Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57

Thread: Is this forum still alive?

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unutterable View Post
    That's why I'm saying a dozen people would be the outer edge of what I'd be comfortable with. The community is not large enough to support that much rp-pvp without bringing in non-rp fillers. That's where Satet-Ka goes wrong. He bolsters the ranks with people with no interest in rp or with people who will actively troll it. It's a really good effort but it gets undermined by the compromises needed.

    Nine would be my ideal number, three factions of three. Easier to balance, easier to schedule, no need for anyone to have to ask Kokkschmasher89 to fill a spot.
    That sounds about right. Just need to get more people on-board. Also will take time to get people newer to PvP up to speed.

  2. #32

    Default

    My opinion on this keeps changing over time. Usually I have a really good experience with PvP-RP that lets me feel happy through the next three disasters. Then I slowly sink into despair until suddenly I am pleasantly surprised and my faith restored. If you do the math you'll see that the dismal failures tend to outnumber the successes by a considerable margin.

    I've seen Hyperborean Guilds and Cimmerian Guilds try PvP-RP with various degrees of success. I also had a fantastic early experience on Wiccana where the combat was entirely RPed and that worked amazingly well. I've come to the conclusion that if the PvP has RP consequences then it's much much harder to get a clean resolution. Everyone is playing the hero even if it's only in their own mind and heroes hate losing. That would be true even if PvP was an important element in people's gameplay (note the QQ after every mini game loss) but with most RPer's not valuing PvP it's really hard to make the outcome of PvP binding on the RP.

    The solutions that I have come up with are probably not going to be well liked by many but here goes.

    1) RP as "set dressing" for PvP and PvP as "flavor text" for RP. By "set dressing" I mean give a siege a RP reason to happen and thus allow grand speeches and RP trappings around what is afterwards pure PvP. By "flavor text" I mean having things like the outcome of sieges inform the way RP works. So if a siege is won by X guild, then their guild leader might be the subject of tavern gossip for a while. Those paying attention will note that there is no "consequence" to this beyond what people chose to put in their RP. It's just random stuff that informs RP but doesn't dictate it.

    2) The "heel." Like professional wrestling someone needs to be the bad guy and knows that as a consequence of being a bad guy that they are destined to lose. They may have a decent run of victories but that's only to make their eventual fall all that more dramatic. It's a very hard role to play because everyone wants to be a hero. Setting out to eventually lose so that the other guy looks good? That's not so easy. Hard core "hard mode" RPers also hate the idea because it stinks of story lining and everyone knows that hard core RPer's do freeform. The problem is that it requires trust. Either the heel has to be strong enough on his own to win (and in which case why wouldn't he just keep winning?) OR the other side has to throw him some early victories that some will see as undeserved. In Wrestling someone else that is neither the hero or the heel is in charge of making those decisions including when the bad guy takes the dive. That doesn't exist in RP and makes the entire thing extremely difficult.

  3. #33

    Default

    Any thoughts of what the RP basis would be?

    I have a HoX version of Briesse on Crom. Briesse is a semi-retired transporter and sometimes acquirer of goods - both legal and not-so-much. And the proprietress of a docked boat turned gambling house/fight den (I just wish there was a suitable in-game location for it). (The level 80 and geared DT version of Briesse is still on Fury.) Briesse could take a job to transport something.

    In fact, last time I tried coming back, with Clan Conriocht, I ended up accepting a job from Batkalim to transport something. Then I quit playing because it was no fun playing Conriocht with no other Conriocht around. I don't remember what the job was. Sorry Batkalim. So there we have part of a possibility already. Maybe.

    Disclaimer: Even though I love PvP, I suck at it. And I've never PvP'd with my HoX. I prefer the armor of a soldier or the healing ability of a healer in PvP.

    Yup - coward.

    Anyway, just offering my RP to help create a story - if needed.
    Last edited by Sendra; 7th July 2015 at 05:48.

  4. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamsmith View Post
    My opinion on this keeps changing over time. Usually I have a really good experience with PvP-RP that lets me feel happy through the next three disasters. Then I slowly sink into despair until suddenly I am pleasantly surprised and my faith restored. If you do the math you'll see that the dismal failures tend to outnumber the successes by a considerable margin.

