|
|
Post by pinkerdlu on Apr 22, 2020 10:34:23 GMT -5
In this thread are two totally overblown conclusions, that luir's is gone, that the RPT had anything to do with content removal (opposite, it is content addition), and ends with assertions that Templars PK too much. The rate of templar PK hasn't significantly changed since I started playong over a decade ago. Think there is the effect of a noob's looking glass here and honestly ya'll are starting to sound like MAGA hat wearers shouting for YER FREEDUMS up in here. I agree, I think the whole 'LUIR'S GOT BLOWN UP OMFG' reaction was overblown and silly. (The removal of content in Armageddon is a legitimate issue/critique but I don't think it wholly applies to this RPT.) But are you willing to share how this had anything to do with content addition? In a tangible sense? That goes beyond imaginative theories of how this could lead to powerful, world changing events that may or may not ever come to fruition by the whims of staff? And yeah, thanks for needlessly letting your shitty political bias seep into your post. It really added a lot. I think whether some type of PK is happening more or less often is irrelevant in the larger context of the remaining avenues players have to leave an impact on the game. Players' end goals have shifted from IC to OOC over the course of several years. Since you can't achieve anything of substance in-game anymore without significant help from a very subjective staff body, your recourse is to advance your way toward sponsored roles and/or the staff body itself in order to secure some kind of power to do something impactful with the game. This is why some people hold onto sponsored roles and kill any PCs who stand out, and this is why some staff hold on to their positions and do absolutely nothing with them except collect information off the IDB and share it with their friends. The primary consequence of the Luir's RPT, like every other RPT staff designed to urge players to act/react afterward, is going to end with a lot of players realizing they can't directly do jack shit, and a few sponsored role PCs needing to spend months (if not years) of investment on relatively minor projects. Since sponsored role PCs tend to hoard plot information, non-sponsored roles are going to find they can't indirectly do jack shit through their employers/allies either. I would not be surprised if, in that environment, players turned to PK to leave an impact on the game before they fuck off from Arm and find a roleplaying community that actually respects its players' intelligence. Agreed. The rate of PK is insignificant in this context. The impact of PK and the question of player choice/clans/plots is what matters. But you put it all perfectly in your post.  There are no competing city-states, no competing PC clans, no real reason to compete for wealth. There have never been any real resources to compete over. I mean, all of the PC conflict in Armageddon at this point is completely fabricated. So people come up with incredibly flimsy reasons to kill each other because that's really one of the only ways they feel like they can have an impact on the game world at this point. Staff certainly aren't going to let them change it through roleplay, unless they're one of the special few (on staff, former staff or friends with staff) as we've discussed. But thanks for another lights show to keep us busy! IDK. If you're a regular reader of this board and this RPT got you excited/has you excited for the possibilities of what it could lead to... I envy your naivety, I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by psyxypher on Apr 24, 2020 21:49:40 GMT -5
It's hard for me to kill another PC unless in self defense...makes me feel like I'm actually committing real murder.
Sadly, pretty much no one else shares that opinion.
|
|
mehtastic
GDB Superstar
Armers Anonymous sponsor
Posts: 1,699
|
Post by mehtastic on Apr 26, 2020 7:32:38 GMT -5
I always believed in PK as a last resort, both for my own play and as a general way to run a permadeath game. So when I see an RP-focused game with a lot of PK in it, then I see an RP-focused game with no significant avenues of competition beyond which character's combat skills are higher, who has more connections to assassin-type characters, and stuff like that. Like pinkerdlu said, PC-to-PC conflict is fabricated on flimsy grounds because there isn't anything more stable in which to ground conflict. I think Armageddon has inadvertently conditioned its players to behave in this way: to come up with flimsy, often melodramatic, reasons to get into conflict with another PC and then obsess over that conflict, instead of pursuing conflict like a normal, mentally stable person might pursue competition. But it's just as possible that it's the other way around: that mentally unstable people are attracted to games like Armageddon and behave irrationally in-game as a result. But I will say that I ran into a decent chunk of people who used to play Armageddon when I've floated from MUD to MUD over the years, and they all invariably have the same tics that Armageddon players do: they don't expect staff to do anything and play independently of staff (even in very well DMed games like Arx), they make their own conflict on dubious circumstances, they all engage in non-consensual RP in games where consensual RP and some sort of OOC discussion is expected, and more. To put it simply, they're rude and out of place, unwilling to adapt, and tend to bring "Armageddon attitudes" with them instead of assimilating into a new game. It's very telling that a lot of the people who get banned from non-Armageddon RPIs and RP-focused games are self-admitted former Armageddon players (not talking about Apoc here because Apoc is 99.9% former Armers). Armageddon's problems may have been staff-created, but those problems are also heavily reinforced by players who benefit from staff's actions. |
|
