3/21/16 Update Discussion Thread

[MeTekillot]

We weren't told that full Elementalists and sorcerers were unthemely and required a retcon. Staff specifically said full sorcerers were removed because they were too powerful and required too much oversight to throw that power around in a themely way, so that they would be being culled to take a bit of the workload off while still not removing something so themely from the game. They haven't exactly stated the reasons behind this change, and I'm not saying they're the same ones, but I don't think Full Elementalists are being shattered to pieces because it's decided they didn't fit the theme or gameworld.

[Marauder Moe]

We are looking to cycle in the spells from the drovian/elkrosian/nilazi trees into the game in compelling and thematically interesting ways.

This response misses the mark in a way that surprises me, coming from staff.

It's not a fondness for the spells.  It's a fondness for the roles.  The flavor.

Even if you took away that one spell that defines Drovian's usefulness, I'd still want Drovians.  Even if Elkran sub-guilds were basically just copies of another element sub-guild, I'd still want Elkrans.  Even if Nilazi were split/nerfed to the point they'd never really be a threat to a city, I'd still want Nilazi.

[Beethoven]

+1 MM

[Incognito]

We are looking to cycle in the spells from the drovian/elkrosian/nilazi trees into the game in compelling and thematically interesting ways.

This response misses the mark in a way that surprises me, coming from staff.

It's not a fondness for the spells.  It's a fondness for the roles.  The flavor.

Even if you took away that one spell that defines Drovian's usefulness, I'd still want Drovians.  Even if Elkran sub-guilds were basically just copies of another element sub-guild, I'd still want Elkrans.  Even if Nilazi were split/nerfed to the point they'd never really be a threat to a city, I'd still want Nilazi.

+2 MM

Heck - even my GDB avatar is a Nilazi - need I say more?

[Armaddict]

The big loss in Nilaz's removal is the same one as the sorcerer change, but now on a somewhat larger scale: These roles were natural antagonists to the establishment, and powerful or almost-powerful enough to make such things possible and inclusive.  They could be real, believable characters that were naturally just enemies of the state, and struggles and conflict surrounded them naturally.

Removing the options for those roles is another step towards stagnant, not-much-to-do behavior.  Not a statement to exaggerate into me making a hyperbolic statement, but not a statement to be disregarded either.  It's happening.

[BadSkeelz]

I am all for forcing players to be more creative in their villainy instead of just relying on "ho ho I have zombies."

Nilaz was a cool concept that often fell flat in player hands. It's emblematic of why I don't like magick as a theme - it encourages players to rely on code to do "Villainous" things and made for lazy RP.

Hopefully with the next wave of Guild changes mundanes will be able to accomplish more.

[Armaddict]

I am all for forcing players to be more creative in their villainy instead of just relying on "ho ho I have zombies."

Nilaz was a cool concept that often fell flat in player hands.

Sure.  I can shoot arrows at salters now. I can do the traditional raiding and villainy I've always done.  But no, this is not forcing people to be creative, it's removing certain tools from your disposal in doing it.

I have never played a Nilazi.  I wanted to give one a shot, because of this very antagonist point of view.  The more we have, the more content is in the game to be a driving force.  You say it fell flat too often; I say I've seen at least a dozen plots over my time here dedicated solely to one of these.  You can make it a 'ratio' if you want to, but that's not very effective; every class and role in the game is dependent on 'coming to fruition', and success rates vary from person to person and time to time.

edit: Because people are being stingy, yes, a dozen is an estimate.  One every year to two years over my time being here, essentially...though in olden times, it was usually a full on sorcerer and not a nilazi.

[Rathustra]

We are looking to cycle in the spells from the drovian/elkrosian/nilazi trees into the game in compelling and thematically interesting ways.

This response misses the mark in a way that surprises me, coming from staff.

It's not a fondness for the spells.  It's a fondness for the roles.  The flavor.

Even if you took away that one spell that defines Drovian's usefulness, I'd still want Drovians.  Even if Elkran sub-guilds were basically just copies of another element sub-guild, I'd still want Elkrans.  Even if Nilazi were split/nerfed to the point they'd never really be a threat to a city, I'd still want Nilazi.

It misses the mark because it's been taken out of context of how I originally posted it.

[BadSkeelz]

A Nilazi could fall flat and still have a plot dedicated to it. They needed destroying, after all, no matter what we thought of the RP.

I'm personally hoping that Void Elementalists make a return, but with a more thematically coherent skill list. That seems to have been their primary weakness in the eyes of staff - that their skills were cobbled together and often invoked themes only tangentially related to the actual element of Nilaz. They're Void mages, not necromancers, even though a lot tended to be played as such.

[Iiyola]

I've thought about this, about why I'm not feeling too happy with this change. And personally its because I'm not very good at creating concepts. My concept forms as I go.
The benefit of the previous magickal guilds was that I would have the whole skill list available, and if my char would go into a certain direction, that aspect would be available.

