Improving Slavery

[CosmicOrderV]

Speaking of being astonished, the fact that people who don't regularly interact with, or play as slaves, trying to make suggestions about it! Having played in the UD explicitly for the past 10 years, it's better with the system in place than without. The month the slavery system was introduced, there was a a sharp increase in such roleplay, and ever since, it's been far more frequent than the one-to-two Udos and Pit-Town would have have for about a month, then never see again.

Could the system be improved? Absolutely, but what's really 'needed' for good roleplay, is people just willing to roll with the punches, not be worried about controlling every aspect of the story, and not complaining when something doesn't go their way. RP'ing a slave character is all about relinquishing control. It's a slave.

There have been some good ideas presented on how to improve it, so far, but short of the suggestion thread being open, there's probably nothing else to say regarding the topic.

[Aodh Lazuli]

Speaking of being astonished, the fact that people who don't regularly interact with, or play as slaves, trying to make suggestions about it!

Oh?

RP'ing a slave character is all about relinquishing control.

No. Playing a slave is not all about relinquishing control in the manner which you seem to be suggesting.

Allowing players to freely negotiate the nature of whatever slave/master relationship they play out, ensuring that any and all slave/master rp is conducted on equal terms by roleplayers with equal ooc agency (even if their characters lack it), without the narrow focus of the mechanics getting in the way...

Does that sound like a bad thing to you?

Counter arguments:

"But I won't have any mechanical means of controlling slaves."

Answer:

"No, you will not. The slave owner will be made more vulnerable, yes. You will be required to use your own ingenuity and knowledge guided by the ooc arrangements regarding the nature of the slavery dynamic between you and the other player... But really you shouldn't need the mechanical options beyond those always available to any player at any time, if this is purely by each player's volition, right... Right? It is done by each player's free choice and volition, yeah?"

But hey... I'm not going to get into a contest about who has the greater right to pass comment, give suggestions or make observations. Those tend to be pretty tasteless, and don't make for good spectator sport. Lets not be tasteless.

[Sea Shanties]

Some of the more drastic suggestions do seem to assume players of slaves will put up with anything because their characters are slaves. But ultimately everyone has the choice to just abandon the slave character if it's too frustrating or abusive. I agree with the above, it has to be mutually fun and mutually satisfying or the relationship just won't work.

A lot of good suggestions though and ways to make a show of punishing or otherwise controlling slaves are great- but I'd argue it should be more about putting on a show for onlookers than the master player dominating the experience of the slave player. That's just not healthy.

As far as slaves being stronger than their masters goes that's probably actually accurate. Look at ancient Rome, a fat middle aged patrician was probably physically weaker than most of his slaves who were in their prime and spent much of their time doing physical activity. But the slaves knew how difficult escape and revolt would be and it was almost never successful because of the way the society operated. Killing a master doesn't make you free unless you're very far away from the master's civilization and presumably Anundor and Sibiyad have a very strong system in place to put down rebel slaves, not to avenge the weak master but to make sure no other slaves get ideas.

Maybe perhaps there could be an "escaped slave" status someday where slaves who escape or revolt can have a bounty placed on their heads and have to avoid all of the city's NPC guards or something, could be great both for fugitive or revolting slave RP and for bounty hunters.

[Phaesporia]

A slave that can corpsebash his or her owner should be allowed to be free, as a master that is weaker than his or her slave does not deserve to pretend they should be able to control that slave. The weak should fear the strong.

This would just result in 'kill the masters' style slave revolts constantly.

I mean...It's not a bad idea... It's like the evil people who throw up protection from alignment or w/e and summon gold/silver dragons for whatever reason. There's a small chance the dragon can still beat them up and it's not like it's unheard of for there to be a slave rebellion or slaves to kill their masters in fantasy settings.

My favorite example being from season 2 of Castlevania when Isaac killed his master even though he was extremely loyal and loved him. Things happen and if the slave is more powerful than the master, than... *shrug*. In my opinion, there should be more ways to free a slave than just a vague [insert secret thing here] that MAY OR MAY NOT BE BUGGED RIGHT NOW and paying like half a million gold. This is supported by the fact there are actual ways other than that, like the master freeing them, or 'friends' forcing the master to free them, running away, using magical means, etc.

