Armageddon General Discussion Board

Moving from random Arm thoughts since it turned out to be not so random....

Quote from: FantasyWriter on October 29, 2011, 01:29:19 AM
Playing aantagonist can be quite hard. Especially if you want to build one up from scratch. Even moreso if you want support, doing it without magick makes it even MORE complicated and dangerous for your PCs life.
The gith are gone to players, the Red Fangs are gone to players, the Black Moon raiders are gone to players the Guild's crime is too organized. there are certain groups who go after certain other groups and there are some groups who defend their own little piece of the world with an Iron Fist. But....

Allanak and Tuluk haven't been in open hostilities in quite some time, the bad guy groups are all closed or wiped out(unless there is some behind the scenes stuff going on that I don't know about, of course). 

I would love to be able to come up with a good bad-guy splinter-cell-sized group as a one time deal and have staff sponsor four player-characters (since that is the limit on "family" roles) to start it (with very slight skill bumps so the first buddied-up magicker or lone ranger they come across doesn't sick half the player base on them). After those first four PCs and first set of tweaks, they are completely on their own OOCly and ICly unless they do something about it. Starting something like this from scratch (something I've tried to do with three or four PCs in the past), you could work your ass off for a year and still not have a dependable, living comrade (although, most likely you will have pissed off some breed or dirty 'gicker and they brought the world down on your head like they mattered).


Also, a one time role call for four or five gith or a hidden clutch of mantis in the middle of the wastelands who has somehow lost their food supply due to humanoid over hunting would kick total ass as well and add a much needed (IMO) touch of variety to the game and the conflict therein.

Or open up a hole in the edge of the known's physical borders (and also the edge of the playable game) just enough to let one of Reborn's new races show up. Do a role call in Staff announcements for people wanting to play in an unknown/secret group listing one or two role types they would like to play in such a group and jig-saw a well-rounded group of nomadic something-non-human/dwarf/elf to turn the world's knowledge of the world upside down.


(wow, that was suppose to be a brief, random thought.... oh well)

Quote from: Gunnerblaster on October 29, 2011, 01:58:23 AM
Following suit with FW's thoughts, instead of some call for Nobles - I would trip balls and apply immediately for a small group of Gith or Mantis.

Gets you into the game with a clear focus as well as a small and (hopefully) active player base to work with.

Quote from: FantasyWriter on October 29, 2011, 02:34:06 AM

Quote from: Wolfsong on October 29, 2011, 02:03:04 AM
I think the reason that won't happen is the same reason why slave roles were closed off - too much work topside for too little benefit IG. Playing as a gith or mantis would either be a very isolated role, and detract from the larger playerbase, or else be a very limited one, with PC gith or mantis being immediately killed by PC hunters, warriors, etc.

Meh, I don't think giving PCs something to do besides mudsex, tavern sit, and skill advance would detract to much. Also, i would think with an all new group, there would be some slight skill bumps to get them ahead of the curve without them all dying trying to grind so that they can do their OOC job of causing trouble.  Gith would work, though come to think of it, Mantis would be a kill on site for food or protection of food thingy so not so good to help make the game more fun. :D

I don't see how opening yet another race, isolating and separating the playerbase even further, would encourage roleplay in a large enough way to warrant all the work that goes into it - think about it. These are enemy races that are typically killed on sight. Roleplay is limited to before, and after, combat. There is little wriggle room there (though I won't say there isn't any at all.) I just think that the amount of work required to get a group of mantis or gith going outweighs the potential benefit - players get to see a few unique emotes, maybe, before they kill or are killed by them.

I don't see how it encourages plots, either. If players aren't doing that on their own (as they should be, since admin aren't going to), why would a few PC gith or mantis change that? If they are unable to create plots while playing more mundane races, or magickers, how will they suddenly be able to do so as a mantis or a gith?

From my own perspective on the game, things seem to consolidated. Players/PC's/Forces are too "content" to just sit with what they have. The only group that I've seen actively "shaking it up" is the Byn's mandatory suicide missions which seem to get players involved, for a time, but then tends to die off (most times literally).

Being frank, there isn't anything to "shake things up", like there used to be and whenever I log in - everything just feels bland and repetitive.

I know, I know - Someone's bound to hit me with that cover-all blanket statement of, "Be the change", but - to me - it almost seems like people just aren't interested in putting up the effort of change. Usually, when something new rolls around, people tend to just ignore it and do their own thing - Unless it's something epic enough to draw in many players.

Not to turn this into a discussion about whether or not a "hands off" staffing policy works in the long term - but players are lazy and can/will only do so much. Sometimes a good IMM plot, something big and scary, is what's needed.

I would play a kenku

Like a boss

Looking for a group of friendly raiders? Go no further than the T'zai Byn.

Seriously, they should be treated like serial murderers kept in line (barely) by money.

Quote from: FantasyWriter on October 29, 2011, 02:40:18 AM

Everything written in the first post in this thread.

Epic +1. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Be it none of those holding each others hands between Tuluk and Nak, a new raider group (be it a vNPC or NPC tribe that gets opened or something completely new), gith, mantis, some invading force from the islands or someplace far away.. Anything. Even better if it didn't revolve around some super sorc trying to bring the end of the world or something but simply carving out a piece for themselves.

Quote from: Gunnerblaster on October 29, 2011, 03:20:37 AM
...things seem to consolidated. Players/PC's/Forces are too "content" to just sit with what they have. The only group that I've seen actively "shaking it up" is the Byn's mandatory suicide missions...

Being frank, there isn't anything to "shake things up", like there used to be and whenever I log in - everything just feels bland and repetitive...

I agree with the contentedness and consolidation, but the Byn isn't the only group shaking things up. They just move all over compared to other groups which only sit about in their area.

Quote from: FantasyWriter on October 29, 2011, 02:40:18 AM
the Guild's crime is too organized.

Are you high?

I don't agree with a lot of this.

We already have PCs that can get into antagonist positions in the various playing areas. I find that preferable to PC-run groups that antagonize for the sake of antagonizing. Why? Because it feels more natural in a world like Zalanthas to do something for some sort of gain. In that way, even the most noble, good deed can secretly or not-so-secretly have more selfish intentions.

There are widespread efforts to involve players in interesting things, and it's sad when it goes unnoticed because people are looking for the big plots of old. Even if it's not the exact type of conflict you are looking for, it -is- conflict on a slightly lower scale, and you can try to learn to enjoy it. Otherwise, start a group of antagonists the old-fashioned way and recruit a bunch of desperate bastards willing to raid, or to kill and eat overhunters. The only thing better than a gith or a mantis is a human (or elf, or dwarf, etc) that has one or two aspects from a more savage race, and all the needs and wants of their own race. I don't know about you, but to me, a dwarf with the focus to rid the North Road of travelers seems far more interesting to me than a member of a group of gith that randomly attacks PCs on the road.

The only part I agree with is that playing a pure antagonist can be hard. Well, I argue that's how it should be. It should be harder to be an "outlaw" in a world where there are pockets of power throughout the world that don't want to be messed with. Working against that is going to be harder than conforming, but that's part of the fun of playing such characters.

Personally, I think that there's a lot of antagonists in the game and antagonizing actions, but they're done in a manner that minimizes consequences (and thus RP) or makes the RP inaccessible for most of the playerbase. The players of these characters aren't doing that to spite people, of course, and it certainly makes sense to do things that way (I'll explain why), but the result is that it can feel like there are no antagonists or plots going around.

One of the most common antagonists I've seen is "The Thief." You know, that person who pilfers every apartment in the city in a single night, taking everything that isn't bolted down. Or the person who steals the weapons off your belt every time you enter the tavern. This is an extremely common form of antagonist in Zalanthas, but for reasons that are obvious, it's one that doesn't lead to much interaction. If most people were able to interact with The Thief regularly, then they would probably kill them or use (what are in my opinion) slightly metagamey methods to make sure others know who they are. Example: You're a thief, want to create more public RP, so you RP costuming yourself as much as you can. You cover every wearloc in bandages to hide any identifying marks, get a hood, raise it up, and set a Tdesc that says your face is covered. People, unwittingly, may still "identify" you from your mdesc, or your height (XYZ PC is the only elf, and this person is too tall to be anything but an elf, so this self-confessing thief is XYZ PC), or any other number of things. Therefore, it's in the thief's best interests to not interact with other players on that level, despite being an incredibly common and viable antagonist. This makes RP with The Thief very removed from the public, available only to select roles (such as other thieves, or the military groups who arrest them).

This is actually a pattern that repeats often. Because most antagonism would get the character killed, or make enemies, it has to be done in secret or as removed from potential conflicts as possible. This results in people only-in-the-know having access to these plots and conflicts and antagonists, which makes people not-in-the-know sort of disgruntled, bored, or otherwise frustrated at the lack of conflict plots available to them. Hence, the requests for a large, public sort of conflict plot, like the old HRPTs.

Without resorting to calling for more HRPTs (which will probably get this thread locked and wouldn't be a long term solution anyway), or more Imm involvement, it's hard to find a "simple" solution to the issue. You can suggest that players simply don't do whatever is in their power to get an antagonist destroyed, which might encourage them to bring more of that RP to the mainstream, but then you have a Prisoner's Dilemma sort of issue: If Person A doesn't destroy the antagonist then there's no guarantee that Person B will do the same. If Person B does, it could lead to less RP for others, for the chance of getting themselves recognized by people who do have access to the out-of-sight antagonists and involving that person in them. Thus it is in Person A and B's interest to be the ones to eliminate the antagonist. Now multiply that by all of the people in the Antagonists' sphere of influence, and then add IC motivations on top of it. Even if a player does not want to kill the antagonist just to try and involve themselves in higher plots, their character might want to do that to impress the Powers That Be. Or out of a personal Vendetta. Or because the Antagonist is competition. And so on. So because of the IC/OOC nature, with both what the player wants and what the character wants influencing IC actions, it makes the Prisoner's-Dilemma-esque situation even more skewed in favor of the selfish choice.

The only practical way I can think of which would serve to create more, or more public antagonists without HRPTs or direct Imm intervention is for the Imms to reward people who take the trouble of making good antagonists, maybe equating it to the sort of respect/scrutiny that one would get if they were to hold a leadership position? They may already do this, as it is, and it's still sort of a cheat solution because technically it is more Imm involvement, it's simply from the bureaucratic end instead of the gameplay end.

Edit: Maybe some existing IG clans could (or maybe do) exist for the purpose of have one aspect of their existence be to serve as antagonists to certain groups? It would help solve the population decrease and isolation issue that would be raised by having Antagonist-calls in lieu of nobles calls, such as the mantis role mentioned elsewhere. I can already see some evidence of these sorts of things existing, such as thief-clans and militia-clans having an (in a very general sense) adversarial relationship, or the Arm of the Dragon and the Legion of the Sun King having adversarial relationships. Or, say, certain tribes with certain city organizations. The noble houses are also supposed to vie for influence with one another, IIRC. Maybe there should be more of an emphasis on those aspects, both from players and from Imms of those orgs?

I posted a lot about this two years ago in a thread about crime (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,36601.0.html) (that turned into a thread about being antagonists in general, etc.).  When I see similar topics pop up again, I tend towards being a bit more blunt in explanation.

Playing antagonists that are realistic is hard to do, so let's get staff to help us play realistic antagonists by giving us the structure to do it without any of the startup work? 

No, thanks.

Do it IC, get back to me in a few months. 

Why?  How?  Let's go with why first.

Why?  You'll get more respect from other players.  This shit is hard, and no one that has the power to oppose you is really going to respect your magickally-appearing, suddenly-powerful antagonist.  They're going to resent you for being tossed a cookie like that, and I wouldn't blame them for deep-sixing your antagonist plot by flaunting their own power they've gained the hard way--social capital, political capital, or hell, templar capital granted right out of the box by virtue of being chosen by staff to play a templar.  There's only so much to go around, but if someone previously unknown starts pissing in their plot cereal without even a "howdy-do," you can expect irrational displays of IC annoyance and quick spending of that power that they've amassed.

Why?  You'll enjoy the fact that you did this crap yourself. When I play a PC I built myself/pushed to higher heights via my own mettle in-game, I always feel better about it.

How?  Play an organic PC.  Vader didn't start out as a Sith Lord.  Now, you can't play child Anakin, but you can play teenager Anakin, and have him make the choices he makes to become an influential and dangerous bad guy.  Respect knuckles for backstory and realistic roleplay.  You might even get more followers, sympathetic ears, or ambivalent people rather than folks that just want to see your obviously-evil plots ruined.

How?  Keep us informed about what you're doing.  "I'm not clanned, though!" you say.  That's fine.  You've got clan staff even so.  I've given advice to burgeoning badasses before, depending on what they were interested in learning about or how to proceed.

Problems with doing it yourself:

It's hard.
It takes longer.
Some jerk might kill your PC before you've even gotten far enough to do your awesome transition to awesomeness. (however, this can always happen)
There's no set path to follow.

Yep.  Them's the problems.  I really think that the average player can overcome those problems, though!  If you have doubts or have questions, ask your clan staff. 

Another difficulty lies in the tradition of roleplay we have here on this MUD. I'll paint it in short strokes, because this thread isn't the place to talk about, "What is roleplay?"

There are several kinds of players, but here I'm primarily concerned with two:

One wants to tell an awesome (or even not so awesome) story. We'll call this guy the Storyteller, not to be confused with the staff position.

The second wants to play a character. We'll call him the Method Actor.

(Anyone who's read Robin's Law's of Good Game-Mastering knows where I'm getting the names.)

The problem lies in the fact that these two play-styles are distinct.

So how does this play into the problem at hand?

Armageddon, as an RPI MUD, is primarily biased toward the Method Actor. True, there is plenty here for the other types of player, even those who just want to kill raptors. However, we're all expected to at least make a few attempts at real characterization, even when what we really want is to amass all the lootz and wimmins for ourselves - we shove that motivation IC, to justify it. (Note that I'm describing a phenomenon, not making judgments about it.)

What does this mean for you? It means, in a nutshell, that in order to get done what you want to get done, you need to take a couple lessons from the Method Actor.

Now, one of the basic, basic things he understand about role-playing is that you don't just paint your canvas with a brush and work off of that. His characters aren't "sad" or "angry" or "happy". For the Method Actor, his character's actions, discourse, and everything else is about intention. He isn't playing a sad character; he's playing a character whose sister just died of sloughskin and who is afraid he might also have caught it. He isn't playing an angry character; he's playing a character whose one true wish in life was to see his son accepted in the Bardic Circles, only to be thwarted by political manoeuvring that has nothing intrinsic to do with him and that he has no control over. He isn't playing a happy character; he's playing a character who won big at a game of Kruth and has gone out on the town to share his mood and his winnings.

The same is true with antagonists. If you want to play one, you need to step back and say, "How do I make this character a real person? Why does he do what he does?" If he hates something, why does he hate it? If he's an opportunistic prig, why does he take advantage of people? How does he feel about it, and how does he view it himself? In short, why does he do what he does, internally, separate from why you as a player drive him?

That's really the only way to create a character in any role who is interesting enough to keep and interesting enough to play around. And, therefore, the only real way to play a character who gains enough longevity to do what you want.

However, this isn't just about necessity. The need to do this isn't just foisted on you by Armageddon's bias toward characterization and personification*. This is also how the best stories are written. Richard II and Edmund aren't just villains; they're people, almost transcendentally so, and it is their personalities that drive the stories (and that keep us enthralled when we watch them on-stage).

Ask yourself which is the better story: the one where the characters are effectively extensions of the plot, doing what the story requires, or the one where the characters themselves, in their interactions and motivations drive the plot forward?

We already have many antagonists built in -- simply read the docs -- with clans already open and going.  What I think has happened is the PC population has played so many "exceptions to the rule"  we've made a very tangled web connecting too many PCs into one lump of uneasy contentment.  Between the "alliances"/ double agents/ and spy networks -- suddenly a large percentage of the PC population is one another's pockets.  

This connects directly with the "there's not enough hate" threads.

Zalanthas, as it stands for Arm.1, is a "top-down" structure.  So, as wonderful and easy as it may be for staff to give players a lot of options when it comes making decisions -- it needs to be remembered that blue-robes and Jr nobles, still need to be given direct clan orders from the higher-ups.  Remember, those PCs at the bottom don't have the clout to go say "look, our clan needs to oppose this" ... the PCs at the mid-level are the ones who have made all these tangled webs,  so they're not going to change their ways (and simultaneously put down any bottom-run ideas) until their superiors (Staff NPCs) tell them they're out of line.  As in "you can't just keep killing off a clanned PC -- such isn't realistic because it's too dangerous.  You make trouble for VNPCs of your house)

All we need to do is to cut all these ties -- cut out the tangle and start fresh.   That would make a defined line between the law and the "bad guys";  it would mean a huge, feared gap between templarate and commoners (which is why the templarate need the nobility); it would make GMHs become in greater competition, in realistic manner,  for the sids.
   

There are some out there playing the antagonists. (Kudos to those of you doing it.) The problem as I see it is that noone wants to do anything about them when they pop up. Everybody seems to want to make a deal or just avoid them instead of plotting against them and trying to take them out. So they're working to create conflict but nobody bites.

Quote from: Bacon on October 29, 2011, 11:34:20 AM
There are some out there playing the antagonists. (Kudos to those of you doing it.) The problem as I see it is that noone wants to do anything about them when they pop up. Everybody seems to want to make a deal or just avoid them instead of plotting against them and trying to take them out. So they're working to create conflict but nobody bites.

The first rule of bite club:  don't talk about bite club.

I really liked Nyr's answer here. In the past Nyr and I have had our clashes on the boards (though I've always found himsupportive and  easy to work with when dealing with him as a clan imm) and I think that's because often he doesn't go on to explain beyond the no.

And when he does explain beyond the no, I find it easier to see his point. I think do the start up work and then ask is a reasonable compromise.

Quote from: Barzalene on October 29, 2011, 11:39:05 AM
I really liked Nyr's answer here.

I do as well, and am thankful for it.
(it was a while after I got my un-explained request tool no before I checked the GDB) :D

The problem I have seen, My 2 Sids worded well about everyone being in everyone else's pockets.

As a powerful individual it is fairly easy to stir up conflicts, I greatly enjoy playing such PCs. :evil grin:
But clans seem to be afraid to piss off other clans.
Indy group A doesn't want to make Indy group B pissy.
City State A is content with City State B taking up half of the "civilized" world.
Yes, I know all but the last one is the Fault of Content, or More-Concerned-With-My-Personal-Saftey PCs.

I guess I would just like to see more conflict on a large scale, instead of solo-baddie A pisses in power C's koolaid, then power brings Power B, secret sorc that noone is suppose to do anything with but kill on sight, rouge witches T and H even though my clan is suppose to forsake all types of gickery, and enemy, but currently enemy of my enemy power F. They all agree to squish baddie A then go back about their business.
THIS IS GOOD CONFLICT, but it's about all I have witnessed in a while.

Some times I wish the world had a reset button for powers, deals, and PC alliances (although I don't think it would ever be a good idea to actually use it.)
HRPTS are good reset buttons but they are few and far in between.

Quote from: Nyr on October 29, 2011, 10:12:14 AM
Problems with doing it yourself:

It's hard.
It takes longer.
Some jerk might kill your PC before you've even gotten far enough to do your awesome transition to awesomeness. (however, this can always happen)
There's no set path to follow.

Yep.  Them's the problems.  I really think that the average player can overcome those problems, though!  If you have doubts or have questions, ask your clan staff. 

I agree with Nyr completely except for his analysis of what the problems are. I think the #1 problem most players have is just not dying to that scrab or vestric or gith. I see it happen over and over and over again, in every clan, and especially in clans where there aren't any rules governing where PCs go and what they do. Unfortunately, staff-side, we have found that bumping PC skills and/or apping players into these roles really doesn't help much; Byn Sergeants die faster than anyone else, mostly because players aren't smart and patient about how they play.

Please, get out there and play the badass antagonists. We'd love to see you do that. We'd love to support you in doing that. But don't expect staff to do it for you, and don't think that there is some magickal cure other than player patience and perseverance. Most players decidedly do not have the patience and perseverance necessary for this type of role, and apping players who don't into those roles really doesn't help.

Quote from: Bacon on October 29, 2011, 11:34:20 AM
There are some out there playing the antagonists. (Kudos to those of you doing it.) The problem as I see it is that noone wants to do anything about them when they pop up. Everybody seems to want to make a deal or just avoid them instead of plotting against them and trying to take them out. So they're working to create conflict but nobody bites.

Maybe that's sometimes the case. My experience is the opposite though. The closing of the Red Fangs tribe was a direct result of "people doing something about a group of antagonists", to take a somewhat recent example. Of course, sometimes, and depending on clan/individual it is easier/preferrable to strike deals or avoid the antagonists. It can be very difficult to pull a clan into a conflict with another group, but it is definitely not impossible.

Quote from: Talia on October 29, 2011, 01:12:53 PM

Quote from: Nyr on October 29, 2011, 10:12:14 AM
Problems with doing it yourself:

It's hard.
It takes longer.
Some jerk might kill your PC before you've even gotten far enough to do your awesome transition to awesomeness. (however, this can always happen)
There's no set path to follow.

Yep.  Them's the problems.  I really think that the average player can overcome those problems, though!  If you have doubts or have questions, ask your clan staff. 

I agree with Nyr completely except for his analysis of what the problems are. I think the #1 problem most players have is just not dying to that scrab or vestric or gith. I see it happen over and over and over again, in every clan, and especially in clans where there aren't any rules governing where PCs go and what they do. Unfortunately, staff-side, we have found that bumping PC skills and/or apping players into these roles really doesn't help much; Byn Sergeants die faster than anyone else, mostly because players aren't smart and patient about how they play.

Please, get out there and play the badass antagonists. We'd love to see you do that. We'd love to support you in doing that. But don't expect staff to do it for you, and don't think that there is some magickal cure other than player patience and perseverance. Most players decidedly do not have the patience and perseverance necessary for this type of role, and apping players who don't into those roles really doesn't help.

Just to be honest...it's actually probably because the skill bumps given for such positions are generally miniscule, and a Sergeant getting his ass absolutely handed to him by runners generally works very hard to get to a point of actual combat leadership quickly.  Resulting in death.

That's just what I hear, and makes sense.  Not smart, but it makes sense.

I just want to state that there are antagonists on many different levels as well. Be it from clan in fighting to space vestrics beyond the known, antagonists are prevalent and constant. Not all really seem that enjoyable to everyone, but there there.

Militia and criminals, there is defiantly a  healthy group of back and forth there. Not always actively facing off to emote with each other, but really is that a must in an antagonist, or is it the hunt for them.

Criminals and non-militia, somewhat the same as above, however I will say that to those that do the - loot all - your a bit out of line and that has been a topic of heated discussion, your not cool, your not enjoyable, and your not showing you talents, your simply being abusive. However, those that are knocking folks out to steal a thing or two off them, or break into an apartment and mess it up, take a few things and leave a calling card, these are the ones building a reputation and doing it right, with out giving away their identity (or sometimes not). As for the thief stealing weapons from people every time they go into a tavern, learn to run, if you want to be noticed while not being noticed.

As for outside the city antagonists, there are a few things that transition around from group to group and city to city. These things are currently occurring in the game world and are player driven. If your not in the know and want to be, travel and get in good with people in different regions that you might find out the skinny of it.
Or

Pay travelers for stories and information about whats going on around the known, then get involved.

Now if your in a clan stuck in a city, which happens, things can run slim, perhaps the antagonists you think would be fun are not around, or if you want to be that antagonist or a fun one for others, spend sometime getting a feel of the environment then gear your criteria towards it.

As for raider groups and the such, dig deeper in game, they are there, when one closes another always opens.

OK well here is my little nitpick on this. I've noticed far too often people seem to be too OOCly scared to out out how something would be handled if it were a RL situation because they don't want to lose a character they have had for so long.

"Oh Sarge Bob got killed by the bloods on 14th street?" 

  "Oh well shit happens" - New Sergeant

This is just a vague example as most of the ones I can show in game I can't post.

You'll have -way- more fun if you take a 'do it yourself' attitude.


There's a certain thrill involved in suddenly discovering you have more admin attention and 'support' than you realized...

Or that people know about your character, and are actually asking about gossip when traveling between cities.

But.. it -will- come to an end.  Might be a lot to swallow when it happens.

I think that the OP is really saying something else than everybody is responding to.  He wants conflict that takes the form of overt physical (and/or I suppose magickal) combat between PC groups that just plain hate each other or otherwise have every reason to attack each other on sight, if they feel they can kill the other PC.  The examples he gave were mantis and gith, which is exactly what that was supposed to be.

The Allanak/Tuluk copper wars situation was similar to the mantis/gith versus travelers thing, which is why that was sort of brought up.

I believe Nyr's response was focused on the difference between a badass-upon-special-application versus developing your own badass/conflict guy slowly.  These are completely different concepts.  I think the OPs wants and Nyr's response missed each other completely - didn't address each other at all.

The OP was also interested in skill boosts for these overt-conflict characters.  The main reason behind that is that you're playing a role that has a high likelihood of dying due to constant conflict, and to spend a month (and this is ridiculously lowballing it) building up a character to the point of being able to compete with more than the most newbiest of newbies just to see it very quickly get whacked due to the nature of the role, would blow.  The moment that everybody hears of XYZ gith PCs popping up, every decked 30 day warrior/gemmer/sorcerer is rushing to the Tablelands to kick the crap out of them and be the hero.  I recall this happening when I played a gith character years ago; they had incredibly short life spans because every high-powered PC was gunning for them.  They just never seemed to have a chance.

Personally I agree with the OP.  I like the overt physical/magickal fighting conflict, and I like the idea particularly of giving more human intelligence to creatures in the wastes.  But, it is probably time intensive (due to high turnover/new apps), would probably need to be more automated to deal with the constant character setup/new coding involved, and I am just going to imagine that its not what the imm staff wants.  Gith, Halfling, Mantis, Gladiators - all similar things Imms tried and then said uhh... no more of that.  

fyi I'm taking a few liberties with what I think the main point of the OPs was, but I think it was the underlying reason for his post :)

I'm not sure the imms really want more PC on PC violence, because that sort of thing tends to increase the rate that people bitch about it, either OOCly or via player complaints.

I mean, I do my thing for years and nobody complains...then I roll up a PC that actually has a habit of killing other PCs and WHOO BOY, NOW SHIT JUST GOT REAL, HOLD ON SON.

Sometimes being an antagonist is as simple as hating one of the permissible minorities. Half-Elves, Magickers, Nakkies/Tulukies (depending on location), Elves (not really minorities but still fun to hate on). Don't hate on every single member of this group. Pick one, make their life hell, and try to even get other members of the same minority to join in on the hating.

In character why would you do this? The easiest way to get accepted, make friends and have people respect you is to bully someone else, make everyone laugh and force him to slink off or bow down to you (or attack you at which point you either hand him his arse or you convince everyone else to join in on the fight).

Out of character you've just made an enemy for life. You've had a more interesting night then simply tavern sitting. You've also made yourself seem a bit more important and gain a small amount of respect.

QuoteI'm not sure the imms really want more PC on PC violence, because that sort of thing tends to increase the rate that people bitch about it, either OOCly or via player complaints.

I mean, I do my thing for years and nobody complains...then I roll up a PC that actually has a habit of killing other PCs and WHOO BOY, NOW SHIT JUST GOT REAL, HOLD ON SON.

QFT.

I have run into the exact same problem.

That and other things have led me to believe staff is not really interested in more overt conflict. And that many of the players are not either, at least not on the small or player scale. None of them mind the really big stuff...though that has not been happening either.

Nothing annoys me more then to hear a templar, from either citystate worry about angering the other city state.
Alright, When it is a nakki templar, that annoys me the most. I mean Come on, Nakki templars worried about keeping the peace? HAHAHAHAHA...lame.

Quote from: X-D on October 29, 2011, 07:54:14 PMAlright, When it is a nakki templar, that annoys me the most. I mean Come on, Nakki templars worried about keeping the peace? HAHAHAHAHA...lame.

That is pretty lame.

Where have all the real templars gone?

Why aren't there more antagonists?  Because a character that defines itself as an antagonist is a jerk.  I've been a leader in many clans, and I've seen many characters who could be defined as such.

In almost all cases, they were a drain both emotionally and in time.

What people really want is excitement, so whenever antagonizing, put on a show.  Wear something scary and use the prickliest most barbed weapon you can find.  Have a few puns ready to annoy your intended victim.  Offer an unfair trade : a pretty flower for all your coin and intact intestines.

Before I hear some raider complain about how they'll run away, the problem there is you somehow need to raid this one person to continue.  That's not the point.  This is a game, and as soon as you start needing to do anything, you ruin it for everyone else.  Only start raiding when you've got the resources where you don't actually need to.  Remember, a raider is a greedy bastard, not a desperate one.

Do something gloriously UNnecessary .

Quote from: John on October 29, 2011, 08:02:19 PM

Quote from: X-D on October 29, 2011, 07:54:14 PMAlright, When it is a nakki templar, that annoys me the most. I mean Come on, Nakki templars worried about keeping the peace? HAHAHAHAHA...lame.

That is pretty lame.

Where have all the real templars gone?

Killed by their minions.

For the record, I do play antagonists from the ground up, I try to do it about once or twice a year, some times they live long enough to draw attention, sometime they are just annoying ICly (intentional, sometimes they die to a scrab on their first day out. I do agree that PCs are more enjoyable when worked form the ground up. I happen to enjoy the grind and the edge of your seat fights with things that you will be able to squash with your left pinky toe in a few RL months.

Also, you can play violent raiders and whatnot without PKing (so long as the victim doesn't get trigger happy with the kill command.
I mean... if you kill a character, they're not alive for you to raid again! Not very good for business.

Quote from: John on October 29, 2011, 08:02:19 PM

Quote from: X-D on October 29, 2011, 07:54:14 PMAlright, When it is a nakki templar, that annoys me the most. I mean Come on, Nakki templars worried about keeping the peace? HAHAHAHAHA...lame.

That is pretty lame.

Where have all the real templars gone?

I don't see avoiding city-state conflict as lame. I think risk assessment is one of the most desirable skills in Zalanthas. Does anyone really want to do something that could get themselves killed, if it's not worth the risk? With the way things are, you could still play a carefree blue robe that ends up dragging Allanak into a protracted conflict with Tuluk... good luck not catching flack for it though. You also have the option of playing a templar that does want to keep his job, rather than get transferred to "mining office supervisor" by getting a bunch of soldiers and civilians killed.

When people say that PCs are avoiding risk and conflict is down because of it... isn't that exactly how it's supposed to be? The PCs know they could get fired, or die, and tailor their actions to avoid those consequences. They don't avoid conflict entirely, but they take on a reasonable level of conflict. How is that anything but good roleplay?

As a player who consistently plays antagonists, I can attest that it is difficult at times. Even frustrating and pointless, in some situations. Echoing Synth's comments, there are some players that feel that there is no speeds beside GO/NO GO, or: KILL/DON'T KILL.

Being an antagonist can be much more than raiding, backstabbing, or ending PC life. My favorite antagonists are the assholes. You can play some serious asshole in this game. Unfortunately, some people take it too far when responding to assholes. Keeping within the context of the game is difficult, because some peeps get too caught up in "MY HONOR!" or "MY MAIDEN'S TREASURED FEELINGS!" I understand that a lot of the cultures, environments, situations, and characters are very different in their reactions--but overall, unless they have someone at a clear disadvantage, too many players are unwilling to engage in fruitless conflict. A few go so far as to play the "neener neener you can't touch me because of crim code" card.