Now, I have to pick an aspect in advance without really knowing whether my char would go into that direction. I'm basically forced to choose a direction which limits me in my roleplay. That's just a personal thing, not saying this counts for every player.

I just like to have a bit more freedom when it comes to developing a character.

[evilcabbage]

when sweeping changes are made to guilds, you know what i do?

i just keep calm and

[wizturbo]

So, I've had a night to sleep on all this, here are my thoughts.  I could probably write a lot more about it, but I have work to do today, and seeing the defensive and closed off nature of responses thus far I just feel an overwhelming sense of futility in trying to debate this subject so I'll save my breath.


The Addition of Elementalist Subguilds

A fantastic addition, something that people have been suggesting for 10+ years.  It'll add interesting and nuanced options for people who want to play secret magickers, or people who want a taste of magick to their otherwise mundane role.  I want to lead with the positive, because I would not want any of the staff to feel that this significant add to the game is in anyway unappreciated.


The removal of Void Elementalists

This is by far the worst part of these changes.  Nilazi were a terrifying and sinister force in the world, and spin it however you want, if the guild is removed the lore, terror and intrigue of it dies with it.  The brief reasoning for why it was removed is shallow, and leaves me with nothing but disappointment.  We all are losing something great by removing the guild entirely.  I would feel vastly better if Nilazi were transitioned to Karma 8, special application status, or something that could be fully acquired in-game through IC actions.  In fact, just this tweak alone would significantly change my sentiment regarding these changes from extremely negative to only slightly negative.  


The removal of Drov and Elkros

Much the same as the Void Elementalists, but admittedly to a lesser degree.  Much will depend on what staff decide to do with their catalog of spells.


The removal of full elementalist roles of the other elements

Another significant removal of something cool from the game.  The fact that I will never again see a full whiran, rukkian, vivaduan, or krathi is really a lot more upsetting to me than I would've ever thought.  This has changed magick into nothing more than a gimmick.  A small bag of tricks, attached to an otherwise normal person. I would be okay with this if elementalist subguilds were able to 'grow' and acquire other spells through some kind of IC actions, and perhaps eventually become full elementalists once again in rare circumstances.  


What these changes say about our staff's philosophy on magick and it's place in the game

These changes were not made by some dictator from up high.  Staff work as a team.  If the majority, or even a significant minority of staff disagreed with these changes, they wouldn't have happened.  So in essence, what this signals to me is that staff want to see a major, systematic reduction of magick available to PCs, and the setting of Zalanthas as a whole.  

Magick is a polarizing topic in this community.  Some have drawn an analogy that it's like two opposing political parties, and in many ways it is.  What these changes signal to me is that the "government" of Armageddon is controlled by a different philosophical party than me.  It signals to me that any changes I was hoping would be made to improve magick and it's place in the world will not happen, and will in fact bury it further.  I guess that's potentially the most disappointing part of all for me.  And the responses that staff have made when others voice their disappointment certainly isn't encouraging me to feel better about this.  

[Marauder Moe]

We are looking to cycle in the spells from the drovian/elkrosian/nilazi trees into the game in compelling and thematically interesting ways.

This response misses the mark in a way that surprises me, coming from staff.

It's not a fondness for the spells.  It's a fondness for the roles.  The flavor.

Even if you took away that one spell that defines Drovian's usefulness, I'd still want Drovians.  Even if Elkran sub-guilds were basically just copies of another element sub-guild, I'd still want Elkrans.  Even if Nilazi were split/nerfed to the point they'd never really be a threat to a city, I'd still want Nilazi.

It misses the mark because it's been taken out of context of how I originally posted it.

Well, it wasn't me that quoted it out of context.

Regardless, I stand by my statement.  Those elements may be the half-elven stepchildren of Armageddon magick, but they're still children.  They've been part of the game for more than 15 years and in my opinion the roles do add something to the world.  Give them at least something to be played as, rather than stuffing them in the closet entirely.

[wizturbo]

One other thought that staff might want to consider is the collateral damage of this change on the balance of the Allanaki noble houses.

House Oash hired mages in the past, and this was somewhat balanced by the fact that these mages couldn't do very much in a mundane sense.  No social power, and without mundanes to work with, pretty limited military strength. This is obviously no longer the case.  Oash is now a clan with much larger clan caps than anyone else, and the ability to tap into magick on top of that.  Borsail and Fale are going to be greatly unbalanced as a result, with less clan members and obviously less powerful ones at their disposal.

[MeTekillot]

Probably going to remove Oash mage circles.

[Xalle]

We are looking to cycle in the spells from the drovian/elkrosian/nilazi trees into the game in compelling and thematically interesting ways.

This response misses the mark in a way that surprises me, coming from staff.