As a side note, anyone being able to summon a slave with just their name is dumb. I get why they did it for the masters, but anyone? Really? And it's for like 2,000 gold, it's not even that much. I personally dislike the entire slave calling thing (and slavery in general) because it can be extremely jarring when you're playing a slave to be forcefully pulled away from roleplay or summoned every time you log on/your master logs on, but that's what you signed up for, right?

[Phaesporia]

Given that a slave should be considered as property of the owner, without any rights at all, and expected to do not only what the owner tells, but also what most other free underdarkers tells the slave to do, Arelith slaves got quite a lot of freedom!

They can move about, the owner got no other form of punishing, say a runaway slave than the slave caller. Slaves can without any risk of punishment mingle with whoever he or she wants. It is in fact possible to play a slave like it were any other, just with a collar, which just identifies a char, and with the small inconvenience, to be called at an time (and honestly, how many times does this happen during a slave's life?)

Yes, I know about the writs, and Captain Laurick and a couple of other NPCs who won't talk to slaves, and which make the moving about a bit more complicated. Then again, a slave got access to the Hub portal, and some other areas, IG'ly.

So what I'd like to see is that the owner in fact got instruments to do something about a slave. Something that the owner today can't do. So the only type of punishment is to kill the slave. The following - I haven't thought too much about it, just a brainstorm:

- Access to the slave's inventory (similar to a summon), with right to pick out, or drop items there. Mining coal? Right, carry it forr me, slave! Oh, so you got yourself a nice silk shirt? Hand it over! etc. et.

- Access to the slave's bank account. Yes, I mean it. Why would a banker deny an owner access to the property's account? Also with the right to take gold from it.

- Punish the slave, demanding the slave to wear items like Mage Handcufffs, a heavy armour to restrict the speed and movements, and ya da ya da. Find your own variations here.

- Chain the slave to the owner, or some guard, so the slave can only go where the owner wants it to go.

- If the owner finds the slave shouldn't go certain places, be able to close the portals to such places.

- The owner should have the skill to call the slave, not just through the caller.

- The collar should damage the slave when attacking the owner, or doing other things that the owner never would accept. One might even consider that the owner had that ability, when the slave does something unwanted, like talking too much, doing the job bad, mingling with surfacers, etc.

All this of course would cause a lot of OOC problems, I know that, and good relations between the players (not the chars). But, this is the feedback forum. Cheers!

I really hope you're joking because this would make slavery roleplay way, way worse than it already is. I get what you're trying to do, but remember, slaves are being played by people too who want to play Arelith and have fun just like whoever is playing the master. This would work in a P&P setting where it's just you, not...a large multiplayer server. I mean, at this point they're not even really a player, just a NPC companion that follows you around. This would make me quit a character in a heartbeat tbh.

[Yma23]

In this discussion there is something I think people are forgetting. Which is that the Slave collar, in my experience, is useful not so much for the Slaver rp, as for the slave.

For the most part, Arelith works on What You See is What You Get.

Sometimes, people will play along with something that is 'unseen'. But generally speaking they are under absolutly no obligation to. If it isn't mechanicaly enforced some how, then you do not need to roleplay it. Simple as that.

So if there was no slavery system, no one would be under any obligation to roleplay it.

So let's say you play a character, call her Jane. And Jane gets captured by mean a mean Drow, and mean drow and Jane have fun rping things, and Mean Drow player and Jane decide they want to rp that Mean Drow takes Jane a slave. Jane is really up for this, looking forward to playing the slow torment and breaking of her character, perhaps eventually to find freedom, or perhaps not. Mean Drow is up for some meaness to Jane, but is also awear that Jane may want to go free somewhere. Both are basicaly find with this situaiton and looking forward to rolling with it.

Then Tony the Cleric of Torm finds out Jane has been captured. So he uses -yoink.

Jane says no. She's enjoying the rp!

