The Wangrod Defense

[The GrumpyCat]

I havn't really read all the way down, so I apologise if I'm missing a point, but I'm alittle confused by Subuti's points.

So let's say there's a powerfuly built PC, Bob, who is playing a character who has killed a lot of other PCs.

Option 1) He is basicaly a griefer. He's been abusing his power built to make people miserable.
Answer: If you're sure he's been doing this, and with little rp, and poor rp, then this is an OOC breach of the Be Nice rule, and as DMs it's up to us to report it.

Option 2) He is not a Griefer, but it just an unpleasent character ICly - The situaiton remains as is and mostly it's up to the player to rp any consequences that come his way- (e.g. if he is somehow taken down in pvp he is put in prison or whatever)

Option 3) He is Not a Griefer, but we code in some sort of other mechanical consequence for his actions.
Ok that's nice, but:
a) as you say, such characters are often well built, meaning the player is savy to mechanics, meaning that any mechanic that is placed they will be more likely to either be able to overcome, or be able to use against other pcs
b) How do you ensure that such mechanics are only used against these sorts of players?
To use Exile as an example - ideally exile should only be used against pcs that are clear and present danger to settlments. But it has been in the past that it's been used en mass to remove huge numbers of players from an area (e.g. all Paladins are now exiled) this whilst making IC sense, stymies rp, is miserable for said players, and is hamfisted. since we've limited the amount of pcs that can be exiled, and since there are ways around it, this is improved somewhat. But it's an example of how some 'consequences' can be abused. So if you want to put in a consequence that is player driven, then keep in mind that consequence sure can be used against mass murderers, but unless you have some heavy limiters, could also be used against other characters too.
more to come when baby stops crying

[Subutai]

First things first, I might have gone a bit far with my immediately previous example, as it veer way into griefer territory, which is already handled. I meant more of an in between area, where a character isn't constantly killing people all the time, but one who does consistently get their character into situations where, were it not for the lack of more significant (potentially permanent) consequences on Arelith, the character would have either not done those things (due to the potential consequences) or would have suffered those consequences. But, let's move on from there.

Option 1 and Option 2 are more or less spot on. If the player is a griefer, it's handled. If they're just unpleasant, but are also happy for their character to suffer consequences, that's also fine.

Option 3 is where it gets lost, a bit. I'm not sure where this idea came from that I was suggesting coding in consequences. I believe Ork read something into my post that I didn't intend, and now that's what people are assuming I meant. It's not. These kind of consequences could not, ever, be coded in. They would be far too situational and nuanced to be able to simply happen based on some algorithm or another. Rather, it would have to be more like a DM event, with heavy RP and player interaction, that would occur due to the consistent pattern.

This would, essentially, be an intermediate point between "this player is clearly a griefer" and "this character is playing an unpleasant character". It would allow for more severe consequences to be put on the character, ICly, for consistent IC behavior that continues to occur despite all normal means of IC consequences having absolutely no effect. This is where the warning I mentioned comes from, and why it's so important. It wouldn't be some automated warning. It would specifically be a something like, "Your character's consistent actions can result in significant or permanent consequences to your character. If they continue to act this way, they're likely to suffer from these consequences". If they stop doing those things, then that's great. They're choosing for their character to understand the dramatic risks of their continued actions. If they continue, that's also great. They're choosing for their character to continue to do those things, despite knowing what's probably in store.

Essentially, stripped of everything about PVP, and powerbuilding, and whatever else, all I'm suggesting is that at some point, I don't know that it's necessarily wrong to draw a line between "It's my choice whether to accept consequences my character suffers, because it's my character" and "My character's choices have lead them down a path to a point where the consequences are inevitable".

[The GrumpyCat]

Sorry for the delay, again was looking after my newborn.

Option 4) He is not a Griefer, but Dms should interpose some sort of mechanical consequence for their actions.
Having read over what you've written, and with all due respect, what your points seem to come down to is, 'I dissagree with this characters roleplay. I want to see DMs arbitrate over consequences more for a characters PvP.'

Given the recent blowup on the forums - I can say catagoricaly that I do not, in any way, want this to happen.

I mean we just got yelled at enough for banning players we believe had violated the ooc terms of the server, imagine if we started down this road!

'Haya, your paladin smote ten evil doers this last month. But we think Paladins should be pure and innocent and always seeking peace no matter what. So uh, we're going to make you fall temporarly and loose all your powers.'

'Haya, I know you have this neat background about how your Drow Male is an assassin, and is a worshiper of Vherun, but we think he shouldn't have killed those three drow females so we're going to perma-delete him. Kthanks.'

'Hello I know your wild mage is based off some really cool concepts, but the experiments he's done have resulted in five pc deaths, and people are complaining. So we're throwing him in spellhold for the next rl month.'

God the backlash would be -horrific-.

And besides, to a lesser degree we already have what you're asking for. A way of rewarding pcs who's conflict is generally good and interesting and who fully respect consequence and story.

We call it. 'RPR rating.'

And yes, I suppose we could increase the things tied to that. But the over concern of the player base is that this isn't fair either. That it isn't right to have too many rewards hanging off rpr rating, and so it should be avoided. And I can see the argument there. But if we really did want to encourage people to rp consequence, and not to be a Wangrod, then I think that (baring banning due to ooc rules breaches) managing it through RPR rating is the best way to go about it.

So next option:

Option 5: He is not a Griefer, but you're growing frustrated with the story from his PvP not going anyhere. Why not open a dialogue?
'Haya. Look - I'm getting tired ofall this pvp that's happening to my character, you keep winning and I find it frustrating. What can we do to make this a more interesting story? What are you seeking? Can we come to a compromise?'
HOpefully - said player will go 'Yeah, this is what my character wants.' At which point you can either consider giving it to them (as you've said, good rpers do go along with consequence) or if you think that request is entirely impossible/unfun for you, you can go, 'Look, that's really not something I can go along with. Can we come to some sort of compromise?' Hopefully they'll go along with that.
If they won't, and if they continue to pvp you constantly, and the thing they want is something you absolutly, positivly, in no way are willing to give them - even after dialogue, maybe then it's worth contacting the Dms and we can at least try to mediate between both parties.

To me option 5 is probably best in such situations.

[Subutai]

I think this'll have to be my last reply for a while. In the office now, and gotta start actually working soon!

When it comes to RPR, I don't think personally that more rewards are wrong. In fact, I think the to my knowledge almost entirely XP-related reward makes it less rewarding than players who earn 30 or 40 RPR probably deserve. Sure, it makes it easier to get to 30, but once you're there, the rewards cease. It might serve to encourage them to make new characters to contribute in new ways, but max level characters can contribute vast amounts to the server's story, and I think it would be great to reward them in some way, though I'm not sure how.

Option 5 is a good one, and it might just be your specific example, but I feel a lot of the issues people are taking with my posts is the idea that I'm concerned about single individual players losing to another character and wanting/not wanting the consequences. Rather, I'm referring to players en masse expending the current system (or lack of system) of consequences, and having no other alternatives.

I completely understand your hesitance to want to do anything in that regard, as a DM. The huge mess we've seen on the forums and Discord is obviously just the very tip of the huge iceberg that you're all dealing with at the moment, and I'm sorry so many players are putting you through it.

In the end, it's not my specific ideas that I would want to see implemented. Rather, my overall concern is the apparent wide gap between the current maximum level of player-based consequences (maybe exile, some PVP, that's about it), and the consequences of a player actually breaking the rules. I never originally intended for this to become a discussion about the problems with my specific ideas. I'd much rather have a conversation about the limits of the current consequences, whether they can or should be expanded upon, and if so, what expansions those should be.

[Borin Drakkmurl]

It is somewhat amusing, and there likely is another lesson to be taken from this, that a very short video with the simple message:

"player vs player conflict is made better if all parts involved are comunicating and engaged in creating fun for each other."

...can then be broken down into such granular dead ends that do not really result in anything useful.

Dont get me wrong, the discussion here has been very civil, it just seems to me that the critical point ended up getting buried under the usual Arelithian brand of overdiscussion,overthinking, and arguing for the sake of arguing.

[xanrael]

That's kind of how discussions go on being presented with fairly simple messages in that people will either start discussing the particulars or else have nothing to say really past "good stuff".

I don't think anyone is going to say without sarcasm "Oh man, I honestly thought treating someone else like shit was fun for everyone, boy my eyes sure are opened!" People generally have their reasons for doing something that seem logical to them. Discussion has to happen and thought processes presented and challenged for people to consider changing the way they play. In all that the starting message may get muddied up. IMO realistically you're not even looking for someone to change their opinion overnight while a thread is still active, but over weeks or months as people change with the "new" data presented to them over time.

[Ork]

Dont get me wrong, the discussion here has been very civil, it just seems to me that the critical point ended up getting buried under the usual Arelithian brand of overdiscussion,overthinking, and arguing for the sake of arguing.

I think that the post of this video coincided with a pretty public display of wangrodery, and I feel like some of my desire to post were almost political in navigating that situation. I think I do find that this video fails to really align entirely with our experience here on Arelith. While OOC coordination and discussion are important, all of my greatest roleplay moments have been utter surprises of conflict. From Ivo getting his heart yanked out by two Mazticans to Eamon getting beat nearly to death by a surprise encounter with a drow, we weren't engaged in ooc communication.

I find ooc communication is really only relevant when two parties are unwilling to bend on a conflict. In most cases, the greater roleplayer bends and bows out. People who are bullheaded and controlling of their character's destinies are ultimately unfun to play with - and that's their prerogative. Arelith has been blessed with a more than ample supply of badass roleplayers.

How do we change behavior? At a macro-level, we players really can't and no supply of good advice will convince a controlling individual from accepting any consequence both OOC and IG. However, I have seen the greatest catalyst for change come from great roleplay generated by great roleplayers. When you encounter a fantastic roleplayer, you almost gravitate towards those individuals - be it in conflict or cooperation. Those players inspire others to bend, make better stories, and share the spotlight.

I think the mantra of "be the change you want to see" really is our only defense against wangrodery.

[Marsi]

I think wangrod paranoia has been a bit overblown lately. On Arelith, storytelling prowess, not PvP prowess, determines the course of the narrative. Player killing means nothing unless you have a compelling story to back it up, one that those who witness your actions would deem worthy of registering in their collective perception of events. Subjugation for subjugation's sake never really takes, and in Arelith's long history there have been many now-nameless individuals or groups who have tried. Even in getting what they want, they fail, because what they have acquired has no meaning removed of a collaborative storytelling effort (something they opted out of when they chose to cut a path through everyone) and it is lost as quickly as it was won.

What's the name for the wangrod opposite -- ie. a person who aggressively prohibits any kind of player conflict by any means. They worry me far more. Healthy, communicative competition becomes difficult when your opponent is convinced any who would challenge them must be a wangrod.

Dont get me wrong, the discussion here has been very civil, it just seems to me that the critical point ended up getting buried under the usual Arelithian brand of overdiscussion,overthinking, and arguing for the sake of arguing.

I think that the post of this video coincided with a pretty public display of wangrodery, and I feel like some of my desire to post were almost political in navigating that situation. I think I do find that this video fails to really align entirely with our experience here on Arelith. While OOC coordination and discussion are important, all of my greatest roleplay moments have been utter surprises of conflict. From Ivo getting his heart yanked out by two Mazticans to Eamon getting beat nearly to death by a surprise encounter with a drow, we weren't engaged in ooc communication.

