Amen!!!

Quote from: eska on May 23, 2024, 05:26:31 PMArmageddonMud has always been a harsh game. I don't see any reason to change Zalanthas into a meek world. There is perma-death and PK. There are rules. Just trust the staff.

This.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Properly roleplay out motivations..."

"no one should be leaned more than 80%"

Sounds like some players want to dictate roleplay to the rest of the playerbase.

What constitutes "proper" roleplayed motivation? Whatever any on particular player requires it to mean? What about what I require it to mean? What about what a new player requires it to mean? How about what the current Producer requires it to mean?

And what does 80% look like, exactly? And who gets to make that decision of what it looks like?

Seems like some players want to create slippery slopes, so they have someone to blame when someone goes down it.

What I consider "proper" roleplayed motivation: when a player gives his character a motivation. Whether they use thinks or feels is up to them. Whether they give me a "scene" or not is a mutual decision, because I might not have time for a scene, or might not be enjoying the scene they're providing. Or maybe I'm satisfied with the PK and don't need a scene at all that day.  Just because you think everyone should provide a scene, doesn't mean everyone should. It just means you think they should.

The PvP guidelines state:

"Use the roleplaying tools provided to disclose your character's motives, where appropriate, and enhance the narrative, fostering a respectful and collaborative environment despite in-character conflicts.  These roleplaying tools can include emote, think, feel, and all forms of communication. Note that just because you are extensively using think and feel, the other person will not see that, so be mindful of what the victim might experience or see."

I think it is fair to say that the staff are defining proper roleplayed motivation, and the above is how it's being defined.

I want to focus on one thing in particular:

Quote from: Lizzie on May 23, 2024, 08:53:38 PMSounds like some players want to dictate roleplay to the rest of the playerbase.

Lizzie, Armageddon is an RPI. The I in there stands for something, and it is oft forgotten about. Dictating RP is absolutely for the community to do, and leaving it up to everyone to judge for themselves is how we got in bad situations in the first place.

Quote from: CirclelessBard on May 23, 2024, 09:31:32 PMThe PvP guidelines state:

"Use the roleplaying tools provided to disclose your character's motives, where appropriate, and enhance the narrative, fostering a respectful and collaborative environment despite in-character conflicts.  These roleplaying tools can include emote, think, feel, and all forms of communication. Note that just because you are extensively using think and feel, the other person will not see that, so be mindful of what the victim might experience or see."

I think it is fair to say that the staff are defining proper roleplayed motivation, and the above is how it's being defined.

Right. That's my point. Nowhere in there does it say the player is required to use thinks and feels. Nor are they required to emote, or tell their intended victim of their intentions, or give themselves away, or reveal their motives to their victims.

And that's fine by me. As long as staff is able to look back and see that it was a legit kill, I'm satisfied that it was a legit kill. I might not have enjoyed the ending. But no one "owes" me a fun ending, or resolution, or closure, or a satisfying scene. It's nice to have, but it's not obligatory.

Quote from: Patuk on May 23, 2024, 09:55:17 PMI want to focus on one thing in particular:

Quote from: Lizzie on May 23, 2024, 08:53:38 PMSounds like some players want to dictate roleplay to the rest of the playerbase.

Lizzie, Armageddon is an RPI. The I in there stands for something, and it is oft forgotten about. Dictating RP is absolutely for the community to do, and leaving it up to everyone to judge for themselves is how we got in bad situations in the first place.

It's not -your- place to dictate what I "should" or "should not" consider fun, or "proper" roleplay. Just like it's not my place to dictate what you should/shouldn't consider fun, or proper roleplay.  The game is laid out how it's laid out, with rules that the staff have made available for us to follow. How we choose to perceive the result of that through our gaming time, is up to us as individuals.

Quote from: Lizzie on May 23, 2024, 10:01:24 PM

Quote from: Patuk on May 23, 2024, 09:55:17 PMI want to focus on one thing in particular:

Quote from: Lizzie on May 23, 2024, 08:53:38 PMSounds like some players want to dictate roleplay to the rest of the playerbase.

Lizzie, Armageddon is an RPI. The I in there stands for something, and it is oft forgotten about. Dictating RP is absolutely for the community to do, and leaving it up to everyone to judge for themselves is how we got in bad situations in the first place.

It's not -your- place to dictate what I "should" or "should not" consider fun, or "proper" roleplay. Just like it's not my place to dictate what you should/shouldn't consider fun, or proper roleplay.  The game is laid out how it's laid out, with rules that the staff have made available for us to follow. How we choose to perceive the result of that through our gaming time, is up to us as individuals.

The GDB exists for many reasons, and the forum names speak for themselves; general, world, roleplaying discussions. I get to have a voice, just as you do, and if all you have to do is veil a 'shut up' in busybody language I see no reason to entertain any of what you're saying.

Quote from: Lizzie on May 23, 2024, 09:59:03 PMBut no one "owes" me a fun ending, or resolution, or closure, or a satisfying scene. It's nice to have, but it's not obligatory.