Tony then goes around saying 'Well she said no, so obviusly she -wants- to be with the Drow.'

Jane goes 'No, no I'm just enjoying the roleplay here...'

'But you said no to Yoink, WYSIWYG, so you chose no, so you're in leauge and evil.'

'No, no I'm rping slavery...'

'There is no slavery system. You're not a slave. You can leave any time you want. You're obviously in leauge with them.'

'But I want to persue this story of trial and triublation for my character. Maybe your character can help me escape even? We can make a good story of it where-'

'No. NO I want to fix this with a few button clicks. I don't want Evil to win. I don't want your character to suffer. I want to be Big Damn Hero and Win Win Win. If anyone says 'yes' to slavery, they're just an attention hog, and letting The Side Down. Good guys should never be enslaved, that's bad, We should always WIN. How dare anyone put themselves in a sitaution where their characters are miserable, and my character cannot be Winning!'

Now I grant – the above example is an extreme, but it is a mode of thought I've seen a bit. The idea that the slave system is bad because 'I can't fix this character, that makes my character less powerful, I don't like it, I don't care if slave player and owner player are having fun, the fact is I can't fix this, and that makes me mad.'

But at least they have the mechanics to back up the slaves rp, to give an example why just a -yoink won't work. Take that away and, as Durvyas says, slave rp will almost dissapear because, as well as other reasons, some/many people on team 'good' won't respect their roleplay.

In short- maybe the slavery system could do with a few treaks yeah, but I really do like that it exists and for the most part I think it's well balanced.

[Hazard]

at times, prisoner collared 'slaves' have been executed on suspicion of being spies.

Personally, I would report this. That does not seem like appropriate behaviour for a roleplaying server, IMO.

Usually there was more RP involved than that. Said slaves would be interrogated as to who collared them and owned them, when they were captured, etc. Usually, they'd give a name, and that'd be fine, until we actually asked that character and they were like "Who?" leading to an execution. For a while, this happened often enough that if a prisoner collar slave gave a name that wasn't online, they'd often just get killed because it couldn't be verified.

The actual slave collar having a name on it spares everyone the roleplay equivalent of 'stop and frisk', in that a prisoner collar slave could get stopped by several unrelated parties in the same session. This was usually a danger for the first few days a prisoner collared slave was in the UD. Those who lasted long enough to become a fixture, or were being led around enough it was clear who owned them, didn't have much of a problem with this.


Edit: This is going to sound facetious, but if the collars were removed, we'd literally have to go back to a "Paper's please" system, and I know people don't want that.

Fair enough!

[Silvard]

In this discussion there is something I think people are forgetting. Which is that the Slave collar, in my experience, is useful not so much for the Slaver rp, as for the slave.

For the most part, Arelith works on What You See is What You Get.

Sometimes, people will play along with something that is 'unseen'. But generally speaking they are under absolutly no obligation to. If it isn't mechanicaly enforced some how, then you do not need to roleplay it. Simple as that.

So if there was no slavery system, no one would be under any obligation to roleplay it.

So let's say you play a character, call her Jane. And Jane gets captured by mean a mean Drow, and mean drow and Jane have fun rping things, and Mean Drow player and Jane decide they want to rp that Mean Drow takes Jane a slave. Jane is really up for this, looking forward to playing the slow torment and breaking of her character, perhaps eventually to find freedom, or perhaps not. Mean Drow is up for some meaness to Jane, but is also awear that Jane may want to go free somewhere. Both are basicaly find with this situaiton and looking forward to rolling with it.

Then Tony the Cleric of Torm finds out Jane has been captured. So he uses -yoink.

Jane says no. She's enjoying the rp!

Tony then goes around saying 'Well she said no, so obviusly she -wants- to be with the Drow.'

Jane goes 'No, no I'm just enjoying the roleplay here...'

'But you said no to Yoink, WYSIWYG, so you chose no, so you're in leauge and evil.'

'No, no I'm rping slavery...'

'There is no slavery system. You're not a slave. You can leave any time you want. You're obviously in leauge with them.'