I find ooc communication is really only relevant when two parties are unwilling to bend on a conflict. In most cases, the greater roleplayer bends and bows out. People who are bullheaded and controlling of their character's destinies are ultimately unfun to play with - and that's their prerogative. Arelith has been blessed with a more than ample supply of badass roleplayers.

How do we change behavior? At a macro-level, we players really can't and no supply of good advice will convince a controlling individual from accepting any consequence both OOC and IG. However, I have seen the greatest catalyst for change come from great roleplay generated by great roleplayers. When you encounter a fantastic roleplayer, you almost gravitate towards those individuals - be it in conflict or cooperation. Those players inspire others to bend, make better stories, and share the spotlight.

I think the mantra of "be the change you want to see" really is our only defense against wangrodery.

I agree with all of this.

I don't think excessive OOC co-ordination is really that necessary for player conflict, and I've had to deal with a fair share of control freaks who try to use "healthy communication" as a pre-text to arrange staged, defanged conflict either because they know they are mechanically disadvantaged, or because they just like things to be on their terms. Keep things IC whenever possible.

Instead of wanting to hold the winner accountable and constrain them as much as possible, I think it's more important that one is a good loser.

[Borin Drakkmurl]

I think wangrod paranoia has been a bit overblown lately. On Arelith, storytelling prowess, not PvP prowess, determines the course of the narrative. Player killing means nothing unless you have a compelling story to back it up, one that those who witness your actions would deem worthy of registering in their collective perception of events. Subjugation for subjugation's sake never really takes, and in Arelith's long history there have been many now-nameless individuals or groups who have tried. Even in getting what they want, they fail, because what they have acquired has no meaning removed of a collaborative storytelling effort (something they opted out of when they chose to cut a path through everyone) and it is lost as quickly as it was won.

What's the name for the wangrod opposite -- ie. a person who aggressively prohibits any kind of player conflict by any means. They worry me far more. Healthy, communicative competition becomes difficult when your opponent is convinced any who would challenge them must be a wangrod.

Dont get me wrong, the discussion here has been very civil, it just seems to me that the critical point ended up getting buried under the usual Arelithian brand of overdiscussion,overthinking, and arguing for the sake of arguing.

I think that the post of this video coincided with a pretty public display of wangrodery, and I feel like some of my desire to post were almost political in navigating that situation. I think I do find that this video fails to really align entirely with our experience here on Arelith. While OOC coordination and discussion are important, all of my greatest roleplay moments have been utter surprises of conflict. From Ivo getting his heart yanked out by two Mazticans to Eamon getting beat nearly to death by a surprise encounter with a drow, we weren't engaged in ooc communication.

I find ooc communication is really only relevant when two parties are unwilling to bend on a conflict. In most cases, the greater roleplayer bends and bows out. People who are bullheaded and controlling of their character's destinies are ultimately unfun to play with - and that's their prerogative. Arelith has been blessed with a more than ample supply of badass roleplayers.

How do we change behavior? At a macro-level, we players really can't and no supply of good advice will convince a controlling individual from accepting any consequence both OOC and IG. However, I have seen the greatest catalyst for change come from great roleplay generated by great roleplayers. When you encounter a fantastic roleplayer, you almost gravitate towards those individuals - be it in conflict or cooperation. Those players inspire others to bend, make better stories, and share the spotlight.

I think the mantra of "be the change you want to see" really is our only defense against wangrodery.

I agree with all of this.

I don't think excessive OOC co-ordination is really that necessary for player conflict, and I've had to deal with a fair share of control freaks who try to use "healthy communication" as a pre-text to arrange staged, defanged conflict either because they know they are mechanically disadvantaged, or because they just like things to be on their terms. Keep things IC whenever possible.

Instead of wanting to hold the winner accountable and constrain them as much as possible, I think it's more important that one is a good loser.

How dare you both! I shou - no, wait. I actually understand and agree with all that you guys said.

Nice.