Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"This is why we don't get nice things...."

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Shiloboy View Post
    Conflict can be a character growth point and I hope that anyone who happens to be engaged in character conflict can enjoy the possible RP avenues that they open up. Criminal, Victim, Constable, Legio, and all the inbetween!
    Can be. Not guaranteed to be, especially if the "good conflict RP!" is being foisted on your character by someone who knows that the non-combatant can't fight back. Not familiar with Astyr's situation, so not saying that's it's a case of that, but we do have a lot of folks talking about the benefits here, and few talking about how "conflict RP" has occasionally been used an excuse.

    And it's important to remember that.

    If you find yourself having a hard time detaching the character roleplay and the player emotions I have found it is always best to make healthy choices. You can do this by: Taking longer breaks, try playing an alt, or even give yourself some time to do some stuff IRL and come back in an hour or even a few days!
    Good advice on break taking. That said, if you aren't having trouble detaching the character roleplay from player emotions you're doing it wrong; role-playing should always be an emotional exercise, it just doesn't need to be more prevalent in your mind than in real life. If you cannot feel something as you're empathizing with/inhabiting your character, there's really not much point.
    Originally posted by Mast3rmind
    Celtor and Vladmir combined are like the Legion of Doom. Or maybe the wondertwins, although I'd be worried if Celtor was as furry as Vladmir. *nods sagely*
    Xianna exclaims to you, "And even when unconscious you still attract beautiful women, you lecher!"
    Ravenlark pats you.
    Ravenlark says to you, "I promise not to abuse you in your sleep. Much."

    Comment


    • #17
      Vlad, the only problem is that choosing to be a noncom exclusively is a choice with consequences. We are role playing in a brutal world. One must expect hardship.
      Those who are afraid of the dark have never seen what the light can do.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Catuluscaesar View Post
        Vlad, the only problem is that choosing to be a noncom exclusively is a choice with consequences. We are role playing in a brutal world. One must expect hardship.
        I appreciate that that's your view of things. But I remember a TEC where it was more viable, and where people would literally role-play things like bards, scribes, etc. without too many troubles. I also remember a lot of players who have left because there's always been a few people who would use "Conflict RP!" as an excuse to basically just do whatever. The game would be stronger with those people still here, and with a higher level of respect demanded for other player's time, effort, etc.

        Note I said demanded. Or required. Not expected.

        Earlier you mentioned EVE Online. I also enjoy that game, and yes, its anything goes nature is part of its charm. But EVE has no other story than the conflicts engendered there create. These can be great stories, but they're also all pretty much the same aside from the details and with the exception of CVA, role-playing rarely enters into it. In an RPG we have a lot more ability to tell different kinds of stories, some involving person-to-person or organization-to-organization conflict, sure. But many other that do not, and unlike EVE there's a world and environment here that's suitable for those kinds of stories, and we have far more tools available to tell them.

        And to take full advantage of that, we certainly shouldn't be telling people "Don't make a non-com, they're not viable cuz you'll just get tounge-cut!" or encouraging that attitude to begin with.
        Originally posted by Mast3rmind
        Celtor and Vladmir combined are like the Legion of Doom. Or maybe the wondertwins, although I'd be worried if Celtor was as furry as Vladmir. *nods sagely*
        Xianna exclaims to you, "And even when unconscious you still attract beautiful women, you lecher!"
        Ravenlark pats you.
        Ravenlark says to you, "I promise not to abuse you in your sleep. Much."

        Comment


        • #19
          There are a lot of successful non-coms that aren't mutilated for life... they also don't become giant arses.
          Sometimes, what you do in game, makes enemies. It's not always a result of ooc actions that result in in game consequences. Most of the time, it's just because you became a giant arse, and someone took exception. I know from personal experience, that becoming a giant arse doesn't end well. Still fun though.

          Comment


          • #20
            As I see it, in this thread, we've been conflating three different points:

            1) Are negative consequences to characters viable and reasonable?
            2) Was there IG rationale for Astyr, specifically, to be targeted for negative consequences?
            3) Is the tonguecut command balanced as it currently stands?

            1) Are negative consequences to characters viable and reasonable?
            Absolutely. "I have made man sufficient to stand, but free to fall," as Milton put it. We are creating characters in a multi-player environment, not as solo efforts. Essential and unavoidable to the milieu, the things we do and the characters we create are simply part of the storyline and universe. We are not exclusively responsible for our characters. We absolutely cannot gauge what others do TO them. After all, every action done TO us is an action done BY someone else, as part of their storyline.

