Immortals Want to Eat My Brains

[Swordsman]

Delerak: I guess you'd want to ask yourself if you really think the other PCs wanted to kill your PCs because of OOC hate. Because if they really did, then IMHO you failed in your mission. Any moron can get people to hate them OOCly. It's dead easy ... just act like a h&s twink. But to get people to hate your PC because of IC reasons, that's an art. :twisted:

It's like some characters I've seen (not in the Byn BTW) where they're all nice and sharp in the job interview, but as soon as they're in the clan, they turn into complete imbeciles. That's not stirring up trouble, that's just being an RP klutz. Why do I think so? Because I don't know anyone who goes from one extreme to another in the blink of an eye (i.e. model soldier to complete disaster), and I think people who did do that would be classified insane. There is such a thing as having just a bit of consistency in a PC's personality, I reckon. (Point being is this personality change happening due to IC or OOC? It'd look like OOC to me, and IMO we can do with less OOC.) Just my take.

Swordsman

[creeper386]

Ya know... More often then not, I think Delerak is playing a TOTALLY different MUD then me. Or maybe it's just my character being around that stir up conflict. With just about every character I've had, rather in a clan or not, they normally have quite a few people dislike them, and people they don't get along with. Heck to the point of going to blows. I've also seen PLENTY of people not get along, in the same clans, in different clans, people in a clan disliking people not in a clan, and people not in clans disliking each other.

And at times that my characters were involved, if their was other trouble, that other trouble was dealt with first. People may hate each other, but when giving a common enemy their more often then not band together.

Now, the trouble I see, isn't so much LACK of conflict, it's how that conflict comes about. Personally I could care less if all the commoners in 'nak get along, but when all the commoners get along just fine with all the magickers, or all the elves and dwarves get along, and the half elves don't get any sort of crap what so ever.... THATs what I don't like. I see ALOT less of disliking someone because they are different then I see internal conflict.


Creeper

[John]

You'll probably want to disregard what I say Delerak, and this isn't a criticism of you, but just my take on what little I've seen and what your saying.

It sounds like you like a certain type of roleplaying and would like more people to be like that (see your distaste for how raiders raid for example). Nothing wrong with that, but when they don't roleplay the way you want, you shouldn't start assuming they're not roleplaying well.

You said the example of in a clan 99% of the people like each other. Well the Byn is a prime example of a ton of IC conflict. There's A TON of bickering, and I've heard of times when it's gone to killing as well. Another example is when I've been in clans. I'll hate or dislike certain people _a lot_ but when I'm around them I'll be civil and when people talk about them I'll keep my mouth shut (although I might warn my employer of my feelings and why I have them). So people might have thought that I liked the guy(s), when I really didn't. This sounds like you only see part of the roleplay and think you see the full picture. NO MATTER WHAT, your always only seeing part of the roleplay. Even if you spend every IG minute with the person, because there's the think command.

You said you want raiders to have more conflict while raiding. Well that would seem like a life and death situation to me, and would become MUCH more life and death if they started bickering. Now you might of been in a Imm-ran raider clan and there was no bickering. But IIRC I remember quite a few saying how much they love the in-clan bickering. *shrug*

You also said how you hate how people don't make PCs JUST to stir up trouble. Well, I don't think a couple of people doing that (when done right) is bad, but when EVERYONE does it, then it turns into total anarchy.

I enjoy playing "robot-like" characters when it comes to nobles. But everytime I have done that, I've given the character exceptional circumstances. Also, I imagine servants, when trained properly, would be "robot-like" to their employer. Nobles ARE better then us measley commoners, so I interpret that to mean we obey OUR employers. Now does that mean everyone has to play like that? Nope, it'd be boring if everyone did, but I think it's fine for some too (know you weren't criticising AC, just thought I'd offer my opinion though ).

IMO if everyone RP'd a certain way, it'd get boring.

None of that was a criticism or an attack against anyone, just my take on some things, that's all.

[Delerak]

I am playing a different mud because I play different.  Everyone has different play styles, and I personally have tried playing a good guy and didn't like it all.  It was like everyone liked me and wanted to help me and give me stuff, I don't want that, I want to struggle to survive, struggle for food and water, and fight for my life.  It makes the mud fun.  If you want to play in kadius for your characters entire life, and have 200 days of playing time, and live for 3 years, go ahead.  I just don't think that is very fun, because the game as I see it is going to be as harsh as the players make it, and I make it harsh.

[LoD]

I have had the opportunity to have Delerak play a few PC's in the same environment (and clan) as me, so I've been able to see him in action.