'But I want to persue this story of trial and triublation for my character. Maybe your character can help me escape even? We can make a good story of it where-'

'No. NO I want to fix this with a few button clicks. I don't want Evil to win. I don't want your character to suffer. I want to be Big Damn Hero and Win Win Win. If anyone says 'yes' to slavery, they're just an attention hog, and letting The Side Down. Good guys should never be enslaved, that's bad, We should always WIN. How dare anyone put themselves in a sitaution where their characters are miserable, and my character cannot be Winning!'

Now I grant – the above example is an extreme, but it is a mode of thought I've seen a bit. The idea that the slave system is bad because 'I can't fix this character, that makes my character less powerful, I don't like it, I don't care if slave player and owner player are having fun, the fact is I can't fix this, and that makes me mad.'

But at least they have the mechanics to back up the slaves rp, to give an example why just a -yoink won't work. Take that away and, as Durvyas says, slave rp will almost dissapear because, as well as other reasons, some/many people on team 'good' won't respect their roleplay.

In short- maybe the slavery system could do with a few treaks yeah, but I really do like that it exists and for the most part I think it's well balanced.

Unfortunately this is something that already happens.

[Petrifictus]

In this discussion there is something I think people are forgetting. Which is that the Slave collar, in my experience, is useful not so much for the Slaver rp, as for the slave.

For the most part, Arelith works on What You See is What You Get.

Sometimes, people will play along with something that is 'unseen'. But generally speaking they are under absolutly no obligation to. If it isn't mechanicaly enforced some how, then you do not need to roleplay it. Simple as that.

So if there was no slavery system, no one would be under any obligation to roleplay it.

So let's say you play a character, call her Jane. And Jane gets captured by mean a mean Drow, and mean drow and Jane have fun rping things, and Mean Drow player and Jane decide they want to rp that Mean Drow takes Jane a slave. Jane is really up for this, looking forward to playing the slow torment and breaking of her character, perhaps eventually to find freedom, or perhaps not. Mean Drow is up for some meaness to Jane, but is also awear that Jane may want to go free somewhere. Both are basicaly find with this situaiton and looking forward to rolling with it.

Then Tony the Cleric of Torm finds out Jane has been captured. So he uses -yoink.

Jane says no. She's enjoying the rp!

Tony then goes around saying 'Well she said no, so obviusly she -wants- to be with the Drow.'

Jane goes 'No, no I'm just enjoying the roleplay here...'

'But you said no to Yoink, WYSIWYG, so you chose no, so you're in leauge and evil.'

'No, no I'm rping slavery...'

'There is no slavery system. You're not a slave. You can leave any time you want. You're obviously in leauge with them.'

'But I want to persue this story of trial and triublation for my character. Maybe your character can help me escape even? We can make a good story of it where-'

'No. NO I want to fix this with a few button clicks. I don't want Evil to win. I don't want your character to suffer. I want to be Big Damn Hero and Win Win Win. If anyone says 'yes' to slavery, they're just an attention hog, and letting The Side Down. Good guys should never be enslaved, that's bad, We should always WIN. How dare anyone put themselves in a sitaution where their characters are miserable, and my character cannot be Winning!'

Now I grant – the above example is an extreme, but it is a mode of thought I've seen a bit. The idea that the slave system is bad because 'I can't fix this character, that makes my character less powerful, I don't like it, I don't care if slave player and owner player are having fun, the fact is I can't fix this, and that makes me mad.'

But at least they have the mechanics to back up the slaves rp, to give an example why just a -yoink won't work. Take that away and, as Durvyas says, slave rp will almost dissapear because, as well as other reasons, some/many people on team 'good' won't respect their roleplay.

In short- maybe the slavery system could do with a few treaks yeah, but I really do like that it exists and for the most part I think it's well balanced.

Unfortunately this is something that already happens.

Tony the Cleric of Torm: "Make sure to PvP and corpse bash her really hard if that traitor Jane dares to walk into the surface.
Being enslaved is a clear sign that she's willingly betrayed all the good we good guys stand for and become corrupt by evil."

[Cuchilla]

I really hope you're joking because this would make slavery roleplay way, way worse than it already is. I get what you're trying to do, but remember, slaves are being played by people too who want to play Arelith and have fun just like whoever is playing the master. This would work in a P&P setting where it's just you, not...a large multiplayer server. I mean, at this point they're not even really a player, just a NPC companion that follows you around. This would make me quit a character in a heartbeat tbh.

Partly joking, yes.

On the other hand, as the present system is, you can perfectly well have (and I have seen) slaves who are millionaires, or at least 100.000'airs, high levels who behave as if they were free, or even superior to most other, who freely roams around all over the server, undisguised. Who got better equipment than their owners, and who disobey without any consequences at all.

I don't like too much mechanics in this myself, and if roleplayers take that responsibility, fine. On the other hand, what you see is what you get, and as is now, it really gives a lot of freedom. Something we all wish, of course

[Aodh Lazuli]

Now I grant – the above example is an extreme, but it is a mode of thought I've seen a bit. The idea that the slave system is bad because 'I can't fix this character, that makes my character less powerful, I don't like it, I don't care if slave player and owner player are having fun, the fact is I can't fix this, and that makes me mad.'

That is an extreme example, yes... Although sadly I too have seen hints of that line of thought.

Perhaps, however, if someone is being this much of a useless and pushy turdbrain, they should be handled by the DM team, rather than having their awfulness mitigated by a mechanic that prevents the actually involved players from freely managing and negotiating their roleplay on equal terms.

I shall, however, throw in two equally extreme positions and attitudes that I have seen...

1. "I have been enslaved. PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEE AND MY SUFFERIIIING. You must DO SOMETHING about it, otherwise you are EVIL and BAD and NOT GOOD. No I don't CARE that there is nothing you practically can do! You MUST help. I know that I have been dragging this out for several RL months and that you are exhausted, but YOU ARE NOT PAYING ENOUGH ATTENTION."

2. "I have a slave! I now demand that I manage and control every aspect of this other player's experience. NO. Get your hands OFF that twenty five gold. That is MINE. Huh? You want to ENJOY THE GAME? Should have considered that before you agreed to this!"

[Durvayas]

It should be reiterated that there are a myriad of ways that players of slave PCs have full agency to curate and control their experience if things go tits up. I'll list them here for the sake of education.

• you can reset your slave collar automatically by staying off your PC for two weeks, then talking to the slavemaster of Andunor NPC.
• You can buy your freedom for 500k. This is almost effortless if your character actually reaches out to the goodies on the surface for help.
• you can do the slave escape quest. Exactly how to start is FOIG, but I'll tell you you discover it in the slave pits under the west wheel.
• You can ask a DM. Seriously, the DM team is here to help, and if you really, really dont like being a slave, and are not enjoying it at all on an OOC level, you can ask a DM to reset your collar or remove it entirely. Nine times out of ten, they're happy to help.
  
  Its important to realize that the consent of slavery RP goes both ways. Playing a slave requires consent, obviously, but owning the slave also has costs, and those playing slaves should keep in mind that they too affect the experience of the owner because what the slave does reflects on the owner. The owner is expected to maintain and supply the slave, and ensure the slave is getting ample attention and is having fun.
  If the slave is more trouble than its worth the system needs to be balanced to be fun for both .

[Ecthelion]

It should be reiterated that there are a myriad of ways that players of slave PCs have full agency to curate and control their experience if things go tits up. I'll list them here for the sake of education.

• you can reset your slave collar automatically by staying off your PC for two weeks, then talking to the slavemaster of Andunor NPC.
• You can buy your freedom for 500k. This is almost effortless if your character actually reaches out to the goodies on the surface for help.
• you can do the slave escape quest. Exactly how to start is FOIG, but I'll tell you you discover it in the slave pits under the west wheel.
• You can ask a DM. Seriously, the DM team is here to help, and if you really, really dont like being a slave, and are not enjoying it at all on an OOC level, you can ask a DM to reset your collar or remove it entirely. Nine times out of ten, they're happy to help.
  
  Its important to realize that the consent of slavery RP goes both ways. Playing a slave requires consent, obviously, but owning the slave also has costs, and those playing slaves should keep in mind that they too affect the experience of the owner because what the slave does reflects on the owner. The owner is expected to maintain and supply the slave, and ensure the slave is getting ample attention and is having fun.
  If the slave is more trouble than its worth the system needs to be balanced to be fun for both .

That's not control. That's painful ways of escaping something you did not want to happen.

Now I grant – the above example is an extreme, but it is a mode of thought I've seen a bit. The idea that the slave system is bad because 'I can't fix this character, that makes my character less powerful, I don't like it, I don't care if slave player and owner player are having fun, the fact is I can't fix this, and that makes me mad.'

It's indeed extreme ... I think if really there are people who after OOC tells don't understand that a player wanted RP and a character being a willing slave are totally different, then it should be reported to DMs. I tend to send tells to ask the players if they want us to attempt something (Well, we can't attempt much but you know).
As Silvard pointed out, the collar doesn't fix that issue, too.

[Durvayas]

Now you are being needlessly hyperbolic. If your PC is a slave, you wanted it to happen, otherwise someone needs to get reported.

These escape methods are in place because slavery RP doesn't always work out. Sometimes your PC is sold and the new master isn't as fun. Sometimes the experience is more brutal than you expected. Sometimes you start doing the slave thing and decide its not for you in general. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging this.

If you truly have a case of buyers remorse, you can use the incredibly not painful method of asking for DM assistance. Don't pretend slipping your collar is hard. Its as difficult a process as you want it to be.

[Yma23]

Whilst I do see a vareity of arguments for tweaking the system in various ways, I really don't see a great argument for removing it. Not under the guildelines given.

I don't agree with all of Duvyas's points, but ultimately

a) You get a good, solild warning before taking the Slave collar oocly. And it is always down to PLAYER CHOICE to click those buttons.
b) As Durvyas's said, there are ways around it. Both ICly and ultimatly, if you as a player HAVE been utterly coerced into it, if you have been cheated and swindled and oocly pressued into the Collar, you can appeal to the DMs.
c) It's also something the evil guys seem to enjoy, it gives them an interesting 'victory' if they want it, and obviously if the other person wants it.

So ultimatly, if the other person is oocly happy doing this, wants to rp it, wants some mechanical backing for their rp, why are we then saying, 'No you shouldn't.'

I'm just not seeing the argument here.

[Aodh Lazuli]

It should be reiterated that there are a myriad of ways that players of slave PCs have full agency to curate and control their experience if things go tits up. I'll list them here for the sake of education.

These escape methods are in place because slavery RP doesn't always work out. Sometimes your PC is sold and the new master isn't as fun. Sometimes the experience is more brutal than you expected. Sometimes you start doing the slave thing and decide its not for you in general. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging this.

If you truly have a case of buyers remorse, you can use the incredibly not painful method of asking for DM assistance. Don't pretend slipping your collar is hard. Its as difficult a process as you want it to be.

This is really not particularly relevant to the problem, however.

The issue is that the mechanical solution in game presently does not have the flexibility for players, slave OR master, to freely negotiate the grounds on which that RP relationship will be built. By using the mechanical solution in place at all, both players have sacrificed agency and control over way in which the roleplay of something (the nature of which absolutely and always should be within the players' control to negotiate, define and determine, before being mutually agreed upon) is made manifest in game.

How easy it is to slip a collar - or how difficult it is to slip the collar - has absolutely no bearing on that whatsoever.

[Nitro]

Sometimes, having a mechanic (though limiting it may be) is the better choice from not having a mechanic even though in theory it places freedom and agency in the players hands. Take settlements for an example, without a citizen and voting system in place, do you think we'd have nearly as many people engaged with the politics and leadership of various settlement? Or do you think it would turn into a game of 'who has the largest PvP donger'?

I agree with Durvayas that slavery is one of those cases where mechanics are needed to keep things clear, and as much as they put a limit on things that can be done, they allow for a level of OOC understanding that allows for other things that would otherwise be way harder to do.

