Roleplaying Dangerous Situations

[Ganja]

I know this subject has been brought up before and I never bothered to search for the most recent discussion on it so I'm bringing it up again. Hopefully some of this information will benefit novices and veterans of Arm alike.

Simply put, if you're playing a character that has put himself in a potentially dangerous situation/position/area, it's considered really bad form to just type 'flee self' and run off without so much as a word or emote when another character has the drop on you through the use of emotes and coded skill.

Over the last 5 years or so that I've played arm I like to think that I've built a reputation as the kind of player that doesn't get off on PK'ing, object hording, or skill twinking. I know that it's impossible for anyone to know this ic'ly but it's just to help illustrate my disappointment when the above situation happens.

I played a character a couple of years ago that was with a group foraging deep in the grey forest. While on the way out, we encountered a certain staff member animated halfling warrior blocking our path. The point of this interaction was to help exemplify the dangers associated with being in the grey forest.  After a rather hasty departure from the scene I received a rather brief, but to the point mudmail from said staff member expressing their disappointment with our action and lack of RP. It was also stated that although the potential for death existed, it wasn't really likely. This concise piece of criticism completely changed how I RP through these situations, no matter which side I'm on.

On the other side of the coin, about 3 years ago I played a rather high ranking Allanaki soldier (by far my favorite char btw) that took part in several interrogations, beatings, fights, etc. 99.9% of the time he had the upper hand. The one time someone got the drop on him, he met his demise. The loss of my beloved character wasn't anywhere near as disappointing as the thorough lack of RP associated with it. Thinking back on it, I can just picture how the murderer went about it:

shout blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda
e
dismount
subdue man
kill man

It was total crap and I hated to see it happen in such an unceremonious way.

The point: Please, do all parties involved a favor and  RP the scenario through the use of words, EMOTES, and all the useful tools coded into the game to make the experience more exciting, colorful, animated, and dramatic.

[jhunter]

I understand completely. Although "emote does not=rp" it is nice. I've been on both ends of the situation. Both, as the aggressor emoting out a scenario only to have the potential victim just "mount, e,e,e,e,e,e" and as the victim sitting around doing my thing only to have: The non-descript man has arrived from the west. The non-descript man slashes you on your head doing frightening damage!

I've also been the victim and played along with an emoted scene, doing what the aggressor has told me to do just to have them attack me and try to pk me anyway.

It sucks, I know. I just mark those pcs for future reference and refuse to give them a chance. If they want to drop to duking it out with code only...that's fine, they blew their chance with me and I will make sure they die if it's IC for my pc to do so.

[Salt Merchant]

If they want to drop to duking it out with code only...that's fine, they blew their chance with me and I will make sure they die if it's IC for my pc to do so.

In other words, you'll carry a grudge OOCly between characters. Sounds worse than what you're accusing other people of here.

I don't think novellas should be required before each player death. Death arrives swiftly and by surprise, even in the real world. One minute some girl is driving a car home, the next she and her passenger have been creamed by a truck out of its lane. One minute an inner city youth is walking down the street, then next he's on the pavement with two bullets in his head.

I can understand players being upset over what feels like a meaningless, insignificant death without closure. But most death probably is more or less that way. It's one of the reasons that my primary research interest in the lab is aging.

[jhunter]

If they want to drop to duking it out with code only...that's fine, they blew their chance with me and I will make sure they die if it's IC for my pc to do so.

In other words, you'll carry a grudge OOCly between characters. Sounds worse than what you're accusing other people of here.

I don't think novellas should be required before each player death. Death arrives swiftly and by surprise, even in the real world. One minute some girl is driving a car home, the next she and her passenger have been creamed by a truck out of its lane. One minute an inner city youth is walking down the street, then next he's on the pavement with two bullets in his head.

I can understand players being upset over what feels like a meaningless, insignificant death without closure. But most death probably is more or less that way. It's one of the reasons that my primary research interest in the lab is aging.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I meant with the same character. I did not say with each and every character. Noone is asking for novellas, just a bit of "painting the picture" before resorting to the code. The ones that suck are where folks completely give you nothing but the coded actions IMO, in an effort to "win".

[Kalden]

Simply put, if you're playing a character that has put himself in a potentially dangerous situation/position/area, it's considered really bad form to just type 'flee self' and run off without so much as a word or emote when another character has the drop on you through the use of emotes and coded skill.

It's bad form, but it's not necessarily twinkery. Which is why I won't necessarily throw out an emote or two before attacking an unsuspecting target - I can't take the risk that they'll draw both weapons and flee in that split-second.

The emotes are nice, but they don't make a real big difference. It's the events leading up to the death that provide the real RP, and the events that happen after your death.

[amoeba]

The emotes are nice, but they don't make a real big difference. It's the events leading up to the death that provide the real RP, and the events that happen after your death.

My least satisfying death to date had nothing to do with the level of emoting involved.  In fact with this death the level of emoting was the highest ever before the mantis head.  I am still trying to understand why that death bothered me so much, but I will say this, a lot of fancy emoting about the mechanics of the killing did little to eliviate it.  I do however appreciate the person making the effort.  But yes, a meaningless death is a meaningless death, regardless.

[Agent_137]

If some particular player behind the sdesc proves to play by the code and ignore emotes, I will play by the code in all future meetings with them, regardless of my character.

It's important in ALL games and sports that everyone plays by the same rules.

This is because it's upsetting and unenjoyable when two parties are playing by different rules, but are still playing with each other.

And unfortunately, there ARE two sets of rules here on armageddon.

Those that play only by the code, and those that are willing to slow down and play by emotes, using the code as a tool to settle skill based questions.


A lot of us call that first group "twinks." Others justify that group's actions with "rp != emote." But I think most of them just play their game and never see these boards. They aren't breaking rules, just playing by a different set. I hope they come to play my game, but I know there will always be at least a few who don't.

So play on.

[Xygax]

It's a dangerous rhetorical accident/technique to conclude that because you consider something to be really bad form, that "it's considered really bad form" in a general sense.  If you feel someone has abused the code and used "flee" to escape a situation in which they were overwhelmingly outmatched, you should e-mail the MUD.  It's considered really bad form to post about IC events here (and, in this case, I'm not using a rhetorical technique, but stating staff policy).

