Accumulated Kismet vs. Kismet Cost: Rogues

[Velius]

I went to create a rogue and it said I couldn't create one because I didn't have enough kismet. I have under 100 kismet right now and I have over 750+ kismet accumalated. I thought it'd be a good idea if instead of having 200 current kismet in order to make a rogue, you should have 200 ACCUMALATED kismet. Anyone agree???

I want to make a bard, is there anything I can do to get around gathering 115 more kismet?

[Dranso]

I agree with you Velius. The whole point of rouges costing kismet but not taking it away from you is so that you just don't hop on a rouge without any experiance in the game.

[Borug]

That's what I'm saying too, guys. That and for evil.

I have over 300 kismet accumulated, yet I still need 200 current to make either one. It's annoying, it's infuriating, to have an idea and thinking that it didn't matter how much kismet you had currently, but how much you had over the course of time. I mean, seriously, if it's not deducted, why should it matter how much you have currently? It should be how much you have made over time.

I recently made a character for 200 kismet, swearing up and down that it didn't matter if I made this character, because I could make the other 2 ideas I had later on. I found out the hard way, making the characters that I needed 200 current kismet to make them even if said kismet isn't deducted. I swore that I was told a while back by someone that you didn't need the 200 current kismet to make evil or rogue characters.

It's annoying. If said kismet isn't deducted, why do we need current? I propose a change with this. Then again, there could be reasons beyond our control...

[Tavik]

I'm no authority on this so I could be completely wrong, but I believe this might be a bug in that the program is checking the wrong number to verify that the 200 kismet requirement is met. The way it has been explained to me by various people is to ensure only that players have enough experience to have a basic understanding of the difficulties and expected roleplay involved in evils and rogues as well as all the rules associated with them. I do not believe the intent is to limit the numbers of those in the game by costing kismet. The bottom line is that I'm pretty sure everything is intended to work the way you all are suggesting, it's just that there might be a small issue with the code that isn't allowing it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[Borug]

No, idea, but if an expert could let us know if it's a bug or if it's supposed to be the way it is. It'd be greatly appreciated.

[Raona]

I can't really answer the question just posed, but can confirm the following:
The new character generator says that

Please note that the rogue class has a kismet REQUIREMENT of 200.
Kismet will NOT be deducted from your account.

The system checks CURRENT kismet for this 200 kismet requirement. It does this with all kismet requirements. I think we used to have "total kismet" and "current kismet" rather than the clearer "current kismet" and "accumulated kismet" of today, but this issue is long-standing.

This has come up before, http://www.gallwey.com/fk/board/viewtop ... 724#p26724
The conclusion there seemed to be that the system was correctly checking against current kismet.

So - the bottom line is that over time many people have suggested that the character creation system should check kismet requirements against accumulated kismet, as opposed to against current kismet. This is not the way the system is currently designed to work. That's not a bug, but does leave open the possibility that it should be changed.

Hope this helps...and I would encourage debate or higher-up comments on the latter possibility.

[Velius]

Hope this helps...and I would encourage debate or higher-up comments on the latter possibility.

Then it seems this is the thread to have the debate. Thanks for the info Raona, appreciate it


Now then...

My opinion on Kismet Cost: I think Kismet Cost is fine as is, in most cases Kismet Cost is used with rare creatures that there should not be too much of, or special RPs. Both of these are great reasons to have a Kismet Cost, except in one aspect. Some creatures require a kismet cost because it is a difficult RP, I think that should be changed to "Accumulated Kismet" for those races because 1) They are not rare races, and 2) if they only require kismet because of the difficulty of the RP, then whether or not you could make said creature, in my opinion, should be based on Kismet Accumalated. Though this hopefully shouldn't be a major problem, because, also in my opinion, if you have 1200 kismet accumalated and made your Aasimar/Tiefling/Genasi/Centaur (or some other race that should have a lot of time put into it if you spent 1200 hours to make said character) and decided you wanted to make 2 orcs, a drow, and a wood elf also on top of your 3 moon elves and 4 humans, and your long forgotten gnome... point made? (This comment was not pointed at anyone, heck, I had 8 characters myself once upon a time)

My opinion on Current Kismet opposed to Accumalated Kismet: I really DO NOT like the Current Kismet requirement put on evil and rogue characters. I understand why there is a requirement on them, because it takes experience to play the roles, but I think it should be changed to Accumalated Kismet. There are a few great reasons why this should be changed so stated above.

[Borug]

Right..I'm confused at Velius's post.

