http://www.pcgamer.com/its-time-for-cyberpunk-games-to-remember-how-to-be-punk/
This seems relevant in may ways to Armageddon's changes over the years.
I get the Cyberpunk side of this, but I don't get how it relates to Armageddon.
Spell it out?
So, the author of this Op-Ed piece is saying that games are too tailored to the player, these days, and need to return to "You are not special, suck it up buttercup" days.
Sure. I get it. But if you want to make money, you aren't going to be able to do it that way. I can't help but notice the only modern game that "gets it right" is Shadowrun, and yet there's no mention about the fact that "some cheap lowlife Runner meeting up with and having a drink with FUCKING LOFWYR" is a bit out of the "gritty punk realm" that they so desire.
I think Nessalin is saying similar to the author, in that Arm "has changed so much over the years that its not what it used to be" and "people should remember that you're not special, entitled, different, or better than anyone".
What a great framework.
Quote from: Miradus on February 16, 2017, 02:46:18 PM
I get the Cyberpunk side of this, but I don't get how it relates to Armageddon.
Spell it out?
QuoteThe streets and their inhabitants are central to cyberpunk Armageddon. It's the powerless who suffer most in the kind of authoritarian regimes cyperpunk fiction Armageddon depicts, and games could do with getting back to the idea that the rebels, misfits, vandals, and people who can't afford a plate of spaghetti skin of water matter.
I get it now. Yeah, I totally agree.
Everyone's a noble, a noble's aide, or some high falootin' varmint.
I'm going to put the grit back in the gritty.
Quote from: Miradus on February 16, 2017, 03:55:18 PM
I get it now. Yeah, I totally agree.
Everyone's a noble, a noble's aide, or some high falootin' varmint.
I'm going to put the grit back in the gritty.
Well, when there are 30 people online, and 5 of them are sponsored roles, each one demanding they have their own aide, plus a "field" aide for combat stuff... Yeah.
Not to mention the 'downtrodden' and 'gritty' tend to get offered free food, coins, and opportunity. Half blind, and a peg leg? We need hunters like you!
One thing I'd like to see more of, though, is where not only DO we matter, but the idea of seeing a Red Robe in person isn't like WORLD CHANGING shit. I'm content playing a ex-homeless punk who grew up doing petty crimes, and still seeing Lofwyr.
Can we just have Lofwyr?
Not to mention if you refuse to give handouts, most of the time PCs act all affronted and go elsewhere... for handouts.
It's kinda infuriating when you're trying to represent a hard knock world and people act like you're playing WoW.
It does sometimes feel more like a 'Hey what benefits can I, a veteran, give to you, the new PC, so that you can be on my tier and do the things I do?'
In fairness, I think the last two times I rolled someone to be a 'rinther who scours Southside for people to mug, steal from, beg, etc... became leadership roles within like an IC year. Even if you want to be a lowlife, it doesn't make sense to when your PC has the privilege that many NPCs and vNPCS do not.
"I choose to be poor and downtrodden, even though I can make 200 coins a day for minimal effort!" is a hard thing to justify.
So is the relevance of this article that Arm is moving more towards upper nobility / clanned gameplay like games in industry have, or that Arm should follow what the writer of the article is saying and it should become grittier?
High class PCs up against the wall!
You want grittier, get rid of the possibility for anything but.
It's a player mentality thing. Cooperation is too 'common sense' to the majority of players. That's not a push for PK, just a note that this is a byproduct of the push for inclusion in the name of interaction. Pros and cons to it, this is one of the cons as far as how the game operates. That's a long-held opinion of mine that many will disagree with, but I still perceive it often (perceive is used to show that this is a relative observation rather than an objective one).
Quote from: Pale Horse on February 16, 2017, 06:07:08 PM
You want grittier, get rid of the possibility for anything but.
This kind of reaction is why full elementalists, Tuluk, sorcerers and plenty of other fun stuff in the game was removed. These people aren't playing the game the way I want it, so lets take out the option for them to play that! For a game as small as Armageddon, it will be a death by a thousand cuts if we continue doing this kind of thing.
If you want grittier, start acting grittier. No one says a noble or their aide has to be all frills and lace and soft smiles. Play one that isn't. Hire an aide that isn't. Don't suggest that the very option to play someone who isn't the epitome of grit and spittle should be removed.
1. Bottom driven plots
2. Less lethality in the power structure
3. The means to accomplish non-coded things
That's the sort of thing which could bring in that sort of mean streets gameplay.
I was alright with your post, wizturbo, though I'm not sure it was pushing for the lowlife side of things.
Nor do I agree with the idea that combat skills coming quicker and easier makes anything better, but that's a discussion that's been had in like thirty different threads in the last year. XD
Yup. Didn't want to derail Nessalin's topic with that mess.
Quote from: wizturbo on February 16, 2017, 06:23:35 PM
If you want grittier, start acting grittier. No one says a noble or their aide has to be all frills and lace and soft smiles. Play one that isn't. Hire an aide that isn't. Don't suggest that the very option to play someone who isn't the epitome of grit and spittle should be removed.
+1000%
The strength of Armageddon is that it has room for almost every playstyle... if we start trying to railroad people into playing exactly the kind of game we personally enjoy, we'll turn away those other players who don't enjoy that side of it.`
That said, I think there's a wiiiiiiiide gap between "cultured upperclass" and "lol i'm new gimme free stuff" or "giggle sex soft smiles 24/7"
There's a personal playstyle I enjoy that a lot of others don't. But if they were all playing my playstyle then I wouldn't enjoy mine so much anymore, right?
I don't think it's about taking away. I think too much of that goes on as it is.
I think it's about opening more doors.
There are hunting groups, merchant houses. Why is there not a grebber's union? A beggar's guild? I think we, as the playerbase, tend to roll those things up into the nearest suitable structure instead of creating new. Because it's easier to latch on to something others are doing instead of starting something for ourselves.
Like...more clans?!
Maybe not sponsored. But if some guy comes in and says "I'm Boss Grebber, chieftain of the Dirty Bottom Boys" then what's not to like about that guy?
Or I guess we can just have more aides sitting at the bar cooing at each other.
Quote from: Miradus on February 16, 2017, 08:30:08 PM
But if some guy comes in and says "I'm Boss Grebber, chieftain of the Dirty Bottom Boys" then what's not to like about that guy?
Or I guess we can just have more aides sitting at the bar cooing at each other.
What's not to like about the guy who plays the game the way I like to play it?! Or we can have more people playing it the way I don't enjoy. Is that what you're trying to say here?
We get it, you don't like aides sitting around at bar. Don't play one. Go play Boss Grebber Dirty Bottoms and have a blast, gather people around you who want to do the same. Many players enjoy both kinds of roles and revel in the variety that Armageddon offers them.