You won't arrive at any satisfactory conclusion by debating the event here as you'll be forced either to reveal MORE IC information to dicuss it completely, or you'll wind up hashing out an incomplete argument about an incomplete point of contention.

The cry of "bad form", though, somehow never sits well with me.

-- X

[RunningMountain]

My least satisfying death to date had nothing to do with the level of emoting involved.  In fact with this death the level of emoting was the highest ever before the mantis head.  I am still trying to understand why that death bothered me so much, but I will say this, a lot of fancy emoting about the mechanics of the killing did little to eliviate it.  I do however appreciate the person making the effort.  But yes, a meaningless death is a meaningless death, regardless.

[jcarter]

PK is a tricky thing, especially with the fight code here. I don't think it's necessarily bad form to play by the code when it comes to situations like that. It sounds harsh, but there's really no time. Consider this: do you want to take the time to emote drawing out your swords as three rounds of combat go by in which you're being slaughtered? Characters mean a lot to us. A twenty-day old character is twenty days of your life put into something. I'm not going to hold a grudge against someone who is focused on keeping their character alive in an adrenaline-pumping situation and forgets to emote.

The only meaningless deaths are when you act out of character and do something stupid, like take your Tor Scorpion captain of the guard and wander into the Rinth because there's no one to spar with. Just because someone didn't emote before you died shouldn't leave you with a bad taste in your mouth.

[Pantoufle]

I played a character a couple of years ago that was with a group foraging deep in the grey forest. While on the way out, we encountered a certain staff member animated halfling warrior blocking our path. The point of this interaction was to help exemplify the dangers associated with being in the grey forest. After a rather hasty departure from the scene I received a rather brief, but to the point mudmail from said staff member expressing their disappointment with our action and lack of RP. It was also stated that although the potential for death existed, it wasn't really likely. This concise piece of criticism completely changed how I RP through these situations, no matter which side I'm on.

I was one of the characters present in the scene you describe.  When receiving a similar "mudmail" I retorted back with my own opinion.  This is one of ArmageddonMUD's grey areas which has no "right" answer.  Running from  emoting NPCs (whether animated or otherwise), without emoting yourself does not make one a "twink", nor is it necessary to emote every time someone else does.

As stated in numerous posts emoting does not equate roleplay, nor is it necessary to play out a well realised character concept (it only enhances it).  Just because someone tosses out a few emotes at me doesn't make me feel any more obliged to return the favor.  If my character percieves a situation as dangerous, such as a halfling attack, I'm going to high-tail out of there as fast as I can because that's the realistic thing to do.  I don't think emotes can demonstrate speed and haste any more successfully than "the dusty rebel runs to the west".  

I don't emote every time my character sits down because the code already says that I'm sitting down.  I don't emote every time my character takes a bit of food because the code already says that I'm taking a bite of food.  I emote when I feel like it and when I feel it enhances the atmosphere for myself or other players.  If a pack of savage halflings came at me again, I might toss out a quick emote and run, or I might not, it just depends on how I feel at that moment.  Thankfully, if I don't, it's not a big deal because the code already has indicated what I'm doing: RUNNING.

[Ganja]

I think the point of this post was somewhat thrown off in how I went about describing it. Sorry.

First off, I don't consider myself an expert RP'er (mediocre at best). I don't have the most colorful style of play and it's a learning experience everytime I log on. The last thing I want to do is criticize anyone else and I apologize if my post came off that way.

I should have stated at the beginning that it's strictly opinion and it's not a rant or 'cry', I wasn't accusing anyone of twinkery, and I wasn't trying to say that emoting = RP. Also, I wasn't specifically talking about PK'ing.

Furthermore, there's no reason for me to mail the account about someone abusing code because this isn't about any specific IC event. So there's no incident to debate over and no reason to throw the policy at me. Unless the vague reference to IC events from 3-4 years past is a problem (in which case I stand corrected). The reason I did mention those two events is because in one instance I learned that the situation provided a good opportunity for a memorable RP experience but because of the way I went about it, it didn't (obviously not everyone agrees with that but these types of interactions, situations and experiences are some of the reasons I've come to enjoy playing Arm so much). In the other event I decided that since I didn't like how the other player went about RP'ing the situation, I wasn't going to do the same to others. I'd prefer to make it more in depth and enhanced and would like to convince others to do the same.

...those that are willing to slow down and play by emotes, using the code as a tool to settle skill based questions.

I think this is well said and illustrates my point better than I could have done. I would like to convince others to play this way and improve on it myself. If you don't agree with me, that's fine and I value your opinion and reasoning.

Thanks

[Salt Merchant]

I think the point of this post was somewhat thrown off in how I went about describing it. Sorry.

I hate these kinds of posts, because now everyone who sees:

>
The pissed off templar arrives from the west.
The rabid soldier arrives from the west.
The rabid soldier arrives from the west.
The rabid soldier arrives from the west.
> run
> north

or similar is now going to be labeled a 'poor RPer', or at least wonder if they are.

Taking even a second to emote the exact volume of crap that fills your shorts leads to:

>
The templar points at you.
You are now a criminal!
Rabid-soldier #1 attempts to subdue you, but you wrestle away.
Rabid-soldier #2 hits you on your head for frightening damage.
Rabid-soldier #3 hits you on your head for game-ending damage.

*beep*

Probably you didn't even get to inform the templar of the extra weight in your trousers, and even if you did, he most likely got nothing out of it (at least I hope he didn't).

I don't expect the templar to sit there, going:

>
The pissed off templar surveys the crowd.
>
The pissed off templar locks his eyes on you!
>
The pissed off templar approaches you dramatically.
>
ooc Um... can I run now? Or will you email the account?

Too MUSH-like.

[LoD]

Taking even a second to emote the exact volume of crap that fills your shorts leads to:

>
The templar points at you.
You are now a criminal!
Rabid-soldier #1 attempts to subdue you, but you wrestle away.
Rabid-soldier #2 hits you on your head for frightening damage.
Rabid-soldier #3 hits you on your head for game-ending damage.

*beep*

I would actually say the people who >run;north when they see this are directly responsible for this set of behavior.  There is a relationship between the assailant and the victim, and it can alter the RP of each person directly.

Let me give you another environment and examples of how it gets to this point.  Based off several months of playing in the Blackmoon Raiders, I was privy to many would-be raids.  Like any set of good players, we weren't there to kill people, we wanted to add an element of danger and sought to take what we wanted from people and let them be on their way.  And usually it went something like this.

REGULAR DAY

North Road [NEW]

The sharp eyed, quick typing man has arrived from the east.

>shout SUBMIT TO BLACKMOON OR DIE!

You shout, in sirihish
   "SUBMIT TO BLACKMOON OR DIE!"

The sharp eyed, quick typing man runs east.

>look east

[Very far]
The sharp eyed, quick typing man stands here.

Guess what happened the next day?  New face, same thing.  Guess what probably happened 7 out of 10 times when trying to interact with someone where they didn't have the upper hand?  They'd leave the room as fast as possible to avoid any possible dangerous situation for their character.

So what happened?  We started insta-subduing people that came into the room with little to no warning because we wanted to RP.  What happened 7 out of 10 times then?  They would spam the "flee" command without any RP until they broke free and then see the above example.

So what happened?  We started warning them that we would kill them if they "struggled to break free" more than twice.  All we wanted was for them to drop their pack and cloak.  What happened 5 out of 10 times then?  They'd struggle anyways and our muls/HG's would kill them.

So what happened?  Then people started talking about how the raiders were killing everyone and some were complaining OOC on the forums.  None of that would have been necessary if a handful of people had just stuck around for 5 minutes to RP a dangerous situation and lose a few belongings.  We weren't there with the intention of killing people, but their actions forced our hand because otherwise we had no scene to play.

You might say, "What do you expect!?  If I walked into a room full of 5 masked men, I'd run too without asking questions."

Alright.  During this same period, I decided to do solo mini-raids just to create a sense of danger in those travelling around the desert.  I'd ride up to them, strike up a conversation and then basically tell them they needed to pay me a "protection fee" of 50 'sid.  What happened 7 out of 10 times?  The second they knew I was a "raider" they would just flee.

So what happened?  I made up some rules for myself based on how many times the same character fled from me in the desert.  The first time I shoot them with an arrow as a warning.  The second time I attack them hand to hand, but if they fled, I wouldn't give chase.  The third time I'd do everything in my power to kill them.

That character killed more people than all of my other character's combined since I've played Armageddon.

This issue is not as black and white as you would like it to be, Salt Merchant.  The problem is that the bad apples make it hard for the rest of the people who "would" RP out the scene.  The few players that would stick around and RP out the moment pay the price of the twinks that avoid dangerous situations in any way, shape or form.

And while I agree not everyone would "stick around" or "emote a storm" when the templar walked into the room, it would be smart to at least emote your actions when the templar interacts with you.  People in positions of IC authority, especially in the city-states, have to answer to the powers that be (Immortals) for their actions.  There are consequences if they kill indescriminately and so most of them will probably try to create an interesting, yet dangerous, scene for your character if you let them.

This has become a long post, surprise surprise, but I wanted to throw out some more information on what I perceive are the OP's frustrations as well as some practical examples from the game on how your actions have a direct impact on other's choice of RP.

-LoD

[Cale_Knight]

What I really got out of your post, LoD, is that you decided on your own personal set of RP conditions that justified RPless pkill.

Is it justified to say "Ok, if they're not going to RP with me, I'm not going to RP with them!"?

I'm also mildly shocked by the idea that you guys had to kill these folks because otherwise you "had no scene to play."

[marko]

What I really got out of your post, LoD, is that you decided on your own personal set of RP conditions that justified RPless pkill.

Is it justified to say "Ok, if they're not going to RP with me, I'm not going to RP with them!"?

I'm also mildly shocked by the idea that you guys had to kill these folks because otherwise you "had no scene to play."

What shocks me about your post is that you contradict yourself in back to back sentences.  In the first one you talk about the RP conditions and then in the second one you talk about no RP whatsoever.

Once again, emoting does not mean roleplaying.  In the raider situation every PC was given _chances_ to react in a meaningful manner other than trying to run.  If you are warned not to run and you try and run expect to be taken down.  That is perfectly fine roleplaying and makes sense to do ICly.  

This, of course, leads on to my own experiences with this behavior.  This type of thing happens all the time - I've played templars that when my character made an entrance to a location with a known criminal said criminal would stand up, move one room over, and quit.  The number of times this happened was amusingly huge - therefore, one reacts to it by walking in and insta-grabbing the mark and then interacting with them.

Cause and effect.

Just a quick note to everyone reading this - I had a character who was in a scene that was definitely going to lead to his death and I played it out.  This was years ago and just after karma went in.  Well, because I played out the scene, I got my very first karma point.  The reason I bring this up is because a lot of players play for karma.  So hopefully someone who may have insta-fled before will now stick around in the hopes of getting a little bit of karma out of situation.

When it comes down to it - the insta-flee thing just deprives a situation of interaction but it isn't necessarily bad form.  Conversely, the insta-grab or insta-attack deprives a situation of interaction (although usually there's still some time after the attack or grab) but again, it isn't necessarily bad form.

[Khorm]

Is it justified to say "Ok, if they're not going to RP with me, I'm not going to RP with them!"?

Yes, it is.

If I'm going to go out of my way to provide an interesting scene before jacking someone up (whether that involves robbing/knocking out/killing) and they're going to go out of their way to run without even attempting to get involved, then yes.. the next time I come across them I'm not going to give them the opportunity to be a jackoff.

What's the problem there? Obviously, emoting out some sort of scene before doing "bad things" to someone isn't required, and is instead something nice to do to enhance to overall feel of the experience. If another player can't bring themselves to extend that courtesy to me, then it would seem that they don't give a shit about receiving the same.

[Agent_137]

Is it justified to say "Ok, if they're not going to RP with me, I'm not going to RP with them!"?

Yes, it is. Read my justification a page back based on the idea that it's important for people to play by the same rules otherwise the game starts to really suck.


I want to respond to this:

I even once said, OOC: if you promise not to run away, I will RP out your PC's death instead of killing you instantly.

of course the person at that moment types, "flee self" I could have instead just typed:
guard west; kill newb.

If they did THAT, it would surely indicate twinkdom and be reportable to the MUD account. Of course, using OOC for that purpose is itself questionable, though I think it might be legitimate, to get everyone on the same page in the rule book.