And by "fruitless conflict" I mean from a player's coded perspective. In my experiences, far too many players will not engage in conflict that does not "get them something" of the coded nature. Which is unfortunate, because all valuable conflict is much deeper than that. Rivalries are fun and unfortunately there are too few of these that do not end in the hiring of super maxed assassins, etc.

With all that being said: I have had many great scenes from the more experienced players who offer a little trust in me/others and put themselves out there, despite having fears that their PC may die because of it.

QuoteJust to be honest...it's actually probably because the skill bumps given for such positions are generally miniscule, and a Sergeant getting his ass absolutely handed to him by runners generally works very hard to get to a point of actual combat leadership quickly.  Resulting in death.

Agreed. I've not played one of the special app sergeants but I've played with them and it's pretty silly when your "experienced tough-as-mek-in-heat" Byn sergeant gets bitchslapped around by the troopers and some of the runners in the clan. That position, in a clan like that, being able to kick ass kinda comes with the job.

Just with regards to Byn Sgts. I have never understood why that role is a role call position, rather than a position earned through play like all the other sergeant likes roles offered in game. You know, militia officers, first hunters, fist officers, ect.

It always seemed to me that growing that role from the ground up would solve the problem.

Quote from: musashi on October 30, 2011, 02:06:29 AM
Just with regards to Byn Sgts. I have never understood why that role is a role call position, rather than a position earned through play like all the other sergeant likes roles offered in game. You know, militia officers, first hunters, fist officers, ect.

It always seemed to me that growing that role from the ground up would solve the problem.

Except when everyone in the unit gets slaughtered, along with the Sergeant, on the previous mission and only the Runners who weren't able to go were the ones to survive?

You make it sound like the whole point of a Byn Sargent is to be a clerk stand in so staff don't have to deal with admissions.  :'(

My only problem with Byn Sergeant app-in roles is that every single one seems to try and be Badass McGrizzled Former Trooper Who Beat His Way To The Top With His Beefy Sex Fists. I've never really seen the Zalanthan equivalent of a butter bar running around.

Quote from: Wolfsong on October 30, 2011, 02:31:25 AM
My only problem with Byn Sergeant app-in roles is that every single one seems to try and be Badass McGrizzled Former Trooper Who Beat His Way To The Top With His Beefy Sex Fists. I've never really seen the Zalanthan equivalent of a butter bar running around.

Read the Byn Sergeant documentation if you get a chance.

edit:
I made this post and then realized that you have played a Byn Sergeant before. But seriously, I think the answer lies within the docs if you remember them. The role itself does not really leave you with the ability to do anything without the assurance that you can stomp some ass when it comes down to it.

The problem in my opinion is just too many clans and not enough players to go around.

A tad of metagame thinking in this thread.  A few thoughts:

- Your rockstar raider group, mantis clutch, gith sex pile or whatever you're hoping the staff would approve simply won't make sense.  You're asking them to do work to set up four special PCs, of which two are bound to be dead in a month, because your group lacks true infrastructure.  Furthermore, this method lacks the organic feel, and could be an eyesore from a storytelling perspective.

- If you want to see more antagonistic attitudes, play the roles, lay the groundwork for future adversarial conditions.  Have a goal, and play the game, not the game.

- Killing a ton of PCs off because "that's my character" is lame, destroys game balance, and is pretty much powergaming, unless you can prove as to why Armageddon's story should be about your chacracter/clan only.

- Conflict can be created in many ways, and it will help to look at your character, and others, as human beings.  PK and looting and the threat of violence are not the only ways to achieve it.  In fact, they seem fairly vanilla, to me.

- Nice suggestion, at least, if not infeasible.  Be the change.


~K

Quote from: Cutthroat on October 30, 2011, 12:10:19 AM
When people say that PCs are avoiding risk and conflict is down because of it... isn't that exactly how it's supposed to be? The PCs know they could get fired, or die, and tailor their actions to avoid those consequences. They don't avoid conflict entirely, but they take on a reasonable level of conflict. How is that anything but good roleplay?

Yes and no.  Avoiding conflict with one's betters or with the "just on this side of the law" big-bad-bynner may be realistic for the game.  However, avoiding conflict with those who are at the same or lower level of oneself -- isn't that realistic.  I don't see the NPCs/VNPCs asking themselves, "Maybe I should leave this 'rinither breed alone on the off chance they're actually really rich and can pay off the soldier/templar/my employer to have me get in trouble."

Life in Zalanthas is not fair, there is limited justice   so some of this "conflict"  shouldn't even be considered as anything more than the accepted norm.  If lowly-aide Amosa goes crying to Lord Fancy saying, "Amos was mean and insulting to me"  the Lord's first response should be, "Amos was mean to *my* house?  or to you? Because if Amos is being mean to you not only is that life, but I'm going to now see _you_ as a trouble maker and deal with you accordingly." 

Quote from: musashi on October 30, 2011, 02:06:29 AM
Just with regards to Byn Sgts. I have never understood why that role is a role call position, rather than a position earned through play like all the other sergeant likes roles offered in game. You know, militia officers, first hunters, fist officers, ect.

It always seemed to me that growing that role from the ground up would solve the problem.

We look for both. There are stipulations for what we look for within the Byn ranks for internal promotion. Lately it is rare to see someone meet requirements. The answer is not to just promote someone who doesn't meet those requirements.

Quote from: Bacon on October 30, 2011, 01:55:00 AM

QuoteJust to be honest...it's actually probably because the skill bumps given for such positions are generally miniscule, and a Sergeant getting his ass absolutely handed to him by runners generally works very hard to get to a point of actual combat leadership quickly.  Resulting in death.

Agreed. I've not played one of the special app sergeants but I've played with them and it's pretty silly when your "experienced tough-as-mek-in-heat" Byn sergeant gets bitchslapped around by the troopers and some of the runners in the clan. That position, in a clan like that, being able to kick ass kinda comes with the job.

Even before we made a new standard on this (treating a sponsored role like a special application--3 CGP for use in the role), we boosted skills on Byn Sergeants and other non-templar sponsored roles.  We tried boosting them past the point of players already in the clan.  That didn't seem to work well in role retention (either fearless mentality that resulted in early death, or bored mentality that resulted in early storage).  We lowered it from that point.  In some cases these boosts have been claimed to be miniscule.  While we do disagree with this notion (the boosts at the time were still higher than the current standards), we have been looking overall at storage rates for sponsored role retention so that we can develop some standards both in supporting and in dealing with such roles.

Still, this doesn't seem like it has much to do with playing an antagonist (the Byn usually supports the needs and wants of other antagonists).  It does underline the importance of biding one's time and developing a rapport with at least some other characters prior to becoming an antagonist to other characters, though.

Quote from: My 2 sids on October 30, 2011, 07:52:12 AM

Quote from: Cutthroat on October 30, 2011, 12:10:19 AM
When people say that PCs are avoiding risk and conflict is down because of it... isn't that exactly how it's supposed to be? The PCs know they could get fired, or die, and tailor their actions to avoid those consequences. They don't avoid conflict entirely, but they take on a reasonable level of conflict. How is that anything but good roleplay?

Yes and no.  Avoiding conflict with one's betters or with the "just on this side of the law" big-bad-bynner may be realistic for the game.  However, avoiding conflict with those who are at the same or lower level of oneself -- isn't that realistic.  I don't see the NPCs/VNPCs asking themselves, "Maybe I should leave this 'rinither breed alone on the off chance they're actually really rich and can pay off the soldier/templar/my employer to have me get in trouble."

Life in Zalanthas is not fair, there is limited justice   so some of this "conflict"  shouldn't even be considered as anything more than the accepted norm.  If lowly-aide Amosa goes crying to Lord Fancy saying, "Amos was mean and insulting to me"  the Lord's first response should be, "Amos was mean to *my* house?  or to you? Because if Amos is being mean to you not only is that life, but I'm going to now see _you_ as a trouble maker and deal with you accordingly." 

True enough. I can't recall a time I've seen a lack of superiors messing around with inferiors within the past few years, though that may just be me. When I wrote what I did, I was specifically referring to the large-scale conflict that X-D and John seemed to be lamenting wasn't coming from templars anymore.

Quote from: X-D on October 29, 2011, 07:54:14 PM


Nothing annoys me more then to hear a templar, from either citystate worry about angering the other city state.

Alright, When it is a nakki templar, that annoys me the most. I mean Come on, Nakki templars worried about keeping the peace? HAHAHAHAHA...lame.

I did not play Arm before May of 2010. But I've read a hoard of the GDB posts that go faaaar back before that. I think the fact you never see any active Hawk Lobby in either city state against the other city state has sort of.. fed into any "we need more antagonist" sentiment.

Do I think a Templar wanting to keep the "Peace" between the two cities is bad? No. But its strange when you don't even feel so much of an animosity between the two cities when citizens of both meet on neutral ground. Usually when they meet at random in say Luirs, its cordial if not friendly... The last open conflict was.. What? Less than a few dozen years ago? I just find it hard to believe that despite each city being run by God-Kings, theirs not a group of senators, templars, nobles foaming for a war with the other city to 'finish the job'. Perhaps this is more of a staff / policy thing to NOT encourage war or hawkish actions to those players of Templars.

Will this led to more groups antagonizing like suggested in the first post? No. But it will promote more of what I think FW and others are getting at (and its structured). I just don't get why this sort of friction IG has been reduced, and it would be interesting to hear from staff; if it is staff induced or just from the actions from timid players in high powered positions. We don't need a full out war (would be nice though).

Quote from: Synthesis on October 29, 2011, 05:28:26 PM
I'm not sure the imms really want more PC on PC violence

This is not true.  We do enjoy PC conflict, even when (or especially when) it includes violence.  If people complain, they complain--that is not a reason for us to be against conflict that involves the death of another PC.  Usually my response to a complaint that "my PC died" is "we are sorry your PC lost its life, and we understand that attachment can develop there, but please read the rules of the game."  It's a nice way of saying "we've been there too, so please get over it." 

Quote from: X-D on October 29, 2011, 07:54:14 PM
That and other things have led me to believe staff is not really interested in more overt conflict.

This is not true.  We do shoot down conflict ideas at times when the benefit is far, far outweighed by detriment.  We are interested in intelligent conflict, whether it be small-time or big-time.

Unrelated to these two posts:

We on staff have stuff in the works to do cool things.  Just like in the case of Reborn, we kindly ask that you stop requesting/hinting/implying that we do something and let us do what we do.  It may not be on your timetable, no.  You know what you can do to help, and that is communicate with staff with what your PC is up to/what you have planed/what little tidbits of a plot you want to work on. 

That's how this works, and if you disagree with the premise of this thread, or perhaps you have a few issues and can see room for improvement on this for the rest of the game, you're doing it right.  There's always room for improvement on anything, and approaching it this way after you are doing things correctly on your own front is important to do (things like reporting regularly, getting feedback on your own ideas and plots to antagonize, etc).


This, however, is NOT how it works:

You discuss problems with (or at least agree with the position put forth about) antagonist PCs and plots and the like, yet you are actually not having issues with this in game (evidenced by reports or your actual play in game in which you have proven you antagonize LIKE A BOSS).  This makes up at least 6% of posters in this thread at the time of this post, and this seems disingenuous.  Shame on you!  You aren't even having a problem, guys!  Tell other people WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
You discuss problems with (or at least agree with the position put forth about) antagonist PCs and plots and the like, yet you don't send in reports (whether that be at all, or sporadically).  This makes up at least 21% of posters in this thread at the time of this post, with one other that is borderline.

The "not how it works" stuff is annoying to see.  It's why staff are sometimes outright dismissive of claims of a issue.  It's evident that there is enough of an interest from players doing things right--enough to warrant review, or just some extra poking from staff in the future--but the "not how it works" folks skew the issue.

Just a note of clarification (and perhaps in defense of) any Templars. I don't think they're doing a bad job. By far. Nor do I think that "they're doing it wrong."

But rather than say, add in a new IMM'd sponsored group of raiders or playable races that would antagonize, I think their is just room to push well documented and historical strife further via large cities or large houses back into a more visible way that promotes such "antagonist" to be RP'd from the top-trickle-down level. We're not lacking much (if anything) in terms of what is available, its just a question of what is being utilized and done on a player level and not so much a staff level (far as I can tell).

That being said I am not against having another sponsored raider group / opened race that would create / drive more antagonistic PC's / atmosphere.

Then again and as a PS: This could all be going on without even me seeing it. I know for certain in lesser populated areas their is a current HIGH degree of antagonistic PC's both clanned and unclanned and kudos to all of those.

EDIT: in the event I'm a 6% (i hope not), I can't tell what I'm doing bc my last two highly antagonistic PC's haven't passed the 12 month benchmark yet. The short version and way I can say it though, is don't give a shit about making it to 10 days, 20 days or 50 days or even 100 days. Don't carry any OOC motivations for your PC to "get strong and THEN I'll raise hell or do X,Y or Z." Out of the box, have a clear focus or aim that makes sense ICly and for the gameworld and PLAY. RP and know that RP between players is far more fullfilling that having your antagonism revolve only around "Kill XXXXX" or "cast mon XXXXX at XXXXX". When you rely on code, you're doing it wrong. When you RP it out and shake a certain area or even the whole known and it drags in others to get involved.. You're doing it right. And you don't need karma to get it done and MASSIVE high five on you if you did it w/o a karma role.

Quote from: Dakota on October 30, 2011, 10:18:00 AM
EDIT: in the event I'm a 6% (i hope not), I can't tell what I'm doing bc my last two highly antagonistic PC's haven't passed the 12 month benchmark yet. The short version and way I can say it though, is don't give a shit about making it to 10 days, 20 days or 50 days or even 100 days. Don't carry any OOC motivations for your PC to "get strong and THEN I'll raise hell or do X,Y or Z." Out of the box, have a clear focus or aim that makes sense ICly and for the gameworld and PLAY. RP and know that RP between players is far more fullfilling that having your antagonism revolve only around "Kill XXXXX" or "cast mon XXXXX at XXXXX". When you rely on code, you're doing it wrong. When you RP it out and shake a certain area or even the whole known and it drags in others to get involved.. You're doing it right. And you don't need karma to get it done and MASSIVE high five on you if you did it w/o a karma role.

Agreed.

I make a lot of antagonist pc's as well.  You don't typically live long but it's the msot fun to be had in this game.  It's true, you don't need coded power and you don't need to be  badass.  If you're going toe to toe, you're going to get owned sooner than later.  Most succesful criminals/terrorists/whatever don't become successful by having full on confrontations.  Isolate and target the weak, wait for opportunities, lie, cheat, steal - none of these things require a great deal of coded skills or abilities.   You don't have to be a badass to be a successful antagonist.

The bonus is that if you survive very long doing the above and fending for yourself because of the isolation your crimes have placed you in, you'll become a badass soon enough.  

Quote from: Nyr on October 30, 2011, 09:57:46 AM
This, however, is NOT how it works:

You discuss problems with (or at least agree with the position put forth about) antagonist PCs and plots and the like, yet you are actually not having issues with this in game (evidenced by reports or your actual play in game in which you have proven you antagonize LIKE A BOSS).  This makes up at least 6% of posters in this thread at the time of this post, and this seems disingenuous.  Shame on you!  You aren't even having a problem, guys!  Tell other people WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
You discuss problems with (or at least agree with the position put forth about) antagonist PCs and plots and the like, yet you don't send in reports (whether that be at all, or sporadically).  This makes up at least 21% of posters in this thread at the time of this post, with one other that is borderline.

The "not how it works" stuff is annoying to see.  It's why staff are sometimes outright dismissive of claims of a issue.  It's evident that there is enough of an interest from players doing things right--enough to warrant review, or just some extra poking from staff in the future--but the "not how it works" folks skew the issue.

Well, I can tell people how I usually do the "successful" solo antagonist:

1) Utilize every trick in the book to skill up as fast as codedly possible.
     a) Have a minimal IC footprint at this time.  Don't talk to other players. Don't go to bars (unless it's to skill something up).  Stay hidden whenever you aren't doing something to skill up. Etc.

2) Once you're badass enough to raid, only pick on noobs and unaffiliated PCs.

