>>>>Are we all now our characters?

You're making a giant leap from what you quoted to reach that conclusion.

The point is there are no characters without players. The characters don't play themselves. We may not be our characters, but our characters are certainly us. Who else? They are born in our imaginations, and brought to life through our thoughts, choices and actions. They're not simply robots that we wind up and let go. What do you think roleplaying is, exactly? It involves a degree of immersion. We, the players, play the role of these characters we create. It may be convenient for you to separate the characters you encounter from any real human beings, but that is clearly not the case.

>>>>If a character I control steals/kicks/spits/hugs/fistbumps your character am I really doing that to you? Is the response your character has your feelings or your characters?

How do you propose that is NOT "you" doing that to "me", by proxy of our characters? If not you, who? Did your cat type in the command? We are not idle spectators, we are participants in a roleplaying game. Yes, it's a fantasy world, but the people behind the characters are still living, breathing, feeling human beings.

Are you not responsible for anything your character says or does? Is THIS what GS has become? Anything goes, because, hey, it's just a game and I'm not responsible for my character's actions?

There's a serious disconnect here.

~ Heathyr and friends

http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/memes/1445177.jpg

-farmer

>>No, I think he is summarizing EXACTLY what the first quote here is saying. The amount of people I've come across in the past year that do not separate, or even attempt to separate, their IC and OOC personas has drastically increased. If this is the case, that we are all now our characters, then its a sorry day indeed. =(

Chalk me up as a sorry one. I'm heavily invested in my main character in time, finances and emotions. I separate myself as much as I am able. At times, it is enough and, at times, it isn't. We're not the same but we are still entwined enough to be counter to what the OP and responders would find ideal. It's always been hard to step back and just not care what happens because it is a game. I get pretty emotional during movies and books, too...but that's what they're supposed to do, get you involved and make you feel something.

I won't be the worst case you run into but I am pretty sure that my ability to fully remove myself from my character leaves me wanting in the ideal role play department.

~Galenok

<<<Chalk me up as a sorry one. I'm heavily invested in my main character in time, finances and emotions. I separate myself as much as I am able. At times, it is enough and, at times, it isn't. We're not the same but we are still entwined enough to be counter to what the OP and responders would find ideal. It's always been hard to step back and just not care what happens because it is a game. I get pretty emotional during movies and books, too...but that's what they're supposed to do, get you involved and make you feel something.>>>>

Now that's honest. I totally respect that. I'd be willing to bet most players can relate to this, to some degree, whether they admit it or not.

~ Heathyr

>>Chalk me up as a sorry one. I'm heavily invested in my main character in time, finances and emotions. I separate myself as much as I am able. At times, it is enough and, at times, it isn't. We're not the same but we are still entwined enough to be counter to what the OP and responders would find ideal. It's always been hard to step back and just not care what happens because it is a game. I get pretty emotional during movies and books, too...but that's what they're supposed to do, get you involved and make you feel something.

Not one of us can admit to being completely perfect and able to separate ourselves 100% of the time. I'm as guilty of it as the next person. You put time and effort into building your character, yes you will get attached. I would not argue otherwise.

Its that so many people don't even -attempt- to that is the difference. The one's who fail to separate IC and OOC in -any- capacity what-so-ever. They dislike you IC? OH then they dislike you OOC and vice versa. Oh you said something they didn't like on lnet, all of a sudden they talk down to you TSC. Things like that are what sadden me.


I have never seen you do any of these and frankly I doubt you ever would. =)

<<You're making a giant leap from what you quoted to reach that conclusion.

The point is there are no characters without players. The characters don't play themselves. We may not be our characters, but our characters are certainly us. Who else? They are born in our imaginations, and brought to life through our thoughts, choices and actions. They're not simply robots that we wind up and let go. What do you think roleplaying is, exactly? It involves a degree of immersion. We, the players, play the role of these characters we create. It may be convenient for you to separate the characters you encounter from any real human beings, but that is clearly not the case.>>


No, it clearly isn't the case. But it's supposed to be! The fact that it isn't indicates the decline of roleplaying. There's a limit to the type of interactions a player is capable of engaging in when that player takes everything that happens to his or her character personally. I can't, for instance, steal from you without you viewing it as my attempt as a player to ruin your day. I couldn't get into a fight with your character without you hating me as a player.

Don't you understand that there are players that don't see things that way? From my perspective, everything I do is an invitation to roleplay. I say and do things, and then react to what others do in response. It doesn't really matter what they do in response, as long as it's IC. Also for that reason, I feel I carry a responsibility toward other players to respect them as peers in this endeavor and keep in mind that they are not my enemy, even if they happen to be my character's enemy.

