Keep Conflict Alive
-
I think second chances should be given, though I'm not sure if the way it was handled was ideal. I personally would much rather have seen a bust out attempt with the dms sort of orchastrating the situation so the chances for a sucessful bustout would be even money.
Heres the dilema, as I see it; If you want to engage in pvp, as the cult obviously did, you should deal with loosing. Of course, loosing to a mob squad of 20 against four sucks for anyone. This could be easily fixed, if we as players take this into consideration by not overstacking the sides (some stacking is expected, but 20 vs 4?), and the dms who get the dm message "pvp about to happen" ensure that we are considerate. The way you keep from overstacking is not that hard either, its basically three steps; plan the attack previously, don't bring anyone extra on the day of, and don't make loud announcements saying you are about to take them on since it will definitely bring people running that are just lingerers in the situation. If the people you planned with aren't all there, and you think with only three of you you are going to loose, replan. Please, don't make open sendings, its not fair to the people you are fighting.
As for continuing the story, I don't see how if there are 4+ of them, one of them being caught ends it. I could see things drasticly changing for the group with a key member getting taken out, and maybe the story reaching its climax at that point, but saying the group is dead because one of you gets caught/killed seems almost as detrimental to the story as a giant gank squad. You're partaking in agressive pvp, which is fucking awesome, but sooner or later you are going to start loosing. It's a given.
-
To address one point Carebear has.
Yes, the Red Hart have an army of 500.
The Slime Cult has the support of an army of 500.
Do you really want the DMs to toss the dice and just let NPCs fight it out?
Again, conflict on CoA is not resolved by NPCs. It is resolved by players. That is one of our fundamental guiding philosophies. We could change it, but players universally complained when the module was set up so the NPCs always won and DMs didn't enjoy it that much either.
-
I am not saying it should be all of us watching a 15 minute video of harts vs spoiler on Youtube…
Yet, one of the reasons dm factions exist, is to provide npc support, in one form or another.
I remember NPC asassins taking out a few people in the market, because they pissed off the Unseen Hand.
Talassan wizards supporting Durdyn...
If the cult has npc support, then use them to further the story, instead of letting everything be decided by pvp.
If PVP is the only way to solve things these days, then should more of us, who wish to make an impact, create more optimized characters?
I dislike the notion that I have to quest all day and night, if I am to have a chance to effect the game world.
Sadly, until now, direct PVP has been the somewhat only way to fight out the battle, which is likely why it is getting messy. Its never been done that way before, and honestly, I dislike the notion of it being the only way.
What happened to levels do not matter?
-
Levels don't matter.
The group making the most fun for players tends to get the most attention, be they good or evil.
Please do not make the mistake of thinking the only group being helped by NPCs is the Cult.
NPCs have also supported all the other factions. Again, and I think I may be repeating something:
The first group to get NPC help was the DRUIDS against the Cult.
Then the RED HARTS against the Cult.
I don't understand where the sentiment that only the Cult is getting support comes from. I've screwed them over once or twice by giving help to other groups.
-
I dislike the notion that I have to quest all day and night, if I am to have a chance to effect the game world.
I'll confess to rather feeling this way as well. With the Cult being enemies of the family, we're vastly outpowered. And we haven't been permanently harmed by any of them, which is noteworthy, but it's still silly that we -can't- win or even strike a real blow at them. Perhaps the truth of it is that some concepts really do just need some mechanical power, but it would still be nice to know that alternate routes were available. None of them have been clear or even really hinted at thus far. Not just with the cult, but in player conflict in general.
-
Yet when a group are so up in your face as the cult have been, they have divided the server into "Either with us, or against us". There is no middle ground, there is no way of avoiding them, unless you choose not to log in.
That's exactly what my Evil concepts usually be.
-
DM's aren't always around. There are rules there for Players, we should all know them and follow them. While I think its good for DM's to intervene if the PK'ing is premature players should understand when it is premature.
If you're let go after a beatdown, don't just go hunt them down the next day. Its an insult to the player as you clearly don't appreciate that they are trying to build the story. That's a big problem I think, people show no fear about what they have been through. If you're tortured you will be physically and mentally scarred! Equally if you're mugged you would suffer some shock/anxiety. Think if that happened to you in real life, you wouldnt go outside for days! Yet people are jumping into the gank squad hours later looking for the win.
On the OP, yes DM's should intervene if it furthers story and the players understand how lucky they have been.
-
Again, try to stay on topic.
This is not about the Slime Cult or any player's misperceptions about that group. We can address that as a separate issue.
I'm asking about ideas to help DMs foster story and conflict that ends in meaningful ways all involved will enjoy, rather than one-sided victory as the result of getting as many people together to kill the other side as you can and ending it with a single fight.
-
There is always the option of making peace with your enemies if you don't think you can beat them. Sure, you might have to make terms that are disadvantageous to you, but I think this whole 'fight them or don't log in' mentality is the wrong way to go. If you don't like PvP oocly, roleplay your characters fear of their enemies and use that as an IC way of avoiding it. If you don't think you can beat them, try to find an alternate means of avoiding your destruction (if you're evil or neutral, make a peace offering of something they want, if you're good, try to meet with them and offer them something in exchange for them not harming you or some of your specific friends).
I think the thing to keep in mind is that for both parties there are more then two options of how things can go down when it comes to conflict. Sure, you might have to do something you don't like to do, like portraying your characters fear of their foes overcoming their natural desire to do good, or portraying your evil characters hopes for survival over their natural arrogance and ambition. I think its called rolling with the punches, and it can make for some really interesting character development.
-
//I've deleted my post because it was, admittedly, off-topic.
-
I'm asking about ideas to help DMs foster story and conflict that ends in meaningful ways all involved will enjoy, rather than one-sided victory as the result of getting as many people together to kill the other side as you can and ending it with a single fight.
What the DMs have been doing so far has worked fine, imo. However, I do think if the DMs intervene along the way, they should also aid in setting up the finale. In other words, if the DMs intervene, they should commit to finish the intervention until the end by setting up and supervising the final fight/ritual/agreement etc.
-
However, I am NOT a fan of forced upon PVP and conflict.
Cough cough cough
Anyway, back on topic I am pro that DMs keep the story rolling by intervening where it seems most fit. They get to see things in a larger perspective and some people just end up being too trigger happy.
-
So long as both 'sides' have something they are building up to, having the 'battle' decided during the climax of whichever happens first (if the two are separate), and overseen by the DM's is great. Some characters have more personal goals, or smaller goals, but can still get drawn into all this.
In these cases, it's up to the players to figure something out.
People seems to think that direct PVP is the only way to defeat the people, if I got beaten several times in direct pvp, I'd probably try something else. Find out what they are planning, find out where they get their support, then attack that. for example.
-
I'm not trolling, but…
(Hey, I'm really not! It says so right there in my first line!)
This frantic "must avoid killing other player's character forever" care-bearing is exactly what has destroyed conflict on CoA. Everyone I know from EfU comes to CoA for that reason every so often: relaxation. A candy-coated carebear world where you are in no real danger because no player would even dream about permanently killing you. And most DMs don't want to encourage that, either.
This is folly, in my opinion. Great heroes and great stories come only with the risk of great loss. Yes, with permanent death and more PK a lot of characters are snuffed out before they get a chance, true. But the ones that do thrive burn brighter than any flame you've ever seen.
Honestly, to invigorate CoA and change from this nanny-state where you have no risks and no fears, a lot of things would have to change:
A) Less strict requirements for DM supervision of PVP (for example, only when NPCs are nearby)
B) Killing as a natural consequence of certain kinds of PVP, not something that ought to be avoided at all costs
C) No respawn from PVP. Ever. (Raises are fine.)
D) Factions that foster conflict rather than discourage it. I have fond memories of the EO that directly put them in conflict with many PCs, causing great characters and stories to emerge. The best faction I've interacted with on CoA to date.If something is achieved without suffering, it's meaningless.
If something is easy to get it's not worth getting.In struggle, in difficulty and hardship and in overcoming odds - with a real risk of death - that is how great stories emerge, legends are born, and forever remembered.
@Moloch:
'm asking about ideas to help DMs foster story and conflict that ends in meaningful ways all involved will enjoy, rather than one-sided victory as the result of getting as many people together to kill the other side as you can and ending it with a single fight.
What does this mean? How are both sides supposed to enjoy a conflict? More often than not, the loser will be sore. And it doesn't matter if they lose their character permanently, or if they simply lose. It's natural that there are sore losers. Undesirable, perhaps, but the happiness of the victor is more important than the fleeting frustration of the loser.
If you made it so that "losing" a conflict is just as rewarding as winning it (and honestly, it is, even in what I propose: the experience is exciting, moving, adrenaline-laden), then why would you be driven to win?
The point of conflict between two players or player factions is to see their energies collide in a spark of creativity and energy as they both fight for their goal. If there is no loser, then there is no winner, and they would have been better of not fighting at all.
A fight for no reason and no reward has no meaning.
Meaning comes in the pursuit of a goal! In meaningful conflict, great heroes emerge and unforgettable memories are forged.–
tl;dr version–-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?
This is exactly the wrong direction. No, no, no! Where is the risk? Why should players want to achieve something when there is no real risk of losing their character? This will only lead to a culture of players that know nothing about mechanics or danger or real adventure, living in a cushy bubble of safety.
It doesn't matter if a player "wants to be PK'd" or not. If the story warrants it, if they risked death, if they offended the wrong person, then they must they. Else their action had no consequence, no real meaning.
Listen: if someone's act should, realistically, result in death, they need to die. Not having this risk just fosters avoiding conflict, rather than encouraging it. Why? Because it's flat-out boring, if there is no risk! This is terrible!
What if my character walks up to the level 10 half-dragon and shouts insults? Are you seriously saying that, if he kills me, he cannot permanently kill me just because I say "I don't want him to"?
That's not serious roleplaying anymore. It's what children do on Pokemon or Zelda forums, where when they get hurt they just magically get better. We're better than that!
Don't turn CoA into this. =/
–
The goal of an evil PC is not to live forever and complete all his goals. The goal of any great evil PC is to provide good with an amazingly clever enemy, trying to complete as many goals as possible, strike fear and terror into the hearts of other players and then die in a ridiculously cool fight and be forever remember as the terror that he was.
He doesn't need or want any courtesy, unless he's obviously level 1 or 2 and hasn't really done anything yet to anyone.
-
That may be true, Jasede, but where would you draw the line? A level 10 PC killing a level 6 PC for doing something as a natural consequence incurred by a "certain kind of PvP"? A freshly inducted mage guild novice sacrificed in the ruins to Lyss on his first exploratory venture down? Because that's all I see the DMs trying to steer things away from.
You're right, PvP leads to all sorts of craziness and some of the most memorable events of a character's story - but unrestricted PvP is not synonymous with fulfilling PvP.
-
-
What's fulfilling to you isn't to me.
Fulfilling to me:
I'm a level 1 mage. I join the mage's guild. Turns out they are demon cultists and sacrifice me in a cool ritual. Funky!
I'm a level 1 noble walking into the slums and get mugged. Instead of giving away my gold I open my mouth too wide and get my skull caved in. Cool!
And from the opposite end, too.
And have no doubt: yeah, I whine when I die in that fashion. For a day. Maybe two. And then I think about the goosebumps I felt during the entire exchange. The fear that I couldn't get in real life. The tangible sense of dread and impeding doom. And I'm glad that I could have all those experiences from this old bastard of a game.The doesn't have to be a line, though I'd say you should usually avoid killing low-level PCs. Good evil PCs tend to fight characters that are stronger or just as strong as them, anyway.
But if your IC action doesn't have the proper IC consequence… well, then it's not IC anymore. It's OOC, metagaming, carebear. It's lame and not my idea of fun. Where's my consequences, my risk?
My rant is pointless, though. If this is the direction CoA is going, it's going to go this direction. But I'm telling all of you, you're missing something way more exciting, dangerous and memorable if you go this path. You may end up with something pleasant, inclusive and free-form, and it all boils down to preference, but I couldn't enjoy that.
Can you?
-
then why would you be driven to win?
Why do you need to be?
Don't you see?
Because it's IN CHARACTER to want to win.
What kind of evil cult doesn't want to win? What kind of assassins purposefully wants to get caught? No, you make it as hard as possible for your enemies because you know: evil always loses. And you'll be damned if you don't make it a hell of a ride before you go down.
-
I'm a level 1 noble walking into the slums and get mugged. Instead of giving away my gold I open my mouth too wide and get my skull caved in. Cool!
I spend a week searching books for history, building the character, thinking of goals he could pursue, mannerisms he could have, etc. I decide to seek some allies, head to a dark, dingy bar. Some random passer-by decides he likes my necklace.
A week of work down the drain.
Cool?
then why would you be driven to win?
Why do you need to be?
Don't you see?
Because it's IN CHARACTER to want to win.
What kind of evil cult doesn't want to win? What kind of assassins purposefully wants to get caught? No, you make it as hard as possible for your enemies because you know: evil always loses. And you'll be damned if you don't make it a hell of a ride before you go down.
So find an in character reason to want to win.
-
You seriously spend 1 week to prepare for your character? First of all, if it's an application character, your application basically means you are mature enough to accept any and all consequences your actions might have. And if your character choses to travel alone in a dangerous area, that's his decision.
It might not be fun then and there, but if you got a really cool mugging scene - and trust me, no mugger worth a damn who doesn't want to get banned is going to kill you unless you are practically begging for it - it'll be worth the anxiety, fear and experience in retrospect, after you're done being mad about it after a while.
Are you trying to say that the DMs think no current evil faction has any in-character reasons to win?
Every PC has in-character reasons to win his conflicts. Else he wouldn't start them. It doesn't matter if you are OOCly cool with losing or not- it's in fact important that you don't mind losing -but in-character, you will do everything in your power to survive and push your goal.
I don't think we're speaking the same language, unfortunately.