Are you saying, you want to kill the current kismet requirement for rare races completely, and make it accumulated?

Because if you did that, people would idle even more to get those rare races instead of RPing. That's where that idea is broken to pieces.

I understand why said things are set requirements, but I personally think that the current kismet requirement for those things that don't deduct kismet should be the ones that are changed, rather then everything of kismet cost. The point being, so that there aren't a large number of Rare Races. I say keep the current kismet requirement on the rare races, and make it accumulated for those things that don't deduct the kismet.

Like Evil and Rogue. That's my say. We don't need FK to become WoW with 400,000,000 blood elves running around. Trust me, if you play Horde(Can't go anywhere without seeing at least one blood elf).

[Velius]

Right..I'm confused at Velius's post.

Are you saying, you want to kill the current kismet requirement for rare races completely, and make it accumulated?

Because if you did that, people would idle even more to get those rare races instead of RPing. That's where that idea is broken to pieces.

I understand why said things are set requirements, but I personally think that the current kismet requirement for those things that don't deduct kismet should be the ones that are changed, rather then everything of kismet cost. The point being, so that there aren't a large number of Rare Races. I say keep the current kismet requirement on the rare races, and make it accumulated for those things that don't deduct the kismet.

Like Evil and Rogue. That's my say. We don't need FK to become WoW with 400,000,000 blood elves running around. Trust me, if you play Horde(Can't go anywhere without seeing at least one blood elf).

Nah, I was saying leave the stuff that has a kismet cost (deducts kismet) the way it is, and the stuff that has "current kismet" as a requirement to be changed to accumalated kismet. Also, the races that have a Kismet Cost on them because they are hard to RP (There are some races that have a cost because they are rare, and some that have a cost because they are hard to play, and some both) in my opinion should be changed to Accumalated Kismet as well because they are not rare, they are just hard to play. I'm not saying that it shouldn't deduct kismet when you create a Fire Genasi, I'm saying it shouldn't deduct kismet or check your current kismet when you make your evil orc character. (Orcs are common but have a kismet COST. More people would make orcs and drow, which are races that are currently struggling, if they were changed from cost to accumalated I think it'd help)

[Lathander]

Part of the reason for using current kismet is for race balance. While having an accumulated kismet of high value demonstrates a player's ability to understand the FK system and philosophy, current kismet helps regulate the rare races. For instance, if only accumulated kismet is used, a player could create multitudes of each "rare" race as often as they wanted. This would then negate the idea of a race being "rare."

But rogue is a class, not a race. True. Unfortunately, as the complaints box over the years can attest, rogues (and their most comming, later incarnations, thieves) have not always been rp'd particularly well. Of course, everyone can point to the wonderfully played thief, or twelve, as can we imms. Yet we can also point to the dead mounts, items stolen from mounts, items stolen from players without rp, stolen items that never have a chance to be returned, CNs playing as CEs etc. All of these things weighed in our minds when the kismet system was first created. As some older players may recall, and hopefully newer players are blissfully unaware, some people created rogue/thieves for the sole purpose of harassment, stealing/saccing equipment and making life miserable for those who just come to FK for enjoyment. Some of these PCs, when their reputations got too hot, would simply self-delete and recreate to wreak further havok. Thus, the kismet system helps limit the number of rogues and helps the imms keep better track of them.

I can understand the frustrations, particularly from newer players, with this system; however, I can attest that the current crop of rogues/thieves/bards in our community are excellently played and contribute positively to the rp that makes us what we are. Maybe it is time for us to reconsider our philosophy regarding current kismet and rogues. Maybe not. I think any subject is worthy of suggestion and debate, including this one. Please continue posting your thoughts and opinions here, but do so without resorting to negativity. We all want FK to be the best place to spend your free gaming dollars. Our staff as a whole and imms as part of that group are always open to ideas (whether we eventually implement them or not). We are much more receptive to logically based arguments rather than finger pointing and "THIS SUCKS" style comments.

[Selveem]

The type of player Lathander refers to was somewhat what I was.

I will admit that I did a number of thefts. When people left their mounts just abandoned in an area, it went ker-poof if the bags on it couldn't readily be stolen.

My intention was never to harass players, but rather selfish appropriation of 'abandoned' goods. I justified it as a lesson not to leave your mount alone in a rarely-traversed spot with no one to guard it. Left to create piles of over 20 manure objects.

After a friend of mine in the game lost her mount to someone killing it in an area they would have gotten busted in, I halted all of that because I realized how negatively the player themselves could be impacted.

