Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
In an attempt to be as civil as possible I suppose it would be nice to clear the air about something that was focused on a skill, and turned into a debate of CvC and PvP. Let's dispense with any skill discussion and really talk about playing different roles within the game.
Most roles can be broken down to two distinct categories; a protagonist or an antagonist. Simply said, you are either role-playing a good guy or a bad guy, sometimes both, if you are an playing ambiguous, or indifferent character. Most people will opt to play a good guy most of the time. They will help people, assist them on their tasks, and essentially attempt to make things easier for others, as well as themselves. Protagonists in the game generally do not cause problems for others, in character or otherwise. If there is a problem between protagonists, it is likely something that bubbled up to a pure PvP conflict and not kept as a pure CvC one, if there was any. That equals bad, but generally, that should not be the case WITHIN the game and WITHIN character.
Antagonists cannot fall under the same guidelines as protagonists do. Antagonists, on their face, are attempting to cause grief to another character. (Notice I didn't say PLAYER!) Whether it is pure role-play or not, it is a decidedly "bad" thing to do to another character. It doesn't matter what it is either. It can merely be aggravating a character with verbal taunts to outright cold-blooded murder, or anything in between.
The main difference between these roles is that one is generally helping others, while the other is generally aggravating others. Obviously there is going to be less conflicts with people helping, and more conflicts with people aggravating each other. The real trouble is that most people don't like being aggravated/antagonized by someone else. Regardless of whether you are IC or taking some event personally as a player, those who appear to "take advantage" of another is not going to be met with positive results by ANY protagonist in the game.
If you wish to play a bad guy/gal, the responsibility falls squarely on the antagonist to at least express their intent to role-play your characters, and not a personal attack on a player themselves. It is entirely up to the antagonist to realize that not everybody is going to want to play along such a scenario, and to continue to press it will probably not end well.
There is also a huge difference in the level of excitement playing into a conflict as an antagonist vs. a protagonist. An antagonist is expecting the conflict as he is creating it unwillingly with another character. A protagonist can only react to a "bad" action made by the antagonist in character, while expressing in no uncertain terms that they will not enjoy playing it out in OOC, if he persist. If you are faced with a player who doesn't wish to play along (for whatever reason) then it is the responsibility of the antagonist to cease the engagement of the conflict and seek another target. Otherwise it can be easily misunderstand as intentional grief vs a player, and not at all in character.
On the flipside, it is partially the responsibility of all protagonists to at least give the benefit of the doubt when being made a victim/target of an antagonist. However the reaction to the antics of an antagonist should always fall within your character's role (whatever it may be) to that offense.
The real key here is that antagonist is playing an exception to the normal mode of playing in this game which is largely a cooperative player-friendly one. Breaking or bending the rules of etiquette and keeping it within character will take an exceptional player to handle it well, while adding a positive (even through conflict) result for all participants on the stage.
One thing to note when playing an antagonist, many of us come to play a game to relax a bit from the stress of our day and any kind of conflict in game is probably not wanted. So choose your targets with care!
--Zizzle
>Most roles can be broken down to two distinct categories; a protagonist or an antagonist. Simply said, you are either role-playing a good guy or a bad guy, sometimes both, if you are an playing ambiguous, or indifferent character.
--Zizzle
>The main difference between these roles is that one is generally helping others, while the other is generally aggravating others.
Buh, wut?
I stopped reading at the second quote from your post.
Mainly because I find the idea that Protagonist=Good Guy=generally helping others and Antagonist=Bad guy=generally aggravating others, simply put, absolutely 100% ludicrous.
-farmer
--Zizzle
>The main difference between these roles is that one is generally helping others, while the other is generally aggravating others.
Buh, wut?
I stopped reading at the second quote from your post.
Mainly because I find the idea that Protagonist=Good Guy=generally helping others and Antagonist=Bad guy=generally aggravating others, simply put, absolutely 100% ludicrous.
-farmer
Buh, wut?
I stopped reading at the second quote from your post.
Mainly because I find the idea that Protagonist=Good Guy=generally helping others and Antagonist=Bad guy=generally aggravating others, simply put, absolutely 100% ludicrous.
It is probably why you cannot understand the roles involved in a conflict, and your comment doesn't illustrate a thing to add to this discussion. Why exactly do you think it is ludicrous? Do you even KNOW what those terms mean? What do they mean to YOU? I could list definitions, but assumed everybody knew what those meant. The fact that you cannot finish reading a post before you hit the reply button says how much you care about this game and the players in it.
Just claiming something is ludicrous without supporting your opinion is just as ludicrous. Please if you have something to add, then add it to the discussion. I was trying to have an open "civil" discussion on the roles played in the game largely touted as a "role-playing" game. Obviously, with comments like these that is a pointless endeavor. I can see that you will simply ridicule everything everybody says to the contrary, and have exactly nothing to add here or to the game.
NIR feel free to close this topic ASAP, because I certainly was hoping on something more civil and substantial than this. I guess I expected too much from a game of "role-players."
--Zizzle
I stopped reading at the second quote from your post.
Mainly because I find the idea that Protagonist=Good Guy=generally helping others and Antagonist=Bad guy=generally aggravating others, simply put, absolutely 100% ludicrous.
It is probably why you cannot understand the roles involved in a conflict, and your comment doesn't illustrate a thing to add to this discussion. Why exactly do you think it is ludicrous? Do you even KNOW what those terms mean? What do they mean to YOU? I could list definitions, but assumed everybody knew what those meant. The fact that you cannot finish reading a post before you hit the reply button says how much you care about this game and the players in it.
Just claiming something is ludicrous without supporting your opinion is just as ludicrous. Please if you have something to add, then add it to the discussion. I was trying to have an open "civil" discussion on the roles played in the game largely touted as a "role-playing" game. Obviously, with comments like these that is a pointless endeavor. I can see that you will simply ridicule everything everybody says to the contrary, and have exactly nothing to add here or to the game.
NIR feel free to close this topic ASAP, because I certainly was hoping on something more civil and substantial than this. I guess I expected too much from a game of "role-players."
--Zizzle
I'm going to have to disagree with you.
For one, the game would be boring with no antagonists... and the GMs can't be around all the time to provide 'acceptable' antagonists.
For two, the responsibility is not solely on the antagonist. If someone finds themselves in a situation they're not enjoying, they can, and in my opinion should show the personal responsibility to do so, remove themselves from the situation, whisper OOC to the other player they're not interested/not enjoying themselves. Or in short tell the other person "Hey, you're bothering me, please go away".
Now should the "antagonist" push beyond that point, there are other steps to take outlined by the TOS, as the "antagonist" is choosing to be an overall player annoyance VS a character annoyance.
Personally as a player I don't really think it's necessary to whisper OOC "Hey, I'm going to bug you, is that okay?". Yeah, we all mostly like to be helpful, come here for our stress relief, ect... but If someone's bugging you, and playing their character, that's part of the game. At that point the player has a variety of choices: stick around and play along, leave, ignore the irritant, or say something to the other player letting them know you're not interested... but hey, maybe later!
It's not solely one side or the other's responsibility to ensure the comfort of the other side, it's a group effort. One side will always do something to irk the other, it's how we all handle the situation that matters.
For one, the game would be boring with no antagonists... and the GMs can't be around all the time to provide 'acceptable' antagonists.
For two, the responsibility is not solely on the antagonist. If someone finds themselves in a situation they're not enjoying, they can, and in my opinion should show the personal responsibility to do so, remove themselves from the situation, whisper OOC to the other player they're not interested/not enjoying themselves. Or in short tell the other person "Hey, you're bothering me, please go away".
Now should the "antagonist" push beyond that point, there are other steps to take outlined by the TOS, as the "antagonist" is choosing to be an overall player annoyance VS a character annoyance.
Personally as a player I don't really think it's necessary to whisper OOC "Hey, I'm going to bug you, is that okay?". Yeah, we all mostly like to be helpful, come here for our stress relief, ect... but If someone's bugging you, and playing their character, that's part of the game. At that point the player has a variety of choices: stick around and play along, leave, ignore the irritant, or say something to the other player letting them know you're not interested... but hey, maybe later!
It's not solely one side or the other's responsibility to ensure the comfort of the other side, it's a group effort. One side will always do something to irk the other, it's how we all handle the situation that matters.
While I do see the point that the poster is trying to relay in their beliefs that there is no CvC without PvP. I have to disagree. I like to provide examples so here goes. My main Astari is a character that most times falls into the evil alignment. She doesn't like most people and is not afraid to say that. One of my close friends I made through this game plays a character that Astari hates. While Astari is telling Dreaer that she is going to cut his eyes out with a spoon am I telling his player that? No. We are laughing in IMs about how much we enjoy the roleplay and the interesting challenges we have when we play them around each other. Is this me against him? Not by any means.
Also I do not think the responsibility to make sure everyone is alright in a certain situation should be left up to one person. Everyone that is participating in the interaction has a voice and can either use it or just walk away from it.
Can we please stay away from the stigma that evil characters are played that way because the player wants to be able to do whatever they want? While I am sure this does occur it is not accurate in most cases. I play this game to have fun and interact with other people, not to just be horrible to every person I meet. I have had instances where the other players think it is just me being hateful to them when in fact I have no issues with the character or player. I believe this is where it becomes a circular issue and reverts back to people being able to separate the player and the character. If you cannot separate yourself from your character it is going to be hard to look at anyone's roleplay objectively enough to say, "oh they are just playing a character." The person behind the character may be pretty awesome.
Player of Astari (Prime)
Player of Amyia (Plat)
Vaalorclean]-Aize: "stabbidy stabbidy good"
xxxxxx(00:42:17): "I have every Astari action figure... And all of the trading cards... (heavy breathing)..."
Ruabadra whispers, "So I heard something about you dying, chivalrous and a squirrel."
Also I do not think the responsibility to make sure everyone is alright in a certain situation should be left up to one person. Everyone that is participating in the interaction has a voice and can either use it or just walk away from it.
Can we please stay away from the stigma that evil characters are played that way because the player wants to be able to do whatever they want? While I am sure this does occur it is not accurate in most cases. I play this game to have fun and interact with other people, not to just be horrible to every person I meet. I have had instances where the other players think it is just me being hateful to them when in fact I have no issues with the character or player. I believe this is where it becomes a circular issue and reverts back to people being able to separate the player and the character. If you cannot separate yourself from your character it is going to be hard to look at anyone's roleplay objectively enough to say, "oh they are just playing a character." The person behind the character may be pretty awesome.
Player of Astari (Prime)
Player of Amyia (Plat)
Vaalorclean]-Aize: "stabbidy stabbidy good"
xxxxxx(00:42:17): "I have every Astari action figure... And all of the trading cards... (heavy breathing)..."
Ruabadra whispers, "So I heard something about you dying, chivalrous and a squirrel."
<<It is probably why you cannot understand the roles involved in a conflict, and your comment doesn't illustrate a thing to add to this discussion. Why exactly do you think it is ludicrous? Do you even KNOW what those terms mean? What do they mean to YOU? I could list definitions, but assumed everybody knew what those meant. The fact that you cannot finish reading a post before you hit the reply button says how much you care about this game and the players in it.
Just claiming something is ludicrous without supporting your opinion is just as ludicrous. Please if you have something to add, then add it to the discussion. I was trying to have an open "civil" discussion on the roles played in the game largely touted as a "role-playing" game. Obviously, with comments like these that is a pointless endeavor. I can see that you will simply ridicule everything everybody says to the contrary, and have exactly nothing to add here or to the game.
NIR feel free to close this topic ASAP, because I certainly was hoping on something more civil and substantial than this. I guess I expected too much from a game of "role-players."
--Zizzle>>
Relax, Zizzle. If you understood his position, you might appreciate how your own words on the subject of antagonists are a little offensive (I know that wasn't your intent!). I mean your position on antagonists is so widespread, it's basically made playing antagonists an exercise in frustration. Consider it from the perspective of the player. I have to take all of the risk and initiative to begin the conflict, when I know that it's almost always going to upset the player. Then I have to explain it to them and apologize. After which they still don't want to continue the interaction (and it would probably be stilted at that point anyway!). And you folks have the nerve to complain about how you don't like being forced to play the game somebody else's way?
You do have a point in that simply saying "I didn't read the rest of your post" isn't helping you to understand, but it isn't like we haven't tried to explain it to you. Maybe my last post will help to shed some light on it.
FWIW, I think this has been a worthwhile discussion for the most part. I will admit I've found it a little frustrating, but it's making people think about these issues at least.
~Taverkin
Just claiming something is ludicrous without supporting your opinion is just as ludicrous. Please if you have something to add, then add it to the discussion. I was trying to have an open "civil" discussion on the roles played in the game largely touted as a "role-playing" game. Obviously, with comments like these that is a pointless endeavor. I can see that you will simply ridicule everything everybody says to the contrary, and have exactly nothing to add here or to the game.
NIR feel free to close this topic ASAP, because I certainly was hoping on something more civil and substantial than this. I guess I expected too much from a game of "role-players."
--Zizzle>>
Relax, Zizzle. If you understood his position, you might appreciate how your own words on the subject of antagonists are a little offensive (I know that wasn't your intent!). I mean your position on antagonists is so widespread, it's basically made playing antagonists an exercise in frustration. Consider it from the perspective of the player. I have to take all of the risk and initiative to begin the conflict, when I know that it's almost always going to upset the player. Then I have to explain it to them and apologize. After which they still don't want to continue the interaction (and it would probably be stilted at that point anyway!). And you folks have the nerve to complain about how you don't like being forced to play the game somebody else's way?
You do have a point in that simply saying "I didn't read the rest of your post" isn't helping you to understand, but it isn't like we haven't tried to explain it to you. Maybe my last post will help to shed some light on it.
FWIW, I think this has been a worthwhile discussion for the most part. I will admit I've found it a little frustrating, but it's making people think about these issues at least.
~Taverkin
This is a funky thread so here is a post from 2003!
<<Perhaps a GM can step in and clarify this policy for us? Is killing NPCs a sufficient invitation for people to be allowed to attack our characters? >>
GM's hate answering these kinds of questions, because our policy is designed in such a way to try and set clear guidelines, while also allowing for a flexible roleplaying environment. If you compare GS with most other games, both MUDS and graphics games, you'll find Gemstone is rather unique in our PvP policy. Most games are either strict in allowing or disallowing PvP, with no middle ground available.
I believe the middle ground allowed here is one of things that sets Gemstone apart and makes it a better roleplaying game, but it can also cause a lot more enforcment problems and having to deal with that ever nebulous grey zone. Any time we step up to try and answer a specific question like the above, our words are forever recorded and used again and again, often way way out of context.
However, I'll take a step out on a limb and answer, No.
I completely understand the urge to massacre someone who is killing your team. It would not make sense to not want to respond in that way. It's realistic and it makes for sensible RP. But what it often doesn't make for is enjoyable gameplay. In the end, the latter must take precedence over realism and strict RP focus, in order to make this shared experience workable. The act of a PC attacking NPC's on your side alone is not enough for PvP to be allowed under GS policy.
Because GS allows for the middle ground though, there are ways that the answer can be, Yes. But only if consent is obtained. Whether you gain that consent via IC or OOC means, you must have it. The consent is not in the above mentioned attack, it needs to be explicit between the two (or more) involved players. If you have an understanding with someone that conflict is okay, proceed. But you better make darn sure that there is equal understanding of what has been consented to on both sides. You also better make darn sure that your agreed conflict doesn't spill over onto others, causing things to get out of hand and stepping over into non-consented conflict.
Zyllah
<<Perhaps a GM can step in and clarify this policy for us? Is killing NPCs a sufficient invitation for people to be allowed to attack our characters? >>
GM's hate answering these kinds of questions, because our policy is designed in such a way to try and set clear guidelines, while also allowing for a flexible roleplaying environment. If you compare GS with most other games, both MUDS and graphics games, you'll find Gemstone is rather unique in our PvP policy. Most games are either strict in allowing or disallowing PvP, with no middle ground available.
I believe the middle ground allowed here is one of things that sets Gemstone apart and makes it a better roleplaying game, but it can also cause a lot more enforcment problems and having to deal with that ever nebulous grey zone. Any time we step up to try and answer a specific question like the above, our words are forever recorded and used again and again, often way way out of context.
However, I'll take a step out on a limb and answer, No.
I completely understand the urge to massacre someone who is killing your team. It would not make sense to not want to respond in that way. It's realistic and it makes for sensible RP. But what it often doesn't make for is enjoyable gameplay. In the end, the latter must take precedence over realism and strict RP focus, in order to make this shared experience workable. The act of a PC attacking NPC's on your side alone is not enough for PvP to be allowed under GS policy.
Because GS allows for the middle ground though, there are ways that the answer can be, Yes. But only if consent is obtained. Whether you gain that consent via IC or OOC means, you must have it. The consent is not in the above mentioned attack, it needs to be explicit between the two (or more) involved players. If you have an understanding with someone that conflict is okay, proceed. But you better make darn sure that there is equal understanding of what has been consented to on both sides. You also better make darn sure that your agreed conflict doesn't spill over onto others, causing things to get out of hand and stepping over into non-consented conflict.
Zyllah
Note how the GM didn't muddy the waters here by attempting to redefine PvP, or by introducing a new term. Clearly, PvP can be either consensual or non-consensual; acceptable or unacceptable. It is best judged on a case-by-case basis. The definition of PvP has never changed, in spite of the addition of a distinct subcategory (i.e. CvC). It can refer to any situation where players are in direct competition.
The more important distinction is whether it is consensual or non-consensual. That is what the GMs look for when mediating a conflict and deciding whether or not policy has been broken.
~ Heathyr
The more important distinction is whether it is consensual or non-consensual. That is what the GMs look for when mediating a conflict and deciding whether or not policy has been broken.
~ Heathyr
Excellent post there and makes perfect sense to me.
Just to clear the air, about conflicts between characters. I have a personal best friend that I have played this game for years with. It will never fail that he'll instigate come conflict with my character when we are together. He likes to cause me trouble, and antagonize me (as a player and in character). I cannot imagine having that kind of spontaneous conflict with a perfect stranger, but even then I play it out as expected. He is instigating something and I respond in kind. The how and why of it will be different for whichever character with are running amok with. It is a game between 2 (or more) friends who understand without preamble what to expect from each other, such as no holds barred fisticuffs, or merely insulting each other with verbiage.
We still laugh to this day about a conflict that did what Zyllah says below, boiled over to others, who were present during one of our antics. Long story short bystanders got involve to "separate" us as we were working our way up to blades being drawn after we fruitlessly attempt to brawl each other. Hehe. Everybody was thumping us and screaming at us to stop. After being put to sleep by a mage (back in the day when folks used to help wizards infuse in the AI workshop) to stop the commotion we caused, we made up and went off to hunt together. We were both playing nasty rogues in the day. <grin>
Trying to initiate a conflict of that sort with a perfect stranger is like a box of chocolates, though. You never know what you might get, and you may find something worthwhile from time to time, but often it will be something you (or the other) don't like. It really doesn't matter at all who starts it as long as it gets finished satisfactory to all parties involved, and hopefully enjoyment.
This is a cooperative game after all.
This is a funky thread so here is a post from 2003!
<<Perhaps a GM can step in and clarify this policy for us? Is killing NPCs a sufficient invitation for people to be allowed to attack our characters? >>
GM's hate answering these kinds of questions, because our policy is designed in such a way to try and set clear guidelines, while also allowing for a flexible roleplaying environment. If you compare GS with most other games, both MUDS and graphics games, you'll find Gemstone is rather unique in our PvP policy. Most games are either strict in allowing or disallowing PvP, with no middle ground available.
I believe the middle ground allowed here is one of things that sets Gemstone apart and makes it a better roleplaying game, but it can also cause a lot more enforcment problems and having to deal with that ever nebulous grey zone. Any time we step up to try and answer a specific question like the above, our words are forever recorded and used again and again, often way way out of context.
However, I'll take a step out on a limb and answer, No.
I completely understand the urge to massacre someone who is killing your team. It would not make sense to not want to respond in that way. It's realistic and it makes for sensible RP. But what it often doesn't make for is enjoyable gameplay. In the end, the latter must take precedence over realism and strict RP focus, in order to make this shared experience workable. The act of a PC attacking NPC's on your side alone is not enough for PvP to be allowed under GS policy.
Because GS allows for the middle ground though, there are ways that the answer can be, Yes. But only if consent is obtained. Whether you gain that consent via IC or OOC means, you must have it. The consent is not in the above mentioned attack, it needs to be explicit between the two (or more) involved players. If you have an understanding with someone that conflict is okay, proceed. But you better make darn sure that there is equal understanding of what has been consented to on both sides. You also better make darn sure that your agreed conflict doesn't spill over onto others, causing things to get out of hand and stepping over into non-consented conflict.
Zyllah
--Zizzle
Just to clear the air, about conflicts between characters. I have a personal best friend that I have played this game for years with. It will never fail that he'll instigate come conflict with my character when we are together. He likes to cause me trouble, and antagonize me (as a player and in character). I cannot imagine having that kind of spontaneous conflict with a perfect stranger, but even then I play it out as expected. He is instigating something and I respond in kind. The how and why of it will be different for whichever character with are running amok with. It is a game between 2 (or more) friends who understand without preamble what to expect from each other, such as no holds barred fisticuffs, or merely insulting each other with verbiage.
We still laugh to this day about a conflict that did what Zyllah says below, boiled over to others, who were present during one of our antics. Long story short bystanders got involve to "separate" us as we were working our way up to blades being drawn after we fruitlessly attempt to brawl each other. Hehe. Everybody was thumping us and screaming at us to stop. After being put to sleep by a mage (back in the day when folks used to help wizards infuse in the AI workshop) to stop the commotion we caused, we made up and went off to hunt together. We were both playing nasty rogues in the day. <grin>
Trying to initiate a conflict of that sort with a perfect stranger is like a box of chocolates, though. You never know what you might get, and you may find something worthwhile from time to time, but often it will be something you (or the other) don't like. It really doesn't matter at all who starts it as long as it gets finished satisfactory to all parties involved, and hopefully enjoyment.
This is a cooperative game after all.
This is a funky thread so here is a post from 2003!
<<Perhaps a GM can step in and clarify this policy for us? Is killing NPCs a sufficient invitation for people to be allowed to attack our characters? >>
GM's hate answering these kinds of questions, because our policy is designed in such a way to try and set clear guidelines, while also allowing for a flexible roleplaying environment. If you compare GS with most other games, both MUDS and graphics games, you'll find Gemstone is rather unique in our PvP policy. Most games are either strict in allowing or disallowing PvP, with no middle ground available.
I believe the middle ground allowed here is one of things that sets Gemstone apart and makes it a better roleplaying game, but it can also cause a lot more enforcment problems and having to deal with that ever nebulous grey zone. Any time we step up to try and answer a specific question like the above, our words are forever recorded and used again and again, often way way out of context.
However, I'll take a step out on a limb and answer, No.
I completely understand the urge to massacre someone who is killing your team. It would not make sense to not want to respond in that way. It's realistic and it makes for sensible RP. But what it often doesn't make for is enjoyable gameplay. In the end, the latter must take precedence over realism and strict RP focus, in order to make this shared experience workable. The act of a PC attacking NPC's on your side alone is not enough for PvP to be allowed under GS policy.
Because GS allows for the middle ground though, there are ways that the answer can be, Yes. But only if consent is obtained. Whether you gain that consent via IC or OOC means, you must have it. The consent is not in the above mentioned attack, it needs to be explicit between the two (or more) involved players. If you have an understanding with someone that conflict is okay, proceed. But you better make darn sure that there is equal understanding of what has been consented to on both sides. You also better make darn sure that your agreed conflict doesn't spill over onto others, causing things to get out of hand and stepping over into non-consented conflict.
Zyllah
--Zizzle
I'm not going to really enter this discussion at this point. But I wanted to state, as a GM who has investigated countless PvP/CvC assists, the two terms are widely accepted in determining the issues brought up. It's even spelled out in POLICY 4.
Non-consensual CvC = PvP
Consensual PvP = CvC
Non-consensual PvP = Warnings
Consensual PvP = RPAs
~Wyrom, SGM
Quests
Platinum
Promotions
Non-consensual CvC = PvP
Consensual PvP = CvC
Non-consensual PvP = Warnings
Consensual PvP = RPAs
~Wyrom, SGM
Quests
Platinum
Promotions
| I'm not going to really enter this discussion at this point. But I wanted to state, as a GM who has investigated countless PvP/CvC assists, the two terms are widely accepted in determining the issues brought up. It's even spelled out in POLICY 4. |
| Non-consensual CvC = PvP |
| Consensual PvP = CvC |
| Non-consensual PvP = Warnings |
| Consensual PvP = RPAs |
Thanks for the input, Wyrom. That should shed some light on the matter.
Clearly, per the above definitions, CvC is s subcategory of consensual PvP that is generally acceptable. PvP may or may not be acceptable, depending upon whether it's consensual or non-consensual.
This further illuminates the fact that CvC is always, by logical necessity, a type of PvP (player vs. player). It is clearly defined above as consensual PvP. There is no CvC without PvP, just as there are no characters without players.
PvP is a broader, more ambiguous term, not simplistically defined as "good" or "bad". It can literally refer to any competitive situation between players (as noted in POLICY 4). It can be consensual or non-consensual. The term, itself, implies no judgment on the emotional state of the players. That is to say, it's not "only" PvP when one or more players are angry, or don't like one another. They can be perfectly amiable, engaging in friendly competition.
I certainly hope this puts the issue to rest once and for all. :)
~ Heathyr
As someone who plays an antagonist, let me put in my two cents.
>>The best way to make sure that both parties are consenting to a CvC situation where it will come to blows is by using the CHALLENGE verb.
This is not always acceptable for EVERY situation in game. There are situations where this just isn't going to happen... without it interrupting RP. What is a good idea is this... OOC whispers are great for this. Sometimes I won't worry about it if I see the good guy playing along, but if I cannot tell if the player my character is preying on is comfortable with things; I will OOCly whisper and see where my character stands. If they say the player is not comfortable, I will have my character back off. I don't want to make a player do what they don't want to.
The same should be done even if you are a protagonist hunting down an antagonist. There are times and places and if my character has done something terrible to your character, then by rights there is some retaliation in order for her. There should be a mutual respect of a few things.
1. Do not attack a character while they are hunting/leveling without the consent of the player of that character.
2. Make sure that the player of that character is fine with you interrupting any RP they may be doing at that time.
3. NEVER TAKE IT PERSONALLY, EVER.
The player of an antagonist is playing their character they way they were meant to be played and is not a direct attack on you, the player. And if the CHALLENGE verb is something both parties wish to enable, then by all means. But it is the cheesiest verb ever, I would use it if you guys would make it less obtrusive to the RP at hand.
---
The Tehir and the Illistimi's string puller
<<I know merchanting sessions for me usually end with me huddled in a corner, rasping about "Judgment Day" and talking about Terminators. --Auchand
>>The best way to make sure that both parties are consenting to a CvC situation where it will come to blows is by using the CHALLENGE verb.
This is not always acceptable for EVERY situation in game. There are situations where this just isn't going to happen... without it interrupting RP. What is a good idea is this... OOC whispers are great for this. Sometimes I won't worry about it if I see the good guy playing along, but if I cannot tell if the player my character is preying on is comfortable with things; I will OOCly whisper and see where my character stands. If they say the player is not comfortable, I will have my character back off. I don't want to make a player do what they don't want to.
The same should be done even if you are a protagonist hunting down an antagonist. There are times and places and if my character has done something terrible to your character, then by rights there is some retaliation in order for her. There should be a mutual respect of a few things.
1. Do not attack a character while they are hunting/leveling without the consent of the player of that character.
2. Make sure that the player of that character is fine with you interrupting any RP they may be doing at that time.
3. NEVER TAKE IT PERSONALLY, EVER.
The player of an antagonist is playing their character they way they were meant to be played and is not a direct attack on you, the player. And if the CHALLENGE verb is something both parties wish to enable, then by all means. But it is the cheesiest verb ever, I would use it if you guys would make it less obtrusive to the RP at hand.
---
The Tehir and the Illistimi's string puller
<<I know merchanting sessions for me usually end with me huddled in a corner, rasping about "Judgment Day" and talking about Terminators. --Auchand
<<Thanks for the input, Wyrom. That should shed some light on the matter.
Clearly, per the above definitions, CvC is s subcategory of consensual PvP that is generally acceptable. PvP may or may not be acceptable, depending upon whether it's consensual or non-consensual.
This further illuminates the fact that CvC is always, by logical necessity, a type of PvP (player vs. player). It is clearly defined above as consensual PvP. There is no CvC without PvP, just as there are no characters without players.
PvP is a broader, more ambiguous term, not simplistically defined as "good" or "bad". It can literally refer to any competitive situation between players (as noted in POLICY 4). It can be consensual or non-consensual. The term, itself, implies no judgment on the emotional state of the players. That is to say, it's not "only" PvP when one or more players are angry, or don't like one another. They can be perfectly amiable, engaging in friendly competition.
I certainly hope this puts the issue to rest once and for all. :)
~ Heathyr>>
This was never an "issue" at all. This was simply where you decided to turn a debate over relevant issues into a game of semantics. Well played! If you recall, the issue was the relationship and responsibilities of protagonists and antagonists in roleplayed conflict. Your self-proclaimed victory in the Great Dictionary Debate of 2013 aside, I don't see where your definition of CvC as PvP supports the position that we shouldn't attempt to roleplay objectively.
Obviously, by your definition, it isn't possible to do so. And frankly, I'm a little confused as to how you come to that conclusion. I mean you have several people, myself included, providing you with real examples of separation between character and player. I took another tack and explained in depth how I approach these scenarios and provided plenty of philosophical nonsense to support my position. What about that approach do you disagree with exactly, aside from my definitions of CvC and PvP and the distinction between the two, if we can put that issue to rest once and for all? :)
~Taverkin
Clearly, per the above definitions, CvC is s subcategory of consensual PvP that is generally acceptable. PvP may or may not be acceptable, depending upon whether it's consensual or non-consensual.
This further illuminates the fact that CvC is always, by logical necessity, a type of PvP (player vs. player). It is clearly defined above as consensual PvP. There is no CvC without PvP, just as there are no characters without players.
PvP is a broader, more ambiguous term, not simplistically defined as "good" or "bad". It can literally refer to any competitive situation between players (as noted in POLICY 4). It can be consensual or non-consensual. The term, itself, implies no judgment on the emotional state of the players. That is to say, it's not "only" PvP when one or more players are angry, or don't like one another. They can be perfectly amiable, engaging in friendly competition.
I certainly hope this puts the issue to rest once and for all. :)
~ Heathyr>>
This was never an "issue" at all. This was simply where you decided to turn a debate over relevant issues into a game of semantics. Well played! If you recall, the issue was the relationship and responsibilities of protagonists and antagonists in roleplayed conflict. Your self-proclaimed victory in the Great Dictionary Debate of 2013 aside, I don't see where your definition of CvC as PvP supports the position that we shouldn't attempt to roleplay objectively.
Obviously, by your definition, it isn't possible to do so. And frankly, I'm a little confused as to how you come to that conclusion. I mean you have several people, myself included, providing you with real examples of separation between character and player. I took another tack and explained in depth how I approach these scenarios and provided plenty of philosophical nonsense to support my position. What about that approach do you disagree with exactly, aside from my definitions of CvC and PvP and the distinction between the two, if we can put that issue to rest once and for all? :)
~Taverkin
<<<<This was never an "issue" at all. >>>>
Right. That's why you and others kept insisting that I was wrong and that PvP could ONLY ever be bad, and that CvC had nothing at all to do with PvP. It takes two to have an argument, you know. It wasn't all one-sided. Fortunately, it is now resolved.
<<<I don't see where your definition of CvC as PvP supports the position that we shouldn't attempt to roleplay objectively. >>>
Who said it did? That's ridiculous. And let's be clear. It's not "my" definition. It is the definition.
<<<Obviously, by your definition, it isn't possible to do so.>>>
What? What part of "my" definition of PvP says it isn't possible to roleplay objectively? That doesn't make sense. If that's what you really think I'm saying, no wonder you're confused.
Of course it's possible to play our characters objectively, at least to a matter of degree. But it's still us playing our characters. It's completely impossible, and in fact undesirable, to totally severe the connection between character and player. Yes, they are fictional characters, with their own traits and personalities. But everything they are comes from us, the players. They are literally extensions of our own minds and imaginations. Some people are very skillful at being able to separate their own motivations and feelings from those of their characters. Others, less so. It's a matter of degree, not an absolute.
A spectrum, remember?
If you [hypothetically] think your character lives completely outside of your own mind, capable of independent thought and action, I'd say you are even battier than someone who thinks they literally ARE their characters. Or at least a close second.
I think maybe you want everything to fit into neatly labeled little boxes. It seems like whenever I try to lay out a concept to be examined more broadly, you jump to the conclusion that I must hold the polar opposite of your viewpoint. I find that rather baffling, really, especially with a concept as abstract as roleplaying.
~ Heathyr
Right. That's why you and others kept insisting that I was wrong and that PvP could ONLY ever be bad, and that CvC had nothing at all to do with PvP. It takes two to have an argument, you know. It wasn't all one-sided. Fortunately, it is now resolved.
<<<I don't see where your definition of CvC as PvP supports the position that we shouldn't attempt to roleplay objectively. >>>
Who said it did? That's ridiculous. And let's be clear. It's not "my" definition. It is the definition.
<<<Obviously, by your definition, it isn't possible to do so.>>>
What? What part of "my" definition of PvP says it isn't possible to roleplay objectively? That doesn't make sense. If that's what you really think I'm saying, no wonder you're confused.
Of course it's possible to play our characters objectively, at least to a matter of degree. But it's still us playing our characters. It's completely impossible, and in fact undesirable, to totally severe the connection between character and player. Yes, they are fictional characters, with their own traits and personalities. But everything they are comes from us, the players. They are literally extensions of our own minds and imaginations. Some people are very skillful at being able to separate their own motivations and feelings from those of their characters. Others, less so. It's a matter of degree, not an absolute.
A spectrum, remember?
If you [hypothetically] think your character lives completely outside of your own mind, capable of independent thought and action, I'd say you are even battier than someone who thinks they literally ARE their characters. Or at least a close second.
I think maybe you want everything to fit into neatly labeled little boxes. It seems like whenever I try to lay out a concept to be examined more broadly, you jump to the conclusion that I must hold the polar opposite of your viewpoint. I find that rather baffling, really, especially with a concept as abstract as roleplaying.
~ Heathyr
For comic relief:
What about the player that scripts interactions between two characters, contentiously.
That's PvS (player versus self).
The reason for the comic relief -- distilling down in pragmatic terms what needs to be clear to action (pro or con) from a GM perspective does not in any way limit the discussion of whether or not a player should remember that PLAYer is PLAYing a role in a roleplaying game.
This objective view reinforces the concept that the PLAYer who becomes too emotionally imbedded into the character runs the risk of forgetting the separation that (should?) exist(s) between player and character.
TL;DR summary -- each perspective has valid points, and listening more than making the case would be beneficial, in my view.
Doug
What about the player that scripts interactions between two characters, contentiously.
That's PvS (player versus self).
The reason for the comic relief -- distilling down in pragmatic terms what needs to be clear to action (pro or con) from a GM perspective does not in any way limit the discussion of whether or not a player should remember that PLAYer is PLAYing a role in a roleplaying game.
This objective view reinforces the concept that the PLAYer who becomes too emotionally imbedded into the character runs the risk of forgetting the separation that (should?) exist(s) between player and character.
TL;DR summary -- each perspective has valid points, and listening more than making the case would be beneficial, in my view.
Doug
>Do you even KNOW what those terms mean? What do they mean to YOU? I could list definitions, but assumed everybody knew what those meant.
--Zizzle
Maybe listing definitions would be a good exercise after all..
Now let's review what you said those terms mean..
Protagonist: "a good guy", "Most people will opt to play a good guy", "they will help people, assist them on their tasks, and essentially attempt to make things easier for others, as well as themselves", "generally do not cause problems for others", "generally helping others", "can only react to a "bad" action made by the antagonist"
Antagonist: "a bad guy", "are attempting to cause grief to another character", "it [their action] is a decidedly "bad" thing to do to another character", "is generally aggravating others", "is expecting the conflict as he is creating it unwillingly with another character"
Now, are you really sure you understand what those terms mean?
Based on the fact you've labeled them 'Good guys' or 'Bad guys' (which is the part I find ludicrousness), I'm going to go with No as my final answer.
Oh, also..
>The fact that you cannot finish reading a post before you hit the reply button says how much you care about this game and the players in it.
This made me laugh. Seriously.
-farmer
--Zizzle
Maybe listing definitions would be a good exercise after all..
| pro·tag·o·nist |
| /prōˈtagənist/ |
| Noun |
| The leading character or a major character in a drama, movie, novel, or other fictional text. |
| The main figure or one of the most prominent figures in a real situation. |
| an·tag·o·nist |
| /anˈtagənist/ |
| Noun |
| A person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary. |
| A substance that interferes with or inhibits the physiological action of another. |
Now let's review what you said those terms mean..
Protagonist: "a good guy", "Most people will opt to play a good guy", "they will help people, assist them on their tasks, and essentially attempt to make things easier for others, as well as themselves", "generally do not cause problems for others", "generally helping others", "can only react to a "bad" action made by the antagonist"
Antagonist: "a bad guy", "are attempting to cause grief to another character", "it [their action] is a decidedly "bad" thing to do to another character", "is generally aggravating others", "is expecting the conflict as he is creating it unwillingly with another character"
Now, are you really sure you understand what those terms mean?
Based on the fact you've labeled them 'Good guys' or 'Bad guys' (which is the part I find ludicrousness), I'm going to go with No as my final answer.
Oh, also..
>The fact that you cannot finish reading a post before you hit the reply button says how much you care about this game and the players in it.
This made me laugh. Seriously.
-farmer
Without pigpiling too much on Zizzle, what hasn't quite been said yet is a basic of civilized conversation: that sometimes in discussions, people will disagree with you. Sometimes they'll do that strenuously, and sometimes they'll regard your dearest-held certitudes with horror or scorn. Sometimes they'll even dismiss an essay of yours after the first few lines, believing it to be twaddle with which they don't feel like burning any more of their time.
This doesn't mean they don't care, that they're jerks, that they're unable to grasp the gravity of the situation, or that they lack capacity for reading comprehension. It's not that they don't understand; they just don't agree. That's okay.
With respect to the definition game, I don't even perceive protagonist/antagonist the way some others have defined it. Sorry, I'm always the protagonist. This is my story, and the game I'm playing.
We're always the protagonist of our own stories.
This doesn't mean they don't care, that they're jerks, that they're unable to grasp the gravity of the situation, or that they lack capacity for reading comprehension. It's not that they don't understand; they just don't agree. That's okay.
With respect to the definition game, I don't even perceive protagonist/antagonist the way some others have defined it. Sorry, I'm always the protagonist. This is my story, and the game I'm playing.
We're always the protagonist of our own stories.
>>How about we stop arguing about who's right or wrong about the definition of a term? Especially when no one word has one singular definition. All this does is distract from the real issue, which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
Because there may yet be some breath left in that dead horse...
Because there may yet be some breath left in that dead horse...
<<Some people are very skillful at being able to separate their own motivations and feelings from those of their characters. Others, less so. It's a matter of degree, not an absolute.
A spectrum, remember?
>>
I think we agree, for the most part. But I think you may be a little off in your interpretation of some of my positions. When I speak of people who literally ARE their characters, I'm not speaking of total immersion. I'm speaking of players who play this game like I would play a game like WoW. There is no separation because you aren't really playing a character at all in the RP sense - my character shares my personality in WoW. It's certainly not ME in the game world in that scenario, but I'm also not playing a character in the same sense that I do in a roleplaying game like this. That definition of "character" doesn't apply in the same way across different types of games. In other words, there is no IC, and therefore no CvC. CvC is irrelevant. There is no point in making the distinction in a game like that. WoW is a PvP game (Unless you play on an RP server, I guess? But I'll be honest and say I just don't get the point of that at all).
As we move down the spectrum and into a roleplaying game like GS, players have varying degrees of separation, as you say. It's my opinion that the more separation, the better. Somehow you seem to have interpreted that as removing player input from character action, which is as you say, impossible. We are always controlling our characters (scripting aside! I don't think you can bigshot a roleplayed interaction yet!). Of course I realize that. What I'm saying is that separation is desirable because the more objective we are able to remain, the greater the depth allowed in our interactions. Contrary to the stifling impact on roleplay you suggest, I feel separation allows us to play our characters truthfully in scenarios where the potential for the intrusion of player emotion is high. Such as a conflict scenario.
As a player who has spent a little time on antagonist characters, I can tell you that the lack of objectivity is the RP killer, from my perspective. If I can't rely on other players to recognize that I'm not out to cause them distress as a player, then I can't roleplay conflict with those players. When that outlook describes the majority of players in the game, playing antagonist characters becomes a real chore. Hardly worth the effort!
Again, that doesn't absolve me from responsibility. Separation between character and players is not my excuse to grief other players under the guise of roleplay. It's my ability to keep things in perspective. I'm playing a game. What happens to my character can't harm me. That other character I'm fighting with? He's being controlled by a player just like me. That player is not my enemy, even if his character is. And if I want this interaction to go well, I need to always keep that in mind and be sensitive to the other player's needs. If I can do that and my adversary can do that, then the conflict generally goes well. But that's a near-impossibility with anyone who is unable to sufficiently separate themselves from their character, because they'll view any attempt at conflict as a personal assault against them as a player.
Make sense?
~Taverkin
A spectrum, remember?
>>
I think we agree, for the most part. But I think you may be a little off in your interpretation of some of my positions. When I speak of people who literally ARE their characters, I'm not speaking of total immersion. I'm speaking of players who play this game like I would play a game like WoW. There is no separation because you aren't really playing a character at all in the RP sense - my character shares my personality in WoW. It's certainly not ME in the game world in that scenario, but I'm also not playing a character in the same sense that I do in a roleplaying game like this. That definition of "character" doesn't apply in the same way across different types of games. In other words, there is no IC, and therefore no CvC. CvC is irrelevant. There is no point in making the distinction in a game like that. WoW is a PvP game (Unless you play on an RP server, I guess? But I'll be honest and say I just don't get the point of that at all).
As we move down the spectrum and into a roleplaying game like GS, players have varying degrees of separation, as you say. It's my opinion that the more separation, the better. Somehow you seem to have interpreted that as removing player input from character action, which is as you say, impossible. We are always controlling our characters (scripting aside! I don't think you can bigshot a roleplayed interaction yet!). Of course I realize that. What I'm saying is that separation is desirable because the more objective we are able to remain, the greater the depth allowed in our interactions. Contrary to the stifling impact on roleplay you suggest, I feel separation allows us to play our characters truthfully in scenarios where the potential for the intrusion of player emotion is high. Such as a conflict scenario.
As a player who has spent a little time on antagonist characters, I can tell you that the lack of objectivity is the RP killer, from my perspective. If I can't rely on other players to recognize that I'm not out to cause them distress as a player, then I can't roleplay conflict with those players. When that outlook describes the majority of players in the game, playing antagonist characters becomes a real chore. Hardly worth the effort!
Again, that doesn't absolve me from responsibility. Separation between character and players is not my excuse to grief other players under the guise of roleplay. It's my ability to keep things in perspective. I'm playing a game. What happens to my character can't harm me. That other character I'm fighting with? He's being controlled by a player just like me. That player is not my enemy, even if his character is. And if I want this interaction to go well, I need to always keep that in mind and be sensitive to the other player's needs. If I can do that and my adversary can do that, then the conflict generally goes well. But that's a near-impossibility with anyone who is unable to sufficiently separate themselves from their character, because they'll view any attempt at conflict as a personal assault against them as a player.
Make sense?
~Taverkin
Just a little side story. Did you know that when I first created Tav he was a halfling bard, still a drunk, but a good bit less friendly. He was more the comical, but often annoying, loudmouth drunk! He was still very outgoing, but tended to rub some people the wrong way. In short, he was an engaging and divisive character for the brief period he existed. The players around him tended to either love him or hate him, but not many ignored him!
I had the pleasure of playing that version of Tav several years ago in Ta'Vaalor. The community there seemed to understand what I was doing and we had a lot of fun with it. I recall one sorcerer really took issue with Tav to the point where he attacked him on at least one occasion. But both players involved remained objective and we were able to laugh about the whole thing as friends afterward (in OOC whispers, of course!).
That's a common story. We all have stories like that. But it serves to illustrate the point that objectivity is critical to roleplayed conflict. If I were to get upset about the fact that my opponent was casting limb disruption at my character when I didn't attack him first or consent to PvP, it would effectively destroy the possibility of any further roleplayed conflict.
~Taverkin
I had the pleasure of playing that version of Tav several years ago in Ta'Vaalor. The community there seemed to understand what I was doing and we had a lot of fun with it. I recall one sorcerer really took issue with Tav to the point where he attacked him on at least one occasion. But both players involved remained objective and we were able to laugh about the whole thing as friends afterward (in OOC whispers, of course!).
That's a common story. We all have stories like that. But it serves to illustrate the point that objectivity is critical to roleplayed conflict. If I were to get upset about the fact that my opponent was casting limb disruption at my character when I didn't attack him first or consent to PvP, it would effectively destroy the possibility of any further roleplayed conflict.
~Taverkin
Thank you for those definitions! Now that that is out of the way... <rolls eyes>
Regardless, I like the discussions by others in how they view their characters in this game. I not only immerse myself into the various roles of my characters, I imagine beyond what is readily apparent by my actions for that character. Like Tav, I have some shady characters, annoying characters and many with various quirks in their normal course of play. Some act plain silly, stupid, or quiet and elusive. Each character I have I take pains to craft a personality to go with them. Giving each certain mannerisms, speech and actions.
While I try to craft my characters personality over time, I spend a good amount of time "fleshing" them out as I grow with them. I have a couple of characters that I would say are my main characters with a supporting cast of lesser ones. It would not be a stretch of imagination for one in support of another would carry out actions (or orders) directed by the other. I imagined that when I was going through Alchemy with Zizzle, I had a supporting cast of "grummagers" or servants hunting down rare ingredients, foraging for materials and generally assisting him in his progression through the ranks.
I also have no qualms about playing along with others who wish to "interfere with or inhibit the physiological action of another." but be sure that I will stay within the role of my character in doing so, and will never take it personally (well until it does become personal) against another. I have had plenty of conflicts (real or role-play) in this game over the years. My experience is usually that someone is doing something to cause problems for another, knowingly or not. At some point someone crosses the line and takes offense (personally) due to the dangerous actions of another.
Example: Way back in the day when Ice Mule was first added to the game, I hunted with another wizard in the new zombie area. We hunted together fine enough, and being foolish wizards we would also occasionally blanket firestorm the entire area (remember those days!?) if there was nobody around. Well, I did anyways, and used to make sure nobody got caught in one of my firestorms. However, that never stopped people from raving like lunatics about what we were doing and would cause ended grief to me. Since, I as a player as well as my character didn't want to seen as a "bad" guy, I stopped or made damn sure that I let everybody know that I was going to firestorm the area, all were welcomed to join me...
The other wizard however, didn't exactly follow my ways and kept up the antics and endangering others lives. Either the guy was a complete dolt and didn't understand the grief he was causing other players hunting in the area, or simply didn't care. But I made a good effort in character, and then OOC, to get him to stop the nonsense he seemed to fail to understand the commotion he was causing. Eventually, that lead to him being barred from healing, raises and whatnot in Ice Mule as his reputation spread. To this day I still do not know if he was completely clueless or not, but I certainly remember the conflict it caused that day. I knew he was generally a good guy and helpful, but seemed to lack basic hunting etiquette. I actually met up with him when he was stealing my kills (he would just run in and cast, swing at the critter you were engaged in) and explained some basic rules to him... We remained friends in character (and as players) and eventually he turned out to be quite a prominent wizard in the lands, but with a far better rep than when we first met.
Conflict in and of itself isn't bad, but when it drastically effects the game play of others it is not good. When it is a couple of friends bantering back and forth issuing challenges for a fight on the boulder, all is well!
>Do you even KNOW what those terms mean? What do they mean to YOU? I could list definitions, but assumed everybody knew what those meant.
--Zizzle
Maybe listing definitions would be a good exercise after all..
Now let's review what you said those terms mean..
Protagonist: "a good guy", "Most people will opt to play a good guy", "they will help people, assist them on their tasks, and essentially attempt to make things easier for others, as well as themselves", "generally do not cause problems for others", "generally helping others", "can only react to a "bad" action made by the antagonist"
Antagonist: "a bad guy", "are attempting to cause grief to another character", "it [their action] is a decidedly "bad" thing to do to another character", "is generally aggravating others", "is expecting the conflict as he is creating it unwillingly with another character"
Now, are you really sure you understand what those terms mean?
Based on the fact you've labeled them 'Good guys' or 'Bad guys' (which is the part I find ludicrousness), I'm going to go with No as my final answer.
Oh, also..
>The fact that you cannot finish reading a post before you hit the reply button says how much you care about this game and the players in it.
This made me laugh. Seriously.
-farmer
--Zizzle
Regardless, I like the discussions by others in how they view their characters in this game. I not only immerse myself into the various roles of my characters, I imagine beyond what is readily apparent by my actions for that character. Like Tav, I have some shady characters, annoying characters and many with various quirks in their normal course of play. Some act plain silly, stupid, or quiet and elusive. Each character I have I take pains to craft a personality to go with them. Giving each certain mannerisms, speech and actions.
While I try to craft my characters personality over time, I spend a good amount of time "fleshing" them out as I grow with them. I have a couple of characters that I would say are my main characters with a supporting cast of lesser ones. It would not be a stretch of imagination for one in support of another would carry out actions (or orders) directed by the other. I imagined that when I was going through Alchemy with Zizzle, I had a supporting cast of "grummagers" or servants hunting down rare ingredients, foraging for materials and generally assisting him in his progression through the ranks.
I also have no qualms about playing along with others who wish to "interfere with or inhibit the physiological action of another." but be sure that I will stay within the role of my character in doing so, and will never take it personally (well until it does become personal) against another. I have had plenty of conflicts (real or role-play) in this game over the years. My experience is usually that someone is doing something to cause problems for another, knowingly or not. At some point someone crosses the line and takes offense (personally) due to the dangerous actions of another.
Example: Way back in the day when Ice Mule was first added to the game, I hunted with another wizard in the new zombie area. We hunted together fine enough, and being foolish wizards we would also occasionally blanket firestorm the entire area (remember those days!?) if there was nobody around. Well, I did anyways, and used to make sure nobody got caught in one of my firestorms. However, that never stopped people from raving like lunatics about what we were doing and would cause ended grief to me. Since, I as a player as well as my character didn't want to seen as a "bad" guy, I stopped or made damn sure that I let everybody know that I was going to firestorm the area, all were welcomed to join me...
The other wizard however, didn't exactly follow my ways and kept up the antics and endangering others lives. Either the guy was a complete dolt and didn't understand the grief he was causing other players hunting in the area, or simply didn't care. But I made a good effort in character, and then OOC, to get him to stop the nonsense he seemed to fail to understand the commotion he was causing. Eventually, that lead to him being barred from healing, raises and whatnot in Ice Mule as his reputation spread. To this day I still do not know if he was completely clueless or not, but I certainly remember the conflict it caused that day. I knew he was generally a good guy and helpful, but seemed to lack basic hunting etiquette. I actually met up with him when he was stealing my kills (he would just run in and cast, swing at the critter you were engaged in) and explained some basic rules to him... We remained friends in character (and as players) and eventually he turned out to be quite a prominent wizard in the lands, but with a far better rep than when we first met.
Conflict in and of itself isn't bad, but when it drastically effects the game play of others it is not good. When it is a couple of friends bantering back and forth issuing challenges for a fight on the boulder, all is well!
>Do you even KNOW what those terms mean? What do they mean to YOU? I could list definitions, but assumed everybody knew what those meant.
--Zizzle
Maybe listing definitions would be a good exercise after all..
| pro·tag·o·nist |
| /prōˈtagənist/ |
| Noun |
| The leading character or a major character in a drama, movie, novel, or other fictional text. |
| The main figure or one of the most prominent figures in a real situation. |
| an·tag·o·nist |
| /anˈtagənist/ |
| Noun |
| A person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary. |
| A substance that interferes with or inhibits the physiological action of another. |
Now let's review what you said those terms mean..
Protagonist: "a good guy", "Most people will opt to play a good guy", "they will help people, assist them on their tasks, and essentially attempt to make things easier for others, as well as themselves", "generally do not cause problems for others", "generally helping others", "can only react to a "bad" action made by the antagonist"
Antagonist: "a bad guy", "are attempting to cause grief to another character", "it [their action] is a decidedly "bad" thing to do to another character", "is generally aggravating others", "is expecting the conflict as he is creating it unwillingly with another character"
Now, are you really sure you understand what those terms mean?
Based on the fact you've labeled them 'Good guys' or 'Bad guys' (which is the part I find ludicrousness), I'm going to go with No as my final answer.
Oh, also..
>The fact that you cannot finish reading a post before you hit the reply button says how much you care about this game and the players in it.
This made me laugh. Seriously.
-farmer
--Zizzle
<<Conflict in and of itself isn't bad, but when it drastically effects the game play of others it is not good. When it is a couple of friends bantering back and forth issuing challenges for a fight on the boulder, all is well!>>
I don't think anyone is suggesting that roleplaying involves completely ignoring the fact that there's a player behind the characters you're interacting with. If it's being used as an excuse to grief other players, then it isn't RP. But there's a flip side to that coin. There's a responsibility on the antagonist to respect the player behind the characters he chooses to engage in conflict with, yes. But there's also a responsibility on the other players involved in these scenarios to be receptive to roleplayed conflict. If you recall, I took issue with the "opt out" suggestion for this very reason.
That's also why I said that this outlook where the responsibility falls almost solely upon the antagonist to justify his behavior is destroying roleplaying in this game. If you can't give me even the slightest bit of help and meet me halfway in an interaction, it isn't likely to work out. Either I have to ask your permission prior to taking any action, or I need to backpedal and apologize, then explain my actions. Subtle cues aren't usually enough to break through the thick skulls of today's average player. They generally seem to be under the assumption that I'm out to get them and they want no part of it (unless they think they can kill me, in which case they usually attack first, ask questions later!).
Like I said, it isn't worth my time to interact with people like that on anything more than a superficial level. Which is why today I play a superficial character. Tav lacks depth. He's very one-dimensional, although I'm certain people enjoy interacting with him nonetheless. But ultimately, I find it a little depressing that there's so little room for the antagonist these days. I get so few opportunities to place my character in strong opposition to another and just see how it plays out.
In fact, I can only recall one time recently where Tav had a reason to do so, and that was just a bit of talking on the amulet after one of the Lich events in the Landing. Tav made it clear that he doesn't tolerate liches, that if the opportunity presents itself he would kill Barnom, and anyone who gets in his way would have to fall, too. That's a very un-Tav-like position under normal circumstances, so it was a nice break from being unconditionally friendly.
On a side note, you mentioned developing a character as you go. I'm a big time believer in that.
With Tav I took a "blank slate" approach. No backstory whatsoever. I just made it up as I went along. To me, the details that occur before the point I enter the game are irrelevant unless I intend to connect them in some relevant way with the present. It's not important to me to tell other characters that I'm from a town that we can't actually visit because it doesn't physically exist in the game. They don't need to know my imaginary family's names or how many great pirate adventures I had on the high seas before I settled down to start hunting rats underneath the Landing, etc.
I like to allow what happens to my character in the game be what defines my character. And that can apply to relatively minor aspects of my character, but results in something very ordinary becoming a defining aspect. For instance, I played Tav as a very inexperienced wizard at first. His familiar, Trevor, didn't respect him and would frequently argue with Tav, insult him, and refuse to perform basic tasks (which other players generally found amusing, but I never explained to them why the relationship was the way it was or why it changed!). He also ended up killing or severely injuring himself with familiar gates. I ended up using that failure rate as a barometer for Tav's development as a wizard and for the relationship with his familiar (all while I complained about the idiotic design of the spell on the forums). As Tav became better at wizardry, Trevor started to show more respect and the familiar gate failures became gradually less severe. Today Trevor is very cooperative and Tav is about as much a master of wizardry as a wizard can be.
Just one example. But I'd much rather pull from actual experiences and turn them into something more significant than the events themselves than have it all written beforehand and try to make what happens to my character draw its significance from things that never actually happened. If that makes any sense.
Not that I have a problem with people using backstories. It's just not how I like to operate.
~Taverkin
I don't think anyone is suggesting that roleplaying involves completely ignoring the fact that there's a player behind the characters you're interacting with. If it's being used as an excuse to grief other players, then it isn't RP. But there's a flip side to that coin. There's a responsibility on the antagonist to respect the player behind the characters he chooses to engage in conflict with, yes. But there's also a responsibility on the other players involved in these scenarios to be receptive to roleplayed conflict. If you recall, I took issue with the "opt out" suggestion for this very reason.
That's also why I said that this outlook where the responsibility falls almost solely upon the antagonist to justify his behavior is destroying roleplaying in this game. If you can't give me even the slightest bit of help and meet me halfway in an interaction, it isn't likely to work out. Either I have to ask your permission prior to taking any action, or I need to backpedal and apologize, then explain my actions. Subtle cues aren't usually enough to break through the thick skulls of today's average player. They generally seem to be under the assumption that I'm out to get them and they want no part of it (unless they think they can kill me, in which case they usually attack first, ask questions later!).
Like I said, it isn't worth my time to interact with people like that on anything more than a superficial level. Which is why today I play a superficial character. Tav lacks depth. He's very one-dimensional, although I'm certain people enjoy interacting with him nonetheless. But ultimately, I find it a little depressing that there's so little room for the antagonist these days. I get so few opportunities to place my character in strong opposition to another and just see how it plays out.
In fact, I can only recall one time recently where Tav had a reason to do so, and that was just a bit of talking on the amulet after one of the Lich events in the Landing. Tav made it clear that he doesn't tolerate liches, that if the opportunity presents itself he would kill Barnom, and anyone who gets in his way would have to fall, too. That's a very un-Tav-like position under normal circumstances, so it was a nice break from being unconditionally friendly.
On a side note, you mentioned developing a character as you go. I'm a big time believer in that.
With Tav I took a "blank slate" approach. No backstory whatsoever. I just made it up as I went along. To me, the details that occur before the point I enter the game are irrelevant unless I intend to connect them in some relevant way with the present. It's not important to me to tell other characters that I'm from a town that we can't actually visit because it doesn't physically exist in the game. They don't need to know my imaginary family's names or how many great pirate adventures I had on the high seas before I settled down to start hunting rats underneath the Landing, etc.
I like to allow what happens to my character in the game be what defines my character. And that can apply to relatively minor aspects of my character, but results in something very ordinary becoming a defining aspect. For instance, I played Tav as a very inexperienced wizard at first. His familiar, Trevor, didn't respect him and would frequently argue with Tav, insult him, and refuse to perform basic tasks (which other players generally found amusing, but I never explained to them why the relationship was the way it was or why it changed!). He also ended up killing or severely injuring himself with familiar gates. I ended up using that failure rate as a barometer for Tav's development as a wizard and for the relationship with his familiar (all while I complained about the idiotic design of the spell on the forums). As Tav became better at wizardry, Trevor started to show more respect and the familiar gate failures became gradually less severe. Today Trevor is very cooperative and Tav is about as much a master of wizardry as a wizard can be.
Just one example. But I'd much rather pull from actual experiences and turn them into something more significant than the events themselves than have it all written beforehand and try to make what happens to my character draw its significance from things that never actually happened. If that makes any sense.
Not that I have a problem with people using backstories. It's just not how I like to operate.
~Taverkin
>Thank you for those definitions! Now that that is out of the way... <rolls eyes>
--Zizzle
You're welcome.
Now that you realize that your whole there's only 'good guy protagonists' and 'bad guy antagonists' idea was absolutely absurd, let's move on to the rest of your post.
>I like the discussions by others in how they view their characters in this game.
I agree. Especially considering how much difference there really is between different players.
>Conflict in and of itself isn't bad, but when it drastically effects the game play of others it is not good.
Like what? And are you talking about drastic effects to the character or the player? (This is of course assuming the player can separate themselves from their character)
This: "Either the guy was a complete dolt and didn't understand the grief he was causing other players hunting in the area, or simply didn't care. But I made a good effort in character, and then OOC, to get him to stop the nonsense he seemed to fail to understand the commotion he was causing. " is an entirely player oriented situation, as you see it. However, assuming the other players (the ones running into the wizard's firestorms) wanted to, they (and the wizard), could easily turn this into a situation where roleplay can work. And no, this doesn't even mean the wizard would have to stop firestorming.
The problem in your example, and in general, is that it takes two to roleplay. It's not a matter of protagonist and antagonist, since everybody is their own protagonist when they play. It's a matter of are you receptive to roleplay period. It seems there's a good portion of the population that just wants to roleplay within a certain set of narrow guidelines. Anything beyond that, and it's a personal attack on their person, not their character.
Be it being pickpocketed, or some crazy wizard firestorming in your hunting ground. You should (IMO) take the 'good' with the 'bad' (to put it into your terms). This is no different than a GM running a storyline and throwing an invasion out or a super baddy that kills people left and right. This is purely 'antagonistic' and yet, people love storylines and invasions. It shouldn't be any different for character to character interactions.
It makes no sense for a player to have their character involved in a storyline where they get blown up, killed in invasions, transported to different realms, diseased and any number of difficult things, then think their character being pickpocketed is some horrible crime against their person and refuse to roleplay the encounter.
-farmer
--Zizzle
You're welcome.
Now that you realize that your whole there's only 'good guy protagonists' and 'bad guy antagonists' idea was absolutely absurd, let's move on to the rest of your post.
>I like the discussions by others in how they view their characters in this game.
I agree. Especially considering how much difference there really is between different players.
>Conflict in and of itself isn't bad, but when it drastically effects the game play of others it is not good.
Like what? And are you talking about drastic effects to the character or the player? (This is of course assuming the player can separate themselves from their character)
This: "Either the guy was a complete dolt and didn't understand the grief he was causing other players hunting in the area, or simply didn't care. But I made a good effort in character, and then OOC, to get him to stop the nonsense he seemed to fail to understand the commotion he was causing. " is an entirely player oriented situation, as you see it. However, assuming the other players (the ones running into the wizard's firestorms) wanted to, they (and the wizard), could easily turn this into a situation where roleplay can work. And no, this doesn't even mean the wizard would have to stop firestorming.
The problem in your example, and in general, is that it takes two to roleplay. It's not a matter of protagonist and antagonist, since everybody is their own protagonist when they play. It's a matter of are you receptive to roleplay period. It seems there's a good portion of the population that just wants to roleplay within a certain set of narrow guidelines. Anything beyond that, and it's a personal attack on their person, not their character.
Be it being pickpocketed, or some crazy wizard firestorming in your hunting ground. You should (IMO) take the 'good' with the 'bad' (to put it into your terms). This is no different than a GM running a storyline and throwing an invasion out or a super baddy that kills people left and right. This is purely 'antagonistic' and yet, people love storylines and invasions. It shouldn't be any different for character to character interactions.
It makes no sense for a player to have their character involved in a storyline where they get blown up, killed in invasions, transported to different realms, diseased and any number of difficult things, then think their character being pickpocketed is some horrible crime against their person and refuse to roleplay the encounter.
-farmer
Not to put words in Farmer's mouth, but building on the point he's making. It isn't that you should naively assume the other player is always roleplaying when they, for instance, firestorm Icemule zombies (Was that Edward?). But you should at least entertain the possibility until the other player indicates their intentions one way or the other. If you approach the situation objectively, signal your own intention to roleplay (even though you're the "victim" in this scenario), you may just be surprised to find the other player reciprocates. Or not. But what do you have to lose?
~Taverkin
~Taverkin
<<<<It makes no sense for a player to have their character involved in a storyline where they get blown up, killed in invasions, transported to different realms, diseased and any number of difficult things, then think their character being pickpocketed is some horrible crime against their person and refuse to roleplay the encounter.>>>>
Generally speaking, GMs select people who are clearly involved and interested in such roleplay. Their mission is to involve the players in the drama, and they look for players open and willing to participate. The same cannot generally be said of pickpockets. While some pickpockets may be great roleplayers, the very nature of the "art" means that if they roleplay sincerely, they are trying not to get caught. It's a rather one-sided affair.
I don't think being pickpocketed is a "horrible crime" against myself, personally. I never suggested it was. I simply don't care for that scenario. I don't find it interesting or rewarding, and I'd prefer not to be involved. If it was a GM-driven scenario, I could safely assume there was more to it than the self-serving RP of a single player. Players who steal rarely have much to offer in that vein. Surely there are exceptions, but they are rather rare.
The purpose of a GM is to facilitate interesting, rewarding RP for the players. The motivation of most (but not all) PC thieves is, at best, their own RP and enjoyment. That said, I have never, ever simply "refused" to roleplay such an encounter. Not that there have been many, per say. When someone targets you, what choice do you really have, anyway? Again, one-sided. In all the time I've played, there have been, maybe, two instances where such a situation ended in a satisfying way from an RP standpoint.
I have no problem with people roleplaying anything they want. That's fine, I encourage and support that. But when that roleplay disrupts the game for others, it strays into the gray area between consensual and non-consensual PvP. As noted in the official POLICY 4 document, stealing can be IC and acceptable. It can also cross the line into unacceptable PvP. With such a precarious balance, I think giving players the option to participate or not participate in that mechanic is not an unreasonable thing. Granted, one may always close containers and avoid carrying silvers. But even catching a thief, whether they succeeded or not, enters into a situation that I, personally, would just as soon avoid.
~ Heathyr
Generally speaking, GMs select people who are clearly involved and interested in such roleplay. Their mission is to involve the players in the drama, and they look for players open and willing to participate. The same cannot generally be said of pickpockets. While some pickpockets may be great roleplayers, the very nature of the "art" means that if they roleplay sincerely, they are trying not to get caught. It's a rather one-sided affair.
I don't think being pickpocketed is a "horrible crime" against myself, personally. I never suggested it was. I simply don't care for that scenario. I don't find it interesting or rewarding, and I'd prefer not to be involved. If it was a GM-driven scenario, I could safely assume there was more to it than the self-serving RP of a single player. Players who steal rarely have much to offer in that vein. Surely there are exceptions, but they are rather rare.
The purpose of a GM is to facilitate interesting, rewarding RP for the players. The motivation of most (but not all) PC thieves is, at best, their own RP and enjoyment. That said, I have never, ever simply "refused" to roleplay such an encounter. Not that there have been many, per say. When someone targets you, what choice do you really have, anyway? Again, one-sided. In all the time I've played, there have been, maybe, two instances where such a situation ended in a satisfying way from an RP standpoint.
I have no problem with people roleplaying anything they want. That's fine, I encourage and support that. But when that roleplay disrupts the game for others, it strays into the gray area between consensual and non-consensual PvP. As noted in the official POLICY 4 document, stealing can be IC and acceptable. It can also cross the line into unacceptable PvP. With such a precarious balance, I think giving players the option to participate or not participate in that mechanic is not an unreasonable thing. Granted, one may always close containers and avoid carrying silvers. But even catching a thief, whether they succeeded or not, enters into a situation that I, personally, would just as soon avoid.
~ Heathyr
I think it's worth noting, also, that--just speaking from an IC point of view--the very nature of picking a pocket is an aggressive act. It may or may not be personal. The victim could just be a random mark, or it could be someone the thief is out to get...but either way, it is not a "friendly" gesture. I don't know of anybody who is happy to be stolen from. So when we're talking about "roleplaying" such an encounter, our character's responses--if we're realistic about it--are likely to be angry, and very possibly violent.
I'm not really sure what some people defending pickpocketing as an "RP tool" really expect. Hearty banter? We're talking about extremely able and deadly adventurers. The "roleplay" you should really expect is swift and violent death. Or at least, a hasty exit and running for your life from an angry mob (which is rather hard to pull off, mechanically).
Unfortunately, thieves often target much lower-level characters. So that leaves the players of such victims somewhat at a loss. We have an inadequate justice system, with unrealistically mild consequences for criminals. There are scant few ways of playing the situation out to a realistic and satisfying conclusion.
~ Heathyr
I'm not really sure what some people defending pickpocketing as an "RP tool" really expect. Hearty banter? We're talking about extremely able and deadly adventurers. The "roleplay" you should really expect is swift and violent death. Or at least, a hasty exit and running for your life from an angry mob (which is rather hard to pull off, mechanically).
Unfortunately, thieves often target much lower-level characters. So that leaves the players of such victims somewhat at a loss. We have an inadequate justice system, with unrealistically mild consequences for criminals. There are scant few ways of playing the situation out to a realistic and satisfying conclusion.
~ Heathyr
>Generally speaking, GMs select people who are clearly involved and interested in such roleplay.
HEATHERHAZE
Invasions don't target select people. Portal areas (like lich landing or the Mestenir? area) don't target select people either.
>The purpose of a GM is to facilitate interesting, rewarding RP for the players.
>The motivation of most (but not all) PC thieves is, at best, their own RP and enjoyment.
All this says to me is 'GM RPA' and being 'special' is the goal, and roleplaying with other players is always secondary and maybe not even worth it.
And as a followup to the second quote from you, what player isn't concerned with their own RP and enjoyment? You certainly are, I am, so is everyone else. It's also a pretty absurd notion that you can make such a blanket statement about every single person in the game.
>But when that roleplay disrupts the game for others
You look at pickpocketing as purely a player versus player game situation and never as a character versus character roleplay situation and still insist you can tell your character and player apart?
-farmer
HEATHERHAZE
Invasions don't target select people. Portal areas (like lich landing or the Mestenir? area) don't target select people either.
>The purpose of a GM is to facilitate interesting, rewarding RP for the players.
>The motivation of most (but not all) PC thieves is, at best, their own RP and enjoyment.
All this says to me is 'GM RPA' and being 'special' is the goal, and roleplaying with other players is always secondary and maybe not even worth it.
And as a followup to the second quote from you, what player isn't concerned with their own RP and enjoyment? You certainly are, I am, so is everyone else. It's also a pretty absurd notion that you can make such a blanket statement about every single person in the game.
>But when that roleplay disrupts the game for others
You look at pickpocketing as purely a player versus player game situation and never as a character versus character roleplay situation and still insist you can tell your character and player apart?
-farmer
<<<Invasions don't target select people. Portal areas (like lich landing or the Mestenir? area) don't target select people either.>>>
Generally speaking, you're right. Monsters--whether of the invasion or "regular" variety--don't single out specific characters. They're pretty much out to get everyone, equally.
That is something quite different, however, from a GM seeking players to interact with. Most GMs I've known tend to select characters who've shown an interest in RP and a willingness to get involved. Sometimes they'll dangle a carrot. If the character goes for it, they'll draw them in a little further. If not, they move on to the next. They're looking for people who want to participate, who are likely to pull others into the fun. That just makes good sense.
<<<All this says to me is 'GM RPA' and being 'special' is the goal, and roleplaying with other players is always secondary and maybe not even worth it.>>>
I'm not sure why you'd choose to jump to that conclusion, aside from pure cynicism. I'm sorry if you feel that way, but I certainly don't.
My roleplay tends to be very inclusive. I'm happy taking a supporting role while others take the lead, and frequently have. When I feel one of my characters has something valuable to offer, they'll step up. I've always encouraged others to do the same. I feel equally comfortable taking center stage, when called for. But it's not just about me and my roleplay. I enjoy roleplaying my characters whatever they're doing; I don't feel the need to be the center of attention all the time. And while I appreciate an RPA as much as the next person (and have received many) it's not why I tend to get involved.
<<<And as a followup to the second quote from you, what player isn't concerned with their own RP and enjoyment? You certainly are, I am, so is everyone else. It's also a pretty absurd notion that you can make such a blanket statement about every single person in the game.>>>
You criticize me for making a blanket statement...by making a blanket statement, supporting mine? Really? Also, MY "blanket statement" was "most (but not all) PC thieves", which is a far cry from "every single person in the game." That's a pretty holey blanket if you ask me. Moreover, your objection doesn't even make sense in the context of my statement, which was comparing the motivation of your typical thief (self-serving RP) to that of a GM (facilitating RP for others). There's really no comparison between the two. And before you go off on a tangent, let me remind you that I carefully, explicitly noted there are exceptions (the holey blanket thing).
<<<<You look at pickpocketing as purely a player versus player game situation and never as a character versus character roleplay situation>>>>
No. I never said this. I never implied it. Every time I've explained my views on this matter, I've explicitly acknowledged that the PP skill is not always, necessarily bad, and that sometimes it can be roleplayed, even well. I never, not a single time, suggested that it can "never" be a used in a "character versus character roleplay situation". That is all coming from you, and frankly it's getting really old. Give it a rest already.
<<<<and still insist you can tell your character and player apart?>>>>
And still you insist I cannot, which is fairly insulting and not remotely true. I've explained this over and over. One must conclude that you either have some sort of impairment to your reading comprehension, or you are deliberately twisting my words out of context in an effort to discredit me.
To which I state, emphatically: "Whatever."
~ Heathyr
Generally speaking, you're right. Monsters--whether of the invasion or "regular" variety--don't single out specific characters. They're pretty much out to get everyone, equally.
That is something quite different, however, from a GM seeking players to interact with. Most GMs I've known tend to select characters who've shown an interest in RP and a willingness to get involved. Sometimes they'll dangle a carrot. If the character goes for it, they'll draw them in a little further. If not, they move on to the next. They're looking for people who want to participate, who are likely to pull others into the fun. That just makes good sense.
<<<All this says to me is 'GM RPA' and being 'special' is the goal, and roleplaying with other players is always secondary and maybe not even worth it.>>>
I'm not sure why you'd choose to jump to that conclusion, aside from pure cynicism. I'm sorry if you feel that way, but I certainly don't.
My roleplay tends to be very inclusive. I'm happy taking a supporting role while others take the lead, and frequently have. When I feel one of my characters has something valuable to offer, they'll step up. I've always encouraged others to do the same. I feel equally comfortable taking center stage, when called for. But it's not just about me and my roleplay. I enjoy roleplaying my characters whatever they're doing; I don't feel the need to be the center of attention all the time. And while I appreciate an RPA as much as the next person (and have received many) it's not why I tend to get involved.
<<<And as a followup to the second quote from you, what player isn't concerned with their own RP and enjoyment? You certainly are, I am, so is everyone else. It's also a pretty absurd notion that you can make such a blanket statement about every single person in the game.>>>
You criticize me for making a blanket statement...by making a blanket statement, supporting mine? Really? Also, MY "blanket statement" was "most (but not all) PC thieves", which is a far cry from "every single person in the game." That's a pretty holey blanket if you ask me. Moreover, your objection doesn't even make sense in the context of my statement, which was comparing the motivation of your typical thief (self-serving RP) to that of a GM (facilitating RP for others). There's really no comparison between the two. And before you go off on a tangent, let me remind you that I carefully, explicitly noted there are exceptions (the holey blanket thing).
<<<<You look at pickpocketing as purely a player versus player game situation and never as a character versus character roleplay situation>>>>
No. I never said this. I never implied it. Every time I've explained my views on this matter, I've explicitly acknowledged that the PP skill is not always, necessarily bad, and that sometimes it can be roleplayed, even well. I never, not a single time, suggested that it can "never" be a used in a "character versus character roleplay situation". That is all coming from you, and frankly it's getting really old. Give it a rest already.
<<<<and still insist you can tell your character and player apart?>>>>
And still you insist I cannot, which is fairly insulting and not remotely true. I've explained this over and over. One must conclude that you either have some sort of impairment to your reading comprehension, or you are deliberately twisting my words out of context in an effort to discredit me.
To which I state, emphatically: "Whatever."
~ Heathyr
<<Generally speaking, GMs select people who are clearly involved and interested in such roleplay. Their mission is to involve the players in the drama, and they look for players open and willing to participate. The same cannot generally be said of pickpockets. While some pickpockets may be great roleplayers, the very nature of the "art" means that if they roleplay sincerely, they are trying not to get caught. It's a rather one-sided affair.>>
We've been over this. Distilling this argument down to its eventual conclusion, you're saying that the inconvenience of PvP pickpocketing (and please excuse my usage of my own definitions here, but I think you understand what I'm saying by now!) is too great, in your opinion, for CvC (or "roleplayed") pickpocketing to outweigh it. I disagree. And you already knew that. But I also take issue with your inability to view this as anything but a singular scenario rather than a pattern of interaction. I tried to convey this point to you and Zizzle in the original thread, but you either find the argument implausible or didn't get a chance to read it (not that I blame you, as I can get pretty long-winded once I get going!).
If I'm playing a pickpocket, each attempt at theft is a potential opportunity for roleplayed conflict. That does not mean that I forgo any attempt at secrecy. Rather I steal as it is in my character to steal, I cultivate whatever image I'm going for (a Robin Hood, or whatever type of character I happen to be), and I let the chips fall where they may. I expect several outcomes from this pattern of behavior. First, I expect to build a reputation as a thief. I expect to cause some conflict. But I also expect to convey some level of depth to other players. I am not JUST a thief. It is not only the fact that I pick pockets and locks that defines me as such. My character has a personality and a reputation. I expect that other players, knowing this, will eventually come to both love and hate my character, for various reasons.
It's the pattern of behavior that's important. For instance, you could realize you were stolen from, think back and recall that I was there, put two and two together, and confront me about it. Or perhaps you don't know me that well, yet? In that case you're out of luck! I got your diamond and you're none-the-wiser! Haha! But ask around and somebody who knows me by reputation is sure to drop you a hint. And if you come to find me and keep a cool head as a player, we might just have some fun! Or you can come at me angry and demand OOC that I give your diamond back and not target you anymore. I would be disappointed, but it's not your diamond I'm after, so I would give it back and apologize (OOC, of course).
<<If it was a GM-driven scenario, I could safely assume there was more to it than the self-serving RP of a single player. Players who steal rarely have much to offer in that vein. Surely there are exceptions, but they are rather rare.>>
Agreed. But you could always lead by example. That's my policy. I try to give other players the benefit of the doubt until they reveal their intentions as a player one way or another. The more receptive I am to roleplay, the more likely I am to be able to steer a scenario in that direction. The moment a conflict turns OOC on either side, that conflict is over from an RP perspective. If I lose a negligible amount of silver/gems in the process, it's really no big deal. It's not as if they're able to take anything that cost you a significant amount of time or silver, last I checked.
<<The purpose of a GM is to facilitate interesting, rewarding RP for the players. The motivation of most (but not all) PC thieves is, at best, their own RP and enjoyment. That said, I have never, ever simply "refused" to roleplay such an encounter. Not that there have been many, per say. When someone targets you, what choice do you really have, anyway? Again, one-sided. In all the time I've played, there have been, maybe, two instances where such a situation ended in a satisfying way from an RP standpoint. >>
Again, trust. Trust people a little bit more and more of those interactions will reveal themselves to be something more. If you have no faith in other players, why should they have any faith in you?
<<I have no problem with people roleplaying anything they want. That's fine, I encourage and support that. But when that roleplay disrupts the game for others, it strays into the gray area between consensual and non-consensual PvP. As noted in the official POLICY 4 document, stealing can be IC and acceptable. It can also cross the line into unacceptable PvP. With such a precarious balance, I think giving players the option to participate or not participate in that mechanic is not an unreasonable thing. Granted, one may always close containers and avoid carrying silvers. But even catching a thief, whether they succeeded or not, enters into a situation that I, personally, would just as soon avoid.>>
There's plenty of gray area between action on the part of the antagonist and perception on your part, Heathyr. If pickpockets is automatically viewed as "disruptive behavior" then you discount the possibility of roleplayed conflict from the start. And we've been over why the "opt out" is really just a "cop out" for roleplaying.
~Taverkin
We've been over this. Distilling this argument down to its eventual conclusion, you're saying that the inconvenience of PvP pickpocketing (and please excuse my usage of my own definitions here, but I think you understand what I'm saying by now!) is too great, in your opinion, for CvC (or "roleplayed") pickpocketing to outweigh it. I disagree. And you already knew that. But I also take issue with your inability to view this as anything but a singular scenario rather than a pattern of interaction. I tried to convey this point to you and Zizzle in the original thread, but you either find the argument implausible or didn't get a chance to read it (not that I blame you, as I can get pretty long-winded once I get going!).
If I'm playing a pickpocket, each attempt at theft is a potential opportunity for roleplayed conflict. That does not mean that I forgo any attempt at secrecy. Rather I steal as it is in my character to steal, I cultivate whatever image I'm going for (a Robin Hood, or whatever type of character I happen to be), and I let the chips fall where they may. I expect several outcomes from this pattern of behavior. First, I expect to build a reputation as a thief. I expect to cause some conflict. But I also expect to convey some level of depth to other players. I am not JUST a thief. It is not only the fact that I pick pockets and locks that defines me as such. My character has a personality and a reputation. I expect that other players, knowing this, will eventually come to both love and hate my character, for various reasons.
It's the pattern of behavior that's important. For instance, you could realize you were stolen from, think back and recall that I was there, put two and two together, and confront me about it. Or perhaps you don't know me that well, yet? In that case you're out of luck! I got your diamond and you're none-the-wiser! Haha! But ask around and somebody who knows me by reputation is sure to drop you a hint. And if you come to find me and keep a cool head as a player, we might just have some fun! Or you can come at me angry and demand OOC that I give your diamond back and not target you anymore. I would be disappointed, but it's not your diamond I'm after, so I would give it back and apologize (OOC, of course).
<<If it was a GM-driven scenario, I could safely assume there was more to it than the self-serving RP of a single player. Players who steal rarely have much to offer in that vein. Surely there are exceptions, but they are rather rare.>>
Agreed. But you could always lead by example. That's my policy. I try to give other players the benefit of the doubt until they reveal their intentions as a player one way or another. The more receptive I am to roleplay, the more likely I am to be able to steer a scenario in that direction. The moment a conflict turns OOC on either side, that conflict is over from an RP perspective. If I lose a negligible amount of silver/gems in the process, it's really no big deal. It's not as if they're able to take anything that cost you a significant amount of time or silver, last I checked.
<<The purpose of a GM is to facilitate interesting, rewarding RP for the players. The motivation of most (but not all) PC thieves is, at best, their own RP and enjoyment. That said, I have never, ever simply "refused" to roleplay such an encounter. Not that there have been many, per say. When someone targets you, what choice do you really have, anyway? Again, one-sided. In all the time I've played, there have been, maybe, two instances where such a situation ended in a satisfying way from an RP standpoint. >>
Again, trust. Trust people a little bit more and more of those interactions will reveal themselves to be something more. If you have no faith in other players, why should they have any faith in you?
<<I have no problem with people roleplaying anything they want. That's fine, I encourage and support that. But when that roleplay disrupts the game for others, it strays into the gray area between consensual and non-consensual PvP. As noted in the official POLICY 4 document, stealing can be IC and acceptable. It can also cross the line into unacceptable PvP. With such a precarious balance, I think giving players the option to participate or not participate in that mechanic is not an unreasonable thing. Granted, one may always close containers and avoid carrying silvers. But even catching a thief, whether they succeeded or not, enters into a situation that I, personally, would just as soon avoid.>>
There's plenty of gray area between action on the part of the antagonist and perception on your part, Heathyr. If pickpockets is automatically viewed as "disruptive behavior" then you discount the possibility of roleplayed conflict from the start. And we've been over why the "opt out" is really just a "cop out" for roleplaying.
~Taverkin
<<I think it's worth noting, also, that--just speaking from an IC point of view--the very nature of picking a pocket is an aggressive act. It may or may not be personal. The victim could just be a random mark, or it could be someone the thief is out to get...but either way, it is not a "friendly" gesture. I don't know of anybody who is happy to be stolen from. So when we're talking about "roleplaying" such an encounter, our character's responses--if we're realistic about it--are likely to be angry, and very possibly violent.>>
That's fine. You can react IC, just not OOC. The issue here is that you blend the two by refusing to adequately separate yourself from your character (not an insult, just an explanation, so please try to take it as such). And I think you get that somewhat. I believe you have said before that you would prefer that the pickpocket signal his intentions in some way, not simply steal from you and disappear (which I think is a good policy, although I disagree that a thief must ALWAYS do so just as I disagree with the idea that a mark should NEVER kill a thief on the spot). But the flip side to that coin is that you should likewise signal your intentions. Killing a thief on the spot every time makes for rather boring encounters. If I were that thief, I would take my lumps and leave you alone in the future. Which is probably what you want anyway. No harm done.
<<I'm not really sure what some people defending pickpocketing as an "RP tool" really expect. Hearty banter? We're talking about extremely able and deadly adventurers. The "roleplay" you should really expect is swift and violent death. Or at least, a hasty exit and running for your life from an angry mob (which is rather hard to pull off, mechanically).>>
Roleplayed conflict. If you'd like to tie that to character/player emotions, the players should be friendly toward one another or at the very least neutral. If you're angry with the other player (or vice versa), the conflict is turning OOC - see your way out of it. Again, if it's in your character to react in just one way to stealing with no prior or further interaction whatsoever, then do so and be done with it. I wouldn't complain and I expect from an enforcement perspective you would be blameless as the thief initiated the conflict by stealing from you. But I would probably avoid you as a mark in the future because I know to expect a one-dimensional and abrupt reaction. I would probably try interactions with your character that don't involve stealing but reference our history together in some way, not to annoy you, but to create some sort of friction between our characters that can result in worthwhile interaction without the necessity of you killing me every time you see me! If you then to indicate that I'm bothering you as a player, I would leave you completely alone from that point onward. Clear enough?
<<Unfortunately, thieves often target much lower-level characters. So that leaves the players of such victims somewhat at a loss. We have an inadequate justice system, with unrealistically mild consequences for criminals. There are scant few ways of playing the situation out to a realistic and satisfying conclusion.>>
Plenty of potential there for interesting roleplay. In my opinion, these are the easiest scenarios because I have more control. The other player doesn't have the option to kill me on the spot. That does make the scenario ripe for abuse, as you point out. However, it also provides me with the opportunity to be charitable as a player in our interaction. Both players are aware of the imbalance in power, so indicating by action that it isn't my intention to abuse that power is a signal to the other player that I'm attempting to roleplay, not grief them.
~Taverkin
That's fine. You can react IC, just not OOC. The issue here is that you blend the two by refusing to adequately separate yourself from your character (not an insult, just an explanation, so please try to take it as such). And I think you get that somewhat. I believe you have said before that you would prefer that the pickpocket signal his intentions in some way, not simply steal from you and disappear (which I think is a good policy, although I disagree that a thief must ALWAYS do so just as I disagree with the idea that a mark should NEVER kill a thief on the spot). But the flip side to that coin is that you should likewise signal your intentions. Killing a thief on the spot every time makes for rather boring encounters. If I were that thief, I would take my lumps and leave you alone in the future. Which is probably what you want anyway. No harm done.
<<I'm not really sure what some people defending pickpocketing as an "RP tool" really expect. Hearty banter? We're talking about extremely able and deadly adventurers. The "roleplay" you should really expect is swift and violent death. Or at least, a hasty exit and running for your life from an angry mob (which is rather hard to pull off, mechanically).>>
Roleplayed conflict. If you'd like to tie that to character/player emotions, the players should be friendly toward one another or at the very least neutral. If you're angry with the other player (or vice versa), the conflict is turning OOC - see your way out of it. Again, if it's in your character to react in just one way to stealing with no prior or further interaction whatsoever, then do so and be done with it. I wouldn't complain and I expect from an enforcement perspective you would be blameless as the thief initiated the conflict by stealing from you. But I would probably avoid you as a mark in the future because I know to expect a one-dimensional and abrupt reaction. I would probably try interactions with your character that don't involve stealing but reference our history together in some way, not to annoy you, but to create some sort of friction between our characters that can result in worthwhile interaction without the necessity of you killing me every time you see me! If you then to indicate that I'm bothering you as a player, I would leave you completely alone from that point onward. Clear enough?
<<Unfortunately, thieves often target much lower-level characters. So that leaves the players of such victims somewhat at a loss. We have an inadequate justice system, with unrealistically mild consequences for criminals. There are scant few ways of playing the situation out to a realistic and satisfying conclusion.>>
Plenty of potential there for interesting roleplay. In my opinion, these are the easiest scenarios because I have more control. The other player doesn't have the option to kill me on the spot. That does make the scenario ripe for abuse, as you point out. However, it also provides me with the opportunity to be charitable as a player in our interaction. Both players are aware of the imbalance in power, so indicating by action that it isn't my intention to abuse that power is a signal to the other player that I'm attempting to roleplay, not grief them.
~Taverkin
<<<But I also take issue with your inability to view this as anything but a singular scenario rather than a pattern of interaction. I tried to convey this point to you and Zizzle in the original thread, but you either find the argument implausible or didn't get a chance to read it (not that I blame you, as I can get pretty long-winded once I get going!).>>>>
I don't have an "inability" to view this in any way you care to explain it. I get it. I just don't think it's fun. It's obvious you think it's all kinds of fun, and that's fine. I don't. The only thing less fun than the pickpocket scenario, is a "pattern of interaction" centered on pickpocketing. There are other, much more interesting and mutually rewarding ways of getting my attention.
<<<If I'm playing a pickpocket, each attempt at theft is a potential opportunity for roleplayed conflict.>>>
Yeehaw.
<<<That does not mean that I forgo any attempt at secrecy. Rather I steal as it is in my character to steal, I cultivate whatever image I'm going for (a Robin Hood, or whatever type of character I happen to be), and I let the chips fall where they may.>>>
There's nothing wrong with any of that, but this is all your roleplay (the hypothetical you). I get it, but that doesn't mean I necessarily want to participate in it.
<<<I expect several outcomes from this pattern of behavior. First, I expect to build a reputation as a thief. I expect to cause some conflict. But I also expect to convey some level of depth to other players. I am not JUST a thief. It is not only the fact that I pick pockets and locks that defines me as such. My character has a personality and a reputation. I expect that other players, knowing this, will eventually come to both love and hate my character, for various reasons.>>>
That's all perfectly well and fine. But I see no valid reason why everybody you decide to target should be forced to support your personal ambitions for your character. There's nothing stopping you from RPing all the things you just said. If it were possible to simply opt-out of the steal verb, you could be assured that anybody you were able to target would be willing participants. There are plenty of ways to create conflict, if that's what you want. It needn't take the form of petty theft, which I find to be a waste of time.
<<<It's the pattern of behavior that's important. For instance, you could realize you were stolen from, think back and recall that I was there, put two and two together, and confront me about it. Or perhaps you don't know me that well, yet? In that case you're out of luck! I got your diamond and you're none-the-wiser! Haha! But ask around and somebody who knows me by reputation is sure to drop you a hint. And if you come to find me and keep a cool head as a player, we might just have some fun! Or you can come at me angry and demand OOC that I give your diamond back and not target you anymore. I would be disappointed, but it's not your diamond I'm after, so I would give it back and apologize (OOC, of course).>>>
None of that sounds particularly fun to me. Sorry.
<<<it's really no big deal>>>
You're right, it's not. So why is it a big deal to let folks opt-out? If it's "no big deal" to be stolen from, it should be "no big deal" to not be able to rob a particular character at any given time. On one hand we have the enjoyment of the player who wants to roleplay a thief, and on the other we have the enjoyment of the player who chooses not to roleplay a victim. It seems like there's a double-standard when we're talking about roleplay here. If you're truly interested in a mutual RP environment, you should recognize the logic in this.
<<<Again, trust. Trust people a little bit more and more of those interactions will reveal themselves to be something more. If you have no faith in other players, why should they have any faith in you?>>>
I have plenty of faith in other players. It's got zip to do with faith. As I've said, there are other ways of engaging my interest. Robbing me isn't one of them. Yes, there are always exceptions, and I've freely acknowledged this.
<<<If pickpockets is automatically viewed as "disruptive behavior" then you discount the possibility of roleplayed conflict from the start.>>>
I never said anything of the kind. If you want to have a civil debate, you must stop twisting my words out of context. I never said, in the entire course of this discussion, that pickpocketing must "automatically" be viewed as disruptive behavior. I only said that it CAN be disruptive, which is accurate and entirely in keeping with official Simu policy. I certainly never discounted the possibility of roleplayed conflict, in fact I have repeatedly acknowledged that this is fine.
<<<And we've been over why the "opt out" is really just a "cop out" for roleplaying.>>>
Actually, no, we haven't. I've yet to hear one solid argument against it, without muddying the waters with accusations about my "perceptions" or failure to separate character from player. The only possible objection to an "opt out" option is that thieves would no longer be able to target unwilling participants for their own ends.
<<<The issue here is that you blend the two by refusing to adequately separate yourself from your character (not an insult, just an explanation, so please try to take it as such).>>>
No. For the millionth time, this is incorrect. [BTW -- The surest way to detect an insult is when someone says "this is not an insult."] I'm starting to get the feeling that the reason you seem "disappointed" with RP in the world is because you suck at communicating. You accuse me of "refusing to adequately separate yourself from your character". How is that not an insult, exactly? Especially considering I've gone to ridiculous lengths answering this same charge, over and over again. No more.
<<<I would probably try interactions with your character that don't involve stealing but reference our history together in some way, not to annoy you, but to create some sort of friction between our characters that can result in worthwhile interaction without the necessity of you killing me every time you see me! If you then to indicate that I'm bothering you as a player, I would leave you completely alone from that point onward. Clear enough?>>>
Now we're getting somewhere. That's fine, as long as you understand that my characters are likely to react negatively to someone causing them problems. My characters aren't children, and Elanthia isn't a playground. They're no more impressed by childish antics than I am (well, except one, perhaps). I'm not saying that's what you have in mind, but that's frequently how such "conflict" seems to play out. And as dedicated as I may be to RP, I am ultimately here to have fun. If I don't find a given situation fun, I'll bow out as gracefully as possible. There are lots of situations that may appeal to some, but that I have absolutely no interest in roleplaying. Being the victim of theft is one of them. Simple as that.
~ Heathyr
I don't have an "inability" to view this in any way you care to explain it. I get it. I just don't think it's fun. It's obvious you think it's all kinds of fun, and that's fine. I don't. The only thing less fun than the pickpocket scenario, is a "pattern of interaction" centered on pickpocketing. There are other, much more interesting and mutually rewarding ways of getting my attention.
<<<If I'm playing a pickpocket, each attempt at theft is a potential opportunity for roleplayed conflict.>>>
Yeehaw.
<<<That does not mean that I forgo any attempt at secrecy. Rather I steal as it is in my character to steal, I cultivate whatever image I'm going for (a Robin Hood, or whatever type of character I happen to be), and I let the chips fall where they may.>>>
There's nothing wrong with any of that, but this is all your roleplay (the hypothetical you). I get it, but that doesn't mean I necessarily want to participate in it.
<<<I expect several outcomes from this pattern of behavior. First, I expect to build a reputation as a thief. I expect to cause some conflict. But I also expect to convey some level of depth to other players. I am not JUST a thief. It is not only the fact that I pick pockets and locks that defines me as such. My character has a personality and a reputation. I expect that other players, knowing this, will eventually come to both love and hate my character, for various reasons.>>>
That's all perfectly well and fine. But I see no valid reason why everybody you decide to target should be forced to support your personal ambitions for your character. There's nothing stopping you from RPing all the things you just said. If it were possible to simply opt-out of the steal verb, you could be assured that anybody you were able to target would be willing participants. There are plenty of ways to create conflict, if that's what you want. It needn't take the form of petty theft, which I find to be a waste of time.
<<<It's the pattern of behavior that's important. For instance, you could realize you were stolen from, think back and recall that I was there, put two and two together, and confront me about it. Or perhaps you don't know me that well, yet? In that case you're out of luck! I got your diamond and you're none-the-wiser! Haha! But ask around and somebody who knows me by reputation is sure to drop you a hint. And if you come to find me and keep a cool head as a player, we might just have some fun! Or you can come at me angry and demand OOC that I give your diamond back and not target you anymore. I would be disappointed, but it's not your diamond I'm after, so I would give it back and apologize (OOC, of course).>>>
None of that sounds particularly fun to me. Sorry.
<<<it's really no big deal>>>
You're right, it's not. So why is it a big deal to let folks opt-out? If it's "no big deal" to be stolen from, it should be "no big deal" to not be able to rob a particular character at any given time. On one hand we have the enjoyment of the player who wants to roleplay a thief, and on the other we have the enjoyment of the player who chooses not to roleplay a victim. It seems like there's a double-standard when we're talking about roleplay here. If you're truly interested in a mutual RP environment, you should recognize the logic in this.
<<<Again, trust. Trust people a little bit more and more of those interactions will reveal themselves to be something more. If you have no faith in other players, why should they have any faith in you?>>>
I have plenty of faith in other players. It's got zip to do with faith. As I've said, there are other ways of engaging my interest. Robbing me isn't one of them. Yes, there are always exceptions, and I've freely acknowledged this.
<<<If pickpockets is automatically viewed as "disruptive behavior" then you discount the possibility of roleplayed conflict from the start.>>>
I never said anything of the kind. If you want to have a civil debate, you must stop twisting my words out of context. I never said, in the entire course of this discussion, that pickpocketing must "automatically" be viewed as disruptive behavior. I only said that it CAN be disruptive, which is accurate and entirely in keeping with official Simu policy. I certainly never discounted the possibility of roleplayed conflict, in fact I have repeatedly acknowledged that this is fine.
<<<And we've been over why the "opt out" is really just a "cop out" for roleplaying.>>>
Actually, no, we haven't. I've yet to hear one solid argument against it, without muddying the waters with accusations about my "perceptions" or failure to separate character from player. The only possible objection to an "opt out" option is that thieves would no longer be able to target unwilling participants for their own ends.
<<<The issue here is that you blend the two by refusing to adequately separate yourself from your character (not an insult, just an explanation, so please try to take it as such).>>>
No. For the millionth time, this is incorrect. [BTW -- The surest way to detect an insult is when someone says "this is not an insult."] I'm starting to get the feeling that the reason you seem "disappointed" with RP in the world is because you suck at communicating. You accuse me of "refusing to adequately separate yourself from your character". How is that not an insult, exactly? Especially considering I've gone to ridiculous lengths answering this same charge, over and over again. No more.
<<<I would probably try interactions with your character that don't involve stealing but reference our history together in some way, not to annoy you, but to create some sort of friction between our characters that can result in worthwhile interaction without the necessity of you killing me every time you see me! If you then to indicate that I'm bothering you as a player, I would leave you completely alone from that point onward. Clear enough?>>>
Now we're getting somewhere. That's fine, as long as you understand that my characters are likely to react negatively to someone causing them problems. My characters aren't children, and Elanthia isn't a playground. They're no more impressed by childish antics than I am (well, except one, perhaps). I'm not saying that's what you have in mind, but that's frequently how such "conflict" seems to play out. And as dedicated as I may be to RP, I am ultimately here to have fun. If I don't find a given situation fun, I'll bow out as gracefully as possible. There are lots of situations that may appeal to some, but that I have absolutely no interest in roleplaying. Being the victim of theft is one of them. Simple as that.
~ Heathyr
I think one of the biggest problems with the pick pocket skill is the fact that it is very heavily weighted in favor of the pick pocket. I've got 202 ranks of perception and I have to get lucky to spot someone with 101 ranks of pick pockets. Hiding works much the same way and to me that just seems like very poor design.
<The best way to make sure that both parties are consenting to a CvC situation where it will come to blows is by using the CHALLENGE verb.>
Amen!! I tell that to people all the time, and although this may not be policy- But Im not a GM so I dont have to speak conservatively
As far as I am concerned, if I get into a CvC situation with someone I really am not familiar with, I use Challenge as even a R/P method. IF someone is antagonizing me and will not accept the challenge or wont leave a sanctuary to be challenged. My response is usually pretty quick and something like;
As you clearly want a conflict but wont accept my challenge to a duel, I think this conversation is over. Its clear your just attempting to antagonize me without being willing to accept actions beyond words. Go find someone else to bother.
My thoughts on an Opt out button for pick pocketing are not favorable. I know it sounds silly, but if we start with opt out buttons for things that are easily avoidable like pick pocketing why not other things? If you don't like invasions, why not an opt out button so the creatures in town don't attack you? If you don't like being healed by PC's why not an opt out button? Don't like the random meteor storm in town, either player initiated or GM? Just click the opt out button and the meteors will fly right past you! Don't like people imitating your voice? Why not an opt out button? Don't like everyone standing around speaking Sylvan? Opt out and understand every word out of their mouths!
There are a lot of things in this game that people can join together and say how much they dislike it and how it doesn't further the game. If we start with something easily avoidable where would it stop? These are all roleplay situations that each character can respond to in different ways. All of them are not easy to play off of but it can be done, and not all of these end in negative ways or violence.
Player of Astari (Prime)
Player of Amyia (Plat )
Vaalorclean]-Aize: "stabbidy stabbidy good"
xxxxxx(00:42:17): "I have every Astari action figure... And all of the trading cards... (heavy breathing)..."
Ruabadra whispers, "So I heard something about you dying, chivalrous and a squirrel."
There are a lot of things in this game that people can join together and say how much they dislike it and how it doesn't further the game. If we start with something easily avoidable where would it stop? These are all roleplay situations that each character can respond to in different ways. All of them are not easy to play off of but it can be done, and not all of these end in negative ways or violence.
Player of Astari (Prime)
Player of Amyia (Plat )
Vaalorclean]-Aize: "stabbidy stabbidy good"
xxxxxx(00:42:17): "I have every Astari action figure... And all of the trading cards... (heavy breathing)..."
Ruabadra whispers, "So I heard something about you dying, chivalrous and a squirrel."
<I think one of the biggest problems with the pick pocket skill is the fact that it is very heavily weighted in favor of the pick pocket. I've got 202 ranks of perception and I have to get lucky to spot someone with 101 ranks of pick pockets. Hiding works much the same way and to me that just seems like very poor design>
Actually I think theres more factors that go into it then that, however it probably has to be slighted some to accomdate for limits in how many ranks you can train across all professions. However thats a conversation for another folder, what it valid from your post and my thinking is.. The challenge thief is designed to be very harsh on thieves, however it wont work in most sanctuaries, so unless the thief moves out of the sanctuary, and you can actually find or visible see him/her long enough to issue the challenge (rarely Happens) that aspect of CHALLENGE is useless, modifying that or making CHALLENGEs issuable in any conditions could change things greatly.
And FYI my opinion on pickpockets, if I catch one I usually will be civil about it once, but I see the act of Pickpocketing as opening yourself up to a CVC issue automatically. I myself would not steal from people without the expectation if I get caught or seen that my actions are a CvC action to begin with and expect a response.
