concept of "ordering" things from PC GMH merchants should be abolished.

They should be given an inventory of items (made by vNPC crafters), but they have no control over it.  No more asking the staff to load a particular item (or worse: search the database for something that matches the customer's vague desires).  This inventory would change over time either randomly or by staff manipulation.

Anything special outside that inventory must be crafted by PCs (master or otherwise).

I think this might really turn GMH merchants into real merchants rather than just customer service reps.  (That is, their job becomes "selling" rather than "taking orders".)

This idea is controvertial.  But not bad, really.  I think it could help things. 

Quote from: jriley on August 05, 2010, 02:59:30 PM

Quote from: Marauder Moe on August 05, 2010, 01:53:09 PM
Maybe the whole concept of "ordering" things from PC GMH merchants should be abolished.

They should be given an inventory of items (made by vNPC crafters), but they have no control over it.  No more asking the staff to load a particular item (or worse: search the database for something that matches the customer's vague desires).  This inventory would change over time either randomly or by staff manipulation.

Anything special outside that inventory must be crafted by PCs (master or otherwise).

I think this might really turn GMH merchants into real merchants rather than just customer service reps.  (That is, their job becomes "selling" rather than "taking orders".)

This idea is controvertial.  But not bad, really.  I think it could help things. 

Not very viable when you consider how many contracts they have to be the sole maker of a clan's equipment.

Clan equipment would be a different matter.  (Though I'd think that such things would be handled higher up than your average PC administrator, and they ought to be loaded by the clan's staff rather than having to be purchased/sold by PCs.)


The problem, as people are pointing out, is that "orders" are slow, time-consuming, and boring.  There's maybe some room to negotiate on the price, but there's no salesmanship involved.  No challenge, just work.

Now, if you're given a set number of items and told that your livelihood (at least partly) depends on getting them sold, that seems like an interesting and fun challenge to me.

Quote(Though I'd think that such things would be handled higher up than your average PC administrator, and they ought to be loaded by the clan's staff rather than having to be purchased/sold by PCs.)

That's how it used to be, I believe.  It was changed.  Likely to foster more IC politics, give more jobs to do, and to encourage monitoring of spending involved.

I may be wrong on that, though.

I enjoy playing independent merchants, personally.  I see it as playing Armageddon on 'hard' mode; when your only coded power comes from the skills to make coin, you start to find creative ways of using it to get things done (usually involving other people).  Merchants can be good plot starters in the independent community, if you don't mind putting forth some effort.  In fact, just posting this makes me want to play another indie merchant...

I've never played a clanned merchant, but I can definitely see how it could be taxing.

I've played a GMH merchanty role before where the imm who was running the clan came up with a master-list of the items that were available. (Minus the super rare ones.) Along with prices and stuff like that. It was incredibly useful. I wish all merchanty roles had that.

That's why I loved Akai Sjir. 90% of all of their goods that they sold involved sales. Trust me, coming to a tavern and pushing your goods is so much more gratifying then having a guy come to you and order the same old sword or same old desert gear.

Quote from: Feco on August 05, 2010, 10:12:37 AMTo make things interesting, a merchant with access to tons of items needs to try and sell things people don't normally buy.

This is the problem with the current system of not allowing the players of merchant PCs to view the databases of available items. When I played a Salarri merchant back in 2007-2008, I had a pretty miniscule list of known items and so I had to request the same suits of armour over and over. Which sucked. If the players don't know the sdesc of an item beforehand, it's hard to get it loaded into the game.

People would come to me and say, "Hey, I want a suit of armour that's not too heavy and preferably made of leather!" and that would automatically narrow their potential selection down to a grand total of two. Congrats, you can have the black stuff or the brown stuff that every PC with < exceptional strength has.

One of the things I'm most excited about for Arm 2 is the potential of having everything be craftable by the PCs doing the selling.

Quote from: Fathi on August 11, 2010, 03:03:49 AMOne of the things I'm most excited about for Arm 2 is the potential of having everything be craftable by the PCs doing the selling.

Arm 2, what's that?

This is a derail, but I had an idea..

What if all of the items in the game DIDN'T HAVE STAT MODIFIERS?!
Then people would stop whining about the "game" aspect of Armageddon and we'd get none of that nonsense of a million Amoses all equipping the same crap because it's +5 STR.
Then, for once, we'd all focus on the intrinsic value of the item, how it looks, what it symbolizes, NOT THE DAMN +7 AGI.