I guess my main point is, if the player base wanted Armageddon to be grittier, it would be grittier. You're seeing a reflection of what everyone's collaborative storytelling efforts wants in their world. If the player base didn't like sponsored roles, no one would apply to them and the staff would get the hint. That isn't what happens though, they get tons of applications and have to pick and choose who to give them to... that demand says something.
Quote from: nessalin on February 16, 2017, 02:40:01 PM
http://www.pcgamer.com/its-time-for-cyberpunk-games-to-remember-how-to-be-punk/
This seems relevant in may ways to Armageddon's changes over the years.
I think the most relevant piece is the portion on "Hero Complex" midway through the article. This in my opinion is directly applicable to Armageddon. Especially the "Cyberpunk games are rarely about cool losers. They're usually about cool cops." I think Armageddon probably puts too much focus on the 'cops' side of the house. There's tons of support and focus on the big Houses, Templars and Merchants but very limited support for the 'losers' on the block. I would love to see that balance change a bit.
Quote from: wizturbo on February 16, 2017, 10:12:18 PM
I would love to see that balance change a bit.
Hasn't it recently, with the closing of Merchant House hunting roles and the new system for creating your own clan and getting your own warehouse?
I don't believe that supporting indies equates to supporting the "cool losers" though. It's a step in that direction, but it isn't completely there.
To me, the "cool losers" are nobodies. They aren't affiliated to anyone, they aren't trying to become the next House anything... They're just people scrapping by trying to make ends meet. The problem is, how do you support them? They're not really doing things that require much support... So, resources and attention goes to the squeaky wheels.
Gritty would be nice, but far too often sacrifices for playability are made. If you're some froofy aide sitting in the Gaj, and someone says they don't like House Rennik, and your Lady is a Lady Rennik... think carefully about what you say. Most people would be wary about fucking with Noble employees, but situation and environment matter.
It SUCKS to 'have' to go to Red's or the Ginka... but the Gaj has breeds throwing up, random brawls, etc. Expect to get punched if you piss off a drunk.
Also, expect people to GET drunk.
And if your pet aide gets into a fistfight over something stupid they did? Maybe don't have the person who retaliates non-lethally killed (I don't think this has happened, though).
The game/players are all about "adding grit" but only insofar as they can squash the fucking SHIT out of grit and then complain when it doesn't exist.
Playing an unclanned human that has nothing wrong with them (or, even worse, an unmanifested krathi that can be befriended) ranges from mildly to really painful when all I want is a slice of Zalanthan life and not the upper crust of the best cream and sugar tart ever made. That's probably the only thing I would change about this game. I could complain about elf playability, and the fact that staff told me I couldn't play one without >steal, >pick, >backstab or >sap, but I just think they didn't understand what I meant and elves should be fairly hard I think, and have at least some sense of powerlessness.
If you want more people to play low class gritty characters, give low class gritty characters some things to do or accomplish that high class character's can't. People will go where the content is.
I'd like to see a plot in the style of the Rebellion where the lower class of Allanak starts setting up insurgent cells towards some reasonably attainable goal (maybe a single tribune of the commons in the Senate?).
Unfortunately, Erythil, that kind of thing basically HAS to come from staff. There's no way anything like that would actually possibly happen with any amount of success without staff intervention, red herrings, and a mysterious lack of psionic interference. The rebellion was great. It succeed in part because of player ideas and intervention. However, it STILL wasn't a "Well a few players put the work in, so I GUESS the Tulukis can overthrow their magickal oppressors".
And even IF that weren't the case, the staff policy of 15 years ago is not the staff policy of today. Requirements, restrictions, staff ambition to play with the goal, and Producer sign off all are potential hazards that MOST players don't have the stamina to chase for 9 RL months just to get a minor foothold.
The success of such an undertaking would be entirely up to Staff, but not the undertaking itself. There's nothing stopping characters from banding together around a goal that, while known to be impossible from an OOC metagame standpoint, might appear achievable to our characters. The struggle for the goal is what would generate conflict and fun and fulfillment, not the achievement.
Why, I believe at least nine impossible things before breakfast.
I think a plot in that style, staff driven or otherwise, would be fun -- and since Dark Sun is the original inspiration, we should keep in mind that Dark Sun actually BEGINS with a rebellion achieving major success against a major overlord. Sometimes it's nice to play the gritty 'good guys' instead of the jackbooted privileged enforcers.
Quote from: Erythil on February 17, 2017, 03:21:35 PM
I'd like to see a plot in the style of the Rebellion where the lower class of Allanak starts setting up insurgent cells towards some reasonably attainable goal (maybe a single tribune of the commons in the Senate?).
YES! This, please.
Personally, I'd rather not prescribe some course of action on how to give the common folks something to do. The rebellion concept sounds okay, but it isn't sustainable. I'd rather content be created that has long legs and permanently adds to the activities that commoners can participate in. For example, the clay pits for Allanak for instance had great potential to do something like this, but to this day, I don't even know where the heck they are, and the skills required to work them do not appear in any of the classes I want to play...so... No clay working for me!
Here's a somewhat controversial but interesting idea...
What if all crafting professions could be pursued up to <advanced> by any guild, but they train very slowly? So anyone could take up crafting pursuits without needing to invest in subguilds, whereas subguilds and/or guild merchant had starting levels begin much higher and have higher skill caps.
I know this kind of thing isn't what everyone had in mind when they said 'give commoners something to do' but honestly, being able to take up any crafting profession to a moderate level over time without having to pick that profession long in advance is a huge win for a commoner. You never know what opportunities might arise at char gen, and being limited in what you can learn blows.
Think about if that applied to the modern work force, and how few people would actually land jobs if it were true?
I would support you on that idea if it was Jman only. Jman is perfectly acceptable for a non guild skill.
Sure. That's probably fine too. Staff can find the sweet spot where a crafting skill is still moderately useful, but not able to make the real good stuff better than we can.
How did this turn to crafting for non-crafters?
From a balance perspective, I'm sure merchants, who give up almost everything to craft, would love to see everyone else get half of their skill level without giving up anything.
How about every elf gets steal to advanced? All stumps get Rukkian abilities default?
If we want to get rid of guilds and subguilds and let everyone pick and choose what skills they learn, I'm fine with that. Would be pretty interesting. But I don't like sneaking it through the door a piece at a time.
I'd be fine with it to apprentice in all the crafting skills. Basic stuff of all sorts could be made, but it wouldn't make crafting subs you don't need karma to get completely pointless, because they could still make some things they couldn't without them.
QuotePondsmith goes on to quote one of Gibson's famous lines from the short story Burning Chrome: "the street finds its own uses for things." Cyberpunk isn't just about the alienation that comes with future shock, or the questions about humanity raised by cybernetic enhancement and artificial intelligence. It's also about the way powerless people find strength and solace by repurposing the future for their own ends.