As Lathander detailed, it is easy for Thieves to be abused. While I see the reasoning behind the class, I disagree that its base class, (a rogue), should be subject to hoop-jumping.

Rogues are a very, very important class for MANY areas in this game. In FK, a single trap can remove your head or your heart with a single hit when you're at full health regardless of class. Especially higher level ones. A rogue can remedy this.

Making rogues more few and far between only necessitates that players take risks and travel without rogues if they want to get things done at higher level. This causes more deaths or causes players simply avoiding adventuring.

[Velius]

Part of the reason for using current kismet is for race balance. While having an accumulated kismet of high value demonstrates a player's ability to understand the FK system and philosophy, current kismet helps regulate the rare races. For instance, if only accumulated kismet is used, a player could create multitudes of each "rare" race as often as they wanted. This would then negate the idea of a race being "rare."

I mean the races with a kismet cost that are not rare at all, but only have the cost because they are hard to RP. I agree with you about that Lathander, it should COST you kismet (thus reducing the current kismet) in order to make a rare race, but I think it should check your accumalated kismet when you want to play a race that is commonly found but hard to RP, such as orcs/drow/and some good races.

With the rogue situation, they are not rare at all, but have a Current Kismet requirement (does not deduct kismet from account, just checks how much you currently have) because they are hard to RP. Instead of checking how much kismet you currently have though (for characters that are evil/rogue) , I think it should be made to where it checks how much kismet you have accumalated, because that is a more accurate reading on how experienced the player is then how much said player currently has.

Rare races = kismet cost
Hard to RP races/classes (not rare at all) = kismet accumalated

[Caelnai]

I agree with you about that Lathander, it should COST you kismet (thus reducing the current kismet) in order to make a rare race, but I think it should check your accumalated kismet when you want to play a race that is commonly found but hard to RP, such as orcs/drow/and some good races.

I do not agree with this regarding orc and drow. There's "rare in the Realms" but there's also a concern that such characters be "rare" in terms of player base fraction. Also with drow, you do not want people rolling infinite drow to get a certain noble house/commoner preference.

FWIW, I do not favour the rogue check to accumulated either. I remember being being burned by certain rogue PCs, and I do not want to see endless recreations of these characters so that they can avoid dealing with the IC implications of being "busted." In Underdark especially, these characters can wreak havoc if unchecked.

I have been VERY impressed by our current batch of thieves and bards...which means to me the current system is working well.

[Selveem]

Seems to be missing part of the point:
Underdark, especially, is dangerous. You _NEED_ a rogue throughout Undermountain or you run the risk of being instantly killed. You limit the ability for players to make rogues, you'll find often people will forget about making them before making their next Sun Elf wizard.

Quick tangent:

In Underdark especially, these characters can wreak havoc if unchecked.

Technically speaking, any class could wreck havoc unchecked. Especially Priests/Wizards. They, far more so, than rogues.

Not to discredit the current system, but I don't believe the current system has anything to do with the responsibility that players are playing rogues. I think that is, in majority or completely, due to the maturity of our player base.

[Caelnai]

Seems to be missing part of the point:
Underdark, especially, is dangerous. You _NEED_ a rogue throughout Undermountain or you run the risk of being instantly killed....

What point is that? From what I see, actually playing a drow, the Underdark already has a disproportionately high number of rogues among active drow. There are some great coded areas for them and, as you point out, their abilities make it far easier for a rogue to survive (esp solo) than any other class. That does not mean I think this is a good thing.

Kismet requirements require players make smart choices about what RP they commit to, rather than create a bunch of characters they are shortly going to grow "bored" with. It has nothing to do with "maturity". Any player can rack up the hours eventually, but the kismet investment does favor long-term PC development, which enriches the game in the long run.

[Erwyth]

I have been following this thread for a while and I see the valid points being discussed. I am a fairly new player myself and have dabbled in the creation of characters requiring kismet. One of my characters is a drow rogue.

But, I would have to agree with:
[quote="Caelnai Kismet requirements require players make smart choices about what RP they commit to, rather than create a bunch of characters they are shortly going to grow "bored" with. It has nothing to do with "maturity". Any player can rack up the hours eventually, but the kismet investment does favor long-term PC development, which enriches the game in the long run.[/quote]

[Borug]

I still think it should be for Accumulated Kismet, as oposed to current for Rogue and Alignments. I like the kismet requirements for the races, however.