It's not a fondness for the spells.  It's a fondness for the roles.  The flavor.

Even if you took away that one spell that defines Drovian's usefulness, I'd still want Drovians.  Even if Elkran sub-guilds were basically just copies of another element sub-guild, I'd still want Elkrans.  Even if Nilazi were split/nerfed to the point they'd never really be a threat to a city, I'd still want Nilazi.

It misses the mark because it's been taken out of context of how I originally posted it.

Well, it wasn't me that quoted it out of context.

Regardless, I stand by my statement.  Those elements may be the half-elven stepchildren of Armageddon magick, but they're still children.  They've been part of the game for more than 15 years and in my opinion the roles do add something to the world.  Give them at least something to be played as, rather than stuffing them in the closet entirely.

Argh ok yeah sorry that may have been lazy quoting on my part. What I was trying to short handedly convey while doing other things, was that I'm optimistic that the flavour and some of the interesting, unique concepts that were in some of those guilds/spells can be imparted/reflected/introduced in different ways. I'm really shit at the GDB. 

[BadSkeelz]

Probably going to remove Oash mage circles.

I don't think so.

A Gemmed is still a Gemmed - disgusting, discriminated against, and lacking in social mobility. They can only spar with themselves or in the wilderness. They might have more of a mundane oomph to them by virtue of the Guild, but it's too early to say whether they'll be more powerful. They're certainly not going to be as Magickally empowered on an individual basis.

Oash was always "overpowered" on paper, but IC social pressure and OOC staff oversight kept them from running roughshod over the City. I anticipate this continuing.

[MeTekillot]

I mean they'll remove player-populated mage circles, not retcon them, like the Elites, or the Wyverns, or the Fale guard.

[Beethoven]

Character creation options aren't updating for me, and I have logged in and out as my character. Most of the magick guilds have been removed, but I randomly still have shadow elementalist for some reason. There's still no subguild list.

[BadSkeelz]

I mean they'll remove player-populated mage circles, not retcon them, like the Elites, or the Wyverns, or the Fale guard.

I don't think so.

On an unrelated note, I'm really kind of amused that players like Wizturbo and Vwest and myself have looked at this and come to similar conclusions despite coming from radically opposed viewpoints. Gives me hope that this might work after all.

I do worry that this is going to make Magickers more quantitatively common if not individually more powerful. Ironically it's made me really want to play certain kind of magickers so I can kill them better.

[Armaddict]

I do worry that this is going to make Magickers more quantitatively common if not individually more powerful.

I see that as a relative certainty, which is my major gripe.  Not because I have to compete with them.  Not because I think they'll all be murderous.  But magick being around more often just isn't my cup of tea.  Magick being facilitated into spreading into more places isn't my cup of tea.  And setting things up so that documentation of the game is no longer logical (i.e. the hiring of mages) doesn't make sense.

Prior, the lack of hiring mages was justified.  And the lack of mage skillset, to me, was always a sign that there was a certain degree of focus required from a mage.  Something that kept them specialized, so that they could do other things (subguilds), but not to the degree of anyone else.  With this change though...why would you -not- hire that guy who can do everything this guy can, but then also has spellcraft(even minor) to boot?

This seems to me the logical predecessor to a loosening of the reins on magick and a precursor to a rise in prevalence of magickal roleplay to the average mundane.

[WarriorPoet]

Damn guys. Settle down.

I for one am going to avoid the GDB for awhile I think. Let some of the dust settle and then revisit the subject in a few weeks or months when the wounds are a little less raw.

[RogueGunslinger]

I  don't think Magick is going to be noticeably more common after the initial "toe dipping" players will do. 

[seidhr]

Regardless, I stand by my statement.  Those elements may be the half-elven stepchildren of Armageddon magick, but they're still children.  They've been part of the game for more than 15 years and in my opinion the roles do add something to the world.  Give them at least something to be played as, rather than stuffing them in the closet entirely.

To paraphrase what you're saying here is that once something goes into the game it should never get looked at again - and if something makes it into the game, it can't ever be altered in any significant way.  

[Jihelu]

If something is being removed because it was decided it doesn't fit the game's theme, it doesn't make sense to immortalize its removal as part of the setting's history. We didn't need a magickal calamity to explain why sandwiches were removed and can no longer be made. We didn't need a momentous natural disaster to explain why spikey wristwraps that slash your opponent automatically vanished into thin air. We didn't need an HRPT to mark the removal of sunslits with glass lenses. We didn't need a mysterious, global epidemic disease to explain why people can no longer create explosive traps or search for hidden doors. If it's decided that something shouldn't exist and should never have existed within the game, you retcon. You don't immortalize.

I'm not sure where you are going with this?


A magick class =/= Sandwich.

Are you saying we don't need an ic reason because it was retconn'd? Because it wasn't retconned and from what I read they don't intend on retconning.