Solely my opinion of course. I see Armageddon as an interactive novel.. not so much a game.

Quote from: nihilist on August 11, 2010, 05:04:01 AM
This is a derail, but I had an idea..

What if all of the items in the game DIDN'T HAVE STAT MODIFIERS?!
Then people would stop whining about the "game" aspect of Armageddon and we'd get none of that nonsense of a million Amoses all equipping the same crap because it's +5 STR.
Then, for once, we'd all focus on the intrinsic value of the item, how it looks, what it symbolizes, NOT THE DAMN +7 AGI.

Solely my opinion of course. I see Armageddon as an interactive novel.. not so much a game.

RTW thread. This should be in it.

Quote from: nihilist on August 11, 2010, 05:04:01 AM
This is a derail, but I had an idea..

What if all of the items in the game DIDN'T HAVE STAT MODIFIERS?!
Then people would stop whining about the "game" aspect of Armageddon and we'd get none of that nonsense of a million Amoses all equipping the same crap because it's +5 STR.
Then, for once, we'd all focus on the intrinsic value of the item, how it looks, what it symbolizes, NOT THE DAMN +7 AGI.

Solely my opinion of course. I see Armageddon as an interactive novel.. not so much a game.

But... items generally don't have +stats. If you're implying armor and damage values, it would be pretty dumb if there was no difference between reinforced sandcloth and silt-horror plate, or a chipped dagger and a battle-axe.

Quote from: nihilist on August 11, 2010, 05:04:01 AM
This is a derail, but I had an idea..

What if all of the items in the game DIDN'T HAVE STAT MODIFIERS?!
Then people would stop whining about the "game" aspect of Armageddon and we'd get none of that nonsense of a million Amoses all equipping the same crap because it's +5 STR.
Then, for once, we'd all focus on the intrinsic value of the item, how it looks, what it symbolizes, NOT THE DAMN +7 AGI.

Solely my opinion of course. I see Armageddon as an interactive novel.. not so much a game.

This is actually progressive.  The irony is that most of us here at the GDB will post five paragraph rants about how badly we hate twinks and how dangerous they are to the game, but then all these same people will be seen in game wandering around with the same mega-bonus equipment practicing their combat skills for hours upon end. 

It's kind of schizophrenic.  The people who hate twinks the most and who scream the loudest about it, are ironically the worst twinks.  They really really hate to be beaten at their own game.

Yeah, your idea is good.  The way to cut twinking is to simplify combat, travel and commerce as much as possible until there's no perceived value in wielding a bone sword over an obsidian sword.

*waves a Jedi hand* You don't need to know about object stats.

Also, let's stay on topic? Thanks.

The role I have the most trouble with is being an real evil guy. I , the player, just have so much empathy (or that's how I see it) for the poor and downtrodden that I really can't get into taking advantage of them. I would be the worst templar ever seen.

I don't really have any trouble being an evil asshat in-game, but then I read GDB threads a month or two later and feel really bad.

Quote from: HavokBlue on August 22, 2010, 02:47:20 AM
I don't really have any trouble being an evil asshat in-game, but then I read GDB threads a month or two later and feel really bad.

If you aren't reading posts THAT DAY on the GDB, you aren't being evil enough.

Quote from: KankWhisperer on August 22, 2010, 02:38:02 AM
The role I have the most trouble with is being an real evil guy. I , the player, just have so much empathy (or that's how I see it) for the poor and downtrodden that I really can't get into taking advantage of them. I would be the worst templar ever seen.

I've played a range of evil, extremely powerful characters...And I have to say, it became an entirely different game for me. I actually, as the player and character, believed I was doing what was BEST for people most of the time. It only happened after the death of said characters that I realized how truly evil they were almost empirically.

Basically, I mean to say, if you are playing a character that you think is really evil, you're doing it wrong. If you're playing a character that OTHER people think is super twisted and evil, and you don't know what they're talking about, you're doing it right.

My advice is twofold. First, don't conflate being evil with just being an asshole. Many PC templars fall prey to this one, and are just inconsequential jerks until they retire. Be careful.

Second, figure out how you're evil–like, in what way? What makes your PC so bad? Is he greedy? Selfish? Callous? Spiteful? Malevolent? Pick a few scoops of specific flavours before you make your Villain Sundae.

