Keep Conflict Alive
-
This is how I see it. Don't get too cozy at high levels. Expect constant conflict and then you won't be let down when you die.
The absolute worst thing that could happen in my opinion is a DM motherly figure pulling her kids apart when they get into fights. I haven't PvPed for a long time so I have no say on how DMs are handling it at the moment. However, if they are saving people on the merit of their concept I feel it as a huge immersion breaker.
People always complain don't go OOC it ruins the mood. DM saves would be ten times worse than a bunny on stilts running around hasted- note, I'm not talking about any saves recently and I am quite clueless about the Eye-druid conflict.
The point is this: If there is a policy about 'saving' characters due to the concept then it brings a whole lot of OOC into character decisions which should be IC. This is terrible.
Character A wants to kill character B (for good reason, mind you)
He should be thinking about:
How will it affect me?
Will I be jailed?
Will I be executed?
Will I be ostracized?NOT:
If I kill him will the DMs give me a cold shoulder on my next concept?
Will players complain and avoid me in game?
Is it fair that I am 2 levels higher than him?
He's dealing with a demon to bring the downfall of Arabel, I can kill him but everyone loves his concept!If you think about PvP in the latter terms, what's the point in playing CoA? This is an RP server where your actions should have consequences and YES, that means dying or killing. If you don't want to jump into that, there are plenty of adventuring plots the DMs provide which do not involve direct conflict.
That's what I think as a player who was heavy into PvP 3 years ago.
edit: I can also see some players feeling their opponents have a magic shield of immunity due to their contribution to current plots. Without a doubt, there are players who bring huge plots in and it would be a shame to see them die. BUT, it would even worse to let them live artificially until they're "done with the concept" so they can die to something artificially scripted and planned.
DOUBLE EDIT: lol sorry guys I just realized something. There's no such thing as a passive character in this server unless you just quest 24/7. Right now we're dealing with factions in a constant tug of war. You might not be ganking a PC, but say when you go after that Dragon who is allied to X, you are coming into conflict with them even if it is a DM quest. You can't be helping Red Hart gather powerful relics to banish all evil from the realm because naturally evil is affected when you do so.
I think it'd be best if we all kept things IC good or bad and maintained a good fellowship OOCly. If you mix OOC feelings into it makes the "RP" shallow.
-
GnomishInventor, I'd like you to consider the question.
No one is discussing letting characters LIVE to finish their concept, but rather to tell INTERESTING stories that don't involve killing off PCs first chance someone has to "win" and stop them. Rather, help foster PC conflict to a MEANINGFUL level before the PKing starts.
As for something Jaseade said, comparing EfU to CoA is silly. People should probably stop doing that. EfU has a different philosophy to PvP and PKing than CoA does.
Our philosophy is that your ability to out PK another group does not make for interesting stories. Thus, as a DM, I am looking for player opinions on how DMs can BUILD interesting conflict without artificially keeping players alive.
Most of the feeling that I am getting is this:
1). Players want us to help build conflict in in character manners.
2). Players do not want safety shields, and risks of death should be present. ie: no Get Out of Jail Free cards
3). Players want us to ensure that if we are helping to build the conflict, that we a fun conclusion at a logical point.
The major concern I get is the fear of DM's "saving" groups. Part of that is quite legitimate, so DMs will need to use caution. Some of that concern also probably comes from players who feel annoyed they are not generating the same levels of ADVENTURE and INTRIGUE as those we may give more support to. Sadly, nothing can be done about that, DMs will always continue to reward that behavior, either with loot/quests/levels that make you harder to kill or outright having NPC allies aid your survival.
Much of my concern here was to get an over all sentiment and generate ideas for resolving IC conflicts without leaping to PKing. I think I've got a few ideas from the threads, and welcome more still.
My ideas involve:
1). Making sure players realize PKing doesn't "win" plots because PCs can get raised. I think some people are hesitant to get raises, or worse, think 'burning a corpse' prevents a raise on CoA. Only DMs or the player of the character decide when it is permakilled.
2). Making competitive plots between groups where PKing the opponents would actually make you lose the competition. IE: Giving some IC justification for actual restraint.
3). Encouraging PCs to build rivalries that lead to PKing at the culmination of a meaningful DM sponsored event. That will require letting players know DMs are very happy to help with this kind of stuff which rewards people who don't just rush for the PK.
4). Yordles
5). Implementing "soul bonding" that let's a character make one or two pieces of gear undroppable provided they are not plot items. This makes PKing to loot less rewarding too.
-
2). Making competitive plots between groups where PKing the opponents would actually make you lose the competition. IE: Giving some IC justification for actual restraint.
I don't know who the hell the Regent is, but I especially give him kudos for providing IC reasons for it!
(not gonna stop us from trying to find out who the heck he is and…cut off his ear! mumble) -
To the question:
Should DMs help make sure PvP doesn't end in PKing, even when it may make sense IC, just to ensure that the fun generated by the conflicts continue?
I offer the following answer:
In general - yes.
In the instance of the Cult of the Eye - no.
The word 'intrigue' has certain connotations of subtlety which are absolutely not present with the cult. The cult has involved people primarily by getting right up in their face, and then beating the shit out of them, while being very OOCly polite about it and sparing their items and so forth. Right up until a few days before their capture they were hanging out in the city, and even using the sending system, using their full character's names, giving their location, and saying that they were selling "bloodstones".
Why were NPCs not bashing down the door to arrest them? No idea. I can only assume it was because there were no DMs on.
Why were the PCs not bashing down the door? Because they got up to 10th level in, like, a month.
To then have them walk right into a fairly obvious trap in the mage's guild, get the shit kicked out of them, and then have them get just let go is absolutely beyond ridiculous. There is no anonymity for these PCs anymore. There is no doubt or any ambiguity about what they've been doing. Everyone should know. That is simply a result of the way they've been playing evil. It'd be like the police walking in on Jack the Ripper, knife in hand, yelling, "I'm Jack the Ripper", and then deciding to let him go just because.
Some geezer wrote in the bible, "Live by the sword, die by the sword."
(Or something close to that, anyway)Ultimately, though, it comes down to personal opinion as to whether the quality of the conflict they contribute to the server outweighs the implausibility of the method of keeping them alive. In the current instance, that bar should be pretty goddamn high, because the plausibility is beyond implausible.
For me, the answer is unequivocally 'no'. I haven't seen much that I find interesting come about from all of this. All I've seen is rampant PVP which has been won by mechanics and lots and lots of potions. That they have an army of 500 NPCs at their disposal is totally news to me. I've neither seen or heard absolutely anything in game concerning their existence, goals beyond beating the shit out of people and selling bloodstones, or anything else at all.
Assuming I had, I think I'd still say 'no'. I don't think that yet another random existential threat is really what would help improve the server at this juncture. That's what every single plot I've seen since I started playing again during the Clar Banda has been, and they're all beginning to taste a bit like vanilla. Nor, as a player, would I be interested in fighting their leaders, who reached the same level I reached after 7 months of playing 1 PC without dying after only 1 month. I will never, ever be able to catch up mechanically and little avenue has been given for people to act against the cult except PVP combat; and that's something I apparently dont have the time to meaningfully grind in preparation for.
-
Amen…
-
Should DMs help make sure PvP doesn't end in PKing, even when it may make sense IC, just to ensure that the fun generated by the conflicts continue?
–--------
Fun generated by conflict, conflict which has enough substance to intrigue us all into desperately wanting to involve our characters. Is there any other reason people log into this game every day? I can't help but feel that those considering being part of a massive pking event forget about the weeks/months they spent waiting for team evil to build up enough momentum to have a dramatic fall. I'm talking about that incredibly boring periods of CoA after team evil has been slaughtered in some way or another; when team good is waiting around for the next players ballsy enough to roll that outwardly evil necromancer,or bitchy barbarian with a grudge against pretty things.
The reason you play isn't to pk. It's just a great way to build tension amongst pcs, at the very least. And even that is a shitty excuse.
I think people need to consider this more often. I'm all for beating the piss out of people. The fear of death is a great influencer too when trying to drive the masses. But people shouldn't get pissy when DMs prolong character survival. I don't care what side their on. Yes, it is necessary, because if I've narrowed down my RPp with another person to murdering their abilities to continue playing, this means I've exhausted all options. At this point I need a DM to interrupt the fight with some sort of craziness I haven't thought of.
I might have trailed off here. If I have and I notice, I'll fix it later.
-
@FZ:
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.
If this was the case these threads would never crop up
-
For my (small) part, I've really enjoyed the conflict. But I must admit, from my own admittedly limited perspective, the current situation seems hilariously absurd.
While I can expect OOC that my character's life and those of his allies are reasonably safe, thanks to the very welcome courtesy of the players involved, I must assume IC that most of the characters I know (including my own, definitely) could disappear at any time if the bad guys decide they want to make it happen. The Cult has proven itself to be that serious a threat.
This threat doesn't bother me. It makes the story more interesting, if anything. But the OOC courtesy of the bad guys puts us in an awkward situation. I don't mind that Zrukk was set free (honestly, I was just a little disappointed OOC when I found out he was captured so suddenly), and I understand the thought behind it, I think, but it still makes no sense at all to me. I can just barely imagine that the knights really would resolve the problem in this way, but Queen Lhal would have to be insane to approve. Maybe she is, though. I don't know the character.
Honestly, I'm really fine with all of that, too. Continual failure doesn't bother me. But I've heard more than a few people express frustration about this sort of thing (that is, what at least feels like an inexplicable advantage of the Cult's), even before the deal with Sir William and Zrukk. The tension makes me uncomfortable much of the time, especially since I believe that this is no one's fault.
I know that evil having the upper hand is fun a lot of the time. But I think it may have gotten a little excessive, when the players on the other side are feeling like there's really not much they can do. Our first real victory (of which I'm aware) was very quickly diminished to almost nothing by something that felt, I must say, a little artificial.
I didn't want Zrukk to die, and I didn't want the Cultists to be defeated, but the good guys really need to feel like they can win every once in a while. I know they can, even as it is, but it doesn't feel that way to a lot of people.
I don't know if I've really added much, so sorry for that. I just don't want any of the people I've enjoyed playing with to quit out of frustration. That would make me sad.
-
He should be thinking about:
How will it affect me?
Will I be jailed?
Will I be executed?
Will I be ostracized?NOT:
If I kill him will the DMs give me a cold shoulder on my next concept?
Will players complain and avoid me in game?
Is it fair that I am 2 levels higher than him?
He's dealing with a demon to bring the downfall of Arabel, I can kill him but everyone loves his concept!This rings true for a certain type of character. However, it only rings true all of the time if the only character you play is one whose intention is to survive by killing off the opposition. The thought process I go through is usually:
-
How long has this person been a thorn in my side?
-
How many opportunities have there been for them to back out, and were they reasonable offers?
-
Are they opposing me because they are the source of the problem, or only following orders from someone more important?
-
If they're guilty of all three, is there anything I can do to them that's ICly worse than death?
Now to me, there is nothing OOC about those questions. They don't break immersion for me. I get where you're coming from but all this means is that PvP on CoA should be intelligent, that it's not a battleground for a bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians who venerate Cyric, who may ICly want to kill as many people as they possibly can. What's controlled is FD and looting, not PvP in general. And why not? V3 PvP was so much fun that gank-squads were an every day norm. Evil groups that got into power did not hesitate to kill their competitors, however weak they were.
I don't really miss V3 PvP in truth, and the civil war was great not for the PvP, but for what golw said - that since then and especially during then, the chance for evil to win (rather than simply compete with itself to see who could survive longest) was a very tangible possibility. All the best concepts that arose back then are still possible, while some of the harshest things done during that time are not.
2). Making competitive plots between groups where PKing the opponents would actually make you lose the competition. IE: Giving some IC justification for actual restraint.
5). Implementing "soul bonding" that let's a character make one or two pieces of gear undroppable provided they are not plot items. This makes PKing to loot less rewarding too.
These two especially sound like some nice ideas. There ought to be some mechanic to allow for when a group is advancing its agenda through PvP, be it muggings or whatever else. It need not be executions, just being captured, put in the stocks and fined/being-searched-for-stolen-equipment or something, so that there is some consequence for such direct PvP without making PvP an event that cannot happen in any form without a DM.
-
-
I have not read all this and I plan to only skim most of it. But this little gem caught my eye: "It'd be like the police walking in on Jack the Ripper, knife in hand, yelling, "I'm Jack the Ripper", and then deciding to let him go just because. " By yearchris.
Well, lets see.. if the police did not have a warrant or due cause then, yeah, they would have to let him go.. or if they forgot to read him his rights.. or dot an I in the paperwork somewhere. Our legal system is full of fuck ups like this where dead guilty monsters get to walk free over a technicality. (Any one know a guy called Oj Simpson?)
In the case of this particular situation with the Cult of the Eye, if every one would take a chill out pill and read back, the Queen left this in the hands of Sir William. He did not have to take the duel or risk letting a criminal go. In fact I would have been very impressed if he had said:
"No, this is wrong and I will not do it. If that costs me my honour in the Knights, then so be it but I will not let this monster have a chance of escaping."
Ut-oh… but this seems to throw every ones arguments out the window.. it was not the DM's giving the player a free walk... It was -gasp- in the hands of a player!!! OUR WORLD IS COMING TO AN ENDDDDD!
Now, back to scanning this thread for the gems of wisdom in it here and there.
-
Arabel, and the region as a whole is chaotic aligned. This is pretty obvious. The Lawful Good guys were kicked out and Chaotic Good-Neutral ones moved in. They're obviously incapable (ICly) of upholding the law, and it is reflected by in game events. Keep it IC.
-
That it was put in the hands of a player makes it seem no less bizarre in character. I don't think Queen Lhal is a knight, and I don't think she's even lawfully aligned. Why would she care enough about the knights' code to approve of an obviously serious threat being freed, especially at a time like this? Why would she leave something like that in the hands of Sir William?
It seems to me that there must have been some other way for the knights to deal with Sir William's dishonor. The way it happened, it seemed like they were actually trying to find a way to free Zrukk. Of course, I wasn't there for this, and there's probably better reasons than I know.
I, for one, am not at all bothered that Zrukk was freed; I'm excited to see what will come of it. And I understand that this only happened to make more fun for everyone. But people have been genuinely discouraged by stuff like this, out of character, and that's no fun at all.
-
I don't think Gmork can make any point without being overly sarcastic or snide and/or completely miss the point the original post was making. Love our DMs.
There is and always will be division on how PVP should be treated; There aren't enough players withballs who would support that gun-ho, realism that Jasede and a few others here would like to see, and that's fair game, because there are other servers out there that can accommodate that. CoA is a server in which players play out their characters stories and the only reason DMs have gotten involved in these sort of situations is a total lack of consideration on the part of players, or at least, that is what I've come to understand. That whole business with the Cult Member and the Red Harts are all totally IC reactions, I think it isn't worth any OOC stink up but IC? Definitely. Lhal's trying to keep her standing army and if that means the possibility of releasing one, two prisoners then so be it. There's a god-damn army of plane-walking goblins on the way anyway.
However. I think certain events in Arabel's history, one-off instances and the like, haven't benefited from DM intervention in the interest of "keeping the story going". The problem is, I don't think there's a proper medium between letting players decide and intervention to warrant disbelief, its just a case by case rule of thumb, isn't it? Sometimes you just get the feeling you can form a little shield by being a character who frequently plays to the DMs want for A&I.
But it's not really true. I think there's alot of miscommunication here and quite simply, in my opinion, and this has been stated over and over - the DMs are better off forewarned about your intentions, particularly if they involve FD. It's quite simple. Anyway, noone likes to lose, sure, but I'm starting to like the idea of alternatives to this philosophy that CoA uses, and I don't think I'm the only one.
All seems abit vanilla these days.
-
Lhal had little influence on the situation, the KNIGHTS did.
When their Lord Marshall insisted on this solution that protected the honor of the knighthood, being that she relies on them, she agreed.
It honestly makes perfect sense IC to the DMs. OOC inability to understand the setting doesn't matter if the DM team sees the logic because at the end of the day, we do know the setting best.
-
Anyone who is arguing your points there isn't reading the posts.
-
Lhal had little influence on the situation, the KNIGHTS did.
When their Lord Marshall insisted on this solution that protected the honor of the knighthood, being that she relies on them, she agreed.
It honestly makes perfect sense IC to the DMs. OOC inability to understand the setting doesn't matter if the DM team sees the logic because at the end of the day, we do know the setting best.
O snap.
-
I'm perfectly willing to concede my ignorance. I never claimed to know what was best. At least, I'm pretty sure I made it clear that I don't understand. And honestly I don't care all that much if I do understand what's going on, OOC or IC, since I always manage to have fun anyway.
It doesn't change anything about what was really my main point, though. People are clearly upset over this, and that bothers me. I think it could have been avoided. But I'll stop now.
-
Anyway, we're moving off topic again. Consider the real theme and purpose of the post please, because it is helpful to DMs to know what players prefer to see happen.
-
Obviously if players can't be trusted not to balls stuff like this up then DMs need to get involved.
It's a shame given CoA is a roleplaying / storytelling server that threads like this crop up every now and then. To me it's common sense to allow conflict to nurture and develop, I don't understand how anyone else can see it otherwise (well I can, because the lure of other people's loot / gold / potions is just too much to take sometimes)
At the end of the day if you're not a dick / idiot / bellend then all this crap gets made a lot easier. DMs, do what you need to do to make CoA a happy place.
-
Tom, roll up a character and make CoA a happier place.