That's not control. That's painful ways of escaping something you did not want to happen.

If you did not want to engage in slavery, it is made very clear that you don't have to unless you agree to it OOC'ly. And if someone is being a scumbag pressuring someone to take the collar OOC'ly that should absolutely be reported to the DM's.

It's indeed extreme ... I think if really there are people who after OOC tells don't understand that a player wanted RP and a character being a willing slave are totally different, then it should be reported to DMs. I tend to send tells to ask the players if they want us to attempt something (Well, we can't attempt much but you know).
As Silvard pointed out, the collar doesn't fix that issue, too.

The issue here is that this happens, and it's not a rulebreak. Person X knows how to free a slave, gives them everything they need to get through the questline and then they don't complete it because the player of slave character Y doesn't want to be free but instead enjoy slave RP for a bit longer. This leaves person X in a pickle. Even if they agree OOC'ly and they might well, they have no justification in character to go along with being sympathetic for a slave who doesn't want to or put any effort towards being freed. Would then treating them as such be a reportable offense in your mind?

The collar certainly doesn't fix this, but it makes it less prevalent. Because without the collar a 0 effort yoink is all it takes to 'free' a slave, and when declined immediate reason to distrust the slave. With the collar, there is at least a period of plausible deniability. A noncombat character that can't do the cage matches will take longer to free and subsequently at least can avoid being thrown into the pit of being a willing slave just because they on an OOC level didn't want to exit slavery at first possible chance.

[Aodh Lazuli]

Take settlements for an example, without a citizen and voting system in place, do you think we'd have nearly as many people engaged with the politics and leadership of various settlement?

I don't think that the settlement or election system is a good one to use as a comparison if trying to suggest that systems such as this are a net positive.

[Nitro]

Take settlements for an example, without a citizen and voting system in place, do you think we'd have nearly as many people engaged with the politics and leadership of various settlement?

I don't think that the settlement or election system is a good one to use as a comparison if trying to suggest that systems such as this are a net positive.

The example is, above all else an example and can be applied to any system we have on the server. In theory, if we stripped out all the systems we'd have a more freeform experience more akin to a P&P game where people use their imagination and work together. In practice, this would drive off most of the playerbase as it's a way too puritan experience that hamstrings itself as soon as one person doesn't want to work together and there's no system in place to deal with that.

[Aodh Lazuli]

In theory, if we stripped out all the systems

We can probably stop at that point, because I do not think anyone has suggested this. The discussion here is about one specific system, and the very particular concerns it raises on matters of player agency. Turning it into a discussion about 'systems in general' is both off topic and too broad to draw any meaningful conclusion.

[Memelord]

Sometimes, having a mechanic (though limiting it may be) is the better choice from not having a mechanic even though in theory it places freedom and agency in the players hands. Take settlements for an example, without a citizen and voting system in place, do you think we'd have nearly as many people engaged with the politics and leadership of various settlement? Or do you think it would turn into a game of 'who has the largest PvP donger'?

As someone who was present to see how settlements ended up being run before there were mechanics to govern it, all I have to say is: Yes, yes we would. There was no appreciable difference in the level of immersion/involvement before or after mechanics became attached to settlements; PvP for control over settlements was rare and only happened a few times (usually with DM involvement and oversight.) In fact, the settlement mechanics actually made it so that it wasn't the people who were making the most interesting RP for the greatest number of people who were in charge - but instead simply the ones with the deepest pockets.

People don't need mechanics to tell them what to do, all the time. A lot of the time, mechanics actually are a limiter, not an aid to creating more RP. The slave system is one such system.

[Diilicious]

1. "I have been enslaved. PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEE AND MY SUFFERIIIING. You must DO SOMETHING about it, otherwise you are EVIL and BAD and NOT GOOD. No I don't CARE that there is nothing you practically can do! You MUST help. I know that I have been dragging this out for several RL months and that you are exhausted, but YOU ARE NOT PAYING ENOUGH ATTENTION."