No one "owes" anyone respect, consideration or kindness, and yet, you (again, general you) are much more likely to seek out the company of those who do. Yes, the IN GAME world is a terrible bad world. But wouldn't it make your time investment nicer if you knew that people would treat you, the player, with kindness and consideration, even while seeking out enmity between your mutual characters? Would that not be the preferable end for most people?

Yes, no one is obligated to give someone and end to their story. But for those who value the story above the win, seeing an abrupt end to it alongside their character, is something that eventually makes them stop seeking to tell stories, and have the sort of consideration I believe most people would desire, in scenes where there is a hard winner and loser. No one likes a sore loser, or a gloating winner.

I do have to say, the weird mantra of 'I owe no one anything' that I've heard from people in the community is probably the most unhealthy, deconstructive, nihilist outlook ever. Yes, technically you do not owe anyone anything, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to be kind to your fellow player. What do you think will have the more enjoyable game? The community full of people who use 'I don't owe anyone anything' as a mantra to avoid personal responsibility, or a community full of people that are considerate of other players and approach the game with 'I want everyone to have a good time'?

Even if you're someone who's not altruistic and doesn't believe in that sort of thing, it's practical to want the latter. Unless you're someone who unironically reaps joy from lessening other people's joy (which in my opinion is the kind of person who should never be welcomed into any community), wanting the community overall to be better is something that you will benefit from.


Edit: I wrote this up without fully reading everything. I think everyone should step back and remember that we're all here to share opinions and discuss a topic, I'd like to think no one is trying to say "everyone should think exactly the way I think" or dictate how people should play/think or anything like that. We're all here to have a good time, and I think we should aim to have that good time together rather than trying to tear each other down.

While some people here maybe taking it too far into carebear land. I have zero tolerance for the people that have been targetting non-combat and newbie characters over the years because they are easy kills with the pettiest of IC reasons.

No amount of RPee makes this any better. Its not harsh or gritty to keep punching down with murder while playing powerful classes or roles, its lame from both RP and gameplay stand point.

You want to murder someone even with little rp, go for it, the game still encourages instant murder but if asking for reasonable justification for your character's actions is too 'hard' then yes, you need re-evalate your character or just your damn self.

Pychopathic behavior was not supposed to be tolerated even when i started playing decades ago, its just that finally the entire community (yes we are all guilty) is coming around to finally enforcing it.

Quote from: Dresan on May 23, 2024, 10:32:55 PMWhile some people here maybe taking it too far into carebear land.

I do genuinely want to ask, what do you consider 'carebear land'?

Quote from: Kavrick on May 23, 2024, 10:41:53 PM

Quote from: Dresan on May 23, 2024, 10:32:55 PMWhile some people here maybe taking it too far into carebear land.

I do genuinely want to ask, what do you consider 'carebear land'?

Lately? Any change that isn't in line with someone's idea of how to be "harsh".

Non-killing is "carebear". For a time, Tuluk was considered "Carebear" because the people who played there weren't "dirt and sand Allanakis with blood on their face" they were "carebear weaklings with facepaints and flowers".

Let's have the people talk for themselves. They might as well make clear what they mean if we're gonna disagree with them.

I don't fully disagree. While I am indifferent to the carebear comment, the thing about punching down when you instagank minions and noncombat types sucks and is punching down. It's real cool and all that Lord Fartypants has a mortal enemy in Lord Templar Medallionface. But if it basically consists of snipping at each other like petty frivolous fops and nuking each others minions, that's just a really good way for neither party to wind up with minions because people don't like being nuked. Unless they have some special mental or emotional stuff going on that makes them an exception, most people will avoid getting invested in that after seeing 2-3 rounds of that, but by that it'll be too late for the half a dozen people who's time was wasted to not even defeat but merely /inconvenience/ someone else that their character is too weak to target personally. Being fallout damage sucks, and it sucks worse when it's <normal screen> <your prompt> <mantis head> with nothing in between.

Quote from: Dresan on May 23, 2024, 10:32:55 PMNo amount of RPee makes this any better. Its not harsh or gritty to keep punching down with murder while playing powerful classes or roles, its lame from both RP and gameplay stand point.

Actually, that's absolutely harsh (gritty is an entirely other matter not really related to this subject imo).

Which is why I think that as a community we should try to find a better balance of harshness and the other end of the spectrum. Stories about hope, triumph, and community can indeed be more interesting than 'The land of grimness where everything is awful 24/7 and everyone dies all the time for stupid reasons.' I have said too much and will probably be called a carebear now. 

The motto for this game is still: Murder. Corruption. Betrayal.

Conflict should be encouraged, and murder should still be expected. And there are plenty of justifiable reasons to kill someone.

If the murderer can give the victim a good scene; that's great, please send them kudos. However, it is unreasonable to always expect a well RPed scene or understand the reason why you died or even fully agree with that reason if you learned it. I do believe that if people are forced to justify themselves to staff then the reason for their death will be a bit more obvious and perhaps be even better RP to the victim whenever possible. After all, there is a lame reason why assassinating nobles and templars is rare in this game, despite how easily justifiable those deaths could be.

This game  at times tends to overcompensate with some of its issues and that might be the case here but seeing the same vulnerable players continuously get targeted because they are easy marks rather than any good IC reason has  been so revolting that I don't care about the extreme swing as much with this issue.