3) Always assume your target will be the shittiest type of player, and utilize overwhelming force.

4) Always kill your target.  Fewer people to raid? Ha--they'll roll up another PC soon enough.

5) Continue to maintain a minimal IC footprint.  Don't stop to chat.  Don't hang out at bars.  Don't take on minions.  Log in, raid, log out.

6) Store or suicide when a more interesting role comes up.

The times I've played as a non-solo antagonist:
1) I was a merchant, so my role consisted entirely of making insane amounts of money to buy the stuff my minions needed to skill up, so that -they- could do 1-6 (above) effectively.  We RP'ed with each other, but I'm pretty sure the minions were just as ruthless as I would've been with the PK business.

2) Other people started fucking with me first, so I'd beat their asses whenever I got the chance...not entirely sure that qualifies as antagonism.

3) Secret pickpocket/burglar in a clan...hunter by day, thief by night--that sort of thing.  Never shared my true talent with anyone.  Skilled up in secret.  Maintained the illusion of being a ranger when around other PCs.  It's basically the first 6 steps with breaks for sparring practice RP in-between.

(I'm not sure that's the sort of least-common-denominator advice anyone had in mind.  In fact, I'm pretty sure the point of the thread was to -avoid- these sorts of things.)

I have to admit this is one of the more interesting threads that I've read in a while. 

What I think that most of us (staff included) are unwilling to face is exactly how easy it would be to ignite direct PC-PC para-military player conflict.  So far we've largely glossed over one of the more important sub-topics of the original post. 

Here's how it could happen.  Let's say that the staff decided to re-open the Red Fang clan.  It's pretty likely that some of the players reading this thread would be willing to store their current character to play a Red Fang, and plenty willing to deal with the loneliness and isolation.  It takes a few weeks to buff up a desert elf character.  About six to seven weeks after the announcement, the body count starts. 

In fact, this is (I'm pretty sure) what happened a couple of years ago that resulted in the clan being shut down, if I remember my clan history correctly.  A group of bright guys were offing people left and right.  I thought this was cool. 

But here is the problem with that -- I'm guessing that at least like 50% of people that got killed by that last, infamous band of Red Fang ended up complaining to the staff.  The staff were (I can only imagine) supportive of the Red Fang players at first, then indifferent.  Eventually, my guess is that even our (intelligent, patient) staff got overwhelmed by the complaints and lost their nerve -- the Red Fang clan was closed. 

I think that we the players do this to ourselves.  We need to stop complaining about being one hit killed, being moshed by half-giants, or being nuked by a spell-caster from six screens away because this is how random game violence takes place.  Do we the players really have the stomach to loose an 18-day warrior with a cool background and plots to a semi-random six-second spam-combat with a couple of half-giant raiders? 

Put yourself in the victim's place.  I think we always imagine ourselves as the raiders.  Do we really want a group of powerful raiders running around?  Personally I do but I question that this is what the rest of us want. 

Jriely, do you read the history page? I'd suggest reading it. The Red Fangs weren't closed because we got tired of dealing with them.

Quote from: jriley on October 30, 2011, 11:44:21 AM
I have to admit this is one of the more interesting threads that I've read in a while. 

What I think that most of us (staff included) are unwilling to face is exactly how easy it would be to ignite direct PC-PC para-military player conflict.  So far we've largely glossed over one of the more important sub-topics of the original post. 

Here's how it could happen.  Let's say that the staff decided to re-open the Red Fang clan.  It's pretty likely that some of the players reading this thread would be willing to store their current character to play a Red Fang, and plenty willing to deal with the loneliness and isolation.  It takes a few weeks to buff up a desert elf character.  About six to seven weeks after the announcement, the body count starts. 

In fact, this is (I'm pretty sure) what happened a couple of years ago that resulted in the clan being shut down, if I remember my clan history correctly.  A group of bright guys were offing people left and right.  I thought this was cool. 

But here is the problem with that -- I'm guessing that at least like 50% of people that got killed by that last, infamous band of Red Fang ended up complaining to the staff.  The staff were (I can only imagine) supportive of the Red Fang players at first, then indifferent.  Eventually, my guess is that even our (intelligent, patient) staff got overwhelmed by the complaints and lost their nerve -- the Red Fang clan was closed. 

I think that we the players do this to ourselves.  We need to stop complaining about being one hit killed, being moshed by half-giants, or being nuked by a spell-caster from six screens away because this is how random game violence takes place.  Do we the players really have the stomach to loose an 18-day warrior with a cool background and plots to a semi-random six-second spam-combat with a couple of half-giant raiders? 

Put yourself in the victim's place.  I think we always imagine ourselves as the raiders.  Do we really want a group of powerful raiders running around?  Personally I do but I question that this is what the rest of us want. 

Okay, I'm going to attempt to answer my own question.  

Personally, I'm somewhat indifferent to the prospect of having a bunch of PC raiders running around in the game.  The real question is if we want the wastelands to be more dangerous or not.  If we want the wastelands to be more dangerous, then it would be comparatively easier for the staff to add new and badder mobiles to hunt us down and eat us.  If we don't want the wastelands to be more dangerous, then adding some PC raiders is the wrong decision.  

The problem with pulling PCs into raiding positions is that player characters are really needed to play urban roles and political roles.  I don't think that loosing four to six players to a raiding clan would damage urban/political gameplay unacceptably, but I also don't think that it would add much to the game.  After all, I'm not really any more/less entertained if my character gets one-hit-killed by a scrab, a tembo or a PC raider.  There's not much of a difference for me emotionally.  

Do some people want to play raiders anyway?  Yes.  Do they deserve more staff support than they're getting?  I'd say yes.  Will this change life and the universe as we know it?  Probably no.  I still think that most of our players lack the patience needed to play a (desert based) militia soldier, or a raider or a Red Fang.

I doubt your premise since the SLK remain full.

Problem with threads like these: Lots of speculation, little actual information. There are antagonists, plot-starters, shakers and movers, etc. all around you. If it's a plot to destroy the world, blow up Tuluk, or raid Allanak through the sewers...Don't you think it'll be really hard to find out about it?

While it may not need to be said, if you are looking for actual advice on playing an antagonist properly, please disregard Synthesis' post as tongue in cheek.

Very interesting thread.

Some of the problem, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the intentions staff or players. The problem is that most players either play characters that only last a few RL weeks or months or that last forever (or as long as the player is interested) while living a fairly comfortable life style. This has the result of removing all sorts of "antagonists" from the realm of PCs, especially when this is combined with IC monopolies and restrictions.

You can't have characters like the stereotypical heartless medieval miller who squeezed the livelihood of his neighbors by charging a huge percentage of their grain as the price for letting them grind it at his mill. Players either have access to plentiful food or they're going to die quickly. No one will become dependent on a miller-type character, even if such opportunities existed ICly (which they don't, really).

Most characters don't live long enough for an unscrupulous character to make them indebted to him/her. Nenyuk's monopoly aside, no antagonist can make a living by unfair loans that impoverish those desperate or foolish enough to enter into them. The characters will simply die and the loan shark will never be able to get the loan money back OR make the debtor's life miserable. Besides, any enterprising character will easily be able to make money, so that reduces the evil loan sharks opportunities to only those characters who chose not to be clanned, not to be rich, and to be desperate and foolish. That's a small player population for the antagonist to antagonize.

Examples could be multiplied.

IC monopolies combine with OOC character life expectancy to narrow the antagonists role to: raider, thief/burglar, or asshole. There are other possibilities, of course, but I think they're difficult to achieve and their full impact is blunted because those who should be made miserable or exploited by them will simply die or wander off long before they can truly be antagonized.

Quote from: Synthesis on October 30, 2011, 11:17:18 AM
Well, I can tell people how I usually do the "successful" solo antagonist:

1) Utilize every trick in the book to skill up as fast as codedly possible.
     a) Have a minimal IC footprint at this time.  Don't talk to other players. Don't go to bars (unless it's to skill something up).  Stay hidden whenever you aren't doing something to skill up. Etc.

2) Once you're badass enough to raid, only pick on noobs and unaffiliated PCs.

3) Always assume your target will be the shittiest type of player, and utilize overwhelming force.

4) Always kill your target.  Fewer people to raid? Ha--they'll roll up another PC soon enough.

5) Continue to maintain a minimal IC footprint.  Don't stop to chat.  Don't hang out at bars.  Don't take on minions.  Log in, raid, log out.

6) Store or suicide when a more interesting role comes up.

Quote from: Nyr on October 30, 2011, 01:01:22 PM
While it may not need to be said, if you are looking for actual advice on playing an antagonist properly, please disregard Synthesis' post as tongue in cheek.

It may be sad, but it is true.  The stuff about maintaining a minimal IC footprint and utilizing overwhelming force are needed if you're going to be successful.

If you steal so much as a single grimy sid from somebody in the salt flats and walk in the gaj at any point that RL week you have a good chance of being hunted down and killed by bored players who come on the gdb to complain about a lack of conflict so they pulverise the first chance they have at some.  Because really, most people only want conflict they can win, anyways.

The above may be cynical and a little exaggerated but I definately see value to Synth's post.  And while you don't necessarily need coded power to be a successful raider, OOC code-smarts are a must.  Although I am apprehensive to kill.  I usually make my goal incapacitation followed by some sort of demand or situation that will offer the victim a chance of survival if they are compliant or choose the right path.  I used to kill 100% of the time and it is definately the logical thing to do if you want to keep your raider pc alive, it just isn't as fun, challenging or artful - to me.  Not that I am particularly elite or artistic, but I do have a good time playing these characters.


On a side note, a solo raider is the best pc for the casual player.  No time to contribute a great deal to a clan or make rpts?  Logging on only twice a week will make you a more successful solo raider anyways.  People will never be too worried with that kind of irregularity.  And with less investment you won't mind taking risks or engaging a conflict you know you're going to lose.   Hell, you might even want to roll up a raider with the goal of ending up fodder for other pc's enjoyment.

I'll address the bad advice directly, then.

We on staff expect more out of players.  If you want to be a jackass, follow that advice. If (instead) you want to play a realistic PC:

--don't twink your skills. Play reasonably.
--interaction with other players involves more than using the commands steal, pick, sap, backstab, kill, and cast. Flesh out your actions with more roleplay.
--don't target newbies. You used to be one. Target unaffiliated people because it makes sense, but singling out newbies for negative interaction is a supremely dickish move.
--be prepared for your opponents to roleplay shittily. This does not mean you should disregard common courtesy in advance of all interaction.
--Kill if it is what your PC would do.
--store if you feel you must. Don't suicide.



I'm sad that this has to be iterated: you're part of an RPI. Act like it.

It is a good idea to reduce your footprint as a magicker, raider, assassin, whatev--but doing so at the exclusion of all other interaction or roleplay is downright twinkish.

Well, a lot of that is twinkishness necessitated by poor play from others, and by problems with underlying code.

1) Skilling up:  it's honestly so easy on Arm that you don't need to spam, even with poor HG wisdom.  There are certain skills that take forever to go up, regardless of wisdom, regardless of spamming--these aren't really the skills that you really need to kill bodies.  It seems like the most dangerous skills are, ironically, the easiest to improve.

2) Reducing IC footprint:  if it wasn't so easy to identify people by mdescs and equipment lists, people wouldn't have to do it.  After you do your first successful raid (and allow the victim to live), or fail your first raid (allowing them to escape), your IC footprint within the cities will essentially be zero anyway, because either you never enter, or you'll die when you do.

3) Being a dick to noobs:  It's not so much because they're noobs, but you can tell people who are noobs by what they do, which creates its own IC justification correlating highly with noobishness.  E.g. people who troll around the 'rinth wearing full sets of armor, or people who are out and about in the desert on foot.

4) Roleplay:  yes, roleplay is good, and it's the point of the game.  Unfortunately, the code and/or the staff does not support particular types of roleplay very well, which is why this stupid thread respawns every year or so.

It's okay to be a twink because the game allows it, other people do it, and because staff can't be everywhere at once?

Put in a character report if you need staff support for your kind of roleplay, by the way.  You might be surprised by the results.

Quote from: Nyr on October 30, 2011, 02:27:12 PM
I'll address the bad advice directly, then.

We on staff expect more out of players.  If you want to be a jackass, follow that advice. If (instead) you want to play a realistic PC:

--don't twink your skills. Play reasonably.
--interaction with other players involves more than using the commands steal, pick, sap, backstab, kill, and cast. Flesh out your actions with more roleplay.
--don't target newbies. You used to be one. Target unaffiliated people because it makes sense, but singling out newbies for negative interaction is a supremely dickish move.
--be prepared for your opponents to roleplay shittily. This does not mean you should disregard common courtesy in advance of all interaction.
--Kill if it is what your PC would do.
--store if you feel you must. Don't suicide.



I'm sad that this has to be iterated: you're part of an RPI. Act like it.

Agreed, however Synth's advice is still good if not taken to an extreme and accompanied rp, which it easily can be.  I do see the value of your post though, the advice given could easily be taken too far.  I think Synth was exaggerating a little bit anyways. Following some of that advice by no means makes you a jackass.

--twinking is bad but efficiency in training skills goes a long ways
--overwhleming force does not mean backstab/shoot with no roleplay, it means crippling/killing them before they have a chance to flee
--there's a big difference between targetting newbies and targetting inexperienced pc's, determining the difference between a seasoned byn veteran and a novice kadian hunter is an IC decision
--suicide is stupid but I personally encourage increasingly risky activity with other pc's, it's not suicide if someone else pulls the trigger

I see why you responded the way you did, Nyr but the fact is playing a solo raider type is really tricky unless you're willing and have the know-how to create a powerful pc.  A 2 day warrior or ranger with an ugly piece of bone is all you need and can provide some good fun for everyone involved.

I would argue if you don't include at least some of Synth's six points, you're not going to get anywhere.

It's almost as though we don't find it to be that feasible for people to be long lived solo raiders.

Quote from: Nyr on October 30, 2011, 03:10:10 PM
It's almost as though we don't find it to be that feasible for people to be long lived solo raiders.

OOC chatter does make things like this difficult, being that a long lived raider type is gonna have to exist under the radar, whether it's  living in the wild or leading a double life.  The answer to "How did you know that?" seems out of touch once your Raider PC is dead.  So does a complaint, for the record.

Just a note, since I'm certain things like this do happen when people get emotional over their PC getting killed, maybe more than once, even.

Quote from: Nyr on October 30, 2011, 03:10:10 PM
It's almost as though we don't find it to be that feasible for people to be long lived solo raiders.

...you pretty much have to start out on your own in that particular endeavor, which is when said guidelines actually help.  Very rare are the circumstances that put you into a group doing it early on.  Even to duress people to join you (which makes things interesting),  you have to have survived on your own for awhile.

Quote from: Nyr on October 30, 2011, 02:53:26 PM
It's okay to be a twink because the game allows it, other people do it, and because staff can't be everywhere at once?

Put in a character report if you need staff support for your kind of roleplay, by the way.  You might be surprised by the results.

Not okay to be a twink.  Correctly done, all the things I outlined are merely mediocre play, not twinking.

It's perfectly okay (and necessary) to play on that borderline between outright twinkishness and mediocrity, though.  Again, the point of these threads (generally) is to ask:  how can we improve things from this mediocre least common denominator?

From most of the posts, I wonder if we are even playing the same game.

(all this from a year or more ago)
My various chars have been flogged, beaten, robbed, threatened, attacked by gickers, plotted to kill (person died before it came to fruition),
secretly undone what his partners were doing, etc.

I like adventure stories so I create them.

My chars get involved in all kinds of stuff and I don't even try! They pick sides. They overtly and covertly help their favorites. Sooner or later it comes out.
It just takes a long time to get things moving and I sure as hell don't need anyone else to do it for me.

If you just want something so blatantly obvious as a war..I'm firmly in the "don't care" camp.
If you need someone else to create some conflict for your entertainment...hahahaha.. go ahead, be all the NPC you can be.
Heck, sounds like some of you would be better off animating an existing gith or scrab than trying to play a PC anyway.
You don't have a story, you just want to play killer and cry like a baby here when it's not easy.

DIKU combat sucks so bad it is pathetic. For PK combat, I go to those freemium online games where you don't have corners in the desert, death due to mistyping (flee not slee!), scrollfest when too many characters are in a room, doing anything with more than a couple of people is SLOW as molasses..etc etc.

The best commands on this game are "say" and "emote". Period.

Playing the antagonist does not equal playing a raider.

Every PC can be another PC's (or group's) antagonist, their nemesis. An antagonist does not have to be hunted and hated by the whole Known World, but some roles end up that way because of their orientation, because of how the player plays the PC. If you raid everyone (or you play a hostile race like mantis, gith, halfling) and piss off all the GMHs, both city-states and the Sandlord's auntie, expect to be hunted down real fast.

Quote from: roughneck on October 30, 2011, 01:50:56 PM
If you steal so much as a single grimy sid from somebody in the salt flats and walk in the gaj at any point that RL week you have a good chance of being hunted down and killed by bored players who come on the gdb to complain about a lack of conflict so they pulverise the first chance they have at some.  Because really, most people only want conflict they can win, anyways.

Couldn't agree more.

Trust me, having played a Templar/Militia before, I know how boring it can get when there's literally no crime and nothing to do for vast periods of time. You want to know the solution? Don't go overkill whenever you FINALLY have a criminal in the dungeons. You guys want more criminals and conflict to deal with in your city state? Then don't go totally balls to the walls on a criminal in your dungeon. Don't spend 2 hours torturing them, cutting off fingers, stripping them naked, poking out their eyeballs and trying to squeeze any morsel of information out of them.

Instead, when that elf gets sent to the dungeons for stealing a piece of bread, maybe do what the documents actually tell you to, and slap on a light 10-20 sid fine before letting them go. You will be AMAZED by the results of this. Because not only will this elf probably go back out there and begin creating more conflict, but you're probably going to see an upswing in criminal activity which ultimately means more conflict and more fun for all.

My advice to you griefer-type antagonists in powerful positions: Go easy on 99% of your criminals, and save your griefing 2 hour torture sessions for the real bad guys. If you let the petty criminals go, then not only are you promoting small petty crimes for your minions to deal with, but you're also encouraging players to actually play criminals and stir up some conflict. And here's the best part: if you slap on light fines or heavier ones for reoccurring crimes, you will become extremely wealthy. And what does wealth equal in Arm? More plots!

Put in a character report if you are any sort of antagonist looking for advice on how best to proceed. You may be surprised by the results.

Quote from: Nyr on October 30, 2011, 03:38:03 PM
Put in a character report if you are any sort of antagonist looking for advice on how best to proceed. You may be surprised by the results.

Good advice.  Getting player complaints are irritating but if you have already reported everything, it's going to be way easier on you.

Whether I'm clanned or not I report every pk immediately and send in a report of at least the major stealing/raiding/whatever I've been doing just to keep it above board. Best to get Staff understanding your thinking, roleplay and tactics early on so when the time comes to resolve a complaint the investigation is a lot more straightforward.

Quote from: Dakota on October 30, 2011, 09:23:30 AM

Quote from: X-D on October 29, 2011, 07:54:14 PM


Nothing annoys me more then to hear a templar, from either citystate worry about angering the other city state.

Alright, When it is a nakki templar, that annoys me the most. I mean Come on, Nakki templars worried about keeping the peace? HAHAHAHAHA...lame.

I did not play Arm before May of 2010. But I've read a hoard of the GDB posts that go faaaar back before that. I think the fact you never see any active Hawk Lobby in either city state against the other city state has sort of.. fed into any "we need more antagonist" sentiment.

Do I think a Templar wanting to keep the "Peace" between the two cities is bad? No. But its strange when you don't even feel so much of an animosity between the two cities when citizens of both meet on neutral ground. Usually when they meet at random in say Luirs, its cordial if not friendly... The last open conflict was.. What? Less than a few dozen years ago? I just find it hard to believe that despite each city being run by God-Kings, theirs not a group of senators, templars, nobles foaming for a war with the other city to 'finish the job'. Perhaps this is more of a staff / policy thing to NOT encourage war or hawkish actions to those players of Templars.

Will this led to more groups antagonizing like suggested in the first post? No. But it will promote more of what I think FW and others are getting at (and its structured). I just don't get why this sort of friction IG has been reduced, and it would be interesting to hear from staff; if it is staff induced or just from the actions from timid players in high powered positions. We don't need a full out war (would be nice though).

I think it helps to look at the situation in each of the city-states and history itself, to really understand why there is no frothing desire to wage all out war, though I am not saying the desire is perhaps not there.

First, each city-state has both/ either or, current external internal conflicts going on, perhaps less perceived bu your common hunter, tavern sitter pc who is not getting involved in the over all geographical plots that have been in works of being resoved or working towards it.

These situations in themselves make planning all out war improbable. To here people go on about it shows a lack of military minded strategy. Honestly, you must secure your interior before looking out beyond your borders.

A lot of the major issue is perhaps seen to most as subtle, but in truth is there and present for all pcs to become actively a part of.

There have been small local skirmishes involving multiple clans, both north and south, generally working together against a common threat. There are generally lulls between such things, whether staff or pc driven, especially when the Pc's organized strikes are effective and kick ass.

As for north south hate, I'm sure there is no great love there, and is one is visiting the other, so long as they stay in line, its hard to draw out a good solid reason to fuck them up, but does that mean merchants give them good deals, or locals dive them directions to the shop that don't lead them through bad parts of town or the longest way to get from point aye to point be. I doubt it. There are many ways to get one over on them.

Send them to go kiss the z-land equivalent of the blarney stone.

 

I think some of the best antagonist advice ever is: If you are going to PK, immediately wish up about it and send in a report detailing the why's and how's and any previous RPs beforehand. If it's some kind of shakedown effort, report the why's and how's and any rp beforehand. That kind of stuff is the kind of stuff staff needs to see to understand fully what's going on.

Quote from: Saellyn on October 30, 2011, 04:19:28 PM
I think some of the best antagonist advice ever is: If you are going to PK, immediately wish up about it and send in a report detailing the why's and how's and any previous RPs beforehand. If it's some kind of shakedown effort, report the why's and how's and any rp beforehand. That kind of stuff is the kind of stuff staff needs to see to understand fully what's going on.

If I was going to PK a high authority, I would save the report explaining the details until -after- unless you want Mr. Fancy-Pants Noble to suddenly double his guard because "anonymous" information leaked to him that Mr. Assassin was going to make an attempt on his life.

Quote from: Gunnerblaster on October 30, 2011, 04:26:30 PM

Quote from: Saellyn on October 30, 2011, 04:19:28 PM
I think some of the best antagonist advice ever is: If you are going to PK, immediately wish up about it and send in a report detailing the why's and how's and any previous RPs beforehand. If it's some kind of shakedown effort, report the why's and how's and any rp beforehand. That kind of stuff is the kind of stuff staff needs to see to understand fully what's going on.

If I was going to PK a high authority, I would save the report explaining the details until -after- unless you want Mr. Fancy-Pants Noble to suddenly double his guard because "anonymous" information leaked to him that Mr. Assassin was going to make an attempt on his life.

That's... really cynical and if that happened I'd roll with it anyways because maybe somebody did leak it before I could pull it off. I don't just blindly go around PKing people either, so...

Quote from: Gunnerblaster on October 30, 2011, 04:26:30 PM

Quote from: Saellyn on October 30, 2011, 04:19:28 PM
I think some of the best antagonist advice ever is: If you are going to PK, immediately wish up about it and send in a report detailing the why's and how's and any previous RPs beforehand. If it's some kind of shakedown effort, report the why's and how's and any rp beforehand. That kind of stuff is the kind of stuff staff needs to see to understand fully what's going on.

If I was going to PK a high authority, I would save the report explaining the details until -after- unless you want Mr. Fancy-Pants Noble to suddenly double his guard because "anonymous" information leaked to him that Mr. Assassin was going to make an attempt on his life.

No, this is not what happens.

Send in a report about your plans to PK a high authority/notorious person in advance.  We do appreciate it.  You may have a cynical opinion on something that is contrary to the helpfiles and policy of the game (see help reports, help wish), which is fine, but keep it to yourself and don't imply that others should do it.

Quote from: Nyr on October 30, 2011, 04:38:23 PM

Quote from: Gunnerblaster on October 30, 2011, 04:26:30 PM

Quote from: Saellyn on October 30, 2011, 04:19:28 PM
I think some of the best antagonist advice ever is: If you are going to PK, immediately wish up about it and send in a report detailing the why's and how's and any previous RPs beforehand. If it's some kind of shakedown effort, report the why's and how's and any rp beforehand. That kind of stuff is the kind of stuff staff needs to see to understand fully what's going on.

If I was going to PK a high authority, I would save the report explaining the details until -after- unless you want Mr. Fancy-Pants Noble to suddenly double his guard because "anonymous" information leaked to him that Mr. Assassin was going to make an attempt on his life.

No, this is not what happens.

Send in a report about your plans to PK a high authority/notorious person in advance.  We do appreciate it.  You may have a cynical opinion on something that is contrary to the helpfiles and policy of the game (see help reports, help wish), which is fine, but keep it to yourself and don't imply that others should do it.

Never have I ever had Staff adversely react to my character reports involving Doing Something Really Bad I probably Shouldn't Be Doing (AKA Killing a Warlord of Tor, or blowing up a building) When I make it CLEAR that it is OOC information for the Staff, and not something I would report to my superiors.

Quote from: Potaje on October 30, 2011, 04:12:39 PM

Quote from: Dakota on October 30, 2011, 09:23:30 AM

Quote from: X-D on October 29, 2011, 07:54:14 PM


Nothing annoys me more then to hear a templar, from either citystate worry about angering the other city state.

Alright, When it is a nakki templar, that annoys me the most. I mean Come on, Nakki templars worried about keeping the peace? HAHAHAHAHA...lame.

I did not play Arm before May of 2010. But I've read a hoard of the GDB posts that go faaaar back before that. I think the fact you never see any active Hawk Lobby in either city state against the other city state has sort of.. fed into any "we need more antagonist" sentiment.

Do I think a Templar wanting to keep the "Peace" between the two cities is bad? No. But its strange when you don't even feel so much of an animosity between the two cities when citizens of both meet on neutral ground. Usually when they meet at random in say Luirs, its cordial if not friendly... The last open conflict was.. What? Less than a few dozen years ago? I just find it hard to believe that despite each city being run by God-Kings, theirs not a group of senators, templars, nobles foaming for a war with the other city to 'finish the job'. Perhaps this is more of a staff / policy thing to NOT encourage war or hawkish actions to those players of Templars.

Will this led to more groups antagonizing like suggested in the first post? No. But it will promote more of what I think FW and others are getting at (and its structured). I just don't get why this sort of friction IG has been reduced, and it would be interesting to hear from staff; if it is staff induced or just from the actions from timid players in high powered positions. We don't need a full out war (would be nice though).

I think it helps to look at the situation in each of the city-states and history itself, to really understand why there is no frothing desire to wage all out war, though I am not saying the desire is perhaps not there.

First, each city-state has both/ either or, current external internal conflicts going on, perhaps less perceived bu your common hunter, tavern sitter pc who is not getting involved in the over all geographical plots that have been in works of being resoved or working towards it.

These situations in themselves make planning all out war improbable. To here people go on about it shows a lack of military minded strategy. Honestly, you must secure your interior before looking out beyond your borders.

A lot of the major issue is perhaps seen to most as subtle, but in truth is there and present for all pcs to become actively a part of.

I agree w/ the last point, but it is not a rare or uncommon to have a hawk lobby (successful or unsuccessful) to start a war, small conflict with another state in times of internal turmoil. It shifts focus from the main issue at hand. Wage the Dog principle and it happens often. Regardless, with one merchant house that thrives on war, and a few noble houses that are pure instruments of war, having a Hawk Lobby bred on animosity and masked by whatever ruse or good reason for a war makes perfect sense to not only exist but be visible.

Quote from: Potaje on October 30, 2011, 04:12:39 PM

As for north south hate, I'm sure there is no great love there, and is one is visiting the other, so long as they stay in line, its hard to draw out a good solid reason to fuck them up, but does that mean merchants give them good deals, or locals dive them directions to the shop that don't lead them through bad parts of town or the longest way to get from point aye to point be. I doubt it. There are many ways to get one over on them. 

I wish I could say I've witnessed it a majority of the times I've seen the opportunity for it to happen, but I simply haven't and while this isn't an RP discussion, I think this could be solved by more of a top-trickle-down effect in terms of overall attitude.

Some advice for playing antagonists:

- Don't shit where you eat. I cannot stress this enough. What does this mean? It means if your major underhanded activities are enough to piss off the powers that be in the locale in which you are making your 'home' then you're doing something wrong. If you're playing a raider, this means confining your major raiding activities to locations which are either out of reach for your prey or their powers that be, or at least under your control. The farther away you are, the more likely that the people in charge of your 'home' will shrug and not care about what you're doing. If you plan on taking hostages or abducting people, choose a location in the middle of nowhere that your victims cannot describe. This should also be a good way away from your home base. Have a couple of these locations handy.

- You are not the king of your home. Unless you are, of course, but that's generally up for grabs whenever someone bigger, stronger, smarter or with more clout behind them comes to take over where you are living. What it means, is that wherever you are, there is likely to be either a bigger fish or bigger fish at the edges that will swim in to take a bite out of you if you get -too- big, too fast. It also means that making nice with the powers that be in the area you are is a GOOD THING. Faithful Lord Fancypants Mcgee is probably going to be all too happy to look the other way if your southern raiding expeditions end up in regular 'donations' to the templarate. Getting others involved by giving them a small piece of your ill-gotten pie, goes a long way toward fostering goodwill. Remember, this does not just extend to physical goods and coin, but information. Hell, you can even cover your activities by claiming it as 'scouting'.

- Have a safehouse. Or two. Preferably out of range of the long arm of the law. Somewhere where you can hide out when the heat is a little too hot, or you ended up pissing off someone you didn't mean to. It's going to happen, so you may as well prepare for it. If you're really good at what you do, you'll probably have some advance warning.

- Understand that if you set out to do things to make enemies, you will make enemies. If you're just playing a general raider, without specific targets, then you will make a lot of enemies. To the people who whine about raiding people outside a city and then people get mad and get them in trouble when they go to the same city to hang out at the bar? Tough titties. If you have a problem with the consequences of what you do in pissing people off, then you're apparently not cut out to play an antagonist. This ties into not shitting where you eat, clearly. More like, don't eat where you shit.

- Your role is not raider, antagonist or conflict-maker. If this is your entire reason for playing the role, then I strongly suggest you learn to play something else because you won't be happy. A criminal isn't playing a criminal role-- no matter how much of an antagonist a person is, no matter how many babies they eat every day, in the end, they are still a -person-. As a person, there need to be reasons behind why your character is doing what they do, otherwise it's completely contrived and existing for no other reason to grief players except to grief them because that's how you get your kicks gets old and boring fast. Play a character first, their occupation second. This is why homegrown characters tend to last longer and feel more realistic than out of the box characters-- there is more investment, more connection to them. They tend to have reasons they are doing X aside from their player wants to do X. Even coming into the game with a reason behind why your character is doing what they do is a good start.

- Like the above, realize that this sort of activity shouldn't be the only source of interaction your character has. You don't need to raid everyone you meet. You don't have to burgle every house you break into. When you go to a bar or hang-out, you shouldn't always be going there to pick people's pockets. This goes doubly-so for a loner type raider. This may lead to its own entertaining things.

- Don't play your character as a collection of skills and percentages. In some way, I mourn the addition of skill levels, but this isn't the thread for that. Still-- coded skill only has meaning in terms of code. It's important, yes. But you'd be surprised at how easy it is to get by without being a code badass. This is a little easier with colleagues and minions, obviously. Even so, your actions are not limited to what is codedly allowable. Unfortunately, some people will take advantage of such things, but this has always occurred whether or not you play an antagonist. But when people go along with you, and you'd be surprised at how many will, especially if you put a little trust as a player into the other players, at what wonderful events can unfold. If the choice comes down to taking a chance and doing this, even at the risk of losing your character, take that chance anyway.

- Keep the admins updated with your character, your characters goals, and what you are currently doing to make things happen. Even if it's boring. Even if it's nothing. Don't be afraid to ask for advice or to ask questions. Out of the bajillion times I've emailed staff, I can count on the number of fingers of one hand that I've received a reply that was not in some way helpful, even if it was just asking clarification. If staff says no, do not get butthurt. Do not believe they are poo-pooing you to spite you. Ask for clarification. Ask for ways that you can weave part of what you want to do into what already exists. Create a bulleted list of why you think implementing your idea would be beneficial, and if appropriate, add a bulleted list of why it might not work. Staff are way more inclined to assist you if they know you have also thought about the consequences of what you are asking.

- Realize that no role, no matter what it is, if you want to at least have a long-term role or character that lives past 10 days, is going to be a riot-a-minute fiesta of fun. There will be boring periods and slow periods. This includes playing raiders and criminals and antagonists. If you have things to do to keep yourself occupied during these times, you are more likely to enjoy and stick it out, which in turn, makes it worth investing in a truly antagonistic character.

- Involve other people.

I could go on and on and on. Playing an antagonist is no different from playing any other role. If you, as a player, go about it in a stupid and twinky fashion, then yes, you're going to die quickly, usually. If this is fine, if that's all you want, there's no need to even post on the board. Just do it. There's no reason to even bother admins for investing time into setting you up. If you actually want to play a realistic antagonist, especially unaffiliated, then do your best to set yourself up. If you manage to stay alive and retain colleagues/minions, you will likely have the staff support you've been asking for on here. And who knows? Maybe you'll be the actual proginator of a new clan of criminals. If so, congratulations!

Anyways, I hope some of this stuff helps.

I skipped the last couple pages, but have a few things to say on the matter of raider and raidee. Much I cannot say for another month but.

In recent history I have found more then 95% of raid victems quite willing to play along in one direction or another, So I do not think the fear of raid victems always running away or just typing kill is currently valid.

Let me restate, My experience as a raider has been good, most people currently playing would rather have a good scene.

But, They do need to know there is going to be a good scene. So if you are raider joe nobody...well, you are less likely to have a good raid experience.

I have also found, at least on the point of raiding groups, Staff is more then willing to support when they can or should. But That group does need a solid leader, it needs rules of operation, staff needs to know those rules as well as the raider players and the leader needs take responsibility for his/her crews actions.

My earlier post was not citing anything in my experience with staff on the subject of raiders, in that my experience has been overwhelmingly good, from Nyr on down.

My feelings about staff "seeming" to not want antagonists has come from other areas of the game.

That all being said.

Don't shit where you eat, not so much good advice any more. Sadly it seems most everybody is in everybody elses bed, if you try and run a raiding group out of nak that only raids in the north, there is a 99% chance, once found out it will be a nakki templar that nails you, likely because you are hurting the peace with those northy tree huggers or maybe a northy templar paid him/her off.

And the above is possible simply because it has been made impossible to hide your identity, by staff, over the years. You cannot hide it even from the lowest newbiest newb.

Safehouse, not even possible, and I am not going to bother going into it, the world is simply not that big, no place is out of reach or even hard to reach and there are far too many methods to find such places even if they did exist.

Many of the other posts are good, but the one about war.

In fact, the biggest reason for war through out history has been BECAUSE your house is not in order. In fact, the external influences on the south right now should have them wanting war if only for resources and or to lower the number of mouths to feed.

Or the north should be looking to take advantage of an enemy that is possibly already in a weakened state, Or even a pre-emptive series of strikes to make sure they never get north to raid for resources.

Hell, I never put in for templar myself, but if I was going to, it would to set up a privateer system (otherwise known as state sponsered/sanctioned pirates) In arm they would be state sponsered/sanctioned raiders.

QuoteHell, I never put in for templar myself, but if I was going to, it would to set up a privateer system (otherwise known as state sponsered/sanctioned pirates) In arm they would be state sponsered/sanctioned raiders.

I tried to set this up several times, and it was -always- shot down.  I just don't get it. XD

Quote from: Armaddict on October 30, 2011, 08:36:06 PM

QuoteHell, I never put in for templar myself, but if I was going to, it would to set up a privateer system (otherwise known as state sponsered/sanctioned pirates) In arm they would be state sponsered/sanctioned raiders.

I tried to set this up several times, and it was -always- shot down.  I just don't get it. XD

Really?  That seems unlikely.  I would think that with the backing of the templarate (or one templar), this could be done.

Quote from: Armaddict on October 30, 2011, 08:36:06 PM

QuoteHell, I never put in for templar myself, but if I was going to, it would to set up a privateer system (otherwise known as state sponsered/sanctioned pirates) In arm they would be state sponsered/sanctioned raiders.

I tried to set this up several times, and it was -always- shot down.  I just don't get it. XD

During the Copper War, my HG was working as a privateer until a certain notorious Whiran spamkilled him.

The Copper War was a long, long time ago, though.

Quote from: Nyr on October 30, 2011, 08:41:40 PM

Quote from: Armaddict on October 30, 2011, 08:36:06 PM

QuoteHell, I never put in for templar myself, but if I was going to, it would to set up a privateer system (otherwise known as state sponsered/sanctioned pirates) In arm they would be state sponsered/sanctioned raiders.

I tried to set this up several times, and it was -always- shot down.  I just don't get it. XD

Really?  That seems unlikely.  I would think that with the backing of the templarate (or one templar), this could be done.

I won't say which PC's here, and I doubt you know off the top of my head, but I submitted for it with clan staff with both of those pc's.  The first time it was outright shot down as I recall, or shot down by the templarate possibly.  The second time it was said to worry about such things after <this primary concern> is dealt with.  Which...hasn't been able to be dealt with, as far as I've seen.

Either way, it -does- seem unlikely, which is why it surprised me so much.  Seems like such a kickass idea, man.  Then again, as we know, my communication skills are often not the greatest, so that could have been the issue as well.  But I did try.  With two pc's. :P

Ah...well, that's the rub.

If you are not a templar, state-sponsored privateering is going to be difficult, 'cause you ain't the state.

Quote from: Nyr on October 30, 2011, 04:38:23 PM

Quote from: Gunnerblaster on October 30, 2011, 04:26:30 PM

Quote from: Saellyn on October 30, 2011, 04:19:28 PM
I think some of the best antagonist advice ever is: If you are going to PK, immediately wish up about it and send in a report detailing the why's and how's and any previous RPs beforehand. If it's some kind of shakedown effort, report the why's and how's and any rp beforehand. That kind of stuff is the kind of stuff staff needs to see to understand fully what's going on.

If I was going to PK a high authority, I would save the report explaining the details until -after- unless you want Mr. Fancy-Pants Noble to suddenly double his guard because "anonymous" information leaked to him that Mr. Assassin was going to make an attempt on his life.

No, this is not what happens.

Send in a report about your plans to PK a high authority/notorious person in advance.  We do appreciate it.  You may have a cynical opinion on something that is contrary to the helpfiles and policy of the game (see help reports, help wish), which is fine, but keep it to yourself and don't imply that others should do it.

It is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

I rarely make requests. When I put in a request saying that if <this set of circumstances happens> then <these people> will die, the staff simultaneously told me they know nothing of my character and then, while knowing nothing of my character,  told me how it was not IC. In my opinion if you give them a heads up and they don't like your action, IC as it may be, they will just find a way to make you the bad guy.

Quote from: Titania on October 30, 2011, 09:49:18 PM
It is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

I rarely make requests. When I put in a request saying that if <this set of circumstances happens> then <these people> will die, the staff simultaneously told me they know nothing of my character and then, while knowing nothing of my character,  told me how it was not IC. In my opinion if you give them a heads up and they don't like your action, IC as it may be, they will just find a way to make you the bad guy.

Emphasis changed (though the percentages are likely wrong now what with more posters and more people fitting that category):

Quote from: Nyr on October 30, 2011, 09:57:46 AM

This, however, is NOT how it works:

You discuss problems with (or at least agree with the position put forth about) antagonist PCs and plots and the like, yet you don't send in reports (whether that be at all, or sporadically).  This makes up at least 21% of posters in this thread at the time of this post, with one other that is borderline.

It shouldn't be a surprise why you're having a problem:  if you informed staff regularly, maybe they'd know something about your character.  See help staff communication, help reports, etc.  We're not hiding this stuff from you.  It is in helpfiles, it has been announced.  Please adhere to staff guidelines here, and you will see much better results!

QuoteThis makes up at least 6% of posters in this thread at the time of this post, and this seems disingenuous.

Could you let them know who they are?  The one who is speaking against it, but does a good job at it.  They might not know it.

This thread has actually made me think about a couple things that I -really- would like clarification on, there will be a request incoming.

I'll shoot them both an e-mail, but it'll probably be tomorrow.

Quote from: Cutthroat on October 30, 2011, 12:10:19 AMI don't see avoiding city-state conflict as lame.

Even if the templar does want to avoid inter-city conflict (and I'd like to think that when a templar is thinking such a thing they're adding "yet" at the end. As in "I don't want to start a conflict, yet." and fully intend to start one down the road). Expressing such a thought to anyone should be (IMO of course) avoided at all costs. Yes we've come a long way from the bad old days when templars demanded all PCs bow down to them. But they should still be a force to be feared (not respected. Respect is for nobles. It's their whole point of existing after all. Templars are feared).

If ever anyone wants to do something that would spark inter-city conflict the templar should simply tell them to stop. If they get asked why, the templar could reply in a variety of ways depending on who asked. For example:

• Commoner - "Because I said so."
• Soldier - "Because I said so."
• Merchant - "Because I said so."
• Slave - "What did you say?" as he reaches for a whip
• Noble's Aide - "Because I said so."
• Noble - Well actually, he should let the noble go ahead with this disastrous idea. Allow the noble to make a complete and utter fool of himself, cause quite a bit of trouble and then step in at the crucial time to stop everything before it gets out of hand. The noble's house will either have fallen in political clout or owe you a favour. Or both. If you work it really well northern templars or nobles may actually think they're indebted to you. And what better way to set up your ultimate move then by discretely (so as to keep appearances up of course) currying favour with those northern fools.
• Pillow friend that you've been sleeping with every night for the past 20 years and who you admit your every thought to - "Not yet. I'm working on X, Y and Z. But once those are done. Then. Then I will make my move against them northerners and they'll never even see it coming"

Quote from: Cutthroat on October 30, 2011, 12:10:19 AMDoes anyone really want to do something that could get themselves killed, if it's not worth the risk?

The Allanaki Empire wasn't carved out by spineless wine-sipping, silk-wearing, flower sniffing socialites who wouldn't know the sharp end of a sword if it ran right through their gut. Oh no. It was built on the backs of slaves. It was wrested into the Highlord's fist on the corpses of dead commoners. Allanak controlled the Known World from the Salt Plains to Mantis Valley. From the southern dusty plains to the Grey Forest. It wasn't won by templars keeping the peace because it was "good for trade" or because they might break a fingernail if they actually fought someone. No. It was gained because the templars marched forward and crushed the weak beneath their boots. They weren't afraid to take on Muk Utep. And if people asked about trade, why what better way to fill the bank accounts of nobles then by controlling all of the major settlements of the Known World. Taxes can be raised as they need to. Resources can be chopped down, dug up or killed to be sent south so that we can live in true luxury.

The Allanaki Empire was carved out of the dunes and plains because Templars weren't afraid to get their hands dirty.

As for why a templar would want all this bloodshed? For the glory. For the political power. To rise above his fellow blue robes and prove his worthiness of wearing the red. To be remembered long after he's dead. Those brave few who helped carve out the Allanak Empire are remembered even to do this day. Their names will never be forgotten while ever Allanak's red walls still stand. I wasn't around for the Occupation of Tuluk. But I remember talking to characters who were and I remember their stories even to this day. The last truly bad-ass templar I remember is Templar Shome (who was considered rather subdued for her time). She led forces out into the sandy deserts to fight the dangerous Spider Plague that erupted all those years ago. She was also involved in fighting back an invasion of a peculiar race (who to this day still pose the greatest mystery for me as to what they were and what they wanted). Those are the templars I remember. Not the ones who handed out gems and merchant's tokens and were too afraid to rock the cart.

Quote from: Cutthroat on October 30, 2011, 12:10:19 AMWith the way things are, you could still play a carefree blue robe that ends up dragging Allanak into a protracted conflict with Tuluk... good luck not catching flack for it though.

Baaah. Clearly this so called templar doesn't have the political saavy of a drunken Fale. If your superiors are unwilling to engage in a conflict with Tuluk. Convince them. Spy on the Tulukies. Find out what they're plotting. Invent plots if you must. The empire requires it. For if we allow those upstarts to think they're actually our equals, they'll start acting as if they're our equals. If we don't bring the fight to them, then they'll start to think we're weak and are ripe to be attacked. If we're not engaging in regular conflict then our soldiers are growing weak. If we start showing so much weakness that the northerners are thinking of attacking us, how long until the commoners rise up once more and start rioting? The reason they rioted originally wasn't because the sky went dark. Oh no. It was because we have had nothing but disasters. First we lost Tuluk to a rag-tag bunch of grebbers. Next we lost our outpost in Mantis Valley. Then we lost the Copper War!

For years we have shown that we are nothing but weak, and the commoners smell blood on the sands. The jakhals are circling looking an excuse to go in for the kill. Not only must we show our strength and dominance for the greatness of the Empire. Oh no. We must show our strength because our very survival depends on it. Or else soon we'll have magickers hiding under every rock ungemmed and uncontrolled. We'll have commoners who think they're our equal and refuse to bow. We'll have lawlessness and crime spread throughout the streets. We must show our strength because if we fail to do so, total anarchy will erupt and it will become too late.

Quote from: Cutthroat on October 30, 2011, 12:10:19 AMThe PCs know they could get fired, or die, and tailor their actions to avoid those consequences. They don't avoid conflict entirely, but they take on a reasonable level of conflict. How is that anything but good roleplay?

The templar that shows weakness is the templar that either dies in an alleyway or gets shipped off to a small farm or the very mines they're trying to avoid. Saying "I don't want to start a fight with X" is tantamount to saying "If I fight X I'm going to lose." While that might be true, to voice it is to show weakness and become powerless. The only way to avoid that is to pretend to be strong and try to fool everyone into thinking you are by setting them against one another all the while trying to appear strong and unassailable.

That is why I say it is lame for a nakkie templar to say "I don't want to start trouble with Tuluk." Think it if you must. But never say those words. You have a tradition and reputation to uphold. To say those words is to bring disrepute to your station.

Quote from: Nyr on October 30, 2011, 09:57:46 AMThis, however, is NOT how it works:

(I realise this may not be aimed at me, but I'm posting this more to explain my position then to respond).

My post isn't to say that antagonism doesn't exist. I'd like to think it does and I've seen a bit of it (I'm an off peak player so a bit is all I can hope for ;)). My initial post provided some ideas I have on how to promote antagonism while my second post was to respond to the idea of nakkie templars all wanting to hold hands and sing songs in the name of trade. I personally haven't heard a templar say they want to get along with those so-called "Chosen." I've had minimal contact with templars what with being AFK since 2008 ;)

People posted positions or statements and I responded to them as if they were true. I have very little to no in game knowledge in the past few years (in case that wasn't obvious in my previous posts).

Quote from: Gunnerblaster on October 30, 2011, 04:26:30 PMIf I was going to PK a high authority, I would save the report explaining the details until -after- unless you want Mr. Fancy-Pants Noble to suddenly double his guard because "anonymous" information leaked to him that Mr. Assassin was going to make an attempt on his life.