The best type of evil: Ends justify the means.

Full license to be a monster... you know, for their own good.

Quote from: Anaiah on August 23, 2010, 07:27:50 PM
The best type of evil: Ends justify the means.

Full license to be a monster... you know, for their own good.

when you actually are a monster it becomes a little too black and white.

Remembering back, I think some of my hardest roles were magickers that hated the fact that they were magickers, because without the aid of some cheesy "if I don't cast I'll go out of control" plot device (which I avoid like the plague), my characters never had a motivation to use magick; they just did their best to ignore it.  Seeing as they sucked at just about everything else, it kind of limited my play options and led to speedy deaths.

I've mostly avoided roles like that these days, but I'm curious...  How do YOU handle situations like these?

Quote from: Aaron Goulet on August 23, 2010, 10:20:14 PM
Remembering back, I think some of my hardest roles were magickers that hated the fact that they were magickers, because without the aid of some cheesy "if I don't cast I'll go out of control" plot device (which I avoid like the plague), my characters never had a motivation to use magick; they just did their best to ignore it.  Seeing as they sucked at just about everything else, it kind of limited my play options and led to speedy deaths.

I've mostly avoided roles like that these days, but I'm curious...  How do YOU handle situations like these?

Just use magick as often as possible, realistically.

Just like with any other skill, for any other character.

A ranger out in the wilds gets hungry.... What do? Forage food.

A vivaduan gets thirsty.... What do? Make water.

There's a situation for just about every spell. :3

The problem is in the form of reluctant magickers, Qzzrbl.  What if the vivaduan had ready access to water that wasn't magicked up?  Why make more when the character doesn't want anything to do with their own magicks?  They'd take any option besides using magick.

This is a role I haven't bothered with because I dislike hamstringing my characters in such an obvious/drastic fashion.  I can see how people would find it difficult.  I would find such difficult as well.

Quote from: spawnloser on August 23, 2010, 10:45:55 PM
The problem is in the form of reluctant magickers, Qzzrbl.  What if the vivaduan had ready access to water that wasn't magicked up?  Why make more when the character doesn't want anything to do with their own magicks?  They'd take any option besides using magick.

This is a role I haven't bothered with because I dislike hamstringing my characters in such an obvious/drastic fashion.  I can see how people would find it difficult.  I would find such difficult as well.

The higher up the food chain in karma Magickers go, the harder it becomes to truly justify using your magick in a practical sense. I tend to find thinking and developing a background before jumping IG (Something I really try to avoid with mundane characters) helps alleviate the stress of figuring out how your 'gicker even casts, and why.

Bah, rolling a magicker and then declining to use magick is blatant karma fishing.

Quote from: Synthesis on August 23, 2010, 10:50:54 PM
Bah, rolling a magicker and then declining to use magick is blatant karma fishing.

Hah, agreed. Why the hell would you play a Nilazi and not nom nom  nom nom mmmm nomz

Quote from: Synthesis on August 23, 2010, 10:50:54 PM
Bah, rolling a magicker and then declining to use magick is blatant karma fishing.

Blatant trolling?  I would've loved to use magick, and I THOUGHT I'd find an IC reason to do so in most cases, but once in game, I realized that, with the amount of shame and guilt my PCs felt about it, any excuse felt cheap and forced.

Besides, I have no reason to fish for karma.  ;)

Edited to add:  It's worth noting that I had one PC that successfully transitioned from magicker hater to magicker, but the circumstances that allowed it to occur naturally don't tend to happen unless the stars align in JUST the right way.  Maybe I'll tell the tale once a year has passed.

Quote from: spawnloser on August 23, 2010, 10:45:55 PM
The problem is in the form of reluctant magickers, Qzzrbl. 

Oh....

Yeah, I dunno about that then. x-X

Quote from: Aaron Goulet on August 23, 2010, 10:20:14 PM
Remembering back, I think some of my hardest roles were magickers that hated the fact that they were magickers, because without the aid of some cheesy "if I don't cast I'll go out of control" plot device (which I avoid like the plague), my characters never had a motivation to use magick; they just did their best to ignore it.  Seeing as they sucked at just about everything else, it kind of limited my play options and led to speedy deaths.

I've mostly avoided roles like that these days, but I'm curious...  How do YOU handle situations like these?