That said, this isn't Carebear Mush, everyone who plays this game should still expect to die at some point but it feels a bit like some people are trying to purely limit 'PK', even if it makes no sense to spare someone.  Instead, the community should try to improve its storytelling skills and further encourage the types of glorious conflict that better promote justifiable murder between two individuals. 

For the record, someone disrespecting a templar is grounds for a gory death, and its the fault the game and the entire community if this is not perfectly clear upon character creation.

Quote from: Dresan on May 24, 2024, 12:44:48 AMIf the murderer can give the victim a good scene; that's great, please send them kudos. However, it is unreasonable to always expect a well RPed scene or understand the reason why you died or even fully agree with that reason if you learned it. I do believe that if people are forced to justify themselves to staff then the reason for their death will be a bit more obvious and perhaps be even better RP to the victim whenever possible.

I feel like it's a little far-fetched to say that it's unreasonable to expect a decently RP'd scene in a scene where you're dying. Without even talking about how many hours you lose when you die, Armageddon is an RPI, which stands for either Roleplay Intensive or Roleplay Enforced, I've heard both uses of it. Roleplay to a high standard should always be expected. This isn't me saying that you should get up in-arms about bad RP, but to say it's unreasonable to expect good RP from an RPI is a little bewildering to me.

Quote from: Dresan on May 24, 2024, 12:44:48 AMFor the record, someone disrespecting a templar is grounds for a gory death, and its the fault the game and the entire community if this is not perfectly clear upon character creation.

Is it justified? Yes. Is it the only option? No. Is it the first option? Debatable.
Honestly any Templar player who goes straight to death penalties to solve issues is just going to shoot themselves in the foot. Nobody is going to want to interact or be around a kill-happy templar. As Dumbstruck said; It should be expected that people avoid sociopathic, murderous characters, both from an ooc and ic perspective.

That aside, I think calling anything which is critiquing PKs and putting on a spotlight on it 'carebear-y' is degenerate in the sense that it does nothing for the conversation. It just feels like a completely unnecessary insult to people who don't feel the same as you. Yes the tagline of Armageddon is 'Murder, Corruption, Betrayal', but Murder is one of three words, if the only way to make a game harsh and unforgiving to you is to send people a mantis head, then I don't know what to tell you.

If reviewing PK logs is too cumbersome then it is because staff lack the correct tools to accomplish such a task efficiently. From my experience on APC I believe this to be the case.

Murder. Corruption. Betrayal.

More of a tagline than a motto but that's beside the point. Where has this ideal gotten us? A toxic playerbase, a terrible reputation amongst the greater RP community, unsustainable staff turnover, and a dying MUD.

When you make your world the worst kind of place, is it really any wonder that you're going to attract the worst kind of people to play in it? I don't think so.

To be clear, I don't mind someone creating a raider and going on to kill a bunch of people. What I do mind is someone accepting a sponsored role and going on to kill a bunch of people. Though my experience playing a templar has shown me that in that particular role you can't really avoid killing a bunch of people - there's always another fool that insists on throwing themselves on your blade even when you weren't initially planning to kill them.

I agree with the changes in PK guidelines, but I think we need to go farther and change our entire community from a murder culture to one that embraces alternate punishments.

While killing someone is the best way of eliminating their negative influence on my plans for world domination, I will do it.

When I can trust people to get the hint that maybe they should stop pushing their luck, I won't have to kill them.

To the point, I applaud the dialogue of more closure around role ending scenarios, it was about fifteen years over due really. I'm not really a fan of a full post death report, but something like 'Amos was paid to kill you' is much better than absolutely nothing, or absolutely nothing and a reference to a helpfile.

I'm standing on business at killing one role off every eight years of game play. There are people who kill more people in one week than I have in my entire 'career'.

Quote from: EvilRoeSlade on May 24, 2024, 03:14:13 AMTo be clear, I don't mind someone creating a raider and going on to kill a bunch of people. What I do mind is someone accepting a sponsored role and going on to kill a bunch of people.

I was about to say this. What do you guys mean, when you're talking about PK.
Every player's first concern is their own story. And everyone wants their story to go on. It is easier for a templar to keep their story go on, because they can easily get away with torturing/murdering people. But a raider will have hard time with that, since the victim will have no problem finding some support to take vengeance. Easiest way for the player of the raider is to silence the victim. So, a raider killing someone with just some interaction should be understandable by the victim as well.
On the other hand, Allanaki Templars are known for their short temper. Some could be easy-going on the outside, some could be sociopaths. If you know the temper of a Templar, you can shape your RP accordingly. I find it lame to say I don't want sociopath PCs/NPCs in Zalanthas. I expect harsh environments grow mentally instable people. There will always be such characters in the world.

Edited to add: You cannot label a player a sociopath just because he plays a sociopath PC. Also it is more toxic to call the playerbase of Arm toxic.

I think Templars are also inheritors of a brutal regime, you kind of have to be brutal to survive being a white robe. Not sure whether it's institutionalized or whatever but previous experience suggests there is a level of urging that used to prevail.