If you'll bear with me, I'll share a few examples to illustrate the point.

Several months ago I was hunting plane 5 of the rift when Eliaku died on plane 4. I don't know Eliaku, but I went to attempt a rescue anyway. Unfortunately, I wasn't high enough level to deal with plane 4. I reached Eliaku, kept him, and began to attempt getting him off of plane 4. At this point one of his friends showed up - a friend whose character didn't care for halflings at all! In any event, I ended up getting nearly killed by rift crawlers. The friend dragged Eliaku out after a brief conversation and left me to die.

Another example. A few weeks ago I was in Icemule trace TC, where I had dragged a body in for assistance. A Dhe'nar cleric responded. I thanked him, gave him (and everyone else spells). At which point he whispered to me angrily to stop rapid fire spelling people up. I explained to him that it wasn't my intention to annoy him, that it helps the others and they appreciate it, and I would be done in a moment. He then made a very IC insult to my halfling's hairy feet and stormed off.

I imagine in both examples you would have been boiling mad. Am I right? Let me explain how I reacted to both scenarios.

In the first, I was amused. It was all IC. Nothing personal about it as far as I could tell. So why would I be upset? It was a fresh experience and a little funny. I actually survived by being swallowed by a rift crawler and dropped off on a plane with a door. When I got back to the cavern, Tav told the guy not to worry, that he's stronger than he looks!

In the second scenario, I was annoyed at the OOC interaction. I understand that screen scroll is annoying and I apologized for it, but his 10 seconds of inconvenience isn't worth denying the whole town 4 hours of wizard spells to make their hunts easier, in my opinion. But then he immediately shifted gears with the overt IC insult. I just found this confusing because I wasn't sure of his intentions. I assume if the player is upset at me, that conflict is not a desirable outcome. They're going to take it personally and get upset, and that's just not what I'm interested in doing.

~Taverkin

Sometimes, I think examples are needed more often. Thanks for including those, Tav. I think some points get lost in explanations that are almost too well thought out. Examples are something we can all relate to in game.

As for your examples and how I/Galenok would react to them so we can see how we handle things differently, or not. In your first example, I think I the player would feel more put out than my character. I get frustrated for what I feel is a waste of my effort, even though I get that people are RPing and that's great. The end result is that I the player wouldn't make the same effort twice, perhaps. My character actually has a better understanding that not everyone gets along, there are racial boundaries some cannot get past, etc. I guess he's more forgiving than I am. In that sense, maybe there is some separation between us.

With your second example, both my character and I would've gladly told the character to take his superior self elsewhere and to have a nice day while doing it. If that player/character chooses to hang out in TC/TSC where it is busiest and where people rapid heal, rapid spell and run their chompers constantly, then they have to be a bit more understanding that it's the busiest place in town. Next time, feel free to stuff your hairy foot up his tight butt. Not much separation there I suppose!

~Galenok

I'm not so sure farmer. One time my character ate bread that had gone bad and got sick, the very next day I got food poisoning. Coincidence? I think not.

>>Some people RP so-called "evil" characters as an excuse to treat people however they want. No, that's unacceptable. Every player is here to have fun, yet there are those who think only about themselves and happily disrupt the game for others, then have the audacity to claim they're "roleplaying" and everyone should just lighten up and accept it.

So people can't roleplay "evil" characters because it might hurt someone's feelings?

If they're really just roleplaying then yes, people who take offense should lighten up.

Some of the most 'evil' characters I've ever seen (enjoyed) are absolutely affable, until they get you alone.

Jeril?

Doug

<<The REALLY ironic thing is that in your second example, you then you go on to admit how annoyed you were by something that happened in the game. Wait...I thought ANY emotional reaction was a terrible thing? Granted it was an OOC comment and I might have been annoyed, too. But seriously, hypocrite much?>>

This is consistent with everything I've told you. The player angrily demanded that I stop causing screen scroll. Well, who died and named you king, buddy? Yeah, I was annoyed. Why wouldn't I be? But I apologized and explained to him that it wasn't my intention to annoy him and that the other players present benefited from it. He then insulted my character IC and walked off. No harm in that. Insult my hairy feet all you like! That's what I'm looking for. Not to argue with you about screen scroll! Why does this seem in any way "ironic" to you with regard to my position? I've been 100% consistent from the start.