            Vlad, yes, Eve Online is all about conflict drivers. And I don't want TEC to become like Eve. I mention it only because one of the first lessons you need to learn if you play is also absolutely vital for every part of life. You learn to ask yourself, "What did I do that led to this situation?" This is not a mentality about blaming the victim. This is about debriefing on previous experiences and learning from them. Sometimes, the answer you get is, "Nothing; getting blown up was entirely unavoidable, and I did the best I could under the circumstances." Sometimes, it's "I warped directly to the gate and got caught in a bubble, when I should have warped to a perch point or a nearby planet to scan the gate for trouble first; my haste got me killed."

            When our characters do thrings in the gameworld, we give others the opportunity to respond to them. Sometimes, they aren't going to like what we did, and respond in kind. It's why "interaction" is such a vital part of the gameworld. Negative consequences are - functionally - no different from positive consequences. Sure, they add hardship, but the question we should ask isn't "Does this make my experience harder?" but rather, "Does this hardship come out of my actions?"

            2) Was there IG rationale for Astyr, specifically, to be targeted for negative consequences?
            I'm leaving aside OOC harassment or attacks on Astyr's player that may have coincided with the IG actions, since I have no idea if any of that happened, and that's beyond the scope of my response. OOC harassment or attacks on players are absolutely wrong. You can disagree with opinions they hold, but everyone here should have absolute respect for Astyr's player and want her to stay in the game. She is a great roleplayer, and I've loved what she does with Astyr. I want her to stay.

            However, I can see at least three things that could cause negative consequences to Astyr the character from nearly anyone:

            a) She is the "face" of one of the only patricians engaged with the gameworld. This makes her a target for those who don't like him or the wealthy in general.
            b) I have personally listened to her character tell others how they should behave and think in thoughts. This extends to issuing threats on behalf of the patrician house she works for. Any one of the characters she targeted with these comments would have cause.
            c) She roleplays an anxious, cautious person who is rightly afraid when others (like bandits, etc.) make threats or suggestive comments about victimizing her. This is excellent role play. It has the side-effect of positioning herself as a potential victim, an advertised noncom, and an "easy target" for attack. This isn't fair, and doesn't serve as cause for an attack on its own, but let's be real for a moment. Advertising weakness makes people think of you as a victim. I assume this was deliberate on Astyr's player's part, as it was so well done and nuanced.

            The first two points give characters motive, the last one suggests opportunity. These choices lead to consequences. There could be others that influenced other characters. Only the GMs can say if it was justified by interviewing everyone involved, but I think the background is certainly there for the possibility to be legit.

            3) Is the tonguecut command balanced as it currently stands?
            This one's debatable. I personally think tonguecut should be specifically cutting the tongue, not cutting the tongue out. Make it like a bone break for a tongue, perhaps lasting a lot longer (1 RL month?). I don't really like being able to permanently damage characters without GM supervision. It seems excessive and prone to abuse. Tonguecut seems like a means of teaching a lesson. The circumstances which enable it are the same as the circumstances that enable a pk ticket. As it stands, it's merely a harassment on the player that is an unregulated alternative to a pk ticket. It should definitely absolutely require GM intervention to "stick". Otherwise, maybe without after-the-fact GM approval, it can be a temporary thing? Kind of like:

            Scenario A: Character A tonguecuts character B, and provides the GMs with IG justification after-the-fact. The GMs feel it is justified and make the tonguecut permanent, communicating it to all parties.
            Scenario B: Character A tonguecuts character B, and provides the GMs with IG justification after-the-fact.The GMs do not feel it is justified and make the tonguecut temporary (the character botched the attempt to permanently remove the tongue IG). Same RP cost, but the effects heal after 1 month.

            Maybe that would address the inequality in the fact that we're talking about permanent damage to a character, without actually killing him/her and enabling a VC package allowing them to start over. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and the brutality of the age/environemnt means killing a character would almost always be the preferred choice, except for the OOC factor of GM approval.

            --

            Anyways, that's my take on this. Astyr the player did a great job and is a player I really think we should all try to retain. There's a disconnect among some players about negative effects against characters that troubles me. OOC abuse should never be tolerated, and we need to respect each other as players, even as we hack each other apart as characters. "Just because I'm trying to kill you doesn't mean I don't love and respect you."
            Those who are afraid of the dark have never seen what the light can do.

            Comment


            • #21
              oh, the character totally deserved it, if the person blamed is actually responsible. And it was all for in game reasons. If the character blamed is NOT responsible, I don't have an opinion on validity.

              Comment

              Working...
              X