[LoD]

What I really got out of your post, LoD, is that you decided on your own personal set of RP conditions that justified RPless pkill.

Is it justified to say "Ok, if they're not going to RP with me, I'm not going to RP with them!"?

I'm also mildly shocked by the idea that you guys had to kill these folks because otherwise you "had no scene to play."

Well, I'm sorry that's the message you saw in my words.

The only lack of RP in any of the PK's was as a result of the victim.  And we were never looking for justification for killing, CK.  We could have easily killed anyone we came across, but that wasn't why we were there.  Killing players wasn't our mission objective, it was the consequence of non-compliance.  What reason would someone have to comply with your demands if the alternative isn't worse than the demand?

Perhaps you've heard the cliche term, "Your money or your life."

The idea behind that phrase is that your money is replaceable, but your life is not.  And if you don't follow up on your threats, then there wouldn't be any reason for them to do as they are told, now would there?

I also never said we "had to kill these folks because otherwise we had no scene to play".  My words were, "We weren't there with the intention of killing people, but their actions forced our hand because otherwise we had no scene to play."  What I meant by having "no scene to play" is that the victims weren't supplying any RP.  They were spamming a command to flee without giving thought to the situation.

People could RP and try to escape, and that's fine.  It happened.  But they weren't RPing and trying to escape, the were doing this:

The burly mul subdues the black haired man.

The burly mul says, in sirihish:
   "Drop your pack, now!"

The black haired man struggles in vain against the burly mul.

The human raider says, in sirihish:
   "Stop struggling or we're gonna let you have it!  Now drop it!"

The black haired man struggles in vain against the burly mul.

The burly mul says, in sirihish:
   "Yer surrounded, ya fekker, drop da fekkin' pack!"

The black haired man struggles in vain against the burly mul.

The black haired man struggles in vain against the burly mul.

The half giant raider says, in sirihish:
   "Uhm....hit him now?"

The human raider says, in sirihish:
   "Not if this fekker wises up and drops his pack.  Dat's all we need."

The black hiared man struggles in vain against the burly mul.

The black haired man struggles and breaks free.

The black haired man runs east.

------------

That was a typical scene when confronting people on the road.  The victim would refuse to RP with us in this dangerous situation.  Sometimes they would break free and escape along the road, other times we would follow through with the "threat" we made to kill them because they gave us no other choice.  Their INCREDIBLE RP was flee;flee;flee;flee;flee;flee;flee.  They didn't talk to us.  They didn't emote or try to interact.  They didn't do a single thing except spam the flee command.  That isn't RP, no matter who you are or what situation you're in, period.

And that is what I'm talking about when I say "no scene to play".  They weren't responding to the situation.  All they were concerned with was getting out of the situation without losing a single thing.  They didn't view it as the CHARACTER would view it - having 5 thugs standing around them with weapons to his throat telling him not to run.

We never looked to justify any player killing.  The bulk of the killing done by our hands was a direct result of the victim's actions.  They had full control over whether they lived or died, and THEY chose death.

-LoD

[Cenghiz]

Once I had a magicker of element X.. In time, I decided to use my abilities for raiding. My character had magickal, unbelieveable speed and a way to immobilize victims without a fear of killing them. He had a reason -not money, he wanted a special squad that tried to hunt him in past out again so he would make fun of them.
In my first attempt, I walked down to a room, emoted out showing that I was a magicker. Target typed 'mount;w;w;w;w" or something like that. I ran after him and raided. I resisted to urge to kill him.
In my second attempt, the victim was a gemmer. My character knew about the gems, so before speaking, he simply typed out the emote, then cast. Wow! The victim reacted realistically! Thank you for your faith in RP, vivaduan woman!
The third one tried to use a zigzagged route to keep away from my char. Of course, I raided him too..
But after the fifth or so attempt, I gave up.. That squad was not patrolling in spite of my hopes, it was boring and I didn't know what to do with all those coins I earned.. So I simply gambled with most. Raiding NPCs was even more attractive, in the least you can solo-RP the scene with NPCs.
...
The point of the story; if you're into creating harmful plots with PCs, you can as well wait for twinkish acts all the time. But do not lose your faith in RP. RP, then let them escape. It's their loss. Still you can always meet a vivaduan woman and have fun.

[Anonymous]

Look, what is a PC supposed to do, just freeze in place because someone's magnificient presence had entered the room and MAY have had a chance to kill him? Always ask permission before leaving? Ridiculous.

Calling people jackoffs when the code allows them to escape is just arrogance. If you want to RP a death out, then arrange to trap the character. When they have nowhere to run, then you'll find you get a lot of RP.

Trap them in a room. Subdue them and haul them into a constricted space with someone guarding the exit. Set up a blockade on a street with soldiers then chase the victim toward it. It's not impossible.

Admittedly for raiders, it's generally kill or lose the victim. I think the best approach to solving this is to ask for tools to help, such as hidden barracades that could be rolled out when someone is moving along the road. Not to demand that they simply freeze in place and offer their neck because you want to emote a few times before ending them.

[Agent_137]

kank, see, that's what I was talking about.

You're playing a different game than I am. I don't view "pausing for a scene" as Ridiculous.

You rely on code first, and emotes are just fleshing things out sometimes.

I rely on emotes first, and code is just fleshing out the questions of skill.

I prefer the scene, the idea in my head. I'm not playing to win. I'm playing to see a story told.


We play two different games.


And I can't figure out how to help us play the same game.

[Seeker]

... I trust no one to RP out a PCs death and I will most of the time instantly kill and -then- RP out the scene.

...I won't necessarily throw out an emote or two before attacking an unsuspecting target - I can't take the risk that they'll draw both weapons and flee in that split-second.

I call bullshit on this.  Shame on you.

It is EXTREMELY rare that any PC's death in -any- situation is soooo important that either of these attitudes should be the core, guiding principles to your play.  If a particular PK is so important, try planning and arranging it instead.  

I know that these quotes are plucked out of context, but I will heartlessly use them for demonstration purposes, regardless.

Yes, death can come suddenly from the shadows.  Yes, the element of surprise -is- often fatal, but just because one character has his heart set on slaughter does not mean he is entitled to get it.  

There are too many variables to live by such blanket statements, and too many creative ways to get your murderous desires satisified without playing weepy-face about other characters deciding that they want to try to live.  

Play the scene, realistically keep in mind the environment, and let the IMMs deal with the rest.

Seeker

[Cale_Knight]

What shocks me about your post is that you contradict yourself in back to back sentences.  In the first one you talk about the RP conditions and then in the second one you talk about no RP whatsoever.

I don't think I contradicted myself at all. Maybe you're not reading it the way I intended it to be read.

It might have been clearer if I'd said "... is that you decided that once your personal and arbitrary critera had been fulfilled, RPless PK was justified."

This was obviously a long time ago, and certainly before I started playing this game. I'm not personally offended by what happened years ago, but I'm not seeing how a lot of what's being stated in this thread falls in line with what I understand Arm to be about.

It seems to me that everyone is saying "we all have to fall in line and RP with each other all the time regardless of the situation."

That's great.

But you're also saying, "And if you're not going to RP, then screw you buddy, you're gortok kibble."

How do two wrongs here make a right, especially in an RPI MUD?

[Intrepid]

Maybe it's foolish of me, but I'm not going to stop emoting a dangerous
situation just because my victim/opponent/assailant might be too reliant
on the code.  I have a certain amount of trust invested in me by the imms,
none of which has to do with someone else's ability to player--or lack
thereof--realistically.  I usually just email the imms a description of what
took place, what the character looked like and when this happened.  I can
usually guess that these individuals aren't trusted much by the staff to
roleplay their characters.

It's all about setting a better example.

[Rindan]

I think people are blowing this issue out of proportion.  The issue at hand is a code problem.  If I challenge Amos to a duel, he accepts, and after some fighting Amos is dead, no one complains about the outcome.  The code determined if I was the better or warrior or not in a fair and even handed manner.  

The problem with running away is that the code doesn't offer any sort of assistance.  The code works one way every single time.  If you enter the same room as a raider, and the raider yells for you to stop, and you decide that 'to hell with that, I am turning my kank around and getting out of here', the code doesn't offer any sort of resolution.  The can't tell you if you decide to turn your kank around before raiders can get to you and stop you.  If your intention is to run, and their intention is to kill you if you run, the code is very unhelpful.  Unfortunately, I think the solution to this problem is some sort of approach code which means tearing the guts out of the current movement code.  Tearing the guts out of the movement code means tearing the guts out of, well, everything.  In other words, it isn't going to happen.

So, we have to live in a place where there is never going to be a satisfactory solution.  

If a Templar walks into a tavern with a wanted elf, there is rarely going to be a solution that satisfies all.  The elf is going to think, "Hey, I am a quick elf and this tavern is crowded.  There is no way he sees me yet, and even if he does, I am quicker then his two half-giant thugs.  I can get away." The elf then promptly stands and runs.  The Templar on the other hand sees an elf stand and bolt and is pissed off that the elf didn't bother to play the scene with the Templar.  The same could be said about all of the situations brought up.  One party feels that bolting is not only the right thing to do, but well within their capability, while the other party feels that they are close enough to prevent the other guy from getting away and so are pissed off when that other person simply runs as fast as they can.  As anyone who has tried it can attest to, catching someone on kank-back, even if you have a kank yourself, is close to impossible.  The code just isn't going to do any favors.  Whoever slams in some commands first is going to 'win'.

As to how to deal with this?  I would look at it from the perspective of realism first and game atmosphere second.

So, if I am sitting in a 'rinth bar and three elves sneak in, pop up behind my human, and tell him not to move, I would say that for realisms sake that running that point is down right stupid.  The elves are probably faster, I am out numbered, and while I could easily do a stand;n, it wouldn't be realistic.  I would play that situation out regardless of the outcome.  

If I am sitting in the Bard's Barrel with my quick elf and a Templar with two half-giants barge in, I don't feel much in the way of remorse running like hell.  There is another exit I can use, I am certainly faster then half-giants and a Templar, and seeing as how a Templar is not exactly low key, I probably saw the Templar come in so it is safe to assume I have a fair head start.  A fair head start combined with elven speed and an alternative exit makes me feel safe in deciding that stand;s is an a-okay response.  If I decide running is okay, I then next think about what sort of interaction I am going to get out of sitting there.  If I know that my character is probably doomed and I have a pretty interesting character going, I will simply run, call it realistic, and call it a day.  If on the other hand my character has been boring and I think I can get out of an execution, I don't mind having my character trip or simply forget to observe the half-giants flanking a Templar as they come in.

Honestly, I think there is not much else you can do.  Without code to arbitrate, you just need to make your own call.  If your call doesn't match up with the other person's call, try to avoid taking personal offense to it unless they do something that is over the top unrealistic.  Anyone who says that sitting around to RP your elf running like hell is always the right decision or anyone who says that always bolting is the right decision is just fooling themselves.  Some times it is right and some times it is wrong.  Until a staff member feels particularly masochistic and gives up all of his/her free time to touch the movement code, that is just how it is going to have to be.

[Halaster]

Maybe it's foolish of me, but I'm not going to stop emoting a dangerous
situation just because my victim/opponent/assailant might be too reliant
on the code.  I have a certain amount of trust invested in me by the imms,
none of which has to do with someone else's ability to player--or lack
thereof--realistically.  I usually just email the imms a description of what
took place, what the character looked like and when this happened.  I can
usually guess that these individuals aren't trusted much by the staff to
roleplay their characters.

It's all about setting a better example.

Best answer yet, and the one I was going to type.  Having played all ends of the spectrum, I agree, it's damn annoying when your victim doesn't RP and just runs.  But that's no excuse to resort to a KILL FIRST RP LATER RAWR mentality.  If your victim gets away, so what.  Email a complaint and it'll get dealt with on some level.  By resorting to "their tactics", you just lower the bar for everyone and the game as a whole suffers because the standard is now lower.  Don't expect it to improve if you're not going to keep the high standard yourself.

Generally speaking, people who keep their standards high despite what others are doing, are generally the people we trust more and typically play higher karma roles.  Those who take the attitude of "well, they're not RP'ing so I'm just going to kill first, RP later", are typically the ones who aren't trusted with more roles, and therefore don't have more karma - and you wonder why?

I understand the frustration of eventually saying "Screw it, I'm just killing the next one cause the last 8 didn't RP but ran", cause I've had it myself.  You just have to keep in mind that you're only contributing to lowering the standard by doing this.

Again, though, just because you -do- stand;run;e doesn't mean you're a poor roleplayer.  But I think that's a different situation that some of the examples LoD provided.  flee;flee;flee;flee;flee;flee while they're talking to you is rather lame and "bad form".  But in the example Rindan provided with the elf in the Barrel, I think it's ok in that situation.  Although, it couldn't hurt to: emote quickly makes his way out the side.  (of course, I'm a fast typer so I know I could actually get that done and still likely beat the templar from catching me, heh).

[Armaddict]

I'm very guilty of the lack of trust issue.  I just -hate- the situations where I tried to play, and end up getting screwed.  Not as in I lose my character, but as in I lose my character because of my attempts to liven the scene without any such effort on the part of the other party.

Halaster says to send in complaints...but I think most of the complaints would be pretty flimsy and dismissed.  Perhaps they might watch that character (in which case they wouldn't see any further actions worthy of complaint unless they're doing such consistently - this is rare), or forward the email to the other party, but in reality, it just doesn't do that much.

I haven't been in a situation like this recently, but I'll definitely be trying to give it more of a shot simply because I'm coming to grips that this is a game about fun, not necessarily survival.  I may lose my character, but creating new characters and starting the epic story anew is more fun than people give it credit for.  Particularly once you get pretty good at surviving those first 10 days or so.

However, I'm just stating that I see both sides of it.  It's a problem that has been brought up many times before, and I agree with Rindan.  Just try to keep a level head rather than going into instant instinctual mode where you just try to keep your character survive.  Look at what's happening, and try to do your best to make -your- part the better played part.  At least if you die then, you have the satisfaction of saying, 'Well, -I- played that better, for sure.'  It may not be better RP, but at least you can have a basis to say 'I'm better', heh.  It's more fulfilling than you think.

[Cenghiz]

Answer to the anonymous kank who answered me..

Yes, I do wait for a response when I enter a room, throw off a cantrip and 'wait' - wait=not typing anything to let the other one type an emote -. But as Halaster said, people running away instantly won't make me instakill. I will still enter a room, type an emote and 'wait', if the victim flees in an unrealistical manner, I'll remember only 'his' mdesc noted down not to RP against, then will keep on.

[Stroker]

As stated in numerous posts emoting does not equate roleplay, nor is it necessary to play out a well realised character concept (it only enhances it).

While emoting does not equate role-play, it is a necessity for role-play; and according to the help-files, one cannot achieve karma without it. Role-play encompasses a combination of facets, neither of which summarizes it completely, but together the components construct actual role-play.

Recently, I created a character that died subsequently in a raid (he was being raided): one of the best deaths suffered by any of my characters. Why? Because both the raider and myself role-played the situation realistically, both of us enjoyed it thoroughly (I expect) and, while my character died, I was not at all upset.

A meaningless death is not necessarily a poor death; most deaths on Zalanthas ARE meaningless. If you're slaughtered over a coin, a piece of bread, or a drop of water.... it is a GOOD death, as long as it involves more than just:

PC has arrived.
PC has puckered him lips.
PC kills you.

A truly meaningless death is meaningless OOCly and ICly: walking off a cliff, for instance (OH GOD I HATE THE CLIFFS!!!!); but a death such as that does not involve role-play (unless it was intentional) nor does it truly portray the essence of Zalanthans.

It is the responsibility of both parties to accurately and realistically portray their characters in-game. As long as my assailant engages my character in a realistic manner, I respond realistically regardless of the ensuing consequences. However, if someone -abuses- (keyword) the code to attain an -unrealistic- advantage over my character, I reserve the right to find you in RL and beat living crap out of you (oh and... also type flee without emoting [and believe me, it hurts me more than it hurts you]).
Nevertheless, I shall not harbor a grudge -ICly- (keyword) towards any specific character based on OOC manifestations.

Also, how can any of you disagree with a man/woman named GANJA - have you no reason or modesty?

Semper Pax,

Dirr

[Cuusardo]

The trouble with leading by example is that the people you want the most to follow you, don't.

[Intrepid]

Just as being a Helper, you know that at least some of the newbies you
are trying to help may not stick around or become some of the worst
twinks imaginable.  You still lead by example because it's giving something
back to the game.

The effort isn't futile just because not everyone accepts it.

[LauraMars]

The trouble with leading by example is that the people you want the most to follow you, don't.

But that doesn't always happen, and besides, it's no reason not to do it.  No sense preaching to the choir, after all.

[marko]

It might have been clearer if I'd said "... is that you decided that once your personal and arbitrary critera had been fulfilled, RPless PK was justified."

But you're also saying, "And if you're not going to RP, then screw you buddy, you're gortok kibble."

Perhaps some are saying that but I am not nor, do I believe, was LoD saying that.

In any situations where characters do what their character is supposed to do as determined by the player behind the character there is roleplay.  If a character attacks another character and kills them - that was roleplay.  Whether or not you agree with the reasoning behind the scenes that led up to that event, it was still roleplay.

The execption to this is when someone ignores the environment around them (ie, a dozen guards around a noble and then steals from said noble) without acknowledging it because the code allows them to do so.  Aka, twinking.

Let's go back to the templar example of a templar walking into a tavern and a thief-type instantly getting up and running out.  That's roleplaying and it's fine by me.  I've seen it happen countless times.  Just because there wasn't a series of emotes to indicate that the templar stood at the doorway and swept the tavern with his piercing gaze while the elf at the bar snuck a quick peek over at the templar and then slid off his stool.  Followed by the templar advancing towards the elf while the elf quickly scoots out the back entrance... ('course, if the elf scoots out of the entrance that the templar just came in... we're borderline twinking here since the entrance would be full of soldiers - but an argument can be made that the elf took off running and dodged through the cluster of bodies).

It still could have happened that exact way - there isn't always a need to emote out every single action.  Yes, emoting out major actions helps others understand what was going on but it really isn't necessary it is just useful.

The other version of the example holds the same interpretation: a templar who walks in and orders a soldier to grab the miscreant at the bar.  Again, one can infer that they came into the tavern, swept through the crowd and grabbed the guy.

My own belief and standard is that I will give someone time to react to whatever it is my character has done.  If they decide to take the fast way out, that's cool, but if my char gives chase then there won't be more opportunities given to emote out the original scene - that opportunity was granted and declined but I always give it.  After that original action (let's say it was to capture) then there will be ample opportunity given to interact and let things progress based on the actions of the characters.  

Typically, I try not to kill characters since I prefer leaving enemies alive.  I think that gives the game more breadth and excitement when you allow someone to escape so they can plot your downfall later.  The game of two rivals attempting to take down one another is so rarely acted out that I always try and allow that situation to exist.

Anyway, back to my point, my philosophy is that you should offer the opportunity for emoted interaction and if it is declined then just move on to the coded actions.  

One further mention, if you do choose to flee a situation, please remain online for a bit afterwards in case you are being pursued.  My own view in this situation (eg, my char has escaped evil meanie #3) is that I will remain online for at least fifteen minutes after the escape.  My char may be hiding in a deep, dark hole somewhere but they'll be online and available for the chase.

Again, that's a personal standard that I try and adhere to ('course, sometimes RL happens) but I figure since we're talking about this sort of thing I may as well share it.  

[Armaddict]

Followed by the templar advancing towards the elf while the elf quickly scoots out the back entrance... ('course, if the elf scoots out of the entrance that the templar just came in... we're borderline twinking here since the entrance would be full of soldiers - but an argument can be made that the elf took off running and dodged through the cluster of bodies).

The problem is, there is code in place that is supposed to reflect this that is rarely used.  A soldier 'guarding <exit>' shows that the doorway is full of soldier, not the templar having just come through that exit.  While logically he's still there, he doesn't have people taking measures to keep people in place, either.

Those dumb half-giants just let him by.

That's me being technical, and a lot of people don't like taking this that 'down to the line' with the code.  In other words, people like other people to make the same assumption as them.  The problem is, when the assumption isn't a shared one, one side is bound to get angry about it.  I was in this position recently and reacted that way, and it didn't end up good.  But at the same time, when you leave it to assumptions, things are bound to get 'unfair' for one side or the other.

To get back closer to the topic:  When engaging in a dangerous situation, one side always has to assume that the other will play this out in a good way.  Use as much code as possible, along with quick, non-descript emotes that get the message across that you're looking to role-play instead of insta-duke-it-out, and just hope you get it across.  Some people will take advantage of it, but you have to understand that in some, if not most cases where that happens, it's because they had a different assumption.

And as a derailment that anyone can post up if they think it has merit...why can't we have multiple targets for guard, with guard self being the only way to 'erase' what you're guarding, and another guard <target> being a sort of toggle where you are or aren't guarding them.  This shows the soldier who's blocking the door, but taking care that no one is harming his templar, either.  Or the fellow who's watching the merchant, but he wants to keep people off the pack they put down for a moment as well.  It would, of course, reduce the chance of succeeding at guarding either one, but that's where the value in a -good- guard is, too, right?

[Salt Merchant]

This isn't the Arm I used to play, where the code was the harsh mediator of PKing and that was good enough.

Let me make one last appeal then.

If you demand the victim stick around, it's always going to be vulnerable to an "I shot you first" kind of argument. One side says "I entered the room and he ran without emoting and that's bullshit". The other says it was an entire segment of main street, full of people. We weren't nose-to-nose the instant he arrived, so I got out of there". No one is right, and no one is wrong, because there's no reasonable way to resolve this. You just end up with two pissed off people.

Let the code continue to be the judge. Just make it more intelligent. Create a block command that templars can give to soldiers, for example:

> east
A rabid soldier blocks your way.
A rabid soldiers says, "You ain't going anywhere, fecker".
> west
A rabid soldier blocks your way.   etc.

Sort of an anti-guard.

Create barriers that can be built out of wood that raiders can camoflague by the road and roll out to block escape from each side.

Have people who struggle against being subdued wear out a bit with each attempt. You can only struggle wildly for so long.

But don't take away their chance for survival against your evil intentions by threatening to label them as poor RPers.

By the way, I was the anonymous kank that posted earlier. Thought I was logged in and I stand by what I said.

[Jherlen]

Subdue does make you lose stamina for failed attempts. Barriers might be cool. We could change the guard command, yadda yadda yadda.

But in the end I don't think we should expect code to define our roleplay for us.

I agree with the people who've said things along the lines that killing the victim shouldn't be your main objective unless plot stuff depends on it. For indiscriminate raiding, you shouldn't feel a need to murder everybody.

So, raiders: I think the "I'll kill without RP because none of my victims RP with me anyway" argument is flawed and in poor spirit. I think insta-subduing or insta-attacking is in sort of poor taste, unless you absolutely HAVE to kill the guy (and not just because you want his gloves or his sids).

Victims: Try not to get raided. Travel in groups. Don't let 5 people ambush you out of nowhere. If you do get ambushed, consider what your PC would do AND consider what is realistic. If they have you cornered, if they came at you from all sides, etc, maybe insta-running isn't good. On the other hand, nothing sucks worse than losing a PC you've put effort into and enjoy because of a few twinks. I'd say insta-running in some situations is fine, and in most is better than insta-attack. Preservation of your character's life is an understandable instinct ICly and OOCly and really when you come down to it, I don't think Arm's main focus is coded fighting and PKing and raiding folks.

On the flip side, instantly running means you miss some RP that might be cool, too. It's a tough call, sometimes you might get burned either way, but othertimes placing some faith in your fellow players might be enjoyable.

[Bebop]

Whew!  These are all long posts, and I don't have my glasses though I think what Halaster said was best.

I think the best word to be used is balance.  Just use your best judgement there are some circumstances when you can RP and when you can't some people will emote with you some won't.  Me personally I like having those last minute conversations, the terror of torture dying and betrayl, it fleshes out the death.  But some deaths are just as sudden IRL and in game that is shown too.  If someone said if you promise not to run I'll RP with you I would have been like AWESOME and consented but you just have to take what you can get.  

There are plenty of people that I don't always agree how they RP and some newbs you just gotta RP how you think is right and maybe it'll catch on.  I know I'm constantly taking bits and pieces from other characters I see.  Everytime you log on -is- a learning experience indeed.  I have done things and still will where I look back and think that is so stupid, did I do it right or hell no I didn't.  You just gotta be patient with yourself and the others around you.

[HardCarbon]

Movie.. The Princess Bride....

 "You killed my father.. prepair to die"


What does the Six fingered man do?


 Turns and runs like hell...  why?  Its what he would do.

[Kanky person]

I feel as I may of been the inspiration for this post.

Basically my character got mugged, and I tried my hardest to emote and do things realistically.

BUT first off my character isn't a push over so he WAS going to fight back or at lest flee to get the upper hand.  So it wasn't unrealistic of him to fight back or retreat so he could catch a breath/draw his weapon.

The problem was, I was trying at the time (sitting in a random room somewhere) to give myself a crash course on commands/emotes.  Because I haven't played in quite awhile.  Before the mugger came out of no where and started the scene.

If had not been there trying to read help files or if I had a chance to get familar with the game before hand, the scene would of played out better but I did what I had to too, fancy emotes or not. And  I really didn't fell like losing a character that I had made 3 hours prior just because I happen to be in the wrong place.

Just to note, I'm not mad at the mugger because he was a kick ass role player and the scene despite my failings was kind of fun.  Just from now on I'll make note to read help files/familiarize myself before logging on.

[Jakahri]

I prefer the scene, the idea in my head. I'm not playing to win. I'm playing to see a story told.

We play two different games.

And I can't figure out how to help us play the same game.

Great response Agent_137. I agree completely.

I've been on both the raiding/victim end in nearly any situation you could possibly imagine. I attempt to roleplay out the situation as best I can. And yes, that -does- mean throwing out an occassional emote now and then.

[jhunter]

I prefer the scene, the idea in my head. I'm not playing to win. I'm playing to see a story told.

We play two different games.

And I can't figure out how to help us play the same game.

Great response Agent_137. I agree completely.

I've been on both the raiding/victim end in nearly any situation you could possibly imagine. I attempt to roleplay out the situation as best I can. And yes, that -does- mean throwing out an occassional emote now and then.

Me too. The way that Agent_137 put it is exactly how I feel in those situations alot of the time.

[Salt Merchant]

But in the end I don't think we should expect code to define our roleplay for us.

But I think we should expect the code to define the world for us, and what is or is not possible.

All of these kinds of posts are about second-guessing the code to establish the sort of world you want to play in, and so in the end are just your opinion. I'll wait until the Imms hand down a definitive ruling or put it into the code, thanks.

[LoD]

But I think we should expect the code to define the world for us, and what is or is not possible.

The code does define the world, and what is or is not possible.  There are still many areas that are considered "bad form" or "poor RP" that the code fully supports.

1. You can hide or sneak away while someone is talking to you.
2. You can carry 10 bowls of uncovered soup in a cloak.
3. You can be near death and, in 2 game hours, be perfectly fine.
4. You can ride from Allanak to Tuluk in probably 5 minutes.

The code allows all of these things, but I think most people would agree that they shouldn't really be done.  They are examples of game abuse in one way or another.

All of these kinds of posts are about second-guessing the code to establish the sort of world you want to play in, and so in the end are just your opinion. I'll wait until the Imms hand down a definitive ruling or put it into the code, thanks.

This is like saying that you're going to put gigantic stickers on people's car windshields until you get arrested and automotive companies design sticker-proof windshields.  Just because something is POSSIBLE doesn't mean it should be done.  The same holds true in Armageddon.

We are forced to second guess the code, because the code is loose. This opinion of doing what the code allows until an Immortal comes to tell you it's not acceptable and changes the code is, in my mind, twinkish.  People should police themselves and consider what is realistic within what the code allows instead of waiting to be punished.

The code remains loose to allow the most freedom and functionality while restricting only the most serious opportunites for abuse.  This leaves a lot of middle ground that requires some degree of experience, maturity and self-discipline to navigate.

-LoD

[jhunter]

But I think we should expect the code to define the world for us, and what is or is not possible.

The code does define the world, and what is or is not possible.  There are still many areas that are considered "bad form" or "poor RP" that the code fully supports.

1. You can hide or sneak away while someone is talking to you.
2. You can carry 10 bowls of uncovered soup in a cloak.
3. You can be near death and, in 2 game hours, be perfectly fine.
4. You can ride from Allanak to Tuluk in probably 5 minutes.

The code allows all of these things, but I think most people would agree that they shouldn't really be done.  They are examples of game abuse in one way or another.

All of these kinds of posts are about second-guessing the code to establish the sort of world you want to play in, and so in the end are just your opinion. I'll wait until the Imms hand down a definitive ruling or put it into the code, thanks.

This is like saying that you're going to put gigantic stickers on people's car windshields until you get arrested and automotive companies design sticker-proof windshields.  Just because something is POSSIBLE doesn't mean it should be done.  The same holds true in Armageddon.

We are forced to second guess the code, because the code is loose.This opinion of doing what the code allows until an Immortal comes to tell you it's not acceptable and changes the code is, in my mind, twinkish. People should police themselves and consider what is realistic within what the code allows instead of waiting to be punished.

The code remains loose to allow the most freedom and functionality while restricting only the most serious opportunites for abuse.  This leaves a lot of middle ground that requires some degree of experience, maturity and self-discipline to navigate.

-LoD

*nods when LoD hits the nail on the head with a perfect stroke* Like Agent_137 said, it's people playing a different game.

[Jherlen]

Was going to reply, but LoD put it much more eloquently than I could have. I'll just cut my response down to this:

The code defines what is or is not possible, loosely. If we defined the world solely down to what the code defines, we would all be playing a much different (and IMO much less interesting) game. I had a guy in one of my clans once who sat and asked our autocook for steak 99 times in a row. (No joke.) He kept all these steaks in his backpack. The code let him do it, but...  :shock: That's not the kind of world I want to be playing in, and I think I can argue that its wrong based on something a little stronger than just "it's my opinion".

Furthermore I think in many cases it's either too hard to tighten the code to make perfect realism, or sometimes might even be too restrictive to allow people freedom to RP. By leaving the code loose, we keep that freedom, and we're just expected to use it reponsibly rather than twink out.

[Salt Merchant]

1. You can hide or sneak away while someone is talking to you.
2. You can carry 10 bowls of uncovered soup in a cloak.
3. You can be near death and, in 2 game hours, be perfectly fