Rethinking Conflict
Moderators: Active Admins, Active DMs, Forum Moderators
-
- Posts: 2188
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:40 am
Rethinking Conflict
This is riffing off of recent events, but also is something that has been historically an issue, as well as something problematic with how the server has been designed. This is also responding to something irongron said in that Kudos Thread about the Underdark.
I’ve been party to many problematic encounters over the years, where the majority of conflict stems around impromptu PvP skirmishes, followed by a capture/kidnapping, followed by some sort of server-wide zerg. Objectively, I do not think there is another problematic about this kind of conflict. I think it can be fun, fresh, and exciting.
However, in the Arelithian context, both recent and long ago, it was often relied on as like perhaps *the* singular method for instigating conflict. Between whoever is involved.
And, it’s something that continues to be fundamentally systemic because (yet again) the fundamental norm of conflict is
Side A wants to continue to do something uninterrupted
Side B wants to disrupt Side A in the pursuit of wealth, power, or otherwise
I’m not saying every conflict is like this, but even irongron used the term “second life” to describe Surface Roleplay (albeit in contrast with the Underdark, but I think that’s not enough to distinguish the overall sentiment). Pirate players have also posted on the forums recently how their roleplay is important because it gives the Side A “something to do.” I don’t think this controversial at all. I think this fair. This is literally the age-old sentiment of “villains and evils and antagonists are the ones with plots.”
The flip side of all of this is the Dark Days where PvP was a regular occurrence, characters became defined by their usefulness at all levels, the security of getting mad XPs with writs was like a laughable dream, and the server was a lot closer together.
In broad strokes, I want to propose some sort of mechanical change that removes barriers for conflict –
[1] Ways of disrupting/destroying Guildhouse doors through high-level craftable items
Typically every side in every conflict relies on the impregnability of some player-owned quarter/guildhouse somewhere. There needs to be methods for players to create short-term disruption in this safety.
[2] Expanded boat system into the Surface interior
I was almost going to suggest we have more two-way portals, but something in the fiber of my being started to scream and shout. The problem with the current modes of transportation is the lack of two-way access into Arelith’s *interior.* Maybe this is intentional design, and I always waffle on the fact that Arelith is too large now vs. we have so many more players than before. But space breeds safety and isolationism.
[3] Settlements are too difficult to disrupt
The assassination stuff of PC leaders was headed in the right direction, but that’s between settlement conflict. Unfortunately, that doesn’t encapsulate a significant percentage of broader conflict between groups. And the idea of political subterfuge solely through electorates is frankly not good enough. I never thought it was good enough, it’s still not good enough.
But the flipside is the increasing DM/DEV presencing of Cordor. Back in the heyday, the notion of Cordor being an Amn puppet was something quasi heretical. It’s now a *fact*. I think there’s something problematic about from a tonal overview that creates that idea that Cordor has certain inalienable traits and qualities. This wouldn’t be so problematic if it wasn’t the only place on the server that this special viewpoint (except maybe outside of Skal, and Andunor). The existence of Skal should’ve eroded the safety of Cordor but that hasn’t been the case.
Anyways, I could go on. My underlying point is that there are now more DM/DEV-enforced mechanics of instigating conflict in certain characters (Outcasts and Pirates) but this has outpaced new mechanics and tools for players to create meaningful conflict.
And you can say yadda yadda roleplay roleplay, but if that was the case we’d still be back in the days where exiling someone meant PC guards PvPing declared criminals all day.
Are there other mechanics, devices, or tools that are pre-existing or need to be considered to keep pushing the envelope of conflict roleplay forward? Is this solely the responsibility of roleplayers or should we have more -tools? How do we overall create a better environment? Should we prohibit the Pirate system (it was literally created insight conflict without truthfully given any distinct or useful tools to do so)?**
**haven't played a pirate, please correct me otherwise.
I’ve been party to many problematic encounters over the years, where the majority of conflict stems around impromptu PvP skirmishes, followed by a capture/kidnapping, followed by some sort of server-wide zerg. Objectively, I do not think there is another problematic about this kind of conflict. I think it can be fun, fresh, and exciting.
However, in the Arelithian context, both recent and long ago, it was often relied on as like perhaps *the* singular method for instigating conflict. Between whoever is involved.
And, it’s something that continues to be fundamentally systemic because (yet again) the fundamental norm of conflict is
Side A wants to continue to do something uninterrupted
Side B wants to disrupt Side A in the pursuit of wealth, power, or otherwise
I’m not saying every conflict is like this, but even irongron used the term “second life” to describe Surface Roleplay (albeit in contrast with the Underdark, but I think that’s not enough to distinguish the overall sentiment). Pirate players have also posted on the forums recently how their roleplay is important because it gives the Side A “something to do.” I don’t think this controversial at all. I think this fair. This is literally the age-old sentiment of “villains and evils and antagonists are the ones with plots.”
The flip side of all of this is the Dark Days where PvP was a regular occurrence, characters became defined by their usefulness at all levels, the security of getting mad XPs with writs was like a laughable dream, and the server was a lot closer together.
In broad strokes, I want to propose some sort of mechanical change that removes barriers for conflict –
[1] Ways of disrupting/destroying Guildhouse doors through high-level craftable items
Typically every side in every conflict relies on the impregnability of some player-owned quarter/guildhouse somewhere. There needs to be methods for players to create short-term disruption in this safety.
[2] Expanded boat system into the Surface interior
I was almost going to suggest we have more two-way portals, but something in the fiber of my being started to scream and shout. The problem with the current modes of transportation is the lack of two-way access into Arelith’s *interior.* Maybe this is intentional design, and I always waffle on the fact that Arelith is too large now vs. we have so many more players than before. But space breeds safety and isolationism.
[3] Settlements are too difficult to disrupt
The assassination stuff of PC leaders was headed in the right direction, but that’s between settlement conflict. Unfortunately, that doesn’t encapsulate a significant percentage of broader conflict between groups. And the idea of political subterfuge solely through electorates is frankly not good enough. I never thought it was good enough, it’s still not good enough.
But the flipside is the increasing DM/DEV presencing of Cordor. Back in the heyday, the notion of Cordor being an Amn puppet was something quasi heretical. It’s now a *fact*. I think there’s something problematic about from a tonal overview that creates that idea that Cordor has certain inalienable traits and qualities. This wouldn’t be so problematic if it wasn’t the only place on the server that this special viewpoint (except maybe outside of Skal, and Andunor). The existence of Skal should’ve eroded the safety of Cordor but that hasn’t been the case.
Anyways, I could go on. My underlying point is that there are now more DM/DEV-enforced mechanics of instigating conflict in certain characters (Outcasts and Pirates) but this has outpaced new mechanics and tools for players to create meaningful conflict.
And you can say yadda yadda roleplay roleplay, but if that was the case we’d still be back in the days where exiling someone meant PC guards PvPing declared criminals all day.
Are there other mechanics, devices, or tools that are pre-existing or need to be considered to keep pushing the envelope of conflict roleplay forward? Is this solely the responsibility of roleplayers or should we have more -tools? How do we overall create a better environment? Should we prohibit the Pirate system (it was literally created insight conflict without truthfully given any distinct or useful tools to do so)?**
**haven't played a pirate, please correct me otherwise.
Previous:
Oskarr of Procampur, Ro Irokon, Nahal Azyen, Nelehein Afsana (of Impiltur), Vencenti Medici, Nizram ali Balazdam, (Roznik) Naethandreil
Oskarr of Procampur, Ro Irokon, Nahal Azyen, Nelehein Afsana (of Impiltur), Vencenti Medici, Nizram ali Balazdam, (Roznik) Naethandreil
Re: Rethinking Conflict
all of the tools to create meaningful and interesting conflict in "ye olde days" is still here. there is no fundamental difference outside of a shift in the community over time. there is a large chunk of people here that pointedly do NOT want conflict, and their opinions generally will NOT be changed.
the weird spot this puts the server in is that a choice has to be made: accommodate this sizable chunk or run them off. we have seen the backlash for things like the revised pariah system and the outcast tag. i believe those mechanics were put in place BECAUSE there wasn't enough conflict, not to stifle it. i know that this may contradict the recent crackdown on pvp, but I believe that that was a crackdown on pvp, not on conflict in general.
i generally agree with irongron's assertion that the surface is very "second life". i say this as one of the surface's more recent agents of conflict. i was met with extreme hostility ooc that i won't get into here. on the whole, it was very discouraging.
that being said, i generated that conflict with the tools at my disposal, and I believe that if I can do it, then so can anybody else. the server itself, its mechanics, and the staff are not against conflict (if i may be so bold as to speak for them, correct me if i am wrong). it's the aforementioned "sizable chunk" that is. this isn't a problem with the server. it's a "problem" with your fellow RPer. be the change you want to see. don't wait for the server to accommodate you.
the weird spot this puts the server in is that a choice has to be made: accommodate this sizable chunk or run them off. we have seen the backlash for things like the revised pariah system and the outcast tag. i believe those mechanics were put in place BECAUSE there wasn't enough conflict, not to stifle it. i know that this may contradict the recent crackdown on pvp, but I believe that that was a crackdown on pvp, not on conflict in general.
i generally agree with irongron's assertion that the surface is very "second life". i say this as one of the surface's more recent agents of conflict. i was met with extreme hostility ooc that i won't get into here. on the whole, it was very discouraging.
that being said, i generated that conflict with the tools at my disposal, and I believe that if I can do it, then so can anybody else. the server itself, its mechanics, and the staff are not against conflict (if i may be so bold as to speak for them, correct me if i am wrong). it's the aforementioned "sizable chunk" that is. this isn't a problem with the server. it's a "problem" with your fellow RPer. be the change you want to see. don't wait for the server to accommodate you.
Intelligence is too important
Re: Rethinking Conflict
I think one of the issues that a lot of "anti-conflict" players have isn't aversion to conflict itself, but rather, aversion to extremely PvP-centric conflict that if often intended by the word "conflict". I've very frequently, especially in recent weeks, seen "conflict" that essentially boiled down to, at most, a handful of lines of dialog, followed immediately by PvP. Often not even a handful, but just one or two lines, almost always quite clearly, from my perspective, intended not to be genuine roleplay, but simply to tick the "RP before PvP" box and avoid getting in trouble.
This kind of "conflict" makes people unhappy because it isn't very engaging. There's no roleplay hook, there's no emotional involvement. All there is is a few seconds of dialogue followed by PvP that's interrupting whatever other RP was going on, and then, as fast as it started, it's over.
Similarly, I've very often seen player-run events like fairs, festivals, meetings, etc., that are going smoothly and people are having a good time, only for a few players to show up, start shouting, and then start PvP out of nowhere. This is frustrating for the same way, especially for the players who set it up. They went out of their way to carefully arrange some big player-run event, and suddenly because a few people showed up looking to create "conflict" (PvP) everyone left the event and it ended in chaos. Not because of some big dramatic turn of events that's going to lead to a story arc, but because someone's idea of "interesting conflict" is to disrupt ongoing RP by starting a fight.
This isn't bad in and of itself, but it really does become extremely tedious because nothing new is offered. Pirate A attacking in the middle of an event to stir the pot might seem fun to Pirate A, but to the event-goers, it doesn't look any different than when Pirate B did it, or Drow 1, or Banite IV. It's just another in a long line of characters that attack out of nowhere without much roleplay and don't offer any real kind of story hook beyond, "I'm evil and I like to kill things".
To me, that last part is one of the key problems I see continually with Arelith. This idea that "evil" means "chaotically trying to start fights all the time and killing things with no other goal than to kill things" seems to be extremely prevalent, and to entirely honest, just isn't very interesting or exciting. It might be fun for the player of the maniac psychopath, but it just isn't all that thrilling to anyone on the other side. All they see is an evil rampage and nothing else. Their ongoing RP is disrupted, and no one gets anything out of it except for, maybe, the player of the evil character who feels like they've created "conflict".
Worse still, it makes it harder for people who want to play really interesting villains, because they face such a heavy assumption that they're just going to start PvPing everything and disrupting events left and right to draw attention to their character and how evil they are. Playing an evil character is already much harder than playing a good one, and the more frustratingly one-dimensional evil characters there are frustrating and disrupting, the harder it will be for anyone to play an evil character and not be shunned and mistrusted.
I rambled here more than I meant to, but my point is this: Being evil and creating conflict means more than starting PvP and disrupting RP. When the only kind of "conflict" that many players see is barely-RPed PvP and unengaging disruption of ongoing RP, it's not surprise that they develop a dislike of conflict. They're never exposed to conflict that has anything to like about it.
This kind of "conflict" makes people unhappy because it isn't very engaging. There's no roleplay hook, there's no emotional involvement. All there is is a few seconds of dialogue followed by PvP that's interrupting whatever other RP was going on, and then, as fast as it started, it's over.
Similarly, I've very often seen player-run events like fairs, festivals, meetings, etc., that are going smoothly and people are having a good time, only for a few players to show up, start shouting, and then start PvP out of nowhere. This is frustrating for the same way, especially for the players who set it up. They went out of their way to carefully arrange some big player-run event, and suddenly because a few people showed up looking to create "conflict" (PvP) everyone left the event and it ended in chaos. Not because of some big dramatic turn of events that's going to lead to a story arc, but because someone's idea of "interesting conflict" is to disrupt ongoing RP by starting a fight.
This isn't bad in and of itself, but it really does become extremely tedious because nothing new is offered. Pirate A attacking in the middle of an event to stir the pot might seem fun to Pirate A, but to the event-goers, it doesn't look any different than when Pirate B did it, or Drow 1, or Banite IV. It's just another in a long line of characters that attack out of nowhere without much roleplay and don't offer any real kind of story hook beyond, "I'm evil and I like to kill things".
To me, that last part is one of the key problems I see continually with Arelith. This idea that "evil" means "chaotically trying to start fights all the time and killing things with no other goal than to kill things" seems to be extremely prevalent, and to entirely honest, just isn't very interesting or exciting. It might be fun for the player of the maniac psychopath, but it just isn't all that thrilling to anyone on the other side. All they see is an evil rampage and nothing else. Their ongoing RP is disrupted, and no one gets anything out of it except for, maybe, the player of the evil character who feels like they've created "conflict".
Worse still, it makes it harder for people who want to play really interesting villains, because they face such a heavy assumption that they're just going to start PvPing everything and disrupting events left and right to draw attention to their character and how evil they are. Playing an evil character is already much harder than playing a good one, and the more frustratingly one-dimensional evil characters there are frustrating and disrupting, the harder it will be for anyone to play an evil character and not be shunned and mistrusted.
I rambled here more than I meant to, but my point is this: Being evil and creating conflict means more than starting PvP and disrupting RP. When the only kind of "conflict" that many players see is barely-RPed PvP and unengaging disruption of ongoing RP, it's not surprise that they develop a dislike of conflict. They're never exposed to conflict that has anything to like about it.
Re: Rethinking Conflict
That's why i play neutral... none of the detriments of the other alignments and all of the fun.
Re: Rethinking Conflict
I have a hard time believing that the prevalence of PvP is why people dislike conflict. People play role-playing games for a lot of reasons, but at the core of the Arelith experience has been one of adventure, exploration and conflict.
I am in agreement with Seven that I am frequently disheartened by the social roleplay that often dominates the surface. When players start to generalize every villain as "Banite IV, Pirate #2, Thief #5" they miss an opportunity to create roleplay that could enrich both characters.
I often see commentors on posts like this place the onus of responsibility on the aggressor, but my experience has shown me the onus is also equally placed on the aggressee. Imagine when aggressors arrive to a party or event, the players reacted in a manner that bespoke of that higher level of risk? Your peaceful handfasting celebration has turned suddenly into a hostile situation. How would your character react? More often than not I see players shut down, and become hardened. If you want good conflict, the responsibility is on both parties.
Now, not all conflict is equal. Some players aren't always genuine in seeking a collaborative story telling encounter, but even bad conflict can be used by an expert roleplayer. If your response to encounter is "Oh not again", I'd challenge you to find something in that event that you can work with. To disregard it as a whole is lazy and disingenuous to our role-playing environment.
To that end, I think it would benefit the environment if there were resources that could be gained through a variety of conflicts. The courier quests were a good start, but something like escorting trade goods, competing for control of NPC factions, or generally improving the mini-game of spawn control.
I am in agreement with Seven that I am frequently disheartened by the social roleplay that often dominates the surface. When players start to generalize every villain as "Banite IV, Pirate #2, Thief #5" they miss an opportunity to create roleplay that could enrich both characters.
I often see commentors on posts like this place the onus of responsibility on the aggressor, but my experience has shown me the onus is also equally placed on the aggressee. Imagine when aggressors arrive to a party or event, the players reacted in a manner that bespoke of that higher level of risk? Your peaceful handfasting celebration has turned suddenly into a hostile situation. How would your character react? More often than not I see players shut down, and become hardened. If you want good conflict, the responsibility is on both parties.
Now, not all conflict is equal. Some players aren't always genuine in seeking a collaborative story telling encounter, but even bad conflict can be used by an expert roleplayer. If your response to encounter is "Oh not again", I'd challenge you to find something in that event that you can work with. To disregard it as a whole is lazy and disingenuous to our role-playing environment.
To that end, I think it would benefit the environment if there were resources that could be gained through a variety of conflicts. The courier quests were a good start, but something like escorting trade goods, competing for control of NPC factions, or generally improving the mini-game of spawn control.
Last edited by Ork on Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Rethinking Conflict
I wish there were more methods of conflict that didn't involve initiative being rolled. Things where PvP was a single method to initiate conflict over something else, but at the same time the death actually meant something in the larger conflict. Likewise the conflict could be resolved without PvP.
Personally settlement politics and governance isn't of interest to me but that's an imperfect example with elections, exiles, and assassinations.
Personally settlement politics and governance isn't of interest to me but that's an imperfect example with elections, exiles, and assassinations.
-
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:12 am
Re: Rethinking Conflict
I enjoyed the conflict RP that happened with Clea as Coronal. I enjoyed being able to ruffle feathers and be aggressive as a settlement leader. That didn't mean PVP often. I think a lot of that gets shut down though. Things get dicey and people strive to shut down conflict as if conflict is bad.
OOC I disliked it when people would say IC like "Why did you do X, you could of just had a 1 on. 1 meeting and avoided making it Into a large event. I felt like that was the entire point of being a settlement leader. To have a sense of grandeur or promote activity that led to larger more involved events roping in as many people as possible.
And if not grandeur then to atleast persue options that were impactful. To allow a character to be guided by arrogance, sometimes hatred. Other times greed or nationalism pride, ego, etc etc. Not all shining good qualities.
But any demeanor that is not neutral or pristinely perfect gets you branded as insane.
If you dare show any faults or strive for something other then neutrality that is bad. I think that chokes out a lot of potential.
I feel like anything that threatens stability of the as Irongron called it 2nd life get shut down promptly. Then once the conflict is sufficiently snuffed out people get bored.
Another issue is staleness. Nothing progresses. Characters don't let actions effect them and just hermit up.
And last, OOC dislike.I've seen a lot of quips in discords that in my opinion show OOC bias and judgement towards others. It's not bad to be frustrated about RP sometimes and sometimes people get upset and say things. But it's like after that, allowing OOC discontent to color RP. There are players I don't agree with at times so I've been there and am not perfect.
That all leads back to the same concept everything else does. You can only strive to the the best RPer you can be personally and RP as a good example.
I think conversations like this thread are important to allow for new thoughts to be shared. I want to clarify that I don't post anything as an absolute? Just my perception of things.
OOC I disliked it when people would say IC like "Why did you do X, you could of just had a 1 on. 1 meeting and avoided making it Into a large event. I felt like that was the entire point of being a settlement leader. To have a sense of grandeur or promote activity that led to larger more involved events roping in as many people as possible.
And if not grandeur then to atleast persue options that were impactful. To allow a character to be guided by arrogance, sometimes hatred. Other times greed or nationalism pride, ego, etc etc. Not all shining good qualities.
But any demeanor that is not neutral or pristinely perfect gets you branded as insane.
If you dare show any faults or strive for something other then neutrality that is bad. I think that chokes out a lot of potential.
I feel like anything that threatens stability of the as Irongron called it 2nd life get shut down promptly. Then once the conflict is sufficiently snuffed out people get bored.
Another issue is staleness. Nothing progresses. Characters don't let actions effect them and just hermit up.
And last, OOC dislike.I've seen a lot of quips in discords that in my opinion show OOC bias and judgement towards others. It's not bad to be frustrated about RP sometimes and sometimes people get upset and say things. But it's like after that, allowing OOC discontent to color RP. There are players I don't agree with at times so I've been there and am not perfect.
That all leads back to the same concept everything else does. You can only strive to the the best RPer you can be personally and RP as a good example.
I think conversations like this thread are important to allow for new thoughts to be shared. I want to clarify that I don't post anything as an absolute? Just my perception of things.
I am not on a team.
I do not win, I do not lose.
I tell a story, and when I'm lucky,
Play a part in the story you tell too.
I do not win, I do not lose.
I tell a story, and when I'm lucky,
Play a part in the story you tell too.
Re: Rethinking Conflict
This has been the case on the surface for as long as I've been playing here since the banite wars of 2012.
If the surface can outright ignore an evil PC, they will in hopes you'll get bored and go away.
If your PC is actively doing things and they can't ignore you, they'll try to run you off in hopes your PC will bother some other settlement. (Remember the dark agencies act?)
If your PC continues to be an issue, they'll muster the 30s from multiple settlements and attempt to drive you into the UD.
If that doesn't work, they'll try to get you banned.
At every step, they'll dust their hands off and go back to ignoring you unless your PC won't let them, because OOCly, they don't want to bother with conflict RP. You see this in how the surface almost never actually wars with itself; The settlements are almost always warring with an always rotating cast of banites, or underdarkers, or pirates, but only once in a very blue moon do you ever see surface settlements actually go to war with eachother(unless the banites take over a settlement). Conversely, they're very, very often allied, because allies don't fight. The surface is a million times more interested in having riddle day in the nomad, handfast feasts in bendir, drinking contests in brog, and the ever joked about myon elf sexy elven fun times, than it is in engaging in conflict.
Now before people get defensive, this isn't the entire surface, but its a large enough chunk that even though the UD and surface are not their own servers anymore, it still very much feels culturally that they are.
I main the UD; I have for seven years because I am bored numb with surface RP if I'm playing a good or neutral PC, and if I play an evil PC, I can't reach level 10 without getting ganked unless my PC is undercover and pretending to be neutral or good, which almost entirely defeats the purpose. With rare exception, the surface has never presented itself as willing to do more than exchange in PvP unless that exchange is helping to free slaves with a hidden agent. They are content to ignore just about everything evil going on unless that evil is imposed upon them, usually in the form of raids and kidnappings.
And you see them complain about this regularly.
There are players that are interested in conflict, but they don't tend to be the ones running things. And if they ARE the ones running things, they won't be for long, because people equate conflict == bad, and the next settlement election the second lifers'll vote for the one that promises peace and normalcy.
The UD's population has exploded in recent years, because the people who really enjoy conflict in their RP? They're rolling UD races, often outcasts. Or their PCs are being pushed into the UD now that wharftown is gone and there is no safe bastion for evil. Or they're rolling pirates.
The surface is too peaceful, and it is enforced to remain such via apathy, a resistance to conflict as a concept, PvP, and shifting demographics as the conflict oriented players have slowly but steadily rebased elsewhere. Give it a cataclysm or a large scale invasion by an NPC faction to light a fire under its Snuggybear, and galvanize it to actually disrupt the surface pax of guardian cliques with something they can't bring to a screeching halt with 10 lvl 30 PCs.
This is a culture problem, and its not something that the players are going to fix themselves. The disparity will only get worse over time, as it has been.
Plays: Durvayas(deleted), Marco(deleted), Hounynrae(NPC), Sinithra Auvry'ndal(rolled), Rauvlin Barrith(Active), Madeline Clavelle(Shelved)
-
- Arelith Gold Supporter
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:03 pm
Re: Rethinking Conflict
I can see it both ways.
As a player, conflict is fun. In contrast, my character does NOT want conflict. Unfortunately, the word is usually used to denote "PVP combat" instead of actual conflict with a back-and-forth. In fact, my view is that Arelith's death-is-meaningless is why so many people resort so quickly to the lowest common denominator. On the other hand, if death was more mechanically meaningful, that would just give more ammo for ruining other people's experience.
Full-RP conflict is great. I love talking, bluffing, and uncovering threats. In my experience, this happens mostly when forces are evenly matched or meeting in a location where PVP is discouraged.
Minimal-RP is boring and borders on griefing behavior. Group A says a few lines and smashes Group B. In my experience, this happens mostly when one group has overwhelming superiority. Even worse is when Group A has one speaker with a bunch of nearby invisible friends that jump out when he says go. Ambush RP. Yay?
As a surfacer, maybe I don't understand what goes on in the underdark. I would love to hear more about it. What makes the conflict in the underdark so much better?
As a player, conflict is fun. In contrast, my character does NOT want conflict. Unfortunately, the word is usually used to denote "PVP combat" instead of actual conflict with a back-and-forth. In fact, my view is that Arelith's death-is-meaningless is why so many people resort so quickly to the lowest common denominator. On the other hand, if death was more mechanically meaningful, that would just give more ammo for ruining other people's experience.
Full-RP conflict is great. I love talking, bluffing, and uncovering threats. In my experience, this happens mostly when forces are evenly matched or meeting in a location where PVP is discouraged.
Minimal-RP is boring and borders on griefing behavior. Group A says a few lines and smashes Group B. In my experience, this happens mostly when one group has overwhelming superiority. Even worse is when Group A has one speaker with a bunch of nearby invisible friends that jump out when he says go. Ambush RP. Yay?
As a surfacer, maybe I don't understand what goes on in the underdark. I would love to hear more about it. What makes the conflict in the underdark so much better?
Played: Peruruo Longbean, Spring Cobb, Purple (disguised), Ke Rilyn'ervs, Tern Cooper
Playing: Az'alva Sh'yalva
Re: Rethinking Conflict
ive played both sides.
but conflict doesnt have to start with pvp.
people have forgotten the old rules to what makes a story.
you have your hooks, your red herrings, your progression, the small reveal, more progression, a small conflict or setback, more progression, and finally the big reveal.
what I see lately is a post, then constant conflict, then boring reveal.
What could take months of playing boils down to days from the first set to the recent. Everyone is so set on this is what we do, this is when we do it, this is when we try to blow things up
now the first time the short version is done, sure its exciting. but as posted above, its become a wash rinse repeat, over and over, until its gotten to where it is.
because everyone is level 20 now in a week maybe two, ( and i love the writs dont get me wrong) characters dont truly grow until they are at epics. leveling is so fast now at least on the surface, its liek a turning record for the wash rinse repeat.
and because everyone is just doing writs and leveling, they dont have time to follow the listed long story, that could take months to plant and develop and grow.
I for one dont mind conflict as long as it has reason. gathering a group of players on discord to just act like twits attacking everything you see, isnt a good reason, and that has happened recently.
However conflict can be something other than starting a fight.
want to shake things up, give us the hooks, Dms will help, hell they even have some unfinished ones im sure they will love help taking from hook to early progression
let go the wash rinse repeat, im evil pirate, banite whatever and actually create the entire story, something that will pull focus from gotta level, gotta do this writ attitude.
ive mentioned before, the best evil, isnt the slap your face big bad spikes and horns. its the subtle underlying, cannot even fathom that the little girl with pigtails is a psychotic serial killer, that takes months in game to prove and put an end to.
those are also the best stories with both conflict and pvp for its resolution.
but conflict doesnt have to start with pvp.
people have forgotten the old rules to what makes a story.
you have your hooks, your red herrings, your progression, the small reveal, more progression, a small conflict or setback, more progression, and finally the big reveal.
what I see lately is a post, then constant conflict, then boring reveal.
What could take months of playing boils down to days from the first set to the recent. Everyone is so set on this is what we do, this is when we do it, this is when we try to blow things up
now the first time the short version is done, sure its exciting. but as posted above, its become a wash rinse repeat, over and over, until its gotten to where it is.
because everyone is level 20 now in a week maybe two, ( and i love the writs dont get me wrong) characters dont truly grow until they are at epics. leveling is so fast now at least on the surface, its liek a turning record for the wash rinse repeat.
and because everyone is just doing writs and leveling, they dont have time to follow the listed long story, that could take months to plant and develop and grow.
I for one dont mind conflict as long as it has reason. gathering a group of players on discord to just act like twits attacking everything you see, isnt a good reason, and that has happened recently.
However conflict can be something other than starting a fight.
want to shake things up, give us the hooks, Dms will help, hell they even have some unfinished ones im sure they will love help taking from hook to early progression
let go the wash rinse repeat, im evil pirate, banite whatever and actually create the entire story, something that will pull focus from gotta level, gotta do this writ attitude.
ive mentioned before, the best evil, isnt the slap your face big bad spikes and horns. its the subtle underlying, cannot even fathom that the little girl with pigtails is a psychotic serial killer, that takes months in game to prove and put an end to.
those are also the best stories with both conflict and pvp for its resolution.
Yes I can sign
Re: Rethinking Conflict
Personaly i rather do it all in once.Ebonstar wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 1:39 pmive played both sides.
but conflict doesnt have to start with pvp.
people have forgotten the old rules to what makes a story.
you have your hooks, your red herrings, your progression, the small reveal, more progression, a small conflict or setback, more progression, and finally the big reveal.
what I see lately is a post, then constant conflict, then boring reveal.
What could take months of playing boils down to days from the first set to the recent. Everyone is so set on this is what we do, this is when we do it, this is when we try to blow things up
now the first time the short version is done, sure its exciting. but as posted above, its become a wash rinse repeat, over and over, until its gotten to where it is.
because everyone is level 20 now in a week maybe two, ( and i love the writs dont get me wrong) characters dont truly grow until they are at epics. leveling is so fast now at least on the surface, its liek a turning record for the wash rinse repeat.
and because everyone is just doing writs and leveling, they dont have time to follow the listed long story, that could take months to plant and develop and grow.
I for one dont mind conflict as long as it has reason. gathering a group of players on discord to just act like twits attacking everything you see, isnt a good reason, and that has happened recently.
However conflict can be something other than starting a fight.
want to shake things up, give us the hooks, Dms will help, hell they even have some unfinished ones im sure they will love help taking from hook to early progression
let go the wash rinse repeat, im evil pirate, banite whatever and actually create the entire story, something that will pull focus from gotta level, gotta do this writ attitude.
ive mentioned before, the best evil, isnt the slap your face big bad spikes and horns. its the subtle underlying, cannot even fathom that the little girl with pigtails is a psychotic serial killer, that takes months in game to prove and put an end to.
those are also the best stories with both conflict and pvp for its resolution.
Make a toon with a small back story on how and why he is now a pirate or what ever.
Give him a few short term goals that are not that hard.
Give him some things he likes to do on a day to day. (that falls in line with his back story)
Then give him a long term goal that he wil probebly never compleet or even start on.
And play the toon and try to stay true to it as rp unfolds around him.
The thing is that mutch of it often gows under the radar as intended as its just not possible for our fellow players to see every thing our toons do nor do our fellow players often know why our toons do sutch things.
And then its rather easy to say the things posted by sir Ebonstar.
Re: Rethinking Conflict
UD conflict has a set beginning, struggle, and resolution. We have nowhere to go, so we try to find solutions to the conflict so that there is clear development and closure to it because we have to keep sharing the settlement with those we were in conflict with. This leads us to try and find a satisfying outcome to both parties, whereas on the surface, a lot of conflict goes unresolved entirely, because one side doesn't tend to be interested in a resolution, they just want the other side to piss off elsewhere or disappear so they can go back to being social, their PC completely unaffected by the event. It leads to stagnation and frustration.Skald Haldi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:51 pm
As a surfacer, maybe I don't understand what goes on in the underdark. I would love to hear more about it. What makes the conflict in the underdark so much better?
People on the surface seem to despise change, in any degree. Anything that might affect their character, they'll fight against, as royal blood mentioned, but... change is the essence of RP. Characters grow, they adapt, they improvise, they develop. They can become inspired or traumatized by IG events. I see this happen a lot more in the UD than I do on the surface.
You see this militant apathy and resistance to any kind of change on the surface when someone gets enslaved. They choose to let their PC get affected by a bad encounter, and half the time, the PCs that were their 'friends' leave them to rot, and those players(not the slave's player, the other ones) get angry OOCly, because how dare their PC be made to make a choice and feel something; How dare they get the story hook of the call to action! They miss the point. If they can't rescue that PC that very day by storming Andunor, the don't want to be involved. If the plot challenges their status quo, they will often just cut that PC out entirely so that the status quo remains intact, sans one member. They'll be angry down the line when that PC comes back with "I've become evil because my friends abandoned me like monsters" RP too, because that friend will be a villain now. One of their own making through their apathy.
So for me, the difference is in RP quality. In the UD, we're willing to adapt to shifting situations and change. We don't run, we don't try to drive the plot away, we roll with it. We try to play along, and see where things lead.
Plays: Durvayas(deleted), Marco(deleted), Hounynrae(NPC), Sinithra Auvry'ndal(rolled), Rauvlin Barrith(Active), Madeline Clavelle(Shelved)
-
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:43 pm
Re: Rethinking Conflict
Please stop posting how the UD does it better from an rp stand point. It becomes insulting after reading it for the 20th time. We do get it. People in the UD think the surface does it wrong from your point of view. Just because the majority of styles do not match does not mean it is wrong or someones is better. There are different areas, settlements, classes, types because every single person is different. Saying someones differences from yours is wrong is not the way to go nor is it constructive in the slightest.
Re: Rethinking Conflict
Frankly, sick of PvP orientated conflict. It isn't very engaging and doesn't really go anywhere. I'd like to see far less of it. It's too common.
Funny how conflict never seems to arise until an entire discord group of people are level 30 and geared. Annoying that conflict boils down to just which side can get the most powerbuilds online to regularly corpse bash the other side or use OOC means to get the most friends to vote for them. That isn't my idea of RP conflict. It's just an arena server with some light RP and griefing sprinkled in.
Don't know what surface server you folks are talking about to call it second-life, because it's a constant flow of conflict with pirate, drow, <insert whatever bad guy> attacks multiple times a day for the past few years. That's the real reason evil is ignored on the surface. My character can't respond to every instance of this because they would just be inundated. It's not frightening or surprising, it's just another day, another drow or whatever. Yawn. Give it a rest. Can we do something else for a change?
Conflict that actually involves RP? Yeah. That's cool. If there's a plot. A story. A reason.
Conflict that just involves PvP/getting all your buddies to vote for your side. No. Seriously? Can you GTFO? That happens literally all day every day. I have more of a mind to report this behaviour than to consider it 'RP' and 'conflict'.
And when you fight back in the same way, what happens? Nothing. Nothing happens. If I have a character that's killed all the drow, killed all the pirates, killed all the whatevers, (the same methods of 'conflict' they've shown my character), it's just ignored as unsatisfying as when they did it to someone else in the first place. Nothing changes at all. Been there. Done that.
If your idea of conflict is to stop other people from roleplaying and having fun, then I don't know ... man ... one of us is on the wrong server and I hope it isn't me. Might be. Seems to be a common piece of advice on the forums, that 'you're on the wrong server'. That's not my idea of conflict. It's shallow, meaningless and doesn't really lead anywhere.
The conflict is too constant, and because of that, people are just numb to it, sick of it, bored of it. Not impressed. Not engaged. Another day another meaningless PvP encounter.
Would like to see more perma-death being enforced. Oh. Your evil character tried to take over a surface settlement and failed? They were executed publicly. Delete them now and accept defeat like a villain should. Your good character went on a crusade to the underdark and failed? Enslaved, tortured and sacrificed. Delete them now. A heroic end.
Conflict can only be satisfying when it is resolved. Endless conflict is just an annoyance and a frustration I would rather do without. It is like having an itch you can't scratch or forever being cursed to be on the verge of sneezing. Resolution MUST come.
Evil, in my personal experience, just isn't very willing to be defeated no matter what. People just want to keep being the evil scary bad guy, indefinitely. Yo. That's why we have monsters in the game. There's already bad guys. Letting players be the villains at all is a generous decision. Let's take a moment to reflect on that and do it properly. Obviously, the reverse of this for places where evil is the norm, like the Underdark. Good guys should be the ones accepting defeat (a return to the norm) there.
Didn't mean to single any particular people out. Honestly just using vague examples from past experiences. None of these reflect on any characters currently playing. If you think I'm talking about your character, I'm not. I would have already said something to you directly if that were the case.
Just to add:
1: I do not use discord or anything for the very reason that I believe it can often lead to unintentional meta-gaming and poor RP etiquette. It's a useful tool when used correctly, but I'd rather remove myself from it entirely and that's my personal decision.
2: My current most active character has defeated an obscene amount of her enemies and has seen little to no change come about because of it, but has been defeated twice herself and both times the defeat drastically altered the character. So, the example of UDers being better at accepting change may go both ways, because from my perspective I have the same criticisms.
Funny how conflict never seems to arise until an entire discord group of people are level 30 and geared. Annoying that conflict boils down to just which side can get the most powerbuilds online to regularly corpse bash the other side or use OOC means to get the most friends to vote for them. That isn't my idea of RP conflict. It's just an arena server with some light RP and griefing sprinkled in.
Don't know what surface server you folks are talking about to call it second-life, because it's a constant flow of conflict with pirate, drow, <insert whatever bad guy> attacks multiple times a day for the past few years. That's the real reason evil is ignored on the surface. My character can't respond to every instance of this because they would just be inundated. It's not frightening or surprising, it's just another day, another drow or whatever. Yawn. Give it a rest. Can we do something else for a change?
Conflict that actually involves RP? Yeah. That's cool. If there's a plot. A story. A reason.
Conflict that just involves PvP/getting all your buddies to vote for your side. No. Seriously? Can you GTFO? That happens literally all day every day. I have more of a mind to report this behaviour than to consider it 'RP' and 'conflict'.
And when you fight back in the same way, what happens? Nothing. Nothing happens. If I have a character that's killed all the drow, killed all the pirates, killed all the whatevers, (the same methods of 'conflict' they've shown my character), it's just ignored as unsatisfying as when they did it to someone else in the first place. Nothing changes at all. Been there. Done that.
If your idea of conflict is to stop other people from roleplaying and having fun, then I don't know ... man ... one of us is on the wrong server and I hope it isn't me. Might be. Seems to be a common piece of advice on the forums, that 'you're on the wrong server'. That's not my idea of conflict. It's shallow, meaningless and doesn't really lead anywhere.
The conflict is too constant, and because of that, people are just numb to it, sick of it, bored of it. Not impressed. Not engaged. Another day another meaningless PvP encounter.