    I've seen Hyperborean Guilds and Cimmerian Guilds try PvP-RP with various degrees of success. I also had a fantastic early experience on Wiccana where the combat was entirely RPed and that worked amazingly well. I've come to the conclusion that if the PvP has RP consequences then it's much much harder to get a clean resolution. Everyone is playing the hero even if it's only in their own mind and heroes hate losing. That would be true even if PvP was an important element in people's gameplay (note the QQ after every mini game loss) but with most RPer's not valuing PvP it's really hard to make the outcome of PvP binding on the RP.

    The solutions that I have come up with are probably not going to be well liked by many but here goes.

    1) RP as "set dressing" for PvP and PvP as "flavor text" for RP. By "set dressing" I mean give a siege a RP reason to happen and thus allow grand speeches and RP trappings around what is afterwards pure PvP. By "flavor text" I mean having things like the outcome of sieges inform the way RP works. So if a siege is won by X guild, then their guild leader might be the subject of tavern gossip for a while. Those paying attention will note that there is no "consequence" to this beyond what people chose to put in their RP. It's just random stuff that informs RP but doesn't dictate it.

    2) The "heel." Like professional wrestling someone needs to be the bad guy and knows that as a consequence of being a bad guy that they are destined to lose. They may have a decent run of victories but that's only to make their eventual fall all that more dramatic. It's a very hard role to play because everyone wants to be a hero. Setting out to eventually lose so that the other guy looks good? That's not so easy. Hard core "hard mode" RPers also hate the idea because it stinks of story lining and everyone knows that hard core RPer's do freeform. The problem is that it requires trust. Either the heel has to be strong enough on his own to win (and in which case why wouldn't he just keep winning?) OR the other side has to throw him some early victories that some will see as undeserved. In Wrestling someone else that is neither the hero or the heel is in charge of making those decisions including when the bad guy takes the dive. That doesn't exist in RP and makes the entire thing extremely difficult.
    I have seen both before, and the first one I dislike, if only because it seems to be mostly suited for PvPers only, and doesn't offer much in the way for characters who would normally not be seen on the battlefield, so I see participation here being limited.

    The second one seems closer to ideal, but I think that in the setting we're given, does there necessarily have to be 'good guy' and 'bad guy'? I see a lot of factions as being subjectively good or bad, but not universally so, and a lot of cases could be made for either side winning. The issue here, however, is as you say, it is very difficult for one side to accept loss, especially if they do not trust the other side. And too frequently it is hard for RPers to want to put up with the discomfort and the views of others to consistently play the losing role. Getting supporters for them is equally hard.

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CimmerianHoX View Post
    I have seen both before, and the first one I dislike, if only because it seems to be mostly suited for PvPers only, and doesn't offer much in the way for characters who would normally not be seen on the battlefield, so I see participation here being limited.
    Back early on in the game there were RP guilds that had enough 80's to hold a battle keep with a few RP minded allies. However, that still left them with a number of problems, the biggest one being that they couldn't limit challenges to just RP guilds. So like it or not even when one of the parties was 100% RPing the siege they couldn't dictate that the opposition do the same. In the games midlife, where we had large general purpose guilds that had a large RP contingent and RP backstory, we had the situation where set dressing actually worked pretty well because there was a RP contingent in both groups even if it didn't represent a majority. Large scale PvP was never designed with RP in mind, it was always going to be shoehorned in. The set dressing/flavor text method at least meant that sieges took place in the same world as RP instead of the consequences of PvP being ignored completely.

    The second one seems closer to ideal, but I think that in the setting we're given, does there necessarily have to be 'good guy' and 'bad guy'? I see a lot of factions as being subjectively good or bad, but not universally so, and a lot of cases could be made for either side winning. The issue here, however, is as you say, it is very difficult for one side to accept loss, especially if they do not trust the other side. And too frequently it is hard for RPers to want to put up with the discomfort and the views of others to consistently play the losing role. Getting supporters for them is equally hard.

    In my opinion yes, there has to be a bad guy and the understanding has to be there from the beginning that he is going to lose. That's the only way that you can get PvP into the story and have the consequences stick. Provided there is trust people will let the bad guy grab early victories knowing that there will be an eventual reversal. Note that this is different from setting yourself up as an antagonist. Satetka sets himself up as that even blurring the IC/OOC line to make sure that he is suitably hated but it doesn't work if you do as he does and wait for the other guy to actually defeat you, especially if you pre-load the deck in your favor as Satetka likes to do.

    You have to view this like tabletop and while not exactly playing the antagonist NPC at least be aware of the fact that the idea isn't to win at any cost, it's to make the process fun for everyone. I may point out that this setup kind of relies on "Team Rocket" levels of villainous last minute "escapes to fight another day" since nobody is likely to keep burning the cost of making replacement PvP equipped level 80's (especially since FC charges real cash money for name changes and so many good names are now taken.)

  6. #36

    Default

    I have always enjoyed the "set dressing" RP flavoring to PvP battles. For me, it doesn't matter so much if everyone is RPing every moment of the fight. What matters is how the conflict fits in with a larger story. It is vital to me that the RPers I see in the fight are in character, and that the battle is part of our shared RP story and is part of our story moving forward. It is vital that characters and relationships can be transformed by the events of the conflict. Your trusted friend shows up on the other side? That's more RP! You have been betrayed? That's more RP! The noise and fury of the battle provides cover to sneak an illicit shipment through, opening a new trade route? That more RP!

    The worst is when a day later, it was "just an RP event" and all RP is reset afterward.

    Again - I'm not looking for high stakes, winner-take-all. That would mean that RPers are permanently out of the story or have their story ripped away from them - and that is bad. For me, the goal of RP is to build more RP. Conflict still has to leave all participants able to continue. That's also why I prefer to stay close to the middle, with conflict being just on one side or the other of the conflict, rather than at extremes. With extremes, you have nowhere else to go. Villains, such as Neverlin has successfully managed to be in the past, and Satetka has tried to be but always pushed the conflict too far, into OOC hate and avoidance, can work. But I find the stories and RP of more organic disputes to be more satisfying. Maybe that's just me (and a very small number of others). The good thing, and bad thing, about those RP stories is that they require a lot more ongoing effort of the RP parties involved to keep them going.

    I admit I tried and tried to set up the kinds of conflicts I'm talking about - and with very limited success. One that was very close - but not quite - was when the Silver Dragons declared martial law in Tesso. I saw that as a perfect set up. But as often happens with "good guy" RP, they didn't see it as martial law but as "liberating Tesso". And when we attempted to push them to clamp down hard on our "unauthorized" shipment, they backed off, because they didn't want to be "bad guys". Conflict gone. Story over. It was still a fun night of server-wide RP in Tesso that night, but not the ongoing conflict story I hoped for. Fortunately it was saved by one "what the f***" move by one RPer/guild leader, more of a gag, that triggered an ongoing war and exciting storyline. And with us as the villains. That's what it took. But at least it worked.

    So maybe Dreamsmith is right, even if a story with a clear mustache-twirling villain is not very satisfying to many of us who like depth and subtlety, it may be the easiest way of getting RPers to risk their reputations and commit to a battle. But please, if we go that route, attempt to make the "good" side shallow and nauseating, or even oppressive, enough that I can justify siding with the villain. (Especially important when numbers don't work out and someone needs to switch sides for the battle to be fun.)


    But back to the situation at hand, with the relatively small numbers Unutterable and CimmerianHox are talking about, I do think it can be done with more organic stories, rather than a server-wide villain.

    I would love to be part of this somehow, if it's organic. Sadly, I'm not really involved enough in R with any of my characters yet to be involved.

  7. #37

    Default

    Had a few 'villain toons' defeated and/or killed by now. Playing the 'villain' can be fun. The tricky part is always to find the balance between being a threat or a push-over. And frankly... If Unutterable is playing the good side, that should ensure Victory for that RP faction
    Khemi. Picture Hell on the cheap then add more whores

  8. #38

    Default

    Couple things about conflict, story-writing wise.

    Other than a couple very specific characters for whom the mustache twirling and the tying of maidens to railroad tracks is their schtick, you really don't have 'villains.' You have antagonists.