[Raona]

I'm attempting here to summarize what I'm getting from this, with my own color commentary added in:

1. Players new to FR/roleplaying aren't likely to do a good job attempting to roleplay less mainline races: they don't know enough about them and how they "should" behave.
2. Players new to FK aren't likely to do a good job (or are likely to get frustrated) attempting to play certain classes, which rely heavily on FK rules and mechanics: rogues and wizards, in particular
3. Some players lack the maturity or perhaps the persona to roleplay certain races/classes/alignments: they abuse their abilities to the detriment of others or the game, or fail to make their character even remotely believable.
4. Certain races and classes should be less common than others in the FK world. Unfortunately, demand doesn't match this, so controls are needed to maintain some semblance of balance.

Experience outside of FK will often help with 1-3, but we consider only FK experience in assessing when someone is "ready" for these. The metric we use is kismet. It is also the "currency" we use for 4. You get kismet by playing, extra kismet by roleplaying well, as measured in someone else's eyes.

- End summary, start pure opinion -
It makes sense to me to "charge" kismet for 4) and to check total lifetime accumulated (rather than current) kismet for 1-2, and possibly 3. Maturity might be better measured by current kismet, though, if it's at all analogous to money. That would argue 3 should check against current kismet, IF you believe the premise.

Brainstorming, here's a different option, but of course (since it comes from me) more complicated:

• Stop subtracting kismet, except for poor roleplay.
• Things without a kismet cost or check should continue to be freely made by anyone.
• Things restricted by 1) and 2) should be limited by a prerequisite check against (lifetime) kismet.
• Things restricted by 3) should be limited to one per account, with a prerequisite check against (lifetime) kismet, until that account proves it is up to the responsibility by RPing that one PC well. Once thusly released, though, they should not be limited in how many additional PCs they can have. (The underlying premise here is that some people arrive ready for this, and some may never be - and only by giving them the opportunity does one really find out; so you give them the chance and watch them.)
• Things restricted by 4) should be limited to a certain number per account, based on lifetime kismet. Perhaps anyone could have ONE of these, but you could only have a second after being around for quite a while. Some PCs would still be restricted by the 1) and 2) checks.

So, bringing this back to rogues:
Even though they are likely very "popular" choices, rogues should not be rare - 4) doesn't apply. 3) certainly does - you can wreak a lot of havoc with anyone who can steal and sneak. So we want responsible players RPing thieves. I think (any flavor of) kismet is only a very crude way of getting at that, but it's the best we have at the moment. I also think (though am not certain) that rogues are a bit tricky to "operate," mechanically, in FK; they require a lot of knowledge of the rules of the game (both mechanics and fairness rules). So I think 2) applies.

In the present system, this argues for checking rogue creation against lifetime kismet, rather than current...unless you think spending your kismet as fast as you get it as a good indicator for immaturity, in which case current kismet would be the better choice. (I'm honestly split on that concept.)

[Urival]

I just recently ran into this exact problem. I made Icerion and he was a stout 700 kismet, and i made a drow rouge, i think that cost me 200. I kinda just wanted to see what menzo looked like and such and havnt played the drow really. I never really super intended the drow but im keeping him in case i have an exelent rp one day that fits him. Now that being said, the other day i desided to make a new wizard charicter that ive been plotting on for a while. When i went to make him i was denied for lack of kismet because he was evil. Now i dont mind waiting because its just a few hundred hours and i need some time to work out his rp quirks. But i will say it was pretty annoying since i have 1350 kismet overall and a solid 5000 hours on other muds playing pretty much all "ebils".

I understand the aurgements for the kismet and i think it sould not be changed at all for races, you want to play a aasimir or tiefling, put in your work. But me not being able to play evil? Kinda silly, i dont think ive had a good charicter over 25th lvl and maybe 150 hours.

I suppose the sollution in my idea is perhaps put a accoumulated cap on some of these things, MOSTLY the evil thing, because i dont really want to see people farming rouges just deleting when ic stuff gets to hairy and making a new one and being a little more "smart" after they have figured the do's and donts. What the cap sould be? I have no idea, and honestly it wont ever affect me again, while i do create differnt charicters fairly often, i dont usally make any rare charicters or play them often. Mostly i like to play lowbie goodies because im not in the evil mood that day, it can be taxing on me mentally sometimes to always play evil especcially if there has been some extensive rp for a week or so.

So keeping my kismet over 200 is easy, i didnt even noticed it had dropped. I dobt it will ever happen again. Now to my idea of a cap, maybe 1000 drops it by a half and 3000 removes it? Just an idea, im sure anyone with over 3000 hours on this game doesnt need a "rp check" to make a evil charicter.