Gibson wrote that the street finds its own uses for things, not "people who work for security agencies find their own uses for things."
The streets and their inhabitants are central to cyberpunk. It's the powerless who suffer most in the kind of authoritarian regimes cyberpunk fiction depicts, and games could do with getting back to the idea that the rebels, misfits, vandals, and people who can't afford a plate of spaghetti matter.
You see a bit of this in 'rinth and non-human play. But Armageddon doesn't deal well with rebels. They tend to get crushed early and hard. And to be even semi-successful, you need to find a way to co-opt in with the powers that be.
Personally, I'd like to see something of a revamp of the labyrinth. It's like when the labyrinth was first written, the writers assumed that poverty=trash/famine/hoodedcloaks. Apparantly everyone is an orphan that survived by being stabbier than the other orphans. They forgot to include the bakers, the laborers, the gardeners and community organizers etc. that literally need to exist for the region to remain economically viable.
I wouldnt mind if every guild got knife making to jman by default. Because any fool can cut up a beastie and use one of its bones as a makeshift knife.
Quote from: Hauwke on February 18, 2017, 07:18:01 PM
I wouldnt mind if every guild got knife making to jman by default. Because any fool can cut up a beastie and use one of its bones as a makeshift knife.
This applies to a lot of skills tbh
Yup. All skills, if you ask me.
That simple change alone would allow so many characters to pursue diverse things depending on how their stories develop. Classes should be about specialization past journeyman in my eyes.
If we're going to take magick guilds out of the game, there's no balance reasons not to let everyone train up to journeyman in just about anything.
Quote from: wizturbo on February 18, 2017, 09:58:48 PM
Yup. All skills, if you ask me.
That simple change alone would allow so many characters to pursue diverse things depending on how their stories develop. Classes should be about specialization past journeyman in my eyes.
If we're going to take magick guilds out of the game, there's no balance reasons not to let everyone train up to journeyman in just about anything.
This.
Quote from: wizturbo on February 18, 2017, 09:58:48 PM
Yup. All skills, if you ask me.
That simple change alone would allow so many characters to pursue diverse things depending on how their stories develop. Classes should be about specialization past journeyman in my eyes.
If we're going to take magick guilds out of the game, there's no balance reasons not to let everyone train up to journeyman in just about anything.
Only if I can call out people on twinking
Well yeah, but then you get folks who will get jman is every single skill and be a totally independant force of nature. Merchants who dont need the Byn at all. Warriors who dont need a ranger ever.
Quote from: Hauwke on February 18, 2017, 10:54:35 PM
Well yeah, but then you get folks who will get jman is every single skill and be a totally independant force of nature. Merchants who dont need the Byn at all. Warriors who dont need a ranger ever.
Don't fixate on the jman part. Maybe crafting skills are journeyman only, and other skills are apprentice only if they provide too much utility at journeyman. The idea is that characters could grow in diverse ways. It isn't about becoming an independent force of nature.
A soft cap on all skills would be nice. But what does this have to do with the thread?
I'm still lost about the point of this thread to be honest.
Quote from: Jingo on February 18, 2017, 11:59:29 PM
A soft cap on all skills would be nice. But what does this have to do with the thread?
The article is partly about focusing on the 'cool losers' of the world instead of heroes. It applies to Armageddon as well. That lead to the discussion on what could be done to help focus on the commoners in Armageddon, and I recommended making commoners more adaptable as a means of achieving that.
This is my logic:
When a common PC is built to be only capable of doing a narrow set of things, it forces them to towards hero building because they don't have the option to do other things. They're forced to grow vertically within their profession. As a character grows vertically, they become more powerful, and eventually a 'Hero' is born because they're so much stronger than the average guy at whatever it is they do. "Cool Losers" are rarely much stronger than the average guy. They
are the average guy. The problem is, it's hard to actually stay a 'cool loser' in Armageddon if the only activities you can pursue are the ones that you will eventually master and thus you will no longer be a 'loser' any longer. It's hard to be considered a loser if you can kick the shit out of everyone in the Gaj, vanish from sight completely without anyone having a prayer of finding you, or are filthy rich because you can finely craft things for an enormous profit.
It's cool if people want to become 'masters' at something, they should have the potential for that, but if there were more options to spend time doing a variety of things instead of having to specialize we'd have more 'cool losers' in Armageddon in my opinion.
I hope this isn't too convoluted, but it's what I was trying to get at with my posts.
I'm kind of surprised there's not more people saying it's hard to play anything but a cool loser. Even maxed warriors still have to boot lick Templars and fear magickers. I get (and agree with) what you're trying to suggest, but right now there's a decentish counter balance in that no matter how codedly powerful you get, no matter how many meks you can tank, there's always going to be several people on grid who can and will easily shut you down if you give them enough of a reason to.
Quote from: Lutagar on February 19, 2017, 08:36:36 AM
I'm kind of surprised there's not more people saying it's hard to play anything but a cool loser. Even maxed warriors still have to boot lick Templars and fear magickers. I get (and agree with) what you're trying to suggest, but right now there's a decentish counter balance in that no matter how codedly powerful you get, no matter how many meks you can tank, there's always going to be several people on grid who can and will easily shut you down if you give them enough of a reason to.
The thing is after you get this powerful you can just straight up kill them.
Though most times it is easier said then done.
Those fire mages aren't as stealthy as I want them to be...
I think there's big difference between not being the top of the food chain and being a "loser". Even as a Templar there's always a bigger fish. It's more the feel of vertical power growth in the game in my eyes.
If anything that article is an interesting reminder on how different people can find different things in the same genre, and media within that genre. The writer's emphasis on the social struggle of the downtrodden, for example, doesn't align with my own focus on the dehumanizing and culture-warping influence of unchecked power and the application of mechanical/systematized thinking to wider civilization. While exploring how the punks, the outcasts and the disenfranchised come to terms with a future that treats them entirely as commodities and consumers and subvert it is great and makes for the best stories (and I assume videogames), I'm personally more excited by the redefinition of humanity, the grotesque distortion of human wants and needs and the near-animus rampant capitalism is given by the complete breakdown of morality.
Which is a lot of pseudo-intellectual guff to say that it's handy to refocus sometimes and realize that there's lots of ways to approach even something like a science fiction genre.
As for how this article applies to Armageddon - seems pretty obvious from above but first off, hey - guess maybe different parts of the setting appeal to different people. Let's hit the feel-good 'broad church' box right out of the gates.
Next, I suppose a very direct application of the article could be - a lot of the cyberpunk genre's power comes from following those in the setting who are discarded by the prevalent systems, yet bend or 'hack' their meager lot to find their own power. City elves are a comparison that immediately comes to mind - they're not just tall humans with pointy ears - they're a different species with a perspective on the world that puts them at odds with the totalitarian society they exploit to survive. They hack, exploit and work against the unflinching, unyielding power that surrounds them every day - often being crushed into nothing - sometimes managing to come out on top.
Another classic trope that comes to mind while I'm riffing with the c-elf line of thinking - the 'tools of the corporations'. In Arm's case these are often the gemmers - detestable, disposable, often drawn into the clutches of a Templar's attention by misfortune or a desire to rise from the muck. They do their master's dirty work and will never receive praise or recognition for it.
Moving on, I think the article is also applicable to Armageddon in the sense that it speaks to a particular mindset that runs through the 'low-class' protagonists of what the author deems 'good' cyberpunk. The 'punk' in cyberpunk is counter-authority, anti-hero, a philosophy set against the monolithic corporations and the controlled society that they rule over. They're not -good- at all, Case in Neuromancer is an asshole, for example. They are just difficult, flawed characters who refuse to be cast as heroes or villains - who fail, fuck up and struggle with their flaws (real or impressed upon them by the societies they exist in) and don't necessarily get what they want in the end.
What does this look like in Armageddon? I'm going to cheat and say I think it will be different for everyone. Personally for me it means PCs with personalities that let me, as a player, act in ways that nurture the plots around me. If I'm a militia soldier, I'll have my PC take the bribe, or avoid certain patrol routes. If I'm a merchant I'll decide it's not worth my safety to report dodgy dealings my peers are doing.
I saw there was some talk about how modern gamers and stuff (or at least I think there was and will talk as if there was) tend towards cooperation.
I honestly am a modern gamer, and I prefer loners but for the life of me most of the time I can't find anywhere in the game where nobody is going to try and push me to cooperate with them as hunting partner, grebber, or something like that and honestly it makes it hard for me to get into the game especially since I recently took a hiatus.
I want to be that dirty, sweaty ranger that wants nothing from anyone but to be left alone. I want to be the one that vanishes into the wastes for days, and nobody really cares until they see them again and maybe they ask for a story of what the saw, because I think that is the most awesome, most amazing thing for me to play.
I find it to be impossible though. I don't know if people call themselves 'helping' me or what but I'm usually very heavily pressed to not be that person. To instead be House Hunter something or other, or employed grebber so and so, aide so and so. Shit like that.
For me, it gets hard to avoid being pushed to stop being the lower tier.
How terrible, people want to interact with you in a multiplayer game! :-X
Want to be alone? Play undesirables - mangy half-elves, mutilated uggos. Be an asshole. Actually disappear into the wastes and don't come into civilization. If you hang out where people are, chances are they're gonna want to hang out with you.
QuoteHow terrible, people want to interact with you in a multiplayer game! :-X
There's a far cry between what was said and what you said. Having the equivalent of LFG members of the game is not the same as being in a multiplayer game, nor is playing someone self-oriented asking for a single player game.
The mentality of cooperation is -very- strong in Armageddon. I haven't had to question the motives of a hunting proposal for a long time.
Quote from: Armaddict on February 19, 2017, 11:19:17 PM
I haven't had to question the motives of a hunting proposal for a long time.
That probably has more to do with the fallibility of being a raider rather than anything else.
Quote from: Delirium on February 19, 2017, 10:55:40 PM
How terrible, people want to interact with you in a multiplayer game! :-X
Want to be alone? Play undesirables - mangy half-elves, mutilated uggos. Be an asshole. Actually disappear into the wastes and don't come into civilization. If you hang out where people are, chances are they're gonna want to hang out with you.
A good dynamic RP game, is a game where you can do what you want to do with your character. Doesn't matter if it multiplayer, or some RPG.
If I want to play a loner, I should be allowed to. They shouldn't have to interact with Host Amos just because they want to enjoy a fucking drink at the bar.
Quote from: Is Friday on February 19, 2017, 11:47:42 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on February 19, 2017, 11:19:17 PM
QuoteI haven't had to question the motives of a hunting proposal for a long time.
That probably has more to do with the fallibility of being a raider rather than anything else.
I think that's only accurate in the spirit of avoiding accountability. But picking out one part of that post that serves as an example of the rest in order to insist that it's all the game's fault is not a great argument either.
I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment. But fixing the raiding problem would go a long way toward decreasing the "you must comply and be friends with everyone" mentality if you could get away with stuff.
Ah, I misunderstood what your intent/objective was then. My bad, carry on!
Quote from: BrokenRomance on February 19, 2017, 11:58:00 PM
Quote from: Delirium on February 19, 2017, 10:55:40 PM
How terrible, people want to interact with you in a multiplayer game! :-X
Want to be alone? Play undesirables - mangy half-elves, mutilated uggos. Be an asshole. Actually disappear into the wastes and don't come into civilization. If you hang out where people are, chances are they're gonna want to hang out with you.
A good dynamic RP game, is a game where you can do what you want to do with your character. Doesn't matter if it multiplayer, or some RPG.
If I want to play a loner, I should be allowed to. They shouldn't have to interact with Host Amos just because they want to enjoy a fucking drink at the bar.
You can play a loner... but part of playing a loner is telling those types of PCs to fuck off. I guess I don't see the problem.
p.s. I play loners too.
Quote from: Is Friday on February 20, 2017, 12:06:59 AM
I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment. But fixing the raiding problem would go a long way toward decreasing the "you must comply and be friends with everyone" mentality if you could get away with stuff.
The only way to fix this is with code that hides your mdesc. Once someone uses 'look' on you it's impossible to avoid accountability for whatever it is you're doing and the known will band together to stomp you down unless you're willing to play as a PC that lives in the sewers and never talks to anyone ever and only log in once every couple of months to antagonize a complete stranger.
Hiding mdesc isn't the only way. Another way is to take away the insta-gank potential of local law enforcement among the fringe settlements where outlaws are likely to hang out. Currently, in this game, being an outlaw is a death sentence white-knighted and doubled-down with extravagant bounties that don't fit the proportion of the crime. Make being an outlaw part of the culture of this game, and make it easier to commit crimes and get away with it. This will open up a new badass and sustainable concept as well -- the bounty hunter.
You know, I can't honestly remember anyone ever doing enough to receive a bounty placed on some raider/magicker/whatever in all my time playing this game. In my experience, when you get a bounty placed on your head it's because the majority of people who would go after you are absolutely terrified of going after you and therefore the only people who actually go after you are either completely unskilled and unfunded people or people looking to join you.
I'm sure this isn't true all the time, but as a person who did play an outlaw and did have a bounty on my head for a long time (I know, anecdotal evidence is evidence of nothing) it was absolutely hilarious to see the entire world trying to mobilize against me - and failing every single time.
They'd try to gather a raiding party? (sometimes upwards of 30 PCs)
75% of the time they'd get lost or go to the wrong location, 20% of the time we'd throw a tiny firework at them and they'd run home with their tails between their legs, and the last 5% of the time they actually made it to us and they died horribly.
You do not need to hide your identity to play an outlaw, you simply need to know what you're targeting and how to avoid those who protect what you're targeting. Fear and power outweigh stealth and being incognito any day. This is Armageddon. Go chop motherfuckers with bone swords.
Quote from: bcw81 on February 20, 2017, 05:44:30 AM
You know, I can't honestly remember anyone ever doing enough to receive a bounty placed on some raider/magicker/whatever in all my time playing this game. In my experience, when you get a bounty placed on your head it's because the majority of people who would go after you are absolutely terrified of going after you and therefore the only people who actually go after you are either completely unskilled and unfunded people or people looking to join you.
The real reason you don't see bounties is because the powers that be can reliably catch you in a tavern and march you off to your execution. If not, they can probably just throw magickers at you.
Quote
I'm sure this isn't true all the time, but as a person who did play an outlaw and did have a bounty on my head for a long time (I know, anecdotal evidence is evidence of nothing) it was absolutely hilarious to see the entire world trying to mobilize against me - and failing every single time.
They'd try to gather a raiding party? (sometimes upwards of 30 PCs)
75% of the time they'd get lost or go to the wrong location, 20% of the time we'd throw a tiny firework at them and they'd run home with their tails between their legs, and the last 5% of the time they actually made it to us and they died horribly.
Having played a handful of outlaws myself, I can safely say this isn't the case unless you have maxed out combat skills.
QuoteYou do not need to hide your identity to play an outlaw, you simply need to know what you're targeting and how to avoid those who protect what you're targeting. Fear and power outweigh stealth and being incognito any day. This is Armageddon. Go chop motherfuckers with bone swords.
It sounds like good advice. But the reality is that you need to isolate yourself from the rest of the playerbase to play an outlaw. And you'll get fucked the first time you try to visit a tavern while starved for interaction.
Quote from: Jingo on February 20, 2017, 07:42:12 AM
It sounds like good advice. But the reality is that you need to isolate yourself from the rest of the playerbase to play an outlaw. And you'll get fucked the first time you try to visit a tavern while starved for interaction.
Not if you have a templar worth their salt in your pockets. Depends on who's reporting you, though... if it's senior lord Hardnose Borsail, you might indeed get fucked.
If you have a templar in your pocket then you don't qualify as "outlaw".
And they'll just as likely kill you for your trouble.
If the rooftops extended all the way to the 'rinth you could have an entirely outlaw experience, complete with bounties, INSIDE Allanak.
The rooftops were a great addition to southside. They're a mess inside the 'rinth and non-Euclidean (and no, there's no justification for that unless you live in Cthulhu-world). But southside they're just beautifully done. A world unto themselves.
Only rule is you have to have a pc with decent agility and climb skill, and you've got to have more than 88 stun and hp. Because 88 seems to be the magic number between where you survive that silly crit-fail climb or where you don't.
Quote from: Akaramu on February 20, 2017, 08:08:14 AM
Quote from: Jingo on February 20, 2017, 07:42:12 AM
It sounds like good advice. But the reality is that you need to isolate yourself from the rest of the playerbase to play an outlaw. And you'll get fucked the first time you try to visit a tavern while starved for interaction.
Not if you have a templar worth their salt in your pockets. Depends on who's reporting you, though... if it's senior lord Hardnose Borsail, you might indeed get fucked.
In my own experiences, not every Templar believes your considerable payments of coin are anything beyond extra coin in their pockets. Unfortunately, as Jingo said, if you ever get starved for interaction, you're dead. I've lost at least two "outlaw-ish" PCs to "Well, ICly maybe I wouldn't do this, but I like the PC and I don't get to play around them often" only to them die within the play session for being visible.
Not that either death was undeserved, mind you. But people have much more fun "dealing with the outlaw" than they do "being targeted by the outlaw". And in a downtrodden scene like Zalanthas, where MANY people resort to breaking the law to survive, the PC response can sometimes be outlandish.
Quote from: Riev on February 20, 2017, 09:24:55 AM
In my own experiences, not every Templar believes your considerable payments of coin are anything beyond extra coin in their pockets.
You generally need to establish your 'friendship' before you become an outlaw. Once you've annoyed a bunch of people and the templar doesn't know you (but knows THEM), the odds are stacked against you. Also, some templars are more competent and reliable than others, and some value coins more than others. Every templar usually wants SOMETHING. The trick is figuring out that something, and being reliable and competent yourself.
Full disclaimer: it took me like a decade to figure this out. :P
I've seen a lot of outlaws get away with a lot of shit because they were politically savvy. But yeah, as an outdoors only person you're going to have a hard time.
Quote from: Akaramu on February 20, 2017, 09:52:12 AM
Quote from: Riev on February 20, 2017, 09:24:55 AM
In my own experiences, not every Templar believes your considerable payments of coin are anything beyond extra coin in their pockets.
You generally need to establish your 'friendship' before you become an outlaw. Once you've annoyed a bunch of people and the templar doesn't know you (but knows THEM), the odds are stacked against you. Also, some templars are more competent and reliable than others, and some value coins more than others. Every templar usually wants SOMETHING. The trick is figuring out that something, and being reliable and competent yourself.
Full disclaimer: it took me like a decade to figure this out. :P
I've seen a lot of outlaws get away with a lot of shit because they were politically savvy. But yeah, as an outdoors only person you're going to have a hard time.
You're kind of missing the point here. If you're just going to go ahead and get integrated into the establishment, then you're not a outlaw or a rebel. You're legit.
Tangentially, it is actually one of my bigger pet peeves. All fringe elements are expected to get co-opted into the same orbit of power. Resistance is futile. Even the goddamn guild is expected to play ball with the templarate or get magickers stuck up their ass.
That's true. And as I said earlier in the thread, I'd love for actual subversive elements in Allanak to be a thing. The templarate has been overpowered for a long time, it would be nice to mix up the status quo.
I'm super glad that the ridiculously overpowered powers that used to be in Tuluk are now gone at least.
Quote from: Akaramu on February 20, 2017, 10:17:25 AM
That's true. And as I said earlier in the thread, I'd love for actual subversive elements in Allanak to be a thing. The templarate has been overpowered for a long time, it would be nice to mix up the status quo.
I'm super glad that the ridiculously overpowered powers that used to be in Tuluk are now gone at least.
(https://media.makeameme.org/created/amen-gqiyzd.jpg)
Imo, I'd love to see the karma cost of the new sorcerers lowered. They're no longer the unkillable, omnipotent, and uncatchable rockstars they once were, and it's an incredibly niche role that few would be able to play long enough to actually be dangerous before they get bored and do something dumb to die.
It's a social activity, this Arm of ours. As much as I like to retreat into the wilds every so often, if you're going to MATTER in the game world then you've got to interact at some point on your timeline.
I don't agree that you can't be an outlaw and interact with people. I think you simply have to become part of an outlaw organization (or start one).
In the game lore, Templars have to be concerned with starting more riots. Allanak, if you read the timeline and history files, should be a city on the edge of destruction at all times. There's a seething hatred brewing in the streets just waiting to erupt. The Templars should have, as a balancing act, the desire to crush opposition tempered with the need to not enflame the population into riot. They are not all powerful people who can do whatever they want. If half the city burns again then they've got to answer to someone for it. Someone who is probably less merciful than they are.
And I find that to be AWESOME. It's what keeps a Templar from walking down the street and saying, "and execute that guy, and that guy, and over there ... him too." They are essentially spending a coin other than sid to work their plots ... political capital. An invisible coin where you can't go to Nenyuk and check your balance. They should be considering how much it will COST to execute-murder THIS guy.
If you're a political outlaw, you have to put on armor. Only your armor isn't made out of kryl or scrab. It's PLOT ARMOR. You insulate yourself from murder-from-above by having relationships, throwing around coin, helping important people (or people you think might be important later).
But to believe that you will ever have a non-sponsored Highborn whose death will rally ANY of the masses is kind of pie in the sky.
The point of the oppressive world is that no single "Commoner"-type PC will be influential enough to cause such a shift. If you're rich and popular? You become a GMH Merchant, and no matter how many PCs like you, the NPC population won't give a shit if you live or die.
The Allanak populace will never see a PC as a 'hero', especially the commoners. If you get to that point, you're rich and famous and they hate you as much as they hate the Templarate. And, at that point, the Templarate probably hates YOU for being so popular and trying to rally the underlings.
Its a GREAT idea, to think that you could matter. That you could get some Oashi Noble to like you enough that your constant raiding and trouble-making doesn't cause enough of a bother for them to kill you. But eventually, someone will offer that Oashi like 20,000 coins and suddenly who cares if you die? Or, they'll just kill you and let the JUNIOR NOBLE cry like a baby. Because no PC would ever get to the point of having a SENIOR Noble's attention.
Its how the game is designed. You, as a PC, are NOT going to reach a position of power where the game world's NPC Population will really react to you. Its happened before, and its caused a massive drain on staff resources, and its been decided that if you are "in that kind of position" that you should be stored because of your potential to alter the landscape. Red Robes, Senior Nobility, etc... they were taken away so we DON'T have that kind of power, so we CAN play the low-down punk-roles. Its just that, as a game, we tend to not be poor and dogged for long, due to economy and playtime.
So the proposal then ...
Expand the dungeons.
Every time I've been thrown into jail it's been 2 hours of sitting there in the dark with nobody to talk to.
The dungeons should be a game experience too. When a Templar wants to kill someone, they probably ought get approval for it too (or get a minor handslapping from their superiors if they fail). So instead of outright murder-by-halfgiant ... you're thrown into the dungeon. Where you would (in theory) be able to interact with other pc's who are also in the dungeon.
If you had people to interact with in the dungeon then it wouldn't be such a boring experience. Nobody would decide to just store that dungeon character and start a new one rather than wait it out. If the dungeon population turns out to never be sufficient for fun then give players in the dungeon and option to store and play someone else until such time as a potential "revival" comes.
It would also give the Templars a chance to recall older characters. Blue Templar says to Red, "Hey, remember that guy who tried to assassinate ol' Lord Hufflepuff? He almost pulled it off. I think he's still kicking around down in the dungeon. Why don't we go see if he's willing to work for us yet or if he needs another year or two down there to soften him up?"
I can't see any downside to expanding the dungeon experience in-game. If it's a matter of resource-to-player ratio then I'll write up a 12 room dungeon for you and you can just cut-and-paste into the zone. I see nothing wrong with being thrown into the dark room for failing a pickpocket or something but it could end up being a holding cell where more dastardly (or useful) prisoners could then be transferred to the dungeon proper.
It would also clear the path for some crimcode work later on down the road. Open up some other options for people instead of just being outright code-murdered by teleporting half giants.
For the MOST PART I don't get insta-gibbed by Half-Giants on the rare occasions I'm playing a thiefly character. However I do agree, that when you DO get caught, its half an hour of "well what else can I do" and hoping a PC isn't online to threaten to kill you for doing what a pretty decent portion of the city resorts to.
I have also seen, in the snake-days, a single half-giant patroller turn into a group of 5 summoned soldiers to kill. If that happened to me as a PC, I'd be outright furious. I'd RATHER be in the half-hour jail, but I also agree that the jails need a bit more. An NPC with a discuss script, or a 'group' cell with some different room echoes. Something more, something better.
Quote from: Riev on February 20, 2017, 11:06:47 AMIts how the game is designed. You, as a PC, are NOT going to reach a position ...
The struggle matters more than the success.
But if that rather pessimistic view is the reality, then it just pours concrete over the entire setting.
I've never had a character who mattered really. But I have liked to think that if I lived maybe a RL year (10 character years) then maybe they'd start to matter. If I had a character who lived 3 RL years and aged 30 years in game interacting with other people, rising to lead an organization, etc? Then I would expect to see some fluidity in the game setting based on my actions. 3 RL years is a sizable investment in a character to not have any lasting impact.
I hope you're wrong, Riev, but if you're not then it's a real problem with Armageddon. I play this game for the OPPORTUNITY, which was its main draw. Heck, didn't it even used to be in the slogan?
My comments were meant to kind of come out neutral.
The point was supposed to be that if you EVER think, OOCly, that your common-blooded PC will EVER EVER EVER reach a position of actually effecting change, you will be stored. Its happened before, and it would happen again. It takes a long time to get there, and staff actively try to give you lateral promotions and movements to mitigate the possibility.
The struggle to get there is great fun, absolutely. But its a smack in the face when you HAVE lived for a RL year on the same PC, being relatively active and known, only to realize that you can achieve nothing. You cannot "own property", you cannot "build a defensible little Outpost or Farm". They are great to strive for, but frankly I am playing a game. The struggle is only worthwhile if the ends are POSSIBLE. Why struggle to become a Hlum-Noble in Tuluk, and marry into a 'real' Noble House, only to be told "You may have to be stored if you continue because your actions could cause considerable rammifications".?
And no, opportunity has never been in the slogan. Your only opportunity is to 'try' to achieve goals, the majority of which you'll never reach for gameplay and staff-resource reasons. I don't mean to say "Arm sucks don't try" but I also like to caution people that "there's CERTAINLY a concrete ceiling PCs aren't meant to pass". If you want the low-fantasy, punk-like feel, we have it. Because you will NEVER be the hero. We are, the lot of us, background characters. The "Heroes" in Zalanthas are virtual. Out there, killing mekillots in their elite hunting groups, exploring virtual caves that end in epic fights with demi-sorcerors. We play the hapless adventurers who mistaken stumble on the cave, get scared out, and then the virtual Templarate employs their Virtual Heroes to investigate.