    Conflict is built better using needs and wants as a foundation than I'M Evil Cos Imma Orc and Tolkien Writes Shallow Characters.

    That's where the macguffin comes in. Whatever form it takes is besides the point. It just has to be established as 1)Rare/Unique 2) Necessary for all parties. Once all parties are aware of the macguffin, and are aware of the other parties' interests, the conflict should evolve organically from there. There is the opportunity for collaboration and betrayal, collusion, defection from one faction to another, armed truces, unarmed truces, dramatic tension, sexual tension, and surprises.
    I don't make points I make dents.

  9. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unutterable View Post
    Couple things about conflict, story-writing wise.

    Other than a couple very specific characters for whom the mustache twirling and the tying of maidens to railroad tracks is their schtick, you really don't have 'villains.' You have antagonists.

    Conflict is built better using needs and wants as a foundation than I'M Evil Cos Imma Orc and Tolkien Writes Shallow Characters.

    That's where the macguffin comes in. Whatever form it takes is besides the point. It just has to be established as 1)Rare/Unique 2) Necessary for all parties. Once all parties are aware of the macguffin, and are aware of the other parties' interests, the conflict should evolve organically from there. There is the opportunity for collaboration and betrayal, collusion, defection from one faction to another, armed truces, unarmed truces, dramatic tension, sexual tension, and surprises.
    Exactly!

    Seems we have been reading the same screenwriting books. (Not that any of it is a huge mystery - they all know the same stuff because it's the same stuff that works all the time because humans are humans.)

    What I always tried to set up (but could never communicate appropriately) was some object or objective and opposing desires.

    I want it for myself. You want it for yourself.
    or
    I want it. You don't want me to have it.

    Then add to that - someone else doesn't want either of us to have it. Or they don't like me much, but they fear what you will do with it, so they help me, which surprises all of us.

    I love **** like that.


    Let's do this somehow.

    - a powerful artifact that is being excavated or transported
    - a shipment of trade goods being transported
    - a traitor/defector/someone with damaging information being extracted and escorted
    - similar to the powerful artifact, a historical or religious symbol is being transported, guarded, stolen, bought, excavated
    - a religious, magical, demonic, what-have-you ritual is being disrupted (with consent ahead of time and RP leading up to it)
    - along those lines - and harking back to old pre-launch RP forum discussions - a wedding is disrupted (again, with consent and RP leading up to it)

    (had more ideas but I keep forgetting we're not on a PvP server )


    Line up some participating parties. Keep in mind potential wild cards.
    Make sure the stakes are high enough RP-wise, but not so high that no one would accept losing.
    Urge the involved parties to start building up the RP in stories here on the forum, and in open-world (and open tavern) RP. Let the trash-talk and scheming begin.


    Does anyone have any non-RPing strong-PvP friends that would be willing to stand guard/run interference to keep griefers and trolls away?

    Edit: Sorry for the walls of text, but this is a subject very dear to me.

    Just reread Unutterable's previous post and now I see a potential completely different direction than where I was going.

    If it's hard to get people involved in dramatic RP-PvP. How about less dramatic? A "Wacky Races" kind of thing. Competitive, but light-hearted.
    Last edited by Sendra; 7th July 2015 at 22:10.

  10. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sendra View Post

    - a powerful artifact that is being excavated or transported
    - a shipment of trade goods being transported
    - a traitor/defector/someone with damaging information being extracted and escorted
    - similar to the powerful artifact, a historical or religious symbol is being transported, guarded, stolen, bought, excavated
    - a religious, magical, demonic, what-have-you ritual is being disrupted (with consent ahead of time and RP leading up to it)
    - along those lines - and harking back to old pre-launch RP forum discussions - a wedding is disrupted (again, with consent and RP leading up to it)
    This is what I mean by a macguffin. Doesn't matter what it is. It doesn't have to be real even. Just a rock to toss into the pond to cause waves. Could be a rubber chicken, Nevinyrral's disc, Neverlin's prep school diary, or a pile of snake oil medicine. Objects are easier, people gives more options.

    What we need is the people, between 6 and 12.
    I don't make points I make dents.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •