Keep Conflict Alive
-
In order:
Yes, I usually do, for most games. Sometimes more, sometimes less, often spreading different bits of work for my next character out during the life of my current one.
Who said 'cool mugging scene'? You're advocating loosening regulations. If you say, "B) Killing as a natural consequence of certain kinds of PVP, not something that ought to be avoided at all costs" Then killing is a natural consequence of -any- mugging scene, cool or not. Therefore if someone mugs you for your lootz on the road, they will not get banned, because it was a natural consequence.
I am trying to say that if you have an IC motivation to try to win, why do you also need an OOC reason? You want your IC actions to have IC consequences. Be consistent, let them have IC reasons, as well.
-
JASEDE WINS THE FORUM WAR ACTIONS NEED CONSEQUENCES AND 5 YEAR OLD PC'S ARE LAME.
-
Wow. Where'd you come from LoC? I last remember you from the Scarlet Talons!
-
…5 YEAR OLD PC'S ARE LAME.
How long did Eliphas play, and Gurm, and… There are a lot of long lived characters that Ihave really enjoyed.
-
On the one hand you just kill off the opposition, people start to learn better than to mess with you and you're ultimately left playing with yourself, having "won".
On the other hand you find an excuse to keep them alive - maybe so your cleric can routinely beat them in a Challange of Faith and steal some of their followers; maybe so people consider you a highwayman class of criminal rather than a mad dog and you deny your rival gaining public momentum against you; maybe because you want to keep this paladin alive for your vile ritual, which will require the blood of a Hated Foe as a reagent.
Yes, it is IC to want to win. It is also IC that there are countless NPCs in the setting, from powerful mages to professional hunters of the infernal. Why should one of them not simply gank you, as an IC consequence, since it would take them little effort to do it compared to how much their PC minion is going through? ICly it's about winning somehow, be it to make the world a safer place or to reveal to the people of Arabel how vulnerable they really are. Use your imagination though - there's a lot more ways to achieve that goal and a lot of ways to justify leaving your enemies alive in its pursuit, even if it is only so that they can bear witness to the aftermath of your actions and know that they failed.
-
There's no point in giving this thread reasons for lockage. IMO, I think Jasede gives some valid points but CoA is on a totally different wavelength to what he and some of the players who used to play here are used to. Which is unfortunate, because I, as with a few other players here I know, acknowledge these points and even agree with them; which is sacrilege, I know, but having played numerous servers his comparison does seem to make sense.
CoA is, softer, than other certain servers. Which isn't a bad thing, if this is how you like it, but there is a certain edge to danger that I haven't experienced on CoA since the Civil War, maybe. So in the interest of keeping interested in the community that I enjoy whilst playing the server as I enjoy it, I'd say no to DM interventions and basically stick to what I've been saying earlier.
Then again, it depends how CoA wants to come off to the NWN playerbase.
-
Guy's I'm actually enjoying this thread…Stop trolling.
Jasede 4 Pres.
-
Fine. I'm enjoying it myself anyways.
-
I agree with Jasede myself. Really, if you dont want your character killed, dont get into the situation where they might be.
there is a difference between simply 'being a paladin' and being a paladin who is actively trying to screw up a groups plans. The former is less (yes just less) likely to get killed by the evil guys and used in some sick ritual than the latter, who is putting themself in a position of extreme danger.
Part of being a champion of good is taking risks. People talk about taking risks to 'achieve' things, but then when there is an actual risk, you dont want it?
I'm confused.
Reason I figured this might get locked is because its going pretty off topic.
-
I agree with Jasede completely!
I want to die/kill in PvP because I put myself there, and others also have earned a place to die/kill.
-
Chris Whyte earned his death, a few times over…
-
Jasede says what I'm too lazy to. Conflict is exciting only if you can lose. The times when I'm enjoying this server the most, when I think about the stories I'm participating in here, even when I'm not logged on; these times are rarer and rarer, and when they do come about, they come from being engaged in a conflict, thinking of clever ways to try and maneuver to advantage, and imagining how I can tell the story in the most awesome way.
And I'm pretty confident of that. That I, and the other players involved on every side of the conflict, can tell the story in an awesome way. Every now and then, some feelings get hurt, but I think we, the players of this server, know what we're doing for the most part.
How much "fun" a group is providing to the rest of the playerbase is subjective. Receiving DM assistance/interference in your ongoing player-vs-player or faction-vs-faction plots can make them more interesting for both parties, it's true. At least, it's true in certain instances.
As a rule, however, I prefer to tell my own stories, and I prefer for the outcomes to be decided by a battle of wills between the players and characters involved in them. As a rule, I don't really take kindly to the idea that DMs should monitor the conflict carefully, and then decide how, when and why it should end, and interfere if they decide that it shouldn't. We can handle those responsibilities.
-
I don't think the suggestion is that the DMs provide an outcome or decide who "wins," firstly. The suggestion is to offer a medium to have said battle of wits without it always coming down 100% to who has more levels, gear, powerbuilds, or luck. You can be as clever as you want with PvP. You're still likely to get your ass handed to you if you aren't on par with the power of the server. Meaning, that there would in fact be characters that last forever. Whoever is willing to murder other characters to death. Doesn't sound like a fun place to play to me.
I would also reiterate the concept of "winning." IC winning….obviously, your character wants to win. OOC...consider that winning consists of forcing another human being to lose something they put effort into in a way they may not enjoy even in the slightest. There is a fine line. Sure, someone may simply be complaining because they lost their character in a way that they didn't intend to. Or....they may have a genuine complaint because you used your mechanical prowess to take away their ability to do anything at all about the situation you put them in. DM oversight is a must in many cases, I'd say.
Yes, some players can do PvP in a way that remains fun for everyone involved, just as sometimes DM involvement enhances it. Neither is true all the time. So why use either option all the time? Seems silly to me. Disgretion on all parts.
-
Don't agree that killing should be so off the cuff. Killing is boring, Role play is fun.
-
I'm curious dear players, how do you think we should keep conflict alive as DMs…
Opinion: Most importantly for me is DMs being there to act as sounding boards to bump faction growth and conflict ideas off of. Less so: Allow for NPC support and faction areas as safe zones to allow those certain groups to exist, when they have done enough to earn said perks.
I like it when DMs are there to suggest possibilities, and not restrict or force PC actions when related to a PC storyline, PC plot, or PC goal (outside what IG restrictions would come down on them due to the setting)
…and how can you do it as players...
Opinion: By playing our characters honestly, and being true to that character and the setting in which he/se/it is in.
…without stretching bonds of believability?
Opinion: I think that's the kicker, and encapsulated - DMs and Players, be true to the setting.
-
Okay. I did not read through all 1 billion pages but from Moloch's post I really thought about something.
Gank Squads.
We all know more often then not, Team Ebul is going to piss a lot of people off. Most of these people won't have the balls to do anything. This is when we cue Gank Squads. I am a guilty party of this too but I try to not have random noobs jumping in a gank squad to get easy gear.
Team Evil always gets screwed over in the end because gank squads happen and run rampant and eventually destroy them. It makes sense in a 20v5 fight that a DM give a little bit of leway if the story still has parts to go through. Yes this is going to piss off Gank squad and yes they are going to throw a fit. This just proves which players are here for the story and which players are here for the action.
The only way I would see complaining to be acceptable is if ,god forbid, a DM makes it to where Gank Squad gets Ganked by NPC's way to high a level and they all die and the Hunted group gets off free. That I have never seen happen on this server because its unfair and though the DM's sometimes have to be stuck being the A-Hole in a situation, they never make it really unfair.
-
Evil is traditionally, even in CoA, always expected to lose. And whatever complaints are currently arising seem to express that. This evil group is pursuing a plot that will make the setting controlled by evil. I think in the past this is generally not possible, but with few exceptions. The civil war, Bhaliir had a real chance at winning, but it just wasn't in the cards that time.
This time around, I'm lucky to be involved in a group and a plot, where the bad guys are not just obstacles for the good PCs to overcome, they're real players in the scenario. I must say I support DMs trying to be actively involved in pvp, because of the current scenarios. Moloch's descriptions of his events seem mostly accurate, but with the exception of Jacob being captured, I can't think of any other time a DM's talked us out of FDing someone. We've been overly kind, to the point that it is a flaw, I think. In return however, we were captured (which is fine), by a large party (which is also fine by me), who dry looted us (which is not, considering the previous courtesy we've shown) and spread the loot out over the player base so as to be impossible to recover, apparently amongst characters that have no story with our own.
Anyway, I'm not bitter about it, it was all fully expected. I just like to point out again what I said earlier in this post. This time around, as in the civil war, evil has a legitimate chance to win. I do not consider this conflict, and these villainous PCs to be what most seem to believe (subconsciously) as yet another obstacle to be overcome with time. That isn't how the server works anymore.
-
@AWESOMEMAN:
I do not consider this conflict, and these villainous PCs to be what most seem to believe (subconsciously) as yet another obstacle to be overcome with time. That isn't how the server works anymore.
V5- Evil Arabel FTW.
But I agree entirely with him. Over the past bit, the DM's have been throwing out some wake up calls. A lot of people get it in their head that good will always win and this makes the people playing good, for the most part, become less proactive. This also seems to be spurring on the evil people to be more Proactive.
Look at Arabel now, In the past Clar Banda was a big problem. Now, since good didn't do enough to stop her, Evil won and she became a goddess. Now we got this new group doing a helluva good job stirring the pot and pushing the pendelum to evil. Good on you all.
-
I feel like team good gank squads could be remedied if they were punished IC for the crimes they commit - you know, like murder.
-
My answer to the original question; yes but only when it makes sense ICly to do so.