Oh my god this... absolutely and every single time... its absolutely pathetic lol, im so sick of it xD

[Durvayas]

It's indeed extreme ... I think if really there are people who after OOC tells don't understand that a player wanted RP and a character being a willing slave are totally different, then it
The issue here is that this happens, and it's not a rulebreak. Person X knows how to free a slave, gives them everything they need to get through the questline and then they don't complete it because the player of slave character Y doesn't want to be free but instead enjoy slave RP for a bit longer. This leaves person X in a pickle. Even if they agree OOC'ly and they might well, they have no justification in character to go along with being sympathetic for a slave who doesn't want to or put any effort towards being freed.

Actually, I have suggestion to fix this.

Replace the slave quest NPC's fixed tasks with a new writ system. Keep some of the tasks the same, but add enough dynamicism to what they need that people cant just be like "Here's 50 of X, Y, and Z, you should be good to go!". Make the available tasks rotate. I have several ideas how to easily implement this, and I'll post again when I get home to elaborate.

[Berried]

Now I grant – the above example is an extreme, but it is a mode of thought I've seen a bit. The idea that the slave system is bad because 'I can't fix this character, that makes my character less powerful, I don't like it, I don't care if slave player and owner player are having fun, the fact is I can't fix this, and that makes me mad.'

That is an extreme example, yes... Although sadly I too have seen hints of that line of thought.

Perhaps, however, if someone is being this much of a useless and pushy turdbrain, they should be handled by the DM team, rather than having their awfulness mitigated by a mechanic that prevents the actually involved players from freely managing and negotiating their roleplay on equal terms.

I shall, however, throw in two equally extreme positions and attitudes that I have seen...

1. "I have been enslaved. PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEE AND MY SUFFERIIIING. You must DO SOMETHING about it, otherwise you are EVIL and BAD and NOT GOOD. No I don't CARE that there is nothing you practically can do! You MUST help. I know that I have been dragging this out for several RL months and that you are exhausted, but YOU ARE NOT PAYING ENOUGH ATTENTION."

2. "I have a slave! I now demand that I manage and control every aspect of this other player's experience. NO. Get your hands OFF that twenty five gold. That is MINE. Huh? You want to ENJOY THE GAME? Should have considered that before you agreed to this!"

If the first case should be handled ooc, shouldn't the latter two cases be handled ooc as well?

We're a community and if someone is unintentionally ruining the game for you, have the maturity to step outside of character and gently correct them. It's not like every other player logs in for the sole purpose of actively antagonizing you.

And, I mean... Honestly, rather than creating more work for the devs by demanding mechanical revamps and the DMs by reporting every player who pursues a plotline I'm not into, I'd personally just roll with it. Someone very clearly wants to roleplay a scenario where they rescue someone? Roll with it. Maybe they had a bad day at work or something and they need a win. Someone clearly wants to rp a slave coping poorly with their misfortune? Roll with it. Stories about suffering can be cathartic. Someone clearly wants to rp some kind of power fantasy? Sure, why not, maybe they're some kid getting bullied at school. Let them have their moment. Might even be fun, who knows?

I really didn't want to comment on this thread because I'm so new to NWN and I don't have much experience with Arelith's game mechanics, but some of these posts reflect a worryingly grim view of other players. Everyone is just trying to have fun and tell stories, like you.

[Yma23]

And, I mean... Honestly, rather than creating more work for the devs by demanding mechanical revamps and the DMs by reporting every player who pursues a plotline I'm not into, I'd personally just roll with it. Someone very clearly wants to roleplay a scenario where they rescue someone? Roll with it. Maybe they had a bad day at work or something and they need a win. Someone clearly wants to rp a slave coping poorly with their misfortune? Roll with it. Stories about suffering can be cathartic. Someone clearly wants to rp some kind of power fantasy? Sure, why not, maybe they're some kid getting bullied at school. Let them have their moment. Might even be fun, who knows?

I just want to say, I really like this point of view and it's something I try to follow myself. At the end of the day, peopel get differnet sorts of fun from different things. If the Devs want to give some mechanical support for that? Why not? If they don't, then roll along with the rp anyway, tottaly!