This sort of situation is less difficult to work through than you'd expect.

Here's your situation:  you enjoy playing reluctant magickers, but tend to go a little too far with it and then neglect to actually do magic. 

Here's the solution:  What you need is a MacGuffin.  Maybe say your character hates magic...but has somehow become convinced that by researching magic, they will someday find a way to cure their sick aunt of the plague.  You can have your character practice magic for an hour or two, and then you're more than welcome to play them as they stumble into a bar somewhere and drink themselves into a stupor, wallowing in their sense of self-loathing.

Since this appears to be what you want?

Quote from: Anaiah on August 23, 2010, 07:27:50 PM
The best type of evil: Ends justify the means.

Full license to be a monster... you know, for their own good.

I think that you're onto something.  And I think it's in the right direction.

But I think that there's a little more to it than that.  I mulled the idea over for a bit, and then realized that I'd need some basis for analysis.  To start with, I made my own private* list of the world's worst villains.  These are the people that I believe have done the most harm to the world, of their hand, premeditated and on purpose.

Here they are in descending order:

1) Joseph Stalin
2) Adolph H.
3) Pol Pot

To be a villain, you really need to be fairly organized.  Psychopaths may be violent, but then again George Washington was violent, yet he serves as a hero to many people.  I'd say a villain needs to avoid being petty.  Dennis Rader may have offed about a dozen people, but even one hundred Dennis Raders wouldn't scratch the surface of what Pot 'achieved.'  And even Rader was pretty organized compared to an amateur like Billy the Kid**.

So organized is a good start.  Next I'd say somewhat of a megalomaniac.  This seems pretty central to me.  Someone who had a good perspective on their own place in the cosmos would, I suspect, be much more likely to engage in zen meditation than put in the tons and tons of effort into kicking off a massive and violent political purge.  To this I'll add a moderate dissociation from reality, which on the surface wouldn't appear to help at all but may be a necessary ingredient.

The third really central component that seems to link all three of these dudes is a willingness to go balls to the wall.  Both Adolph and Pot failed numerous, numerous times at many of life's endeavors, but they didn't really seem to let this slow them down.  Each time they'd get a good kick to their nuts, they'd fall down, cough, roll around for a bit, but then get right back up and charge into yet another hair-brained scheme.  No doubt a lot of potential villains end up dead or in prison before they have any real chance to unleash a megaton of human misery onto their fellow men.

Oh yeah, and they were cunning and all really paranoid.




*I realize that people are bound to disagree with this list, either in particular details or on principle.  Even if you do, though, I think that my point will remain in tact.
**I'd rather live on the same block as a villain than the same block as a thug, but I'd much rather live in the same city as ten thugs than live on the same planet with even one villain.

(http://jamiemalanowski.com/blogwp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/javierbardem-no-country-for-old-men.jpg)

Crazy Man ^

(http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/9828/evil480x270.jpg)

Quote from: jriley on August 24, 2010, 12:33:31 AM

Quote from: Anaiah on August 23, 2010, 07:27:50 PM
The best type of evil: Ends justify the means.

Full license to be a monster... you know, for their own good.

I think that you're onto something.  And I think it's in the right direction.

But I think that there's a little more to it than that.  I mulled the idea over for a bit, and then realized that I'd need some basis for analysis.  To start with, I made my own private* list of the world's worst villains.  These are the people that I believe have done the most harm to the world, of their hand, premeditated and on purpose.

Here they are in descending order:

1) Joseph Stalin
2) Adolph H.
3) Pol Pot

To be a villain, you really need to be fairly organized.  Psychopaths may be violent, but then again George Washington was violent, yet he serves as a hero to many people.  I'd say a villain needs to avoid being petty.  Dennis Rader may have offed about a dozen people, but even one hundred Dennis Raders wouldn't scratch the surface of what Pot 'achieved.'  And even Rader was pretty organized compared to an amateur like Billy the Kid**.

So organized is a good start.  Next I'd say somewhat of a megalomaniac.  This seems pretty central to me.  Someone who had a good perspective on their own place in the cosmos would, I suspect, be much more likely to engage in zen meditation than put in the tons and tons of effort into kicking off a massive and violent political purge.  To this I'll add a moderate dissociation from reality, which on the surface wouldn't appear to help at all but may be a necessary ingredient.