Would like to see more perma-death being enforced. Oh. Your evil character tried to take over a surface settlement and failed? They were executed publicly. Delete them now and accept defeat like a villain should. Your good character went on a crusade to the underdark and failed? Enslaved, tortured and sacrificed. Delete them now. A heroic end.
Conflict can only be satisfying when it is resolved. Endless conflict is just an annoyance and a frustration I would rather do without. It is like having an itch you can't scratch or forever being cursed to be on the verge of sneezing. Resolution MUST come.
Evil, in my personal experience, just isn't very willing to be defeated no matter what. People just want to keep being the evil scary bad guy, indefinitely. Yo. That's why we have monsters in the game. There's already bad guys. Letting players be the villains at all is a generous decision. Let's take a moment to reflect on that and do it properly. Obviously, the reverse of this for places where evil is the norm, like the Underdark. Good guys should be the ones accepting defeat (a return to the norm) there.
Didn't mean to single any particular people out. Honestly just using vague examples from past experiences. None of these reflect on any characters currently playing. If you think I'm talking about your character, I'm not. I would have already said something to you directly if that were the case.
Just to add:
1: I do not use discord or anything for the very reason that I believe it can often lead to unintentional meta-gaming and poor RP etiquette. It's a useful tool when used correctly, but I'd rather remove myself from it entirely and that's my personal decision.
2: My current most active character has defeated an obscene amount of her enemies and has seen little to no change come about because of it, but has been defeated twice herself and both times the defeat drastically altered the character. So, the example of UDers being better at accepting change may go both ways, because from my perspective I have the same criticisms.
Last edited by Hazard on Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.
-
- Arelith Silver Supporter
- Posts: 1636
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 8:43 pm
Re: Rethinking Conflict
That is not at all how I read Durvayas's post. I read through the thread patiently as I pondered how I as a player of both good and evil surface characters can make the Surface a better and more immersive place to be.Bibliophile wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:21 pmPlease stop posting how the UD does it better from an rp stand point. It becomes insulting after reading it for the 20th time. We do get it. People in the UD think the surface does it wrong from your point of view. Just because the majority of styles do not match does not mean it is wrong or someones is better. There are different areas, settlements, classes, types because every single person is different. Saying someones differences from yours is wrong is not the way to go nor is it constructive in the slightest.
I'm not sure why you took offense to the post, but I personally, as an aspiring role player who wants to improve, found it constructive.
Re: Rethinking Conflict
I'd just like to clarify that as both a surface and UD player that in the end, we're all Arelith players and the behavior Durvayas notes concerning the surface is not exclusive to that environment. The UD has players that do this too.
He knows the UD environment so those are the examples he is going to use.
However, there is something wrong here. There's no beating around the bush by saying there is a difference of playstyles. There are clearly superior playstyles compared to others. Maybe I got it wrong, but for my entire time in Arelith the server promotes its population away from strictly social roleplay. I think that's for the best. There are other avenues for social roleplay - second life for example.
He knows the UD environment so those are the examples he is going to use.
However, there is something wrong here. There's no beating around the bush by saying there is a difference of playstyles. There are clearly superior playstyles compared to others. Maybe I got it wrong, but for my entire time in Arelith the server promotes its population away from strictly social roleplay. I think that's for the best. There are other avenues for social roleplay - second life for example.
Re: Rethinking Conflict
Thank you Evelyn. My post was not meant to be detractive. It was an honest critique about the culture of the other half of the server, and how it could improve from the perspective of someone who mains the UD. Ork has the right of the thrust. I know the UD, so those are the examples I'm going to use.MissEvelyn wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:42 pmThat is not at all how I read Durvayas's post. I read through the thread patiently as I pondered how I as a player of both good and evil surface characters can make the Surface a better and more immersive place to be.Bibliophile wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:21 pmPlease stop posting how the UD does it better from an rp stand point. It becomes insulting after reading it for the 20th time. We do get it. People in the UD think the surface does it wrong from your point of view. Just because the majority of styles do not match does not mean it is wrong or someones is better. There are different areas, settlements, classes, types because every single person is different. Saying someones differences from yours is wrong is not the way to go nor is it constructive in the slightest.
I'm not sure why you took offense to the post, but I personally, as an aspiring role player who wants to improve, found it constructive.
Hazard actually supports a lot of my points, albeit almost surely on accident. The surface attitude regarding conflict is dismissive. It shouldn't be. His/her post shows a remarkable lack of faith in the people who attempt to start conflict RP on both sides, bordering on outright distain.
Hazard, have you considered the reason that people try to instigate conflict so often, and often through PvP, is because they get ignored so very often if they attempt to do so any other way?
Would anyone really give a shit about the banites if they weren't trying to expand their influence and territory by force?
Would anyone really care about the pirates if they weren't doing exactly what they're meant to and raiding shipping?
No. The people on the surface who don't like conflict care, because the conflict is coming to them, and they are no longer able to blanket exile it away and out of sight.
Plays: Durvayas(deleted), Marco(deleted), Hounynrae(NPC), Sinithra Auvry'ndal(rolled), Rauvlin Barrith(Active), Madeline Clavelle(Shelved)
Re: Rethinking Conflict
In works of narrative, conflict is the challenge main characters need to solve to achieve their goals.
Players who gravitate to social rp gravitate to personal conflict. That might mean a character going through a crisis of faith coming to the isle to find a god he can truly believe in. An introverted, anxious character coming to the isle to learn how to interact with others. A character haunted by an academic question coming to the isle to research an unsolvable problem.
The idea that conflict is WAR and the surface is plagued by obsolete rpers who don't WAR discounts the value of personal and social conflict.
Maybe what I'm trying to say is "I don't think we should expect the developers to give us tools before we've proven we're going to use them properly."
There absolutely are playstyles that contribute to the intended atmosphere of the server more than others. That's reflected in RPR. Perhaps some playstyles don't need to be encouraged, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't belong on the server.
People keep quoting that 'second life' thing irongron said. Somehow they're forgetting the he also said:
Players who gravitate to social rp gravitate to personal conflict. That might mean a character going through a crisis of faith coming to the isle to find a god he can truly believe in. An introverted, anxious character coming to the isle to learn how to interact with others. A character haunted by an academic question coming to the isle to research an unsolvable problem.
The idea that conflict is WAR and the surface is plagued by obsolete rpers who don't WAR discounts the value of personal and social conflict.
Argh. I don't quite know how to articulate this thought so bear with me if it sounds non-sequitur: I'd rather see Arelith's mechanics respond to rp than dictate it. Inspiring and creative rp should be encouraged with more tools to expand on it. On the flipside, player behavior working against the vision of the server should be mechanically disincentivized.Seven Sons of Sin wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:28 am
And you can say yadda yadda roleplay roleplay, but if that was the case we’d still be back in the days where exiling someone meant PC guards PvPing declared criminals all day.
Are there other mechanics, devices, or tools that are pre-existing or need to be considered to keep pushing the envelope of conflict roleplay forward? Is this solely the responsibility of roleplayers or should we have more -tools? How do we overall create a better environment?
Maybe what I'm trying to say is "I don't think we should expect the developers to give us tools before we've proven we're going to use them properly."
Arelith also promotes its population away from strictly no-rp rungrinding. That doesn't mean there should be a mechanical limit on how many orcs a player is allowed to kill before other PCs drag you to the district house for your mandatory politics. Likewise, I don't think players in the middle of an exciting philosophical debate should be forced to go pvp a band of pirates if that's just something that would bore them.Ork wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:44 pmHowever, there is something wrong here. There's no beating around the bush by saying there is a difference of playstyles. There are clearly superior playstyles compared to others. Maybe I got it wrong, but for my entire time in Arelith the server promotes its population away from strictly social roleplay. I think that's for the best. There are other avenues for social roleplay - second life for example.
There absolutely are playstyles that contribute to the intended atmosphere of the server more than others. That's reflected in RPR. Perhaps some playstyles don't need to be encouraged, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't belong on the server.
People keep quoting that 'second life' thing irongron said. Somehow they're forgetting the he also said:
There is no objective answer as to which location is better, as with a lot of Arelith, different aspects of it appeal to different players. I wouldn't want to be without the Underdark (which we very nearly were), but then I also wouldn't want the rest of the server to follow its example.
Re: Rethinking Conflict
I think people who are too conserned over the mechanics such as pariah, pirate, exile, pvp etc. May be taking the game too seriously.
All of these are wonderful toys to play with to augment roleplay. But the source of roleplay should always come from one's own creativity.
Also creating a compelling story is generally easier if you give other players the benefit of the doubt.
All of these are wonderful toys to play with to augment roleplay. But the source of roleplay should always come from one's own creativity.
Also creating a compelling story is generally easier if you give other players the benefit of the doubt.
Re: Rethinking Conflict
I've considered it and I haven't come to the same conclusions as you. I stand by what I said.Durvayas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:16 pmThank you Evelyn. My post was not meant to be detractive. It was an honest critique about the culture of the other half of the server, and how it could improve from the perspective of someone who mains the UD. Ork has the right of the thrust. I know the UD, so those are the examples I'm going to use.MissEvelyn wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:42 pmThat is not at all how I read Durvayas's post. I read through the thread patiently as I pondered how I as a player of both good and evil surface characters can make the Surface a better and more immersive place to be.Bibliophile wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:21 pmPlease stop posting how the UD does it better from an rp stand point. It becomes insulting after reading it for the 20th time. We do get it. People in the UD think the surface does it wrong from your point of view. Just because the majority of styles do not match does not mean it is wrong or someones is better. There are different areas, settlements, classes, types because every single person is different. Saying someones differences from yours is wrong is not the way to go nor is it constructive in the slightest.
I'm not sure why you took offense to the post, but I personally, as an aspiring role player who wants to improve, found it constructive.
Hazard actually supports a lot of my points, albeit almost surely on accident. The surface attitude regarding conflict is dismissive. It shouldn't be. His/her post shows a remarkable lack of faith in the people who attempt to start conflict RP on both sides, bordering on outright distain.
Hazard, have you considered the reason that people try to instigate conflict so often, and often through PvP, is because they get ignored so very often if they attempt to do so any other way?
Would anyone really give a shit about the banites if they weren't trying to expand their influence and territory by force?
Would anyone really care about the pirates if they weren't doing exactly what they're meant to and raiding shipping?
No. The people on the surface who don't like conflict care, because the conflict is coming to them, and they are no longer able to blanket exile it away and out of sight.
Re: Rethinking Conflict
"Social" roleplay and rungrinding aren't on opposite poles of an axis. I am not championing rungrinding, but I am against isolation. A lot of non-conflict "social" roleplay is intrinsically exclusive. I think there's a definite problem. My disdain for social-roleplay is simply the roleplay that exists between a selective group that rarely includes others or actively subverts roleplay generating activities or individuals. How can anyone involve themselves with these groups?Berried wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:19 pmArelith also promotes its population away from strictly no-rp rungrinding. That doesn't mean there should be a mechanical limit on how many orcs a player is allowed to kill before other PCs drag you to the district house for your mandatory politics. Likewise, I don't think players in the middle of an exciting philosophical debate should be forced to go pvp a band of pirates if that's just something that would bore them.
There absolutely are playstyles that contribute to the intended atmosphere of the server more than others. That's reflected in RPR. Perhaps some playstyles don't need to be encouraged, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't belong on the server.
If you log on to spend time with your select friend-group at the cost of ignoring the rest of the setting, there are other avenues for that. In a similar vein, if you log on to circle grind for resources or xp at the cost of ignoring the rest of the setting, there are thousands of single-player RPGs out there. Additionally, if you log on to beat people in PvP solely for that entertainment value, there's thousands of compeditive PvP games out there. If you're here for collaborative story telling, boy howdy you're in the right place.
Re: Rethinking Conflict
I think what conflict lacks, is a finality.
As those who flare the server with conflict, I ask of you to take time to write your thoughts, and your purposes, on the long term with that conflict. The server is created in a place where death only occurs when someone rolls, and victories and defeats can continue endlessly. We can fight today, and tomorrow, and the next week, and the next month, and the next year, endlessly without making a single dent in anything but our own sanity.
What has a start needs to have an end, and that end needs to be in your mind. All the possibilities you can think of need to be there in your mind. How it will start, but also, how it may end. Like a tree, start from one idea and develop the various paths which the story could take depending on the actions others may take against you, have your victory in mind, but also your defeat, and how story will move on after you lose. Or what will occur afterwards. I highlight defeat, because many villains go with only one part of the plot. (I played once a warlock, and I fell in this same mindset.) "We'll do this, and when we win, we'll do this and that and it's going to be awesome."
But once they're hit with a defeat, they simply have nothing prepared, and in frustration, they respawn, or log, or just go on like that defeat has never occurred, and wait patiently to redo the same thing and hope it succeeds.
The current conflicts lacks a finality, a climax after which it ends, any conflict with no purpose but conflict itself will grow dull and tiring, and will annoy those that have to endure it on an OOC level, the moment our conflicts stop becoming "My character against your character, but me, the player, working with you, the other player, to make a story." and becomes "I'll bash that guy for the 100th time, that'll teach him." that's where things fail.
I am unsure of the UD or the Surface, but the two worlds are different, the settings on which each world relies on is different, I don't understand why people see the surface as "boring", because trust me, it isn't. It's simply closer to reality than the UD is. The UD is by nature hostile, you can just stand in the Hub and eventually, someone's going to punch you in the face for staring 6 seconds at a Matron's eyes rather than 4 seconds and 33 milliseconds like it is customary to do.
Such differences are normal and comparing the UD and the surface is like comparing earth and mars. Of course a place where everything is evil, and a place where there is much more "normal" people, are going to be driving different stories.
Before people judge too harshly on why the surface is "resisting" to change, it's because of what years of repetitive conflict has brought us, the standard procedure is. "We're going to raid X place, but why? Because that's how mafia works.", which in the end, as "Team good, or whatever other names we're given" , put you in front of a situation no different than dealing with NPCs that are slightly more dangerous and actually fight smart. In the end we're given a conflict, but no story that comes with it, nothing to build upon other than the "Did you guys win, or lose?" Winning provides nothing, and you lose nothing by losing, other than the slight bit of dignity that someone now has your head in their inventory, showing it to others and saying "I won."
To give purpose to your conflict is how you make it engaging and fun, when there is plots and objectives, a finality which team "evil" drives towards, and one which "Team good, elf huggers, whatever you call us." seek to stop, in that, conflict is born.
As an evil character, if you're getting ignored by everyone, I believe it is not the world that decided to cast you away because you're touching to their elven role play happy moments, but it's that you don't make encounters worth the time and effort.
It is why I have a deep respect for villains that try to forge a story, rather than enforce their vision of fun through repeating the same ploys day and night, and expect things to change, then blaming the world for not bending to their self centered mindset.
As those who flare the server with conflict, I ask of you to take time to write your thoughts, and your purposes, on the long term with that conflict. The server is created in a place where death only occurs when someone rolls, and victories and defeats can continue endlessly. We can fight today, and tomorrow, and the next week, and the next month, and the next year, endlessly without making a single dent in anything but our own sanity.
What has a start needs to have an end, and that end needs to be in your mind. All the possibilities you can think of need to be there in your mind. How it will start, but also, how it may end. Like a tree, start from one idea and develop the various paths which the story could take depending on the actions others may take against you, have your victory in mind, but also your defeat, and how story will move on after you lose. Or what will occur afterwards. I highlight defeat, because many villains go with only one part of the plot. (I played once a warlock, and I fell in this same mindset.) "We'll do this, and when we win, we'll do this and that and it's going to be awesome."
But once they're hit with a defeat, they simply have nothing prepared, and in frustration, they respawn, or log, or just go on like that defeat has never occurred, and wait patiently to redo the same thing and hope it succeeds.
The current conflicts lacks a finality, a climax after which it ends, any conflict with no purpose but conflict itself will grow dull and tiring, and will annoy those that have to endure it on an OOC level, the moment our conflicts stop becoming "My character against your character, but me, the player, working with you, the other player, to make a story." and becomes "I'll bash that guy for the 100th time, that'll teach him." that's where things fail.
I am unsure of the UD or the Surface, but the two worlds are different, the settings on which each world relies on is different, I don't understand why people see the surface as "boring", because trust me, it isn't. It's simply closer to reality than the UD is. The UD is by nature hostile, you can just stand in the Hub and eventually, someone's going to punch you in the face for staring 6 seconds at a Matron's eyes rather than 4 seconds and 33 milliseconds like it is customary to do.
Such differences are normal and comparing the UD and the surface is like comparing earth and mars. Of course a place where everything is evil, and a place where there is much more "normal" people, are going to be driving different stories.
Before people judge too harshly on why the surface is "resisting" to change, it's because of what years of repetitive conflict has brought us, the standard procedure is. "We're going to raid X place, but why? Because that's how mafia works.", which in the end, as "Team good, or whatever other names we're given" , put you in front of a situation no different than dealing with NPCs that are slightly more dangerous and actually fight smart. In the end we're given a conflict, but no story that comes with it, nothing to build upon other than the "Did you guys win, or lose?" Winning provides nothing, and you lose nothing by losing, other than the slight bit of dignity that someone now has your head in their inventory, showing it to others and saying "I won."
To give purpose to your conflict is how you make it engaging and fun, when there is plots and objectives, a finality which team "evil" drives towards, and one which "Team good, elf huggers, whatever you call us." seek to stop, in that, conflict is born.
As an evil character, if you're getting ignored by everyone, I believe it is not the world that decided to cast you away because you're touching to their elven role play happy moments, but it's that you don't make encounters worth the time and effort.
It is why I have a deep respect for villains that try to forge a story, rather than enforce their vision of fun through repeating the same ploys day and night, and expect things to change, then blaming the world for not bending to their self centered mindset.
Re: Rethinking Conflict
Popping in to give this entire post a thumbs-up. Sabutai's too. Pretty adequately sums up my perspective on it.Hazard wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:40 pm...
Conflict can only be satisfying when it is resolved. Endless conflict is just an annoyance and a frustration I would rather do without. It is like having an itch you can't scratch or forever being cursed to be on the verge of sneezing. Resolution MUST come.
...
There was a conversation where Durvayas expressed many similar points to the ones he has made in this thread, and many players on the Discord who were playing evil characters disagreed with him. There are plenty of evil characters on the surface who are thriving and not being actively driven out of settlements. Though I'm sure there are many who agree with Durvayas on his points as well.
I disagree, Seven. People are numb and fed up. On both sides of conflicts, it seems. This is why people either react explosively towards new fires they need to put out, or actively ignore/avoid the problem. They are not willing to endure the stress of it. You might say that they should put up with it, this is Arelith after all, but as Hazard said, it's like being itched for eternity and never adequately scratching it. It makes people worn out and angry.
There's a severe lack of resolution on the server. Nothing ever gets solved, death seems to be meaningless. The people who enjoy PvP are not going to stop just because they were killed. Why is it that the settlement citizens need to acknowledge that they were all brutally slaughtered in a fight and accept their new overlords, but whenever the raiders are fought off or slain, they just respawn and continue threatening people? The truth is, it's difficult to care about things like these, so they don't. The evils who win all of their PvP fights and are shunned by people just end up rolling. There's no compelling reason to interact with them because they are not affected by anything you do to them, and so you should not be affected by things they do to you.
I've noticed people seem to struggle with the concept of hostile RP that doesn't end in PvP. I can't be the only one who absolutely loves the stand-offs but hates the actual fighting. To me, hostile RP is literally just discomfort. If your character is uncomfortable being in a conversation with somebody, that is hostile RP. It can be fear, it can be loathing, it can be suspicion, or distrust. It can be outright hatred or disgust. It does not need to end in PvP. Hostile RP does not mean you cannot continue talking. If you see a drow, hostile RP. If you see a kobold, hostile RP. If you see a Banite, PvP immed- Kidding. Hostile RP.
Make up stupid stuff. I once had a character tell another character not to talk to the kobolds standing in front of them because their gaze can turn you into stone. It's utterly ridiculous, childish and stupid but it's fun and doesn't result in PvP. If you see a monster who is trying to be friendly, threaten to call the guards. You don't have to choose between killing or befriending them, there are more options.
CosmicOrderV wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 4:55 pmBe the change you want to see, and shape the server because of it. Players can absolutely help keep their fellow players accountable.
Re: Rethinking Conflict
And for the record, I'd like to completely remove myself from any notion of Underdark/Surface or Good/Evil roleplaying. I play both, I play everything. I don't belong to any clique of players, intentionally and at personal effort. Thanks.
I think you'll notice over the many years of me being here. Many many years. I don't talk to ANY of you outside the game, and outside of roleplay, apart from very tiny snippets of entirely inane in-game messages.
That's not because I don't like you. It's because I like you all, and I respect you all and I respect the RP environment we're trying to create, and my way of respecting that (and in turn being respected too) is to not contaminate it with OOC things.
-
- Posts: 759
- Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 5:51 am
Re: Rethinking Conflict
This ^Berried wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:19 pmIn works of narrative, conflict is the challenge main characters need to solve to achieve their goals.
Players who gravitate to social rp gravitate to personal conflict. That might mean a character going through a crisis of faith coming to the isle to find a god he can truly believe in. An introverted, anxious character coming to the isle to learn how to interact with others. A character haunted by an academic question coming to the isle to research an unsolvable problem.
The idea that conflict is WAR and the surface is plagued by obsolete rpers who don't WAR discounts the value of personal and social conflict.
Irongron also said
We're all playing the same server together and it behooves us to consider that other players have different styles of roleplay, enjoy different aspects and may not like your approach. This goes both for those that have a preference for personal narrative/conflict and those that have a preference for large scale narrative/conflict.Irongron wrote:As for the safety point, I can only say that for some players that's a positive boon. We cater to a lot of different play styles, not just from different individuals, but very often the very same one - taking another approach to playing the game at a different time.
If someone is left cold by raids/faction conflicts/settlement functions and just wants to run their guild/organisation in relative isolation - that's fine as far as I'm concerned. I've done, and greatly enjoyed both.
Being in the thick of the action can be exhilarating and a great way to play the game, but the more ponderous, and often more personal roleplay of what is commonly termed 'social server RP' can really involve some great storytelling and meaningful moments. There is a huge merit to both, and I believe they can, do, and should be able to exist side by side.
If you know the opposing side has a preference for personal narrative/conflict and you know that if you hop into their settlement and try to take it over with plenty of PVP and you know that they're going to get upset OOC by having their entire world pulled out from under them; then... Why do it just because it is fun for you and yours? (And for clarity, the previous isn't directed at any particular group or roleplay). Try meeting them with their style rather than banging your head off the wall trying to make them meet your style. (For equality sake, if you're quite fond of interpersonal conflict and your opposing side has a greater preference with PvP conflict then you're going to be equally bashing your head off the wall if you're trying to not get into any PvP)
Settlements, factions, groups; they tend to congregate based off of a similar roleplaying style, the different styles are all valid and good if people are having fun.
Don't take the approach of running people off just because they don't like your style of conflict/narrative; be it jumping to PvP on a hair trigger, or IC ostracizing.Zavandar wrote:the weird spot this puts the server in is that a choice has to be made: accommodate this sizable chunk or run them off.
Path_of_Play wrote:Fear, intimidation, anger - All these, the tyrant's tools.
Laughter, encouragement, play - not simply just for fools.
These tools reveal,
More is learned,
From another in an hour of play,
Than in a year of contention.