I've heard these sort of rumours happening since 2002. Most of the time they were always in the "not-so-distant" past. I'm not going to say it never happens, but I've certainly never heard of it. Sometimes a noble will just get lucky and for reasons unrelated to what you're planning, he'll increase his security.

As an example of getting lucky. I was playing a D&D game the other week and I did a "Harrow Reading" with a deck of cards. I drew a card that had the picture of a queen ant on it. I said to the players we should watch out for one of the NPCs because my reading had revealed that she was dangerous and that she was the queen ant. I was pulling it out of my arse. I based it on the fact she had a silk worm and was a tailor. I figured silk worm, queen ant. They look similar, I'll associate that card with her.

For the rest of the adventure we were keeping a close eye on the tailor because of what the cards had revealed to me of the future. She does nothing to urk our suspicions and the GM is saying "why are you all focusing on the tailor" and I reminded them about my fortune reading. Funnily enough towards the end the tailor turned out to be a villain that we had to fight. At which point I leapt up and said "see! The cards don't lie! I can tell the future with them!" Afterwards I had a look at the adventure and sure enough the tailor had been intended as a villain.

Gigantic coincidence. But boy did it pay off. Same thing can happen in Armageddon.

That said in the past I spoke with players on AIM. I spoke to one who many people claimed got quite a bit of OOC help from the staff. From both in game and out of game discussions I never got the idea that she was ever fed inappropriate information. Sometimes she got information from in game contacts. Other times she just relied on old fashioned paranoia. When you have a long lived PC you tend to become quite paranoid (at least, that's how it used to work) because people were out to get you.

Ultimately that person did die due to a PK. If she did have an Imm feeding her information, she must have done something big to annoy that Imm.

That said, not all of the staff are perfect. No-one's saying they are. Sometimes a staff member will mess up. Sometimes an inappropriate person will be chosen to become a staff member. These matters are usually dealt with quickly and quietly. If you believe you have a genuine grievance, send it in. If you don't trust some of the staff for whatever reason, ask advice from one you do trust.

IMO you'll get a lot more out of working with the staff then against the staff.

Quote from: Down Under on October 30, 2011, 04:56:17 PMNever have I ever had Staff adversely react to my character reports involving Doing Something Really Bad I probably Shouldn't Be Doing (AKA Killing a Warlord of Tor, or blowing up a building) When I make it CLEAR that it is OOC information for the Staff, and not something I would report to my superiors.

I had one PC who did something very very naughty. It was due to him having a nervous breakdown (due to IG events). I told my clan staffer OOCly why my character was doing what he was doing and they never punished me for it because I was taking appropriate precautions against getting caught.

Quote from: Armaddict on October 30, 2011, 08:36:06 PMI tried to set this up several times, and it was -always- shot down.  I just don't get it. XD

I've seen these set up and supported by clan staff from established coded clans. So I'm surprised to hear this. I would seek out further clarification as to why. Even now, send in a request and said "I proposed X at time Y and got knocked down by Z. Although I realise Z is no longer with us, could you provide me with feedback as to why X wouldn't be appropriate in the game?"

Quote from: Synthesis on October 30, 2011, 08:43:25 PMThe Copper War was a long, long time ago, though.

It feels like it was only yesterday.

Quote from: Titania on October 30, 2011, 09:49:18 PMI rarely make requests. When I put in a request saying that if <this set of circumstances happens> then <these people> will die, the staff simultaneously told me they know nothing of my character and then, while knowing nothing of my character,  told me how it was not IC. In my opinion if you give them a heads up and they don't like your action, IC as it may be, they will just find a way to make you the bad guy.

Sounds to me like the solution to that problem was more communication leading up to the attack. Not less. Had you been sending in reports from when your character was first created, they would have known who you were and been more amenable to your idea. Also they could have worked with you to address any concerns they may have had.

That said, I can understand why this would have happened. In the past I got the impression reports to staff were seen as a burden unless you were a leader. Fortunately that seems to have changed.

John: app a templar in the next round.

I don't see why every Blue robe has to have it in their mind to seek conflict with Tuluk. Nor do I see why every Tuluki templar would have to seek conflict with Allanak. Sure, it would fit nicely with such roles, but it certainly isn't essential and there is plenty of other kinds of conflict to be found elsewhere or indirectly touching on inter-city stuff. I do agree that it could be a sign of weakness to say you don't want that kind of conflict, but everything has to be considered in its own context.

All I see is lots of talk about how things should be from someone who hasn't played actively in three years. If you're not happy with how you think things are, I suggest you app a templar next time there's an open role announcement.

Quote from: palomar on October 31, 2011, 11:31:05 AM
I don't see why every Blue robe has to have it in their mind to seek conflict with Tuluk. Nor do I see why every Tuluki templar would have to seek conflict with Allanak. Sure, it would fit nicely with such roles, but it certainly isn't essential and there is plenty of other kinds of conflict to be found elsewhere or indirectly touching on inter-city stuff. I do agree that it could be a sign of weakness to say you don't want that kind of conflict, but everything has to be considered in its own context.

All I see is lots of talk about how things should be from someone who hasn't played actively in three years. If you're not happy with how you think things are, I suggest you app a templar next time there's an open role announcement.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing (That John hasn't been playing in a while). He has sentiments that I very much agree with, and that we as a playerbase perhaps have lost touch with by playing in the day-to-day. He has a refreshing standpoint of someone who is on the outside looking in, someone who hasn't been in the shit for a little while.

I think it should be an option, at all times, to have conflict between city-states and Outpost, but should not be one avidly pursued without just cause. Personally, I think it's the duty of leaders in clans to Mix Things Up. If it isn't IC for your character to do so, then don't, but I always make leader PC's that have it within them to cause serious change, based on their opinions and attitudes.

Quote from: Down Under on October 31, 2011, 01:44:46 PM

Quote from: palomar on October 31, 2011, 11:31:05 AM
I don't see why every Blue robe has to have it in their mind to seek conflict with Tuluk. Nor do I see why every Tuluki templar would have to seek conflict with Allanak. Sure, it would fit nicely with such roles, but it certainly isn't essential and there is plenty of other kinds of conflict to be found elsewhere or indirectly touching on inter-city stuff. I do agree that it could be a sign of weakness to say you don't want that kind of conflict, but everything has to be considered in its own context.

All I see is lots of talk about how things should be from someone who hasn't played actively in three years. If you're not happy with how you think things are, I suggest you app a templar next time there's an open role announcement.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing (That John hasn't been playing in a while). He has sentiments that I very much agree with, and that we as a playerbase perhaps have lost touch with by playing in the day-to-day. He has a refreshing standpoint of someone who is on the outside looking in, someone who hasn't been in the shit for a little while.

I think it should be an option, at all times, to have conflict between city-states and Outpost, but should not be one avidly pursued without just cause. Personally, I think it's the duty of leaders in clans to Mix Things Up. If it isn't IC for your character to do so, then don't, but I always make leader PC's that have it within them to cause serious change, based on their opinions and attitudes.

From my limited perspective (not being staff but playing regularly most of the time), I have seen all kinds of attitudes towards conflict among PC leaders in the past three years. Internal, inter-city, city-tribe, tribe-tribe, clan-clan conflict etc. All on different levels and with varying real results in game.

Not every templar PC can match "the legends-of-the-past PCs" but I've seen plenty who have been proactive in the conflict field. My personal opinion is that the playerbase isn't out of touch with these things. Yes, sometimes things go stale, or seem stale. It probably depends on a lot of different things. Both longevity and lack of longevity among leader PCs and their minions play in, I'm sure.

To antagonize like a boss, in a leadership position, you have to be around for a while. It's been said before that as a leader PC (particularly in a sponsored role) it's not recommended to try to change the world out of the box.

It's sometimes hard to get excited about planning to kill people or have rivals. Just wait a month and they die to bad connection or unfortunately located npc. If they are a sponsored role they will store. If they are a restrictive role they will log in so rarely it is practically impossible to find them online. In my previously mentioned complaint, they all stored or died before I could really even start thinking seriously about it anyway. Feels like sometimes your options are kill on sight or kick back andhave the best revenge by living well and let time and odds solve your problems.

Their is one sort of... +1 to staff I want to add...

While it's certainly hard to see sometimes bc you plan and plan and work and work and then get shot down bc your idea for an attack/assassination/whatever is just too risky (though being shot down DOES NOT stop you from going ahead with it if thats what your PC would do)...

Staff as a WHOLE, in my experience across various antagonists and plans and plots, a few of which were bat-shit insane, are supportive if the idea / reasoning works. Even if it doesn't you're encouraged to keep trying until you get something that does work.

Regardless I don't think you need staff interaction to use well-documented and historical friction to start a brawl with some northern scum with your southerner in the Tavern in Luirs. Shit If I was a Templar from Nak, and heard about some southerner beating up a northie in a tavern or screwing him over, I'd give him some sid, some f-me PC whore and a pat on the back. Then again... I'm convinced if I was a templar I would last a total of an RL week before I got off'd.

Quote from: Titania on October 30, 2011, 09:49:18 PM
It is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

I rarely make requests. When I put in a request saying that if <this set of circumstances happens> then <these people> will die, the staff simultaneously told me they know nothing of my character and then, while knowing nothing of my character,  told me how it was not IC. In my opinion if you give them a heads up and they don't like your action, IC as it may be, they will just find a way to make you the bad guy.

I hate to say this, but I actually agree with this post, as well as most of what Synthesis has to say above.  Despite the fact that multiple, official postings seem to contradict that this sort of player experience even happens.  In fact, the series of emphatic denials really only serves to emphasize that this is an undocumented problem. 

Unfortunately when I receive correction from staff members it typically involves a situation where the staff don't really seem to have any conception of who my character is, who I am as a player or what I am trying to accomplish in any particular scene. 

After years of absentee parenting, I've really just gotten used to doing pretty much everything for my character on my own.  I mean, the staff code the game.  They admin the game.  They approve my character for play, but after that pretty much everything cool that happens to my character is the result of what I'm doing or something another player is doing.  When a crash happens, staff are unresponsive to replacing the stuff I lost.  When I want to impact the game world, the staff generally try to convey the fact that they'd just prefer for me to go mine some obsidian or something. 

I don't think that this is personal.  I don't think that this is targeted.  I don't think that the staff are bad people.  But I'd really prefer that any new players to the game, who read this thread, receive the (far more honest) advice from Synthesis above that generally says that if you want something cool to happen, you have to do it yourself. 

Honestly, if the staff are too busy to hold our hand all of the time, I'd prefer that they were honest about this rather than trying to put official spin on the situation and say that they'd really really love an inbox full of player requests right now.  No they wouldn't.  They're inboxes are already full.  They're too busy.  We're on our own.  We make the characters.  We make the plots.  We're the change. 



disclaimer: obviously, even in this climate if you're going to make a post like this it's important to point out, for the benefit of newer players, that the senior players and staff generally enjoy an amicable relationship, that the game has improved a lot over the past few years, that I generally support the direction that the game is going and that players can count on the staff to listen politely to constructive criticism. 

I don't think Synthesis' advice is entirely serious, jriley. There are points in there, though snarky, that make sense, but I wholeheartedly disagree that it should be advice given to new players.

Advice to new players:
-Use the helper system to get better acquainted with the game
-Read all the docs before applying for your first character (This usually ends up being by #5 for most people, myself included)
-Send in weekly reports to Staff to keep them appraised of who your character is; even if your character isn't in a clan, there are Indy Staff that love watching over you.

Your characters are unknown, unfamiliar to Staff, and feel like 'absentee parents' because, more likely than not, you are not keeping in close touch with them. I won't pretend that I know the entire situation behind your account or the time you have spent here, but that is the wager I would make. If you make weekly reports, Staff will be very intimate with your character's plans, motivations, and goals.

Quote from: Down Under on October 31, 2011, 10:35:35 PM
I don't think Synthesis' advice is entirely serious, jriley. There are points in there, though snarky, that make sense, but I wholeheartedly disagree that it should be advice given to new players.

Advice to new players:
-Use the helper system to get better acquainted with the game
-Read all the docs before applying for your first character (This usually ends up being by #5 for most people, myself included)
-Send in weekly reports to Staff to keep them appraised of who your character is; even if your character isn't in a clan, there are Indy Staff that love watching over you.

Your characters are unknown, unfamiliar to Staff, and feel like 'absentee parents' because, more likely than not, you are not keeping in close touch with them. I won't pretend that I know the entire situation behind your account or the time you have spent here, but that is the wager I would make. If you make weekly reports, Staff will be very intimate with your character's plans, motivations, and goals.

I agree with this. I'd just add it doesn't even need to be weekly. Not everyone has time for weekly reports and staff ask them from players in leadership positions for the most part anyway. Biweekly or monthly reports could suit particular players better depending on what their PC is involved in.

Quote from: jriley on October 31, 2011, 09:44:51 PM

Quote from: Titania on October 30, 2011, 09:49:18 PM
It is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

I rarely make requests. When I put in a request saying that if <this set of circumstances happens> then <these people> will die, the staff simultaneously told me they know nothing of my character and then, while knowing nothing of my character,  told me how it was not IC. In my opinion if you give them a heads up and they don't like your action, IC as it may be, they will just find a way to make you the bad guy.

I hate to say this, but I actually agree with this post, as well as most of what Synthesis has to say above.  Despite the fact that multiple, official postings seem to contradict that this sort of player experience even happens.  In fact, the series of emphatic denials really only serves to emphasize that this is an undocumented problem.  


Unfortunately when I receive correction from staff members it typically involves a situation where the staff don't really seem to have any conception of who my character is, who I am as a player or what I am trying to accomplish in any particular scene.  

After years of absentee parenting, I've really just gotten used to doing pretty much everything for my character on my own.  I mean, the staff code the game.  They admin the game.  They approve my character for play, but after that pretty much everything cool that happens to my character is the result of what I'm doing or something another player is doing.  When a crash happens, staff are unresponsive to replacing the stuff I lost.  When I want to impact the game world, the staff generally try to convey the fact that they'd just prefer for me to go mine some obsidian or something.  

I don't think that this is personal.  I don't think that this is targeted.  I don't think that the staff are bad people.  But I'd really prefer that any new players to the game, who read this thread, receive the (far more honest) advice from Synthesis above that generally says that if you want something cool to happen, you have to do it yourself.  

Honestly, if the staff are too busy to hold our hand all of the time, I'd prefer that they were honest about this rather than trying to put official spin on the situation and say that they'd really really love an inbox full of player requests right now.  No they wouldn't.  They're inboxes are already full.  They're too busy.  We're on our own.  We make the characters.  We make the plots.  We're the change.  



disclaimer: obviously, even in this climate if you're going to make a post like this it's important to point out, for the benefit of newer players, that the senior players and staff generally enjoy an amicable relationship, that the game has improved a lot over the past few years, that I generally support the direction that the game is going and that players can count on the staff to listen politely to constructive criticism.  

Your post doesn't match up with your account history or request history.  You've not once placed a reimbursement request, so how could we have replaced what you lost?  You've not once put in a character report, so how could we have conveyed anything to you?  You once placed a question request asking for help.  It was replied to promptly and the reply required more information which was never provided.  The request was eventually closed after no reply was imminent, but even in that instance, the information you requested was provided in as general a sense as possible.  You've had a special application approved, a family role (part of another family) approved, a family role (your own family role) approved, etc.  Your responses from staff seem timely and adequate.  

You're entitled to ignore us as much as possible and just play as if we are not present, but to pretend that we have done nothing for you, have too much to do, and don't do anything for the playerbase?  That's just plain disingenuous.

I think this is a case of posturing without actual evidence to backup claims of injustice. I think claims, from time to time (some that I have made myself) have the appropriate amount of evidence in Staff / Player relations, but in this case -- If you want to make a cake, be prepared to eat it.