The third really central component that seems to link all three of these dudes is a willingness to go balls to the wall.  Both Adolph and Pot failed numerous, numerous times at many of life's endeavors, but they didn't really seem to let this slow them down.  Each time they'd get a good kick to their nuts, they'd fall down, cough, roll around for a bit, but then get right back up and charge into yet another hair-brained scheme.  No doubt a lot of potential villains end up dead or in prison before they have any real chance to unleash a megaton of human misery onto their fellow men.

Oh yeah, and they were cunning and all really paranoid.




*I realize that people are bound to disagree with this list, either in particular details or on principle.  Even if you do, though, I think that my point will remain in tact.
**I'd rather live on the same block as a villain than the same block as a thug, but I'd much rather live in the same city as ten thugs than live on the same planet with even one villain.

I think that you're totally onto something.  I never though to analyze Stalin and Hitler, but I've noticed that my most successful "villains" weren't evil; just self-absorbed, silver-tongued, and didn't mind ruining someone's day/week/month/life for what they considered "the greater good".  Of course, they never reached a level of infamy that got them noticed, so their success is arguable.

Quote from: Spoon on August 24, 2010, 06:35:57 AM
(http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/9828/evil480x270.jpg)

Way to pull a favorite out of left field, Spoon!

(http://mimg.ugo.com/201001/35027/timebandits.bmp)

Reluctant magickers: make it a matter of survival for your character.  It's a rough world and apparently most of it believes you eat babies for lunch.

If you're a gemmer, you see constant angry mobs that seem to be barely held back by the militia, and have a feeling that the soldiers don't really care, they just have orders.  If things boil over into a riot, do you really think your pleas that you don't actually practice magick will save you?  Probably not.  However, being able to bust out a storm of fire might.

If you're a gemmer who grebs for a living, you've got the aforementioned angry mob problem plus that of desert beasties, raiders, and possibly worse to worry about.

If you're a gemmer with a job, well, it's unlikely you were hired for your looks or personality.  You were probably hired to do magickal shit, and if you like getting paid, you ought to be improving.

If you're not gemmed, secrecy is obviously your best defense, but what if that fails?  Again, your cries for mercy will not be heard.  Your only option at that time will be to fight or run in the most effective way you can.


So, you don't have to like magick, but what other choice do you really have but to learn how to use it?

Quote from: Marauder Moe on August 24, 2010, 10:37:38 AM
Reluctant magickers: make it a matter of survival for your character.  It's a rough world and apparently most of it believes you eat babies for lunch.

If you're a gemmer, you see constant angry mobs that seem to be barely held back by the militia, and have a feeling that the soldiers don't really care, they just have orders.  If things boil over into a riot, do you really think your pleas that you don't actually practice magick will save you?  Probably not.  However, being able to bust out a storm of fire might.

If you're a gemmer who grebs for a living, you've got the aforementioned angry mob problem plus that of desert beasties, raiders, and possibly worse to worry about.

If you're a gemmer with a job, well, it's unlikely you were hired for your looks or personality.  You were probably hired to do magickal shit, and if you like getting paid, you ought to be improving.

If you're not gemmed, secrecy is obviously your best defense, but what if that fails?  Again, your cries for mercy will not be heard.  Your only option at that time will be to fight or run in the most effective way you can.


So, you don't have to like magick, but what other choice do you really have but to learn how to use it?

To not use it?

Quote from: http://www.armageddon.org/rp/magick/magickculture.html
A Whiran may have no greater aspiration than to get drunk as often as possible, and only keeps up attendance at his temple because it gives him a community to rely on when times are hard. There are slackers, moochers, and freeloaders in every society, even one made up of elementalists, and they rarely stick around when times get hard.

Being thrown out of your home with the clothes on your back to live with a horde of strangers who terrify you every time they open their mouths, who have some incomprehensible drive the deepen this sickness that has set them apart from the rest of society would probably make me drink. A lot.

If you think personally you'd employ your magick to defend yourselves from people you thought were in the right, or use it to leave the city (why would you ever leave the city, are you insane?), that's one interpretation of being a 'gicker. Are you really complaining because not everyone reaches the same conclusion, that not everyone roleplays the same identical train of thought?

Protip: If you don't think you want to be playing a reluctant magicker that hates themselves and never casts magick ever....

You ready for this?

Don't play one.

O:

Quote from: Thorg on August 24, 2010, 11:57:48 AMIf you think personally you'd employ your magick to defend yourselves from people you thought were in the right, or use it to leave the city (why would you ever leave the city, are you insane?), that's one interpretation of being a 'gicker. Are you really complaining because not everyone reaches the same conclusion, that not everyone roleplays the same identical train of thought?

Pay attention to discussion context, please.

People were saying they had trouble finding reasons for self-loathing magickers to use their magick.  I was offering a potential character motivation to solve that dilemma.

Thanks, Marauder Moe.  That's what I was getting at.

And thanks to everyone who put forth relevant suggestions; you've given me a few ideas to work with!

Quote from: Marauder Moe on August 24, 2010, 12:30:39 PM

Quote from: Thorg on August 24, 2010, 11:57:48 AMIf you think personally you'd employ your magick to defend yourselves from people you thought were in the right, or use it to leave the city (why would you ever leave the city, are you insane?), that's one interpretation of being a 'gicker. Are you really complaining because not everyone reaches the same conclusion, that not everyone roleplays the same identical train of thought?

Pay attention to discussion context, please.

People were saying they had trouble finding reasons for self-loathing magickers to use their magick.  I was offering a potential character motivation to solve that dilemma.

Apologies, I just saw the response without a quote and assumed you were stating that people had difficulty with these roles! I know I've enjoyed playing 'gickers "from scratch" in the past and, despite what people might call 'karma fishing' by purposely hamstringing myself (and if you can prove to the staff you can handle a self-inflicted difficult role, don't you deserve a little karma?) it was fun to find a tutor and build my own 'cosmology' about how their taint worked!

To contribute: Minion roles. It's not easy (or a lot of the time, desirable) to be the jack-booted thug, the obedient thrall, etc. but by developing a devotion to your "boss" at the expense of scheming and plotting you can really help them achieve some cool things. Even if it's just having a red-shirt to throw at the gaj.

I don't find minion roles to be that hard. I'm sort of playing one at the moment, really.

Quote from: Bilanthri on August 24, 2010, 10:30:35 AM

Quote from: Spoon on August 24, 2010, 06:35:57 AM
(http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/9828/evil480x270.jpg)

Way to pull a favorite out of left field, Spoon!

(http://mimg.ugo.com/201001/35027/timebandits.bmp)

Yeah, I totally have difficulty in playing Sean Connery too.

I love being a minion.

Quote from: jriley on August 24, 2010, 12:33:31 AM
1) Joseph Stalin
2) Adolph H.
3) Pol Pot

Villains like these can only be villains because millions and millions and millions of people agreed with them.  These "villains" were individual people, yes, but the reason you know their names is because they were merely the apex of millions of people who agreed with their leaders and followed the moral code of "the end justifies the means" and "me first."

The true villains were the ones who enabled your list above.  Every person who let their life-long neighbors and acquaintances die, every person who simply turned their backs, every person who channeled their impotent rage as they shouted in throngs about their "nation" or "class" - each was no more less or less a villain than your big three.  Each one, when push came to shove, ultimately thought "me first."   

When one Polish town heard that the Nazis were coming as the Russians pulled back, the locals took all their Jewish neighbors and friends and killed them and had them ready on display for the Nazis.  This was before the implementation of the final solution.  But the locals knew that the Nazis hated the Jews and this was a way to prove that they weren't aligned with the Russians and to save their own necks.  "Me first."  After a decade or so of Soviet-satellite Communism in Prague, everyone knew what a sham the entire project was.  But they also knew that those who spoke up either vanished or were put into show trials followed by executions.  It was known that by turning in one person, you could hopefully prove your own loyalty and save your own neck for just a little longer.  "Me first."  This isn't to cast blame, per se, on these people, because I'm fully convinced of the fact that most people I know, if faced with a similar situation, would also think, "Me first."  Even though I like to imagine otherwise, I know I'd probably do the same.  Ask me to pick between my family or YOUR family and I know what I'll pick every time.

You don't get a villain by having one person act according to "me first" and "the end justifies the means."  You get a villain by having EVERYONE act that way.  And in Zalanthas, just about everyone does.  Oh, and look ... the Highlord and the Sun King.  Yes, they are powerful because of a power within them that none of your real life examples had.  Yet ... without the entire population of Zalanthas saying, "Me first," their kingdoms would be empty, pointless wastelands.  Luckily, there's no shortage of Zalanthans willing and eager to support that "moral" code.

Quote from: Aaron Goulet on August 23, 2010, 10:20:14 PM
Remembering back, I think some of my hardest roles were magickers that hated the fact that they were magickers, because without the aid of some cheesy "if I don't cast I'll go out of control" plot device (which I avoid like the plague), my characters never had a motivation to use magick; they just did their best to ignore it.  Seeing as they sucked at just about everything else, it kind of limited my play options and led to speedy deaths.

I've mostly avoided roles like that these days, but I'm curious...  How do YOU handle situations like these?

I'll play it as...

"If I don't cast I'll go out of control"

Or, really I just play it like there is some sort of compulsion to commune with their element. I don't really think it's cheesy. It's even supported by the dox.

Personally I don't like the "I'll go out of control" device either because it's not supported by the code.  (Also, it sort of implies that your power is so great and awesome that it takes a great deal of willpower to keep from exploding or something... which is also not supported by the code.)

I'm not saying it's wrong to play that way, I just think it's a problematic approach.


I do, however, like (and have used) the idea that there is some milder base compulsion for mages to spend their mana.

It differs based on the character but often it is a case of "I can do this and if I do this I'll survive," or "If I do this I'll have power and influence people."  Basically it comes down to a need equation.  It is not necessary to have some odd plot device.  It doesn't have to be sinister or complex.  I want to drink water, I cast, look - free water."  The inner struggle with loathing of self (or elitism) is what makes these characters great. :)

Quote from: DustMight on August 25, 2010, 10:12:53 AM
It differs based on the character but often it is a case of "I can do this and if I do this I'll survive," or "If I do this I'll have power and influence people."  Basically it comes down to a need equation.  It is not necessary to have some odd plot device.  It doesn't have to be sinister or complex.  I want to drink water, I cast, look - free water."  The inner struggle with loathing of self (or elitism) is what makes these characters great. :)

My only reservation about this is that, if a person truly believes that their power is something utterly horrid and unwanted, they'd probably sooner go buy water.  If they are thirsty and cannot afford water, that'd be an exception  Also, as someone else had mentioned, higher-karma classes have less survival-based spells, at least at first.

How would things change if you junked all your starting sid, and began in crisis mode?

Quote from: 3kanks on August 25, 2010, 04:48:56 PM
How would things change if you junked all your starting sid, and began in crisis mode?

Well for one thing, you can't junk your starting sid, you can just give it away.  Unless that's been changed, in which case I'm wrong.  Either way it's not a problem.  Find a templar, make a heavy donation.

Crisis mode almost makes things easier, because you don't have to worry about keeping that 300 coins for the Byn or whatever.  You just realize that you are desperate, you are out of food and water, and you are about to die at any goddamn moment, so you can just move forward like the motherfucking samurai you are.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on August 25, 2010, 09:35:45 AM

I do, however, like (and have used) the idea that there is some milder base compulsion for mages to spend their mana.

This is what usually ends up happening. I'll admit that what you were describing above is pretty cheesy.

Quote from: Malifaxis on August 25, 2010, 05:11:41 PM

Quote from: 3kanks on August 25, 2010, 04:48:56 PM
How would things change if you junked all your starting sid, and began in crisis mode?

Well for one thing, you can't junk your starting sid, you can just give it away.  Unless that's been changed, in which case I'm wrong.  Either way it's not a problem.  Find a templar, make a heavy donation.

Crisis mode almost makes things easier, because you don't have to worry about keeping that 300 coins for the Byn or whatever.  You just realize that you are desperate, you are out of food and water, and you are about to die at any goddamn moment, so you can just move forward like the motherfucking samurai you are.

Sig'd.

In the south, I've had the character get gemmed because...society expects that.  And once you are gemmed, southern society expects you in the quarter.  In the temple.  Doing magicky stuff.  Don't forget the social pressure (in the south) isn't just that you are hated, shunned and feared.  Social pressure has a place and a role (whatever nebulous role a gemmer takes on in the mind of a commoner) for a magicker.  Figuring out you can do magick in the south, there should be a bit of internal socialization to move into that nebulous role.  So, self loathing vs socialization.

As for the words themselves, easy enough to learn IG if you want to.

Another thought is that some reluctant 'gickers could get the idea that casting will "get it out of their system".

Or! One could uncontrollably cast by accident.... Or have something horrible happen, as detailed in Zoltan's log of this event.... Which made me lol.

http://www.armageddon.org/original/showSubmission.php?submission=420

Quote from: Twilight on August 25, 2010, 07:59:51 PM
In the south, I've had the character get gemmed because...society expects that.  And once you are gemmed, southern society expects you in the quarter.  In the temple.  Doing magicky stuff.  Don't forget the social pressure (in the south) isn't just that you are hated, shunned and feared.  Social pressure has a place and a role (whatever nebulous role a gemmer takes on in the mind of a commoner) for a magicker.  Figuring out you can do magick in the south, there should be a bit of internal socialization to move into that nebulous role.  So, self loathing vs socialization.

As for the words themselves, easy enough to learn IG if you want to.

Getting gemmed is a good way to go about it.  When characters get gemmed, they are essentially being forced into a different sector of society, one that will probably (over time) foster a certain degree of acceptance of their elementalism.  Northern magickers/Nilazis don't get this choice, however, and not everyone wants to play a gemmed PC (it can be fun though).

I've always liked to use emotion as a motivation for my characters, so I've kicked around a couple of ideas:

• Make a character who feels, at times, utterly powerless.  You can use this to build conflict between feelings of shame and the desire to overcome that powerlessness.  Already, you've made yourself a personal plot, playing out this conflict until one side wins out.  Making the character weak-willed or indecisive will help.
  
  
• Give your characters a non-magickal addiction that they can feed using their elementalism.  A good example might be a Vivaduan who's a drunkard, a Whiran/Drovian who's a voyeur, or a Rukkian who's a glutton.  While characters like these may feel guilty about using their magicks, their addiction is enough to push them to do so on a regular basis.

Survival situations are good for inspiring believable motivation too, but there's a difference between "survival" and "convenience" that I failed to get at in my prior post.  Filling your waterskin for free is convenient; filling your waterskin because you're thirsty and stranded in the middle of the desert is a matter of survival.

Quote from: Qzzrbl on August 25, 2010, 09:09:12 PM
Another thought is that some reluctant 'gickers could get the idea that casting will "get it out of their system".

Or! One could uncontrollably cast by accident.... Or have something horrible happen, as detailed in Zoltan's log of this event.... Which made me lol.

http://www.armageddon.org/original/showSubmission.php?submission=420

God damn trigger-happy half-giant players.  Great log until a) the half-giant starts talking and b) he fucking ruins the ending.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on August 25, 2010, 09:35:45 AM
Personally I don't like the "I'll go out of control" device either because it's not supported by the code.  (Also, it sort of implies that your power is so great and awesome that it takes a great deal of willpower to keep from exploding or something... which is also not supported by the code.)

I'm not saying it's wrong to play that way, I just think it's a problematic approach.


I do, however, like (and have used) the idea that there is some milder base compulsion for mages to spend their mana.

Like they have to piss? Or drop a log? Maybe you should take care of spending mana offline as well ;)

Quote from: Synthesis on August 25, 2010, 09:39:50 PM

Quote from: Qzzrbl on August 25, 2010, 09:09:12 PM
Another thought is that some reluctant 'gickers could get the idea that casting will "get it out of their system".

Or! One could uncontrollably cast by accident.... Or have something horrible happen, as detailed in Zoltan's log of this event.... Which made me lol.

http://www.armageddon.org/original/showSubmission.php?submission=420

God damn trigger-happy half-giant players.  Great log until a) the half-giant starts talking and b) he fucking ruins the ending.

To be fair, my dorf was really itching for a mage kill anyway. We had to deal with waaaaaaay too many uppity gemmers.

(But it was always fun guys, don't get your panties in a bunch.  ;))

Nice log, but I'm with Synthesis. I don't want to be mean, but that half-giant pretty much sums up the title of this thread. :-\

Quote from: Spoon on August 26, 2010, 07:40:59 PM
Nice log, but I'm with Synthesis. I don't want to be mean, but that half-giant pretty much sums up the title of this thread. :-\

Quote from: a strange shadow on August 26, 2010, 07:42:50 PM

Quote from: Spoon on August 26, 2010, 07:40:59 PM
Nice log, but I'm with Synthesis. I don't want to be mean, but that half-giant pretty much sums up the title of this thread. :-\