Quote from: Riev on February 20, 2017, 11:28:31 AM
The struggle to get there is great fun, absolutely. But its a smack in the face when you HAVE lived for a RL year on the same PC, being relatively active and known, only to realize that you can achieve nothing. You cannot "own property", you cannot "build a defensible little Outpost or Farm". They are great to strive for, but frankly I am playing a game. The struggle is only worthwhile if the ends are POSSIBLE. Why struggle to become a Hlum-Noble in Tuluk, and marry into a 'real' Noble House, only to be told "You may have to be stored if you continue because your actions could cause considerable rammifications".?
I'd give the MMH process a shot. There's opportunities there for some outside-the-box things (especially with criminal elements) over and above a warehouse -- a little stash spot in the rinth, for instance. I would love to be able to pursue carving out hidey-holes in the desert as well with the same process for bandit groups or non-city-based organizations, but I'd like to think this is possible, if you set it out as a goal of your group in advance to staff.
Riev, I hope you're wrong. I'll say it hasn't been my experience but I haven't really been a part of anything that could conceivably ever achieve anything. I'm starting to try to play that part of the game now and I hope that it's otherwise.
Because if I read that sort of review on a Steam product page, I definitely wouldn't buy that game.
It's cute that there's people in our community with unspoiled eyes. Preserve this innocence and let them think as they will, so I can savor the moments before witnessing their misplaced optimism get destroyed.
i think it's pretty silly to think that a PC will never rise to the level of heeding NPC or vNPC respect. We have nobles, for one. For two, if >50% of the active players know your PC and react to them or their death, then it follows than at least 5% of the NPCs/vNPCs would also.
Just don't expect staff to bend over backwards to making that NPC/vNPC effect a coded reality.
Nauta IS right, the "MMH" system is more of a "custom clan" system that POTENTIALLY could allow these things, but the requirements could use some adjustments. Why would you, in the 'rinth, make a hidey-hole area that ISN'T the staff-backed clan with tons of virtual resources? Unless you were an elf, who keep -trying- to do that but get smacked down simply because, as an elf, they're seen as the enemy?
That's why I meant it to be more neutral. Its not meant to stave off newer players, but to remind them that there ARE restrictions before they end up like a number of veterans who "finally get it" and make a great PC only to get a hole in the heart when you can't do "all those things you imagined".
Quote from: Harmless on February 20, 2017, 11:54:19 AM
Just don't expect staff to bend over backwards to making that NPC/vNPC effect a coded reality.
Which is to say, if I read you right, "this can happen but you have to fucking imagine it".
Quote from: Harmless on February 20, 2017, 11:54:19 AM
Just don't expect staff to bend over backwards to making that NPC/vNPC effect a coded reality.
I don't think staff is there to just say no all the time. They've got their own plans and visions for the game too, right? So in theory they're going to look around and go "hey, this guy over here is doing some stuff we could use to put in this change. Let's hook into what he's doing." And hopefully they'd do that instead of just spawning some vNPC Elminster character to put you on rails.
Quote from: Miradus on February 20, 2017, 12:00:53 PM
And hopefully they'd do that instead of just spawning some vNPC Elminster character to put you on rails.
There's always a conversation about railroaded plots vs player-run plots, and you'll never please everyone. But I think it'd sure be nice if, once in a while, there WAS a railroaded theme-park plot just to keep things fresh.
But yes, staff definitely "hook" into some players plots, if they're interesting enough. Some of us, however, feel that's more of a "we have to dance and sing to get the attention of staff to be interested in our menial lives" rather than "we're all playing this game together and we want to see ourselves succeed". The recent "tell us about your plots" incentive was a nice attempt, and hopefully it gets some traction, but not everyone feels they 'should have to impress staff' just to get their plots off the ground. If you gather 150 blocks of stone in a room, why do you need to wait 2 RL weeks for deliberation over whether you can 'set up a section of a wall' in that room?
Quote from: Riev on February 20, 2017, 11:56:40 AM
Unless you were an elf, who keep -trying- to do that but get smacked down simply because, as an elf, they're seen as the enemy?
Yep, that's one spot you'd pursue it. There's a lot more to the rinth, at least, than the Westside Guild (populated by PCs) and the Eastside Virtual Jaxa Pah. Honestly, it just requires being up front with your staff, clear in your goals, and
realistic in those goals as well. Realism is a big deal: the Guild will smack you down if you try to get too big, and so too will the Jaxa Pah; but you can, in return, bribe them, and so on. In the case of elves in particular, their documented distrust of BOTH non-elves and other elves outside their tribe makes establishing an Elf Power pretty difficult (and almost un-realistic). (It also, I think, is probably part of the reason the Jaxa Pah is virtual still to this day. Elf PCs tend to flock together and overlook the tests of trusts required for such an institution to flourish, much as gemmed PCs will flock together and overlook the hints in the documentations about Krathis disliking Vivaduans and so on.)
That said, it'd be realistic to make a bakery in the rinth, to form a gang of dwarfs and breeds down in the sewers, to have an outlaw group establishing a bar at the Mul Outpost, etc. And to those ends if you pursue (via MMH) that goal, I think it is flexible enough to allow this -- at least in the rinth and Red Storm, and I'd hope staff would be flexible to allow it in the Mul Outpost too.
Quote from: Miradus on February 20, 2017, 11:09:47 AM
So the proposal then ...
Expand the dungeons.
Every time I've been thrown into jail it's been 2 hours of sitting there in the dark with nobody to talk to.
The dungeons should be a game experience too. When a Templar wants to kill someone, they probably ought get approval for it too (or get a minor handslapping from their superiors if they fail). So instead of outright murder-by-halfgiant ... you're thrown into the dungeon. Where you would (in theory) be able to interact with other pc's who are also in the dungeon.
If you had people to interact with in the dungeon then it wouldn't be such a boring experience. Nobody would decide to just store that dungeon character and start a new one rather than wait it out. If the dungeon population turns out to never be sufficient for fun then give players in the dungeon and option to store and play someone else until such time as a potential "revival" comes.
It would also give the Templars a chance to recall older characters. Blue Templar says to Red, "Hey, remember that guy who tried to assassinate ol' Lord Hufflepuff? He almost pulled it off. I think he's still kicking around down in the dungeon. Why don't we go see if he's willing to work for us yet or if he needs another year or two down there to soften him up?"
I can't see any downside to expanding the dungeon experience in-game. If it's a matter of resource-to-player ratio then I'll write up a 12 room dungeon for you and you can just cut-and-paste into the zone. I see nothing wrong with being thrown into the dark room for failing a pickpocket or something but it could end up being a holding cell where more dastardly (or useful) prisoners could then be transferred to the dungeon proper.
It would also clear the path for some crimcode work later on down the road. Open up some other options for people instead of just being outright code-murdered by teleporting half giants.
Maybe tattoos you can only get in the dungeons.
I don't know you well enough to know if you're mocking or not.
Or a particularly nasty looking guy who'll sell you a shank for like 400 coins.
Tattoos are legit a good idea.
I'm also for "escaping" if you use a bribe command and it meets or exceeds a random assignment based on your wanted level.
"I will give you 5000 coins right now if you let me out" - ... Mmm.. you're in here for assaulting a soldier. I'm going with "time to become an independently wealthy mercenary!"
Quote from: Miradus on February 20, 2017, 01:45:46 PM
I don't know you well enough to know if you're mocking or not.
I wouldn't do that to a fellow sailor.
Sounds like a great idea, but I don't think we have the kind of active playerbase to support it. :'(
QuoteIf you gather 150 blocks of stone in a room, why do you need to wait 2 RL weeks for deliberation over whether you can 'set up a section of a wall' in that room?
Because if it doesn't take 2 weeks then everyone involved is still alive. Some time needs to pass so that it dies off naturally.
Quote from: Lutagar on February 20, 2017, 10:40:35 AM
Imo, I'd love to see the karma cost of the new sorcerers lowered. They're no longer the unkillable, omnipotent, and uncatchable rockstars they once were, and it's an incredibly niche role that few would be able to play long enough to actually be dangerous before they get bored and do something dumb to die.
The OLD sorcerers were the ones that very, very few people could actually play long enough to become dangerous. The news ones have LESS trouble surviving to reach that stage of power.
I was going to say it, but then wizturbo did and I didn't have to.
Huh. Wasn't expecting that.
Why is that, or does that go too deep into nitty gritty details that I just have to learn for myself?
Quote from: Armaddict on February 20, 2017, 04:22:32 PM
Huh. Wasn't expecting that.
Why is that, or does that go too deep into nitty gritty details that I just have to learn for myself?
You have a main guild. The magick is extra.
At least old sorcs could entertain themselves with PATH OF KNOWLEDGE spells while they'd grind away in their sekret caves.
The new sorcs might have a shorter wait before they can reliably antagonize, but it's going to feel much more tedious.
Gonna be that person and say: I'd rather not discover too much about the mechanics of sorcerers on the gdb. Sorry! It's one of the last areas of mystery for me, and I want to live with what the documentation tells me about them: that they are scary and dangerous.
I'm not talking about mechanics or anything special here. But if you can be a full warrior, and then get a boat load of spells on top of it, you're obviously going to have a lot less trouble surviving and blending in than if all you have is spells.
As many of you who seem to have the karma to play this, I'm wondering why the game world isn't crawling with sorcerers.
Quote from: Miradus on February 20, 2017, 04:59:06 PM
As many of you who seem to have the karma to play this, I'm wondering why the game world isn't crawling with sorcerers.
....
Maybe it is??????!@#$!@#>!@>#
Quote from: wizturbo on February 20, 2017, 04:49:15 PM
I'm not talking about mechanics or anything special here. But if you can be a full warrior, and then get a boat load of spells on top of it, you're obviously going to have a lot less trouble surviving and blending in than if all you have is spells.
If you chose warrior with sorcerer before, you had everything except the weapon skills while simultaneously branching a lot more spells a lot more quickly. I'm pretty meh on that. Think it's kind of more fitting for the Witch Subguilds reaction, because the contribution of 'we need more magick access' seems counter to the spirit of this particular thread.
It may be interesting to note that an Old-School Sorceror/Warrior is MUCH different than a New School Warrior/Sorceror, for more reasons than "less spells". Not spoiling anything just putting it out there.
Sorceror karma changes have little to no business in a Cyberpunk/Armageddon/Low Fantasy discussion!
I'm puzzled that a discussion about cyberpunk somehow turned into that unmentionable other thread. ???
You'd probably understand if you read the first few pages.
We went from -> gritty -> ways to fix a perceived "super friends" in game culture -> viable antagonist concepts for arm PCs -> subversive elements to the Templarate -> sorcerers.
Whew. That's leaving out the brief static world nihilism and possible jail renovations. Try replacing every mention of templarate with mega-corp and sorcerer with super mutants in your head and see if that makes it appropriately grimpunk for you?
Quote from: Lutagar on February 20, 2017, 05:27:56 PM
We went from -> gritty -> ways to fix a perceived "super friends" in game culture -> viable antagonist concepts for arm PCs -> subversive elements to the Templarate -> sorcerers.
So we went from -> On topic -> Ways to keep on topic -> slightly off-topic -> What does this have to do with ... -> Here we go again.
Miradus Internet Law #37:
All that can usefully be said on a topic is said in the first three pages. Everything after is derails and rerail attempts.
Sometimes, I talk to friends of mine about Armageddon. I describe it differently depending on the person of course, but very often my description goes somewhere along, "If during your character story, you burn down a tavern. Because the game is all text, it takes nothing for GMs to make your roleplay influence the gameworld and have that tavern burnt down. So a year later, unless there were some player ran efforts to rebuild it, that tavern stays burnt down." And they seem interested, or at the very least impressed by the sheer possibility of that.
If you review things that players might find impressive about the going ons of the game. Things that people would want to be part of, or aspire to, or originate, or even be the creators of. Then you come across such things as Dwarven Seige of Allanak, Infiltration of Tuluk and burning down of the tree, creation of T'zai Byn and the Guild, building a tavern, having a book written about them, having a street/landmark/statue made after them, becoming part of lore and history of the game entirely that stayed years beyond the actual character's lifetime.
It's true. The game is not about that. But ... I imagine 90% of the playerbase, would want to do this, or wanted to do this at one point in time. Not with every character. Plenty of players played thir share of drunks and guileless characters that were ment to add color to the gameworld at best and have some awesome scenes during it. But at least every so often. It is a natural human desire in both this game, the other game, or the biggest game of all, the Real Life.
Multiply this by the fact that many people of our playerbase have been playing for 5-20 years and it should be realized that many players arent particularly all that eager to play yet another average joe schmoe, like the whole cyberpunk theme encourages. At the same time, a good percentage of people 'have' managed to become part of the lore in one incarnation, or another, and these players have long preferred the average joe schmoing. Enjoying the intricacy of the story, instead of achievement. And this is wonderful. Different players are attracted to the game for different reasons, at a different time. It is just my hope that Armageddon is capable to cater to both and many other aspects of the playerbase interests and desires. And finds this incessant desire for players characters to be the 'world changing heroes' to be an understandable and 'welcome' aspect of their character, for ... the possibility of this exact thing is one of the sizeable charms of a game made out of text.