I believe that Delerak has good intentions when he makes his characters.  He truly wants to improve what he sees as a problem in a given clan/organization/world.  The problem I have with this mentality is that you're impressing your views of what conflict levels should be.  You are trying to decide how characters should be arguing and the type of problems clans should be experiencing rather than allowing the game to determine it.

Claiming the Byn has no conflict and was constantly filled with friendly people all getting along and working together is just completely untrue.  I find it a little presumptuous that you, as one of the newer members, could even comment on the level of conflict within a given clan.  As others have said - you don't see every moment, comment or thought that players have to create conflict.  If you want to play a character that will likely throw a little conflict into the mix, feel free, but let it be a character who has an equal chance of securing a peaceful place amidst the clan or group.

If each of your concepts is designed to stir things up within a given clan or group, then why do you feel you're not twinking by disallowing your characters to get along with other members?  You want to bring this conflict and these problems to a world that already has them (even if you don't agree) and then allow your concept to drive the clan to either hating, killing or hunting you down.  This does not impress me.  Not that it needs to - we all play for ourselves, but as a clan leader I want well-rounded, real players.  People who have ups and downs, good times and bad, flaws and strengths - not players who want to stir things up before they even enter the clan.  That's an OOC motivation and doesn't belong in the game world.

On your comments regarding 99% of the raider clans in the game as "sucking total ass", I take no small amount of offense having played in one of the more active and successful clans a few years back.  You made mention of clans running in, mul subduing and people shouting to drop things, shut up and do what they say.  Watch a bank robbery sometime and open your eyes.  Do you REALLY think they stroll in there with guns, ski masks and ask everyone to quietly do what they say?  I suppose the security guards throw themselves on the floor.  The bank tellers and managers are intimidated by the suave and pleasant tone of the criminals and everyone is impressed with the way they can't seem to decide the best way to rob the bank, bickering and making decisions in public.

Many others have commented that groups will maintain the appearance of doing everything smoothly, but after the raiders are away, they may be bickering at each other for how it went down.  Why we shouldn't have killed someone, why you shouldn't have manhandled that noble, why you shouldn't have spoken out of turn - but that's not the kind of junk you just say on EVERY raid just because YOU (Delerak) feel it should be an integral part of every encounter.

People controlled you because that was the IC situation and because 99% of the victims twink out and spam flee.  Plenty of people got away from us without a mul auto-subduing them.   I found the loudest voices against the style of raids I was witness to were the twinks that thought they should be able to get away and didn't manage it.  These were the PC's that argued with the raiders while facing 7 on 1 odds, struggled instead of complied and whined about there not being enough inner turmoil to allow them a way to RP their way out.  Those people killed themselves.

My advice is for you to make a realistic PC that will BOTH conflict and get along with sections of the world.  And if you never meet that conflicting part - RP it out.  Don't suicide, die or rationalize a few actions to CHASE that conflicting part of the world.  Your choices are no better than the people whom choose to get along all the tiem in the world you so adamantly criticize.

Just a few observations.

-LoD[/b]

[Delerak]

Okay, I'll shut up now.

[Savak]

While I think LoD has said things pretty well all around, I'll add only the following:

Take every clan on armageddon and I will bet you 99% of the PCs like all the others in that clan. Which is bull crap, ...

I tend to agree -- it is bull crap, and you'd lose that bet.  Heh.  I've been sitting here thinking while reading through the other posts in this thread, and I've yet to come up with ONE clan which has had zero-level inner conflict for more than a couple of RL weeks at any point in the history of them having PC's.  Sometimes that inner conflict is more subtle than others, and often not everyone in (or outside) the clan is aware of it.  But I think that makes it all the more intriguing, involving, and believable -- in most instances.

I think there is also a tremendous difference between characters IC'ly not liking one another, or not feeling comfortable with one another, or otherwise in some degree of mutual turmoil, and OOC'ly not wanting to play the game with them.

-Savak

[Kalden]

Conflict is the best thing for good roleplay, and I'm glad this place has so much of it, from what I've seen so far. From what I've seen of previous RP muds there is very little conflict and entirely too much chuckling, smiling, grinning, and just plain boring friendliness.

IRL, surly, mean people are as common or more common than nice people, but I have a marked hesitancy for actually playing a habitualy surly or vicious character. I'm trying to get over it, but I think it's partly because people end up responding by killing you.  :roll:

Although, to be honest, most people are relatively civil and nice people, but that just gets boring. Playing someone with a chip on their shoulder spices up rp a bit. Just make sure you have some IC reasons for their attitude, and there are plenty of easy reasons in a world like Armageddon. For some people, that's just their personality.

[Delirium]

An archive-request bump!

Thank Akaramu for digging it up. ;)