Back on topic -- Antagonists need protagonists. I don't think playing the latter is a bad thing in Armageddon; everything is relative. One person's villain is another person's hero. I think playing characters that truly BELIEVE in themselves and their opinions, and what they are doing is the ONLY way...Those black and white mentalities tend to polarize situations, making it Us Vs Them. Red Fangs never thought what they were doing was bad; neither did the Haruch Kemad, neither did the Naenn'Tru (to those that get the reference). Pure Evil believes what it is doing is Right. Pure Evil doesn't really have a place in a morally ambiguous world like Zalanthas, but you get the idea.

Quote from: Down Under on October 31, 2011, 10:57:25 PMOne person's villain is another person's hero.

That there is the truth. Hero/villain, in this game, depends entirely on where you stand.

Quote from: jriley on October 31, 2011, 09:44:51 PM
When a crash happens, staff are unresponsive to replacing the stuff I lost.

I've always (meaning a couple of times?) been reimbursed in a timely manner, except for that King James Bible that Nyr now insists never existed.

A side note on reimbursement request speed:

I have around 14 reimbursement requests on my current PC alone and they are all responded in a timely fashion. I am not talking about just one or two items here. Most of the time it is bagful of stuffs I dig out from the log. I feel totally embarassed nowdays to apply for reimbursement requests.. (It helps that we don't crash much any more) I think the character report requests are slow though. Why does it take a few days or a week to respond to my report? Staff are discussing over my character report? But there isn't anything important in it! I think.

Back on topic:

Antagonist support.

I used to get very upset because when I play an antagonist type of role, I see all the 'protagonists' strut around with full staff support. So unfair! Why are their clan staff so responsive! They fucking babysit those sponsored roles! I want to change my clan!

Then my clan staff would ask me to let them know if there is anything I need staff help on, and I would get stuck. Not because my clan staff are not helpful, because I cannot think of anything my clan staff can do for me which I cannot do for myself, given enough time and effort and a little roleplay.

I feel it is not easy to roleplay an antagonist. Not because of the lack of staff support, or visibility for raiders, or those kind of shit. It is most difficult because of protagonists' response.

It is so hard to rp the evil overlord nowdays. Those hero types will remember you for all eternity over the littlest things and will howl for your blood like packs of wolves.

Antagonist should unite together and form the villain union! Down with the heroes!

Quote from: brytta.leofa on November 01, 2011, 10:35:53 AM

Quote from: jriley on October 31, 2011, 09:44:51 PM
When a crash happens, staff are unresponsive to replacing the stuff I lost.

I've always (meaning a couple of times?) been reimbursed in a timely manner, except for that King James Bible that Nyr now insists never existed.

so that's why Steinal was destroyed

Quote from: Little_Cacophony on November 01, 2011, 11:40:44 AM
I think the character report requests are slow though. Why does it take a few days or a week to respond to my report? Staff are discussing over my character report? But there isn't anything important in it! I think.

Some points to consider:

-- Our guideline for replying to or resolving character reports is 5 days. Our actual numbers show that on average, we resolve those requests within 3 to 4 days. So, we're firmly within our target.

-- We like to give all interested staff a chance to look over the character reports and add their notes (which players never see). Often, if you've CCed other clans on your report, those staffers will specifically weigh in on whatever issues you've brought up, or just might acknowledge they've seen the report. Then after this feedback happens, your clan staff will resolve your report request. This takes a couple to a few days to do.

-- Even though you might think there's nothing important in your report, staff might not share that opinion. Especially because we do see all the other requests coming in from other players and other clans, and some of that stuff is interrelated with what your PC is doing. There is cross-referencing and cross-talk that happens.

On the subject of reimbursements that's generally been brought up, again if you look at our actual numbers available on the website, you'll see a couple things:

-- There aren't a lot of reimbursements that get requested, overall, and that is definitely a byproduct of more server uptime and fewer crashes. Hurrah for stability!

-- Our average resolution time for reimbursements is in the 1 to 2 days range. (Often it's less than 1 day.) That might not be fast enough for some players, but personally, I think it's pretty fabulous turnaround. Reimbursement requests are difficult and time-consuming to do, they require staff to actually be in game to do them (some other requests don't require that), and often players don't communicate clearly in those requests ("uh, I lost my sword, it might have been obsidian, can I get my sword back?"). I know from my experience staff-side that as a group, we regard these requests as high-priority after a crash and get them done as quickly as we can (especially if they actually have an impact on the survivability of the PC).

So, yeah. You're all free to think whatever you like about whether or not we do a good job, it being a free country and all that jazz. But, I do not believe these opinions are supported by the available facts.

Quote from: Little_Cacophony on November 01, 2011, 11:40:44 AM
It is so hard to rp the evil overlord nowdays.

There are plenty of resources on this on the forum.  I can vouch for the things I've said at least:

Thing 1 (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,34282.msg423582.html#msg423582)
Thing 2 (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,39261.msg543601.html#msg543601)
Thing 3 (though I mostly quoted other good things) (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,31408.msg391033.html#msg391033)

These might help antagonists be antagonists, reminding the player to play a PC that has solid reasoning behind the things that they do.

Now I get to ask.

If you want to do villainous stuff, staff will help you out aslong as you keep reporting and giving them an idea of your character, right?

And by help, I mean they might say "Okay, this was a good idea, this fits, this however seems a little quirky."

Or... maybe you can say what staff is willing to do.

Quote from: Saellyn on November 01, 2011, 06:34:07 PM
Now I get to ask.

If you want to do villainous stuff, staff will help you out aslong as you keep reporting and giving them an idea of your character, right?

And by help, I mean they might say "Okay, this was a good idea, this fits, this however seems a little quirky."

Or... maybe you can say what staff is willing to do.

Staff is committed to responding to your reports and requests in a timely, informative, and comprehensive manner. Staff is committed to supporting player-driven plots that make sense. Staff is committed to making sure the world of Zalanthas (VNPC, NPC, and PC) responds in an appropriate and realistic manner to what players do in game.

There's no guarantee that just because you report to us, we'll support what you're doing. But you will definitely get feedback of some kind.

Quote from: Little_Cacophony on November 01, 2011, 11:40:44 AMI think the character report requests are slow though. Why does it take a few days or a week to respond to my report?

They definitely are. I had a character report that required no staff action (it was just a "here's my character after week 1. I'm not dead yet!") it took them over a week to get back to me (from memory).

I'm following one of the formats posted here where I have an intro paragraph, a table of contents and then further information. I'm making sure to highlight any questions or important info in that first paragraph before the ToC.

Quote from: Little_Cacophony on November 01, 2011, 11:40:44 AMIt is so hard to rp the evil overlord nowdays. Those hero types will remember you for all eternity over the littlest things and will howl for your blood like packs of wolves.

Best way to play an evil overlord is to first convince everyone that you're actually a hero.

Quote from: Talia on November 01, 2011, 12:08:59 PM-- Our guideline for replying to or resolving character reports is 5 days. Our actual numbers show that on average, we resolve those requests within 3 to 4 days. So, we're firmly within our target.

I thought it was about a week (to be honest a day or two over). I looked at the dates, it was 6 days. I was out by 33%-50%

So assuming you guys do stick to the 5 days response, then players will see it as 8 days or so. This isn't to say 5 (or even 6) days is too long to wait before responding. It's just to say that player's perspective will make it seem even longer, no matter how quickly you reply.

Not really something for anyone to fix. Just an observation for everyone to keep in mind.

Quote from: Down Under on October 31, 2011, 10:57:25 PMI think playing characters that truly BELIEVE in themselves and their opinions, and what they are doing is the ONLY way...

I agree. This causes me to get into trouble in D&D because I keep trying to play Arm character and everyone keeps calling them evil. It doesn't matter that I can give them a big long rant as to why we must do what I say we do. At the end they simply say "it's evil."

I play in Golarion where people are expected to treat half-orcs much the same way Zalanthan half-elves are treated. I seem to be the only player that consistently does it and it's constantly causing in-character arguments between me and everyone else. I have to stop myself from saying things like "but he's just as bad as a damn 'rinthi, perhaps worse" because they just don't get the reference.

On the staff vs player front. Since I got back I've been handing in reports. No surprise I'm going through characters at my usual place (very bloody often). In the past where I've simply continued to play my characters with no feedback from staff, I'm actually getting some comiseration and feedback as to how I handled that particular character in terms of roleplaying. It's nice to get a "good job" done after my character dies  :) After 90 characters, I've gotten feedback on a character maybe a dozen times? I like the new system :)

On something said way earlier, I used to think that if I sent in a report to staff that they would do everything in they're power to ruin my plot or try to throw roadblocks in the way.  THIS IS NOT THE CASE.  I mean I have messed up and been in lots of trouble with the staff and confessed to a rule I broke and since fixed my proformance, (I think).  But the staff has not let me down once if you wish up and have a valid way to start a commotion or get something huge moving ICly they will assist as long as it is realistic.

Quote from: John on November 02, 2011, 04:16:55 AM

Quote from: Little_Cacophony on November 01, 2011, 11:40:44 AMI think the character report requests are slow though. Why does it take a few days or a week to respond to my report?

They definitely are. I had a character report that required no staff action (it was just a "here's my character after week 1. I'm not dead yet!") it took them over a week to get back to me (from memory).

I'm following one of the formats posted here where I have an intro paragraph, a table of contents and then further information. I'm making sure to highlight any questions or important info in that first paragraph before the ToC.

Quote from: Little_Cacophony on November 01, 2011, 11:40:44 AMIt is so hard to rp the evil overlord nowdays. Those hero types will remember you for all eternity over the littlest things and will howl for your blood like packs of wolves.

Best way to play an evil overlord is to first convince everyone that you're actually a hero.

Quote from: Talia on November 01, 2011, 12:08:59 PM-- Our guideline for replying to or resolving character reports is 5 days. Our actual numbers show that on average, we resolve those requests within 3 to 4 days. So, we're firmly within our target.

I thought it was about a week (to be honest a day or two over). I looked at the dates, it was 6 days. I was out by 33%-50%

So assuming you guys do stick to the 5 days response, then players will see it as 8 days or so. This isn't to say 5 (or even 6) days is too long to wait before responding. It's just to say that player's perspective will make it seem even longer, no matter how quickly you reply.

Not really something for anyone to fix. Just an observation for everyone to keep in mind.

The only thing i'd say in response to your character report observations is -- While you may think there is nothing terribly important or that your report is simply informative, Staff may find a point or two to discuss amongst themselves. Conversely, because there is nothing terribly important, or there are no questions that require Staff discussion, it may shoot further down on their priority list to approve as there's a dozen other requests that are time-sensitive to get through.

I know that many often wonder why their character reports just can't be resolved in a day.  Talia has listed all the reasons, and the timeframes that we ask staff to work in.  To give some more perspective, if a staff member is resolving clan reports within a 1 - 2 day timeframe they will get asked to 'slow down'.  It may be frustrating to you but remember, while only one staff member may respond to you every clan group has 2 STs and 1 Admin (ideally).  These people have RL's and it's unfair to expect that they will all get on everyday to make the comments and read the reports, we want to make sure everyone has an opportunity and so we ask that staff not resolve these things too quickly.  We also like other staff to check in on reports in case there is something there that affects their clan, this can take time.   

We have a pretty stellar group of volunteer staff who do take the time to check the request tool every day, who do read the reports, bugs, complaints, ideas, reimbursements, forum requests and so on.  Please be patient with us, sometimes things do slip but we make every effort to keep to our timeframes and be as professional with this as possible for a bunch of volunteers.

Question: If a character dies between the time of a report being filed and the report being resolved, should the player cancel the report so that staff don't waste time on it? Or should it not be canceled so that staff can at least have a record of what was going on in the timeframe before the death? What if the last report was fairly unimportant anyway ...

It's nice if you let your clan staff resolve it. You can add to it in the request tool and just let them know the PC has died, if you like. If it gets cancelled, then staff may not even really see it, and may not get a chance to say goodbye and thanks for all the gith.

moving away from the request derail...

I was thinking more about this and the Red Shirt thread + what Nyr wrote about giving examples. I'm still fairly new to arm (less than 2 years in), but I have, what I consider, to be an example of a GREAT antagonist that didn't cause any major plots, world shaking changes, etc.

It's been about 17 months since this player died IG and I'm 99% sure everyone around him is dead.. So staff, if I'm overstepping my boundaries here please nuke or edit this post, but I'll keep it pseudo vague.

Their was a southern PC named Andy. He was a racist, drunken, misogynist. I ran into him when Andy decided to go north, despite hating Tuluki pansies. He didn't last long once he got to Tuluk but his reputation preceded him. Over the course of an RL week at the end of which he died (to nothing related to the events below), my PC witnessed him doing the following:

• -Sitting in a Tavern in Tuluk, a elf sits down beside him at the bar. He starts to lament in a drunken state how the elf is ruining the air around him and messing with the state of the establishment. He picks a fight with the elf using a mix of emotes and brawl and proceeds to get his ass kicked... But the elf left. Claiming victory, he proceeds to try and convince a female to have sex with him. When she refuses he freaks out, makes a scene and accuses her of being a dirty breed.
• -Later when hunting with another PC in the grasses, he comes across a d-elf hunting as well. After a lengthy, emoted scene laced with racism and biggotry, he picks a fight with the d-elf. The other PC Andy is with just looks on in both horror and awe. When the d-elf flees, Andy then turns on the other PC, nearly attacking him and foaming at the mouth because the other PC didn't help kill the mangy elf. Other PC was blamed for the elf getting away. Andy refused to talk to that PC again and openly called him a "nekker fucker" in all the taverns in Tuluk.
• -He would ridicule northerners. A lot. He hated breeds and ridiculed them even more.
• -He lasted long enough where he was able to force a d-elf to flee from combat.
• -ALL the events caused much talk amidst the tavern sitters in the city. When Andy was asleep (logged off) everyone would RP a mix of laughter and facepalming about his previous antics.

He disappeared or died soon after. But all the tavern sitters, F-me's, hunters in the grasses at that time ALL spoke of Andy in a "god I hated him.. He was a savage and a brute and a southern scum.. But I kinda liked that guy. Hate to admit I miss him."

He didn't move worlds or lead anyone. He didn't do much of anything cept sit in taverns and hunt now and then.  The lowly grebber. But bc he constantly RP'd an antagonistic nature based on the general/documented stereotypes in arm, he added color, life, roleplay and atmosphere to those around him.

That, in my mind, makes for a far better antagonist than a twinked out d-elf raider, wind witch, sorc, templar or whatever. He got tavern sitters and low-key grebbers and hunters involved with RP. No raids, crazy plots, karma and it worked. It generated a hoard of RP for the rest of us who were too scared, too n00bish, too poor in Roleplay to dare pick on the breed, elf, d-elf... Even if we later say:   "But I gave them a lousy price and made a dirty remark after they left"...  hiding the fact we're cowards when it comes to risking our own PC for the sake of conflict and RP. And I've been guilty of that last sentence and am ashamed of it. Andy wasn't.

Andy, in my mind, won Armageddon just as much as any 150 day force-stored sorcerer or some gicker turning into an elemental or a long lived Political PC who learned all the deep sekrets of big plotz. Andy was (probably) less than 10 days played. Andy wasn't a twink. Andy had no karma. Andy was the antagonist.

Because I ran into Andy and saw / was lucky enough to have RP'd with him, I stayed and kept playing Arm for the days, weeks, months, year that followed.

QuoteUnfortunately when I receive correction from staff members it typically involves a situation where the staff don't really seem to have any conception of who my character is, who I am as a player or what I am trying to accomplish in any particular scene.

How are the staff supposed to know about your character if you don't ever send requests in, jriley? Am I the only one confused about that? ???

I don't think it's been a year, so i got to be scarce on the details.

But I played one raider. One. And found my raiding partner ICly well before we became raiders (in fact due to some ic circumstances, they were forced into raiding)

And it was fun. There are always a few raiders out there though. if yo can find them, and talk to them in a safish place. You might be able to form groups ICly.

Quote from: Dakota on November 04, 2011, 06:12:12 AM
Hey that's my character you're talking about who did all that.

You forgot to mention he had clawed feet, which made everything he did even better.