Restoring the Glory Days: What would it take?

What do I want?

When I played this game for over a decade, I wanted so much. I saw all of the blanks in Armageddon's writing and staff's efforts and instead of being skeptical, my imagination filled the blanks in. I played leadership roles and thought I made the game fun for others, then requested my account notes and saw the staff disliked that plots had swirled around my characters. They actively disliked the fact that my character was the only one running plots for a time, and thought my character's existence was the reason the play area was dead, even though I was doing everything I could to keep it alive. When a couple of my friends went on to join staff, I learned from their description of past IDB discussions that the staff conspired to deny my characters plot progress because they wanted to give specific other characters time to shine. As a player, I did nothing to stop those characters from doing anything - our characters were not rivals, we were even collaborating on plots. Yet for some reason, some staff wanted to give all of the focus to characters that weren't mine, simply because my character had been around a while and organized a few things.

Eventually, I left the game, tired of putting in so much time for so little payoff. I still talk to several people who play and/or staff Armageddon. I know that very little of substance has changed. What I want now is to either make Armageddon a better game through honest criticism, and giving players the tools and knowledge to enjoy the game without being hobbled by other players and by staff; or, failing that, to convince people to walk away from Armageddon and play another game. The longer Armageddon continues on the same old path, the more time I spend convincing my friends to quit. There was a person I talked to who was putting in literally 16 hours a day on Armageddon, every single fucking day of their lives, and getting nothing out of it, that is now studying creative writing in a good university and is working on their first novel. I'm proud of that.

Don't tell me that this discussion is futile. Criticism is not futile just because you suddenly like the game now.

I said what I wanted.



I'll put it in two sentences so it's simple for you to understand:
Provide fair criticism of Armageddon based on my experiences, encourage others to discuss the criticism, see if Armageddon changes. If it doesn't, then convince people (the people I personally know and talk to on a regular basis) to do something else with their lives.

And fuck off about calling my post a "sob story". I don't want your pity. I was providing context, thinking you gave a shit about the discussion. Clearly you're just another sycophant for the game now.

I don't have much to add besides expressing agreement with the post. All RPIs work like Armageddon works, but RPIs leave its players wanting more, generally speaking. You're right, MUSHes provide more tools for player agency. When that's not desirable, RPIs absolutely work, but they do require staff-player cooperation to succeed.

Leaders, as a concept, are fine. I played in leadership roles and I like to think I did alright. The main problem I have with them is that players don't get much of a chance to practice for leadership roles. You either suck or you don't. There are other games that facilitate plot leadership well because the vast majority of characters are in some position of power, and have different kinds resources at their disposal (lords-and-ladies RPs like Arx). I won't argue as to the merit of such games in comparison to Armageddon but it's hard to deny that such games give players skill at running plots in a multiplayer context.

OK.

It's a place for people to shoot the shit and gripe. There's no grand plan or demands for mud reparations. Asking what the purpose is is absurd -- there is none and never has been beyond a board where people could talk about whatever they want in regards to the game. Complaining about discussion existing on it is just silly, especially coming from you of all people.

To pivot off this agreeable point...


If I was to pinpoint some things which kill the fun for players, it is leaders who:
1.) Jump straight to kill.
    This has been discussed before but it mostly just destroys any semblance of a participatory conflict scheme. The old-fashioned "pretend like we're friends with no indication that there is a problem then lock room kill you" is a trope for a reason. It's silly. It's boring. It's about "winning" on a meta level more than roleplaying a believable character. Bunch of sociopaths running around, really.
2.) Do not share information with subordinates.
    Why are they logging in? To fetch you stuff and boring details at the bar? Zzzz.
3.) Try to play a political mastermind.
    I'm a serial leader player and I see it quite often that other leaders simply refuse to put themselves in harm's way, risk anything by talking shit, or reveal emotion/intention. It's silly and inspires a bunch of "back room politics" situations that only include 3 other leader PCs who will gang up on the victim.

Whoa dude.