<<When we're speaking of roleplay, we're dealing with a spectrum, not absolutes. Just because somebody doesn't necessarily agree with you on some level doesn't mean they must necessarily hold the polar opposite viewpoint.>>

"It's simply your position on the spectrum that allows you to see a distinction between the two." ~Taverkin

I guess we can agree on that, huh? ;)

<<Well, now that I've written a friggin' book, I can't imagine any point I have to make on this subject that hasn't already been made. Either you get it or you don't. If you want to continue making assumptions about me and how I play my characters, you are free to do so. I would suggest, however, you might be better served by actually interacting with them. Otherwise, you're just spitting into the wind.>>

Apparently I have, and will continue to do so, Heathyr. Tav isn't reading any of this, I can assure you.

~Taverkin

<<<You know, you say this... and yet 99% of the "evil" characters I've come into contact with have been treated -worse- by the so-called "good guys." >>>

None of my characters fall into that category. Most are arguably "good" aligned, which isn't surprising since they are essentially a team. But at least one is only out for herself (and slightly insane, at that) and another is actually a bit of a latent psychopath. The most self-righteous of the lot also happens to be pretty down to earth, and would rather give you a warm blanket than a hard time. She's no pushover, though. If she sees an evil act, she'll likely intervene in one way or another.

<<<That doesn't mean I stomp all over other people because I make a separation. I am a HUGE advocate of the basic principal of "we're all here to have fun" and that it isn't my right to ruin anyone else's good time.>>>

That's all I'm saying.

<<<I think you're missing the point here. Its to be expected that we're going to get emotional over things that happen to our characters. The difference is letting your OOC reaction bleed through your character into the game. If you choose to play your character as an extension of yourself, that's fine... its your choice. If you choose to play a pacifist, or bookworm scholarly type, someone comes to pickpocket you and your first reaction is to get angry irl, hunt them down and kill them... well is that really roleplaying? Is coming up with a reason to support your actions -after- the fact make it ok? Its simply a different form of roleplaying and one not everyone subscribes to it.>>>

I haven't missed the point, you're beating a straw man. I never said anything different from what you're saying. This was never about reacting OOC to IC situations. I don't do that. We're in agreement.

However. In the context of the pickpocket, I don't care to deal with it. I don't enjoy RPing that situation. Like I've said all along, it may be a hoot for the thief, and maybe other people enjoy playing the victim. I don't, and for at least some of my characters, it doesn't fit the roleplay I envision for them. I'd be happy to simply take a pass, but that's the problem. The thief has ALL the power in that situation. He or she can freely impose his or her RP onto my character, and there's bupkis I can do about it. Even if I catch them, there's rarely any satisfying way to end the encounter. Hey, if/when it happens, I'll RP it out like I always have. I have never, ever implied otherwise. I am not prone to "getting angry" and slipping out of character just to enact some revenge. That's something others have projected onto me; it's not based on anything I've ever said or done.

But let's be clear. Picking someone's pocket is a PvP action. All these people insisting that "oh, no, it's CvC" are just rationalizing it. Are you a player? Am I player? Hello, it's Player vs. Player. I don't know how I can make that any clearer. Even if we AGREE to roleplay the conflict, you're still a player and I'm still a player. Our characters don't play themselves.

<<<Heathyr, you're being silly.>>>

Probably.

<<<I agree it's unacceptable for a character to treat people however they like without regard to the player behind the character. I believe I've told you several times that the moment I detect any hint that the other player is upset about the interaction, I'll find a way to end the conflict. I'm not here to ruin your day, no matter what type of character I happen to be playing. And I also feel that evil is more believable when it is balanced by vulnerability. Finding ways of demonstrating that vulnerability in some way indicates to the other player that you aren't simply impressed by how high your CS is and creates opportunities for greater depth in the interaction.>>>>

I couldn't agree more.

<<<Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position was that you'd like the option to opt out of being a target for pickpockets because you don't believe it's fair for players to be able to steal from other players. >>>>

I couldn't disagree more. [Okay, I could, but how could I resist the irony.] You are wrong, and I'll be happy to correct you. I never said I don't believe it's fair for players to be able to steal from other players. Those are your words, not mine. What I DID say is that it's usually one-sided and non-consensual. What I proposed (opting out of the steal verb) would ensure that it was consensual. What, exactly, is your problem with that?

There is no other system in the game that encourages PvP in quite the way the STEAL verb does. Fine, call it CvC if you wish. I don't dispute that sometimes the skill can be used to prompt interesting RP scenarios. As I mentioned, I've participated in a few myself (as the victim of a foiled theft) that turned out fairly amusing. But come on, let's get real for a minute. Do you think that's USUALLY how it works out? Honestly? Usually, if it's not totally one-sided, it's something even worse like griefing. We all know how fun THAT is.

At any given time, there may be a few hundred people playing the game. Relatively few of them read these forums, and even fewer ever post. I think I'm safe to say most, if not all, of the posters here are good players. I mean, we're at least interested enough in RP to be reading the "Thoughts on Roleplaying" folder, right? But what about all the players out there who aren't?

Meh. Give me the option to turn the bugger off. Problem solved.

<<<You refused to entertain the possibility that some players might use pickpockets as a means of initiating roleplayed conflict.>>>

No I didn't. See above.

<<<Further, you failed to see why having an opt out defeats the purpose.>>>>

Enlighten me.

<<<This indicates to me that you take what happens to your character personally. If you didn't, pickpockets would be a minor inconvenience that results in a negligible silver loss to you, with the benefit of potential roleplayed conflict.>>>>

It's got nothing to do with taking it personally. That's again your projection. Yes, pickpocketing is a minor inconvenience, all the more reason to just turn it off. As for the "benefit of potential roleplayed conflict"...I don't see how being victimized by a petty thief is a "benefit" or particularly engaging. Sorry, not interested. Try something else.

It's like the boy in class who pulls the girls pigtails to get her attention. I was over that in 1st grade. There's a reason I started studying kung fu, you know.

<<<I'm a lot more concerned with pickpockets being gutted or removed and its impact on the few players who legitimately roleplay thieves than I am about the 5K silvers I lost last month to pickpockets>>>

Funny, I'm not. But listen, again...I'm not even saying I'd use such a flag to turn off theft for all my characters, all the time. There are times I'd willing to deal with it, and times I would not. But just as the THIEF has the option, so should I.

<<<Just a pet peeve of yours that bothers you more than it should?>>>

Maybe it is. I'm not a young woman anymore, I've seen a lot and been around a bit (geographically--don't get cheeky). I'm honestly sick of people taking advantage of others. I've seen too much of it in the real world, and I'd just as soon not "roleplay" it in Gemstone. I don't find it fun. It doesn't mean I can't handle it or that I fly off the handle when it happens, it's just not what I come to the game for. I have much more interesting and time-worthy ambitions in the game world. There's only one person I know of who routinely tries to pick my pocket. It's almost like "hello" for her. As much as I'd regret shutting her out, it would be worth it to me. And frankly, I don't really enjoy dealing with it, even with people I like. You may be right, maybe it's a personal hang-up, but there it is.

It reminds me of those old games of "keep away", when you helplessly flail about trying to get your new hat back from your "friends" as they toss it around the playground. Then when you finally resort to kicking your best friend in the ribcage, they're all like, "well you didn't have to go all Buffy on my ass". You just can't win.

But, eh, I digress.

That's why when I encounter players who appear intent on causing problems for others, I shut them down using the in-game tools available, and avoid them. I'm not saying all thieves are like that, in fact I'm not even saying most are. I've known some great thieves and understand it's a time-honored part of the genre. But in my experience, it's worth sacrificing the rare exception in order to lock out all the foolishness. Fools will still be fools, but at least I won't have to deal with that scenario. It's the same reason I tend to keep my group closed and demeanor reserved. Fewer hassles.

<<<<Regardless, I absolutely do not allow my annoyance to color my character's reactions.>>>>

Neither do I. But if you manage to annoy both myself AND my character...well, you might want to clear out. Or at least grab onto something solid. (I'm kidding. Mostly.)

<<<<It's my wish that they separate their characters from themselves, but I'm always watching for signs that they can't and I try my best to signal my intentions to the player in some way so that they know I'm trying to have a fun and interesting interaction, not ruin their day. If I'm unable to do that and the player is clearly upset, I find a way to end the interaction quickly and apologize to the player.>>>>

I think it's admirable that you try to remain sensitive to this, and acknowledge that not everybody is able to separate themselves fully from their characters. The difference is, I'm not all preachy about it. I don't think there's anything wrong with people who wear their hearts on their sleeves. I'm not saying I'm one of them (I'm not, usually, as hard as that may to believe) but who are we to judge? The character is the character, and whether it's the player coming through or not, what's the difference? Accept them as they are and work with it. However, in so acknowledging this...don't you think it might be nice to let such players have the option of not being targeted for a PvP action such as picking pockets?

<<<I can, I have, and I will, Heathyr. CvC =/= PvP.>>>>

Impossible. Illogical. A character is played by a player. They don't play themselves. It's always PvP.

<<<<I'm sorry, but it absolutely does not equate to the same thing.>>>>

I didn't say they were the same thing. I said CvC is always, by necessity, PvP. However, the reverse is not necessarily true. There IS a distinction. But not in the way you are arguing. If the characters are involved in conflict, we, the players, are ispo facto involved in that conflict. It cannot logically be otherwise. It does not mean that we are necessarily embroiled in that conflict emotionally, but we most certainly are involved. We could be laughing and having a good time while our characters are deadly serious. Our characters, however, remain extensions of ourselves. Just because it's a game doesn't mean we don't care what's happening to them. They could be diametrically opposite of our true personalities, but WE are the ones pulling the strings. Nobody else. P. V. P.

<<<<I guarantee you that if one of my characters is involved in a conflict with one of yours, it will never be PvP.>>>>

Are you playing your character? Am I playing mine? It's PvP. BY DEFINITION. Sheesh.

<<<<If you show me that you are upset as a player>>>>

It's got nothing to do with being upset.

<<<<A person whose behavior demonstrates no concern for the feelings of other players is behaving irresponsibly. I won't work with that, either. I'm here to have fun. Interacting with children who play this game like I would play a game like WoW isn't fun to me.>>>>

We agree on this point 100%. And frankly, I think we have a lot more in common than we do apart, from what I've observed. 99% of this debate seems to be about semantics, really. But if I didn't feel it was worth pursuing, I'd have stopped about 2500 words ago. Um, like I said I was going to... [oops]

<<<<I agree. But that position doesn't exactly agree with the "opt out" suggestion you support. You want to play the game you want to without allowing others the chance to play it their way.>>>>

Whoa, Nelly! Nothing I proposed said anything about not allowing others to play the game the way they want. The opt-out idea would merely ensure that their victims were WILLING victims. Not once has anybody come up with any cohesive reason why that's such a bad idea. People could still roleplay thieves to their hearts content. The only possible objection would be that they couldn't continue to prey upon unwilling, unwitting participants. Sorry, not shedding any tears over that one.

In addition to the opt-idea, I've also strongly advocated for additional utility added to the steal verb. I think thieves should be able to use their skills to target NPCs, shops, even monsters. As long as the resulting income was not unbalancing, and the risks were sufficiently proportioned (as were the consequences, if caught)...it would go a long way to improving the RP of thieves in Elanthia. Heck, I might even play one myself, under those circumstances. As it stands, however, since stealing is strictly a PvP (CvC if you insist) endeavor, it's really not my cup of tea. I like the fantasy archetype of the crafty rogue, but I'm too empathetic to enjoy taking stuff from real, feeling people. Even in a game.

Then again, I suppose I could be a good rogue, only taking from mean rich people who really deserve it.

In fact...hmm.... [CREATE NEW CHARACTER]

<<<<I understand that the reality is that most players misuse the pickpocket skill,>>>>

Ah, so you do understand!

<<<<but once again it was my point from the start that the few who use it properly justify having the skill as it is a minor inconvenience to the rest of us. >>>>

...or not. I disagree that the few who use it properly justify such spirited opposition to a simple on/off flag for people who don't want the hassle from the majority who don't.

I'm willing to agree to disagree on this point.

<<<I'd rather keep it around for the folks who consider it central to legitimate characters they play.>>>>

Nothing I proposed would take that away from them. They just wouldn't be able to prey upon unwilling participants anymore.

Moving on...

<<<<I can completely rationally refute that.>>>>>

No you can't.

<<<<There are times my character is FURIOUS with someone, calling them names, wanting to hunt them down and kill them, and personally, I as the player am rolling around laughing. The same when I'm on the opposite end of the stick...>>>>

That doesn't refute the fact that CvC necessarily involves PvP. Are you the player of your character? Is the other person the player of hers? It's Player vs. Player. PvP doesn't stop being PvP just because you're having a ball. You're all trying to add some extra baggage to the term. There's nothing automatically wrong with PvP. It's when the conflict is one-sided or non-consensual that we have a problem.

<<<If someone kills my character, I might be annoyed because I lost a head full of experience, but I'm not mad at the PLAYER.>>>

There's almost never any reasonable justification for killing another player. It's a pain in the butt and usually just results in hard feelings. Case in point, the recent storyline in the Landing. Several of the folks joining the lich have been killed by so-called "good guys" under the guise of roleplay. This has stirred up lots of bitter feelings, some justified. Meh. It's a case-by-case thing, but when somebody dies it's usually a sign of failed RP, not good RP. Of course, there are always exceptions.

A long time ago, my character got a case of amnesia. Not only could she not remember her friends, family, or even her own identity, she couldn't remember any of her spells. Gradually, as her memory returned bit by bit, she struggled to regain her powers. Her spells came back slowly, from first level on up. But she was prone to...accidents.

"Heathyr, can you toss me a powerful look?"

"Sure!"

>prep 702
>cast at DeadFriend

Needless to say, she made a full recovery. And so did her friends.

Eventually.

~ Heathyr of the long wind

This is quickly turning into the pickpocketing thread 2.0... which, in my opinon, was not the reason Vivaldi reopened it here.

<<<I think you're missing the point here. Its to be expected that we're going to get emotional over things that happen to our characters. The difference is letting your OOC reaction bleed through your character into the game. If you choose to play your character as an extension of yourself, that's fine... its your choice. If you choose to play a pacifist, or bookworm scholarly type, someone comes to pickpocket you and your first reaction is to get angry irl, hunt them down and kill them... well is that really roleplaying? Is coming up with a reason to support your actions -after- the fact make it ok? Its simply a different form of roleplaying and one not everyone subscribes to it.>>>

>>I haven't missed the point, you're beating a straw man. I never said anything different from what you're saying. This was never about reacting OOC to IC situations. I don't do that. We're in agreement.

Yes, you actually have been. The point of this thread originally was the question of whether or not we have become our characters. Your arguments have been based soley on the topic this tangent derived from.

>>However. In the context of the pickpocket, I don't care to deal with it. I don't enjoy RPing that situation. Like I've said all along, it may be a hoot for the thief, and maybe other people enjoy playing the victim. I don't, and for at least some of my characters, it doesn't fit the roleplay I envision for them. I'd be happy to simply take a pass, but that's the problem. The thief has ALL the power in that situation. He or she can freely impose his or her RP onto my character, and there's bupkis I can do about it. Even if I catch them, there's rarely any satisfying way to end the encounter. Hey, if/when it happens, I'll RP it out like I always have. I have never, ever implied otherwise. I am not prone to "getting angry" and slipping out of character just to enact some revenge. That's something others have projected onto me; it's not based on anything I've ever said or done.

First, let me start by saying -none- of my characters have ever been pickpockets. I consider IG pp to be like rl pp... I have any number of options available to me to protect myself from being pickpocketed on the street. The same things goes in game. If being pickpocketed is an issue for my character and something she would wish to avoid then I would start by closing my containers when I am out in public, adding needles and cursed gems to my containers if I prefer to keep them open. These are both very good and successful ways to keep from dealing with pickpockets so claiming there is "bupkis i can do about it" is not a good argument. There is plenty you can do about it. I personally don't understand why everyone else in the game should be expected to not attempt to pickpocket simply because its something you do not want yet choose not to arm yourself against. -You- have the power to keep this from happening. -You- choose whether or not you want to protect yourself, and unless you're playing a naive character with rose-colored lenses, why wouldn't you do everything in your power to protect what you have earned?

>>But let's be clear. Picking someone's pocket is a PvP action. All these people insisting that "oh, no, it's CvC" are just rationalizing it. Are you a player? Am I player? Hello, it's Player vs. Player. I don't know how I can make that any clearer. Even if we AGREE to roleplay the conflict, you're still a player and I'm still a player. Our characters don't play themselves.

No. Picking someone's pocket is a CvC action. If my character is trained in pickpocketing and wants to make money... she would find a busy area and start picking pockets. That has absolutely nothing to do with me as a player. It has to do with my CHARACTER doing what she does best professionally because she has chosen that to be her main coin making option.

When it becomes PvP is when and if I choose to target specific people because I, as a player, do not like them.

<<<No. Picking someone's pocket is a CvC action.>>>

Yes. You're right, picking someone's pocket is a CvC action. Who is playing your character, again? Who's playing the victim? Robots? Aliens? Or could it be, perhaps...players?

<<<If my character is trained in pickpocketing and wants to make money... she would find a busy area and start picking pockets.>>>

Right so far!

<<<<That has absolutely nothing to do with me as a player.>>>

Congratulations on producing digital life-forms capable of autonomous thought and action. Would you like to notify the science journals, or shall I?

<<<<It has to do with my CHARACTER doing what she does best professionally because she has chosen that to be her main coin making option.>>>

I hope your CHARACTER doesn't figure out how to break out of your computer monitor, she'll likely rob you blind. Since, you know, you have no control over her whatsoever.

<<<When it becomes PvP is when and if I choose to target specific people because I, as a player, do not like them. >>>

What has "like" got to do with it? It's not APvPWIDL (Angry Player vs. Player Who I Don't Like).

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go buy a parrot...

~ Heathyr

<<<<So this makes your characters literally you?>>>>>

[laughing maniacally]

Yes, farmer. Yes, it does. Obviously.

~ I Give Up

>>Yes. You're right, picking someone's pocket is a CvC action. Who is playing your character, again? Who's playing the victim? Robots? Aliens? Or could it be, perhaps...players?

Yay... tongue-in-cheek funtimes!

Well... let me point out.

GemStone IV Player Policy: Player vs Player Conflict

There are elements in GemStone IV that promote a competitive environment. GemStone IV has been designed to promote competition as player vs. creature, or player vs. puzzle, and not generally player vs. player.

Some events (such as the Gladiatorial Games), encourage player vs. player combat in a structured setting. Also, some players will choose to role-play a competitive situation between themselves, and will combat each other, which is acceptable. What is not acceptable is to initiate combat against unsuspecting victims, especially to prey upon weaker players for the singular enjoyment of the attacker. As a rule of thumb, Character vs. Character (role-playing -CvC) combat is acceptable, while Player vs. Player (OOC or disruptive - PvP) is not.

There are many gray areas in terms of defining what is acceptable competition, and what is abusive behavior. For example, a pickpocket stealing items or silvers. This can be considered an open invitation for CvC, but losing 25 silvers isn't exactly cause for death. Losing large amounts might be though. Another example, the classic duel (Character 1: You have insulted my honor and I must defend that to the death! Character 2: Have at thee Knave!) is on the surface acceptable, but on the other hand saying dueling (Player 1: Wanna duel? Player 2: Yeah) isn't as it can be considered OOC.

In general, Simutronics will not get involved in a conflict confined to a small group of players unless it threatens to overlap to others or cause a generally disruptive influence on the game.

Your next unread page is page 1.


So basically... everyone in this thread and Simutronics says you're wrong here. CvC is defined, by simutronics, as an IC conflict. PvP is defined, by simutronics, as an OOC conflict.

It all boils down to this...

If you don't want people to pickpocket you... close your containers, visit a bank.
If you don't want to deal with people who -can- pickpocket you... play Fable.

<<<Yay... tongue-in-cheek funtimes!>>>

My ravishing beauty is only exceeded by my sparkling wit and charm.
[Hey, if I'm going for tongue-in-cheek, I might as well go for the gusto...]

There are lots of points in that official definition that support what I've been saying ALL along.

<<<Some events (such as the Gladiatorial Games), encourage player vs. player combat in a structured setting. Also, some players will choose to role-play a competitive situation between themselves, and will combat each other, which is acceptable.>>>

All examples of perfectly acceptable PvP.

<<<What is not acceptable is to initiate combat against unsuspecting victims, especially to prey upon weaker players for the singular enjoyment of the attacker.>>>>

This has been the very thrust of my argument all along and, may I add, reinforces the absurdity of a system that specifically promotes this exact behavior, i.e. stealing.

<<<As a rule of thumb, Character vs. Character (role-playing -CvC) combat is acceptable, while Player vs. Player (OOC or disruptive - PvP) is not.>>>>

This definition specifically distinguishes OOC or disruptive PvP from acceptable PvP. The document already excused consensual competition between players. You don't get to post a definition and then pick and choose which parts apply. It's all or nothing. The "rule of thumb" is a useful distinction, but it does not invalidate my point.

If there ever was one. Honestly, it's hard to remember now. Is it still 2013?

<<<<There are many gray areas in terms of defining what is acceptable competition, and what is abusive behavior. For example, a pickpocket stealing items or silvers. This can be considered an open invitation for CvC, but losing 25 silvers isn't exactly cause for death. Losing large amounts might be though. Another example, the classic duel (Character 1: You have insulted my honor and I must defend that to the death! Character 2: Have at thee Knave!) is on the surface acceptable, but on the other hand saying dueling (Player 1: Wanna duel? Player 2: Yeah) isn't as it can be considered OOC.>>>>

This completely supports my position and what I've tried (and apparently, failed) to make clear all along.

And you STILL can't convincingly argue that CvC is ever NOT between two players. Sometimes, as specifically stated in the official document above, PvP is perfectly legit. Sometimes it's not. There is clearly acceptable PvP and unacceptable PvP, ergo, it is NOT "only" PvP when the player is angry, disruptive or acting OOC. That's merely an example of unacceptable PvP.

Thank you, Simutronics, for clearing that up.

<<<PvP is defined, by simutronics, as an OOC conflict.>>>

Or not. Look...read it again.

<<<Some events (such as the Gladiatorial Games), encourage player vs. player combat in a structured setting.>>>

Acceptable PvP. Check.

<<<Also, some players will choose to role-play a competitive situation between themselves, and will combat each other, which is acceptable.>>>

Acceptable PvP. Got it.

<<<What is not acceptable is to initiate combat against unsuspecting victims, especially to prey upon weaker players for the singular enjoyment of the attacker.>>>

UNacceptable PvP. Right.

<<<<As a rule of thumb, Character vs. Character (role-playing -CvC) combat is acceptable, while Player vs. Player (OOC or disruptive - PvP) is not.>>>>

And here's where, apparently, the confusion stems from. We have introduced a separate term to distinguish CvC (which is always RP-based) from PvP (which may or may not be RP-based). It is a useful distinction, as it's perfectly unambiguous in referring specifically to the roleplaying aspects of any given interaction, as opposed to the behind-the-scenes actions of the players. The PvP element still exists, however, even when we refer to a CvC event. There can be no character interaction without player interaction. It's impossible. Or at least, infinitely improbable.

What's driving me batty is the utter unwillingness to accept the logical, rational, and now documented fact that not all PvP is bad, and that, by it's very nature, CvC necessarily entails PvP because--I can't believe I have to say it again--we are all players. Players players players. Player. Versus. Player.

Are you intentionally trying to drive me crazy(er)?

~ Heathyr

>Historically, it has always been the elder players who taught the newbies what's expected of them. They served as shining role models. I will never forget the first time Thalior took his eye out and stared at me with that awesomely hideous grin. Or how Jesh would drop his sword in Hearthstone, daring anyone to pick it up (and of course, nobody could because of its ridiculously high enchant). Or Manny, or Kodos, or Blades...they were all so influential in my enjoyment of the game and my development as a roleplayer. If you yelled in TSSW (where people used to hang out for massies), you'd probably spend most of your time stunned out of your gourd, courtesy of Lord Thalior. Heaven forbid you really annoyed him, or you'd likely find bits of yourself showering down upon TSC. People learned quickly what was acceptable RP and what wasn't.
~ Heathyr

I remember when that Taverkin guy got picketpocketed by Riend (because he didn't throw up some NOSTEALINGFROMME flag) and didn't feel targeted as a player. I remember when Galenok closed her containers, and dropped her silver in the bank as her way of opting out of being stolen from. I remember when some old farmer used a bag of poop to foil Kallindra's theft attempt and caused her to yell at him for a very angry (stinky) hour in TSC while her player and I laughed in OOC* whispers.

A 'role model' who has difficulty with separating acts targeted at their character, and acts targeted at them as a player isn't 'shining', nor is it an example that I want 'newbies' from.


*For the record, OOC translates to Out of Character.

-farmer

<<I hear you and feel your pain, I truly do. But what do you propose to do about it?>>

As always, I propose to lead by example. I do so in the way I play the game, and also with the ideas I post here on the forums. That's what I'm doing about it.

~Taverkin

>I agree completely. Aren't we lucky we don't have that problem?
~ Heathyr and friends

Which one of you is lucky?


>PS: Thank heavens for that "Protection from Bitter Sarcasm" spell! Whew!

You need more practice. Perhaps some more learning from your elders.


>PSS: Isn't it interesting how your character completely refuses to interact with any of mine, other than a brief insult before walking away, in spite of the fact that they're housemates and none of them has ever done anything to deserve his scorn? Hmm. Is that hypocrisy I smell? Or rolton manure? It's hard to tell.

You mean that one time I've logged in, had farmer's gear inspected by a strange character sitting in my house that he's never met and the old man told you to keep your eyes to yourself and left?

1. L.O.L. at you thinking any character needs to 'do something' to earn his scorn. You show a lack of knowledge about him period.
2. You think I'm supposed to magically know that's you? I know you are your characters, but even that's pushing it.
3. You think that's not a reaction any character would have gotten from farmer if he didn't know them? Ask around.


I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you can bring your character 'to life' with your thoughts, 'become that character as much as possible', 'become deeply invested', and even think 'You become the part', You don't really smell that bag of manure farmer's wearing, despite what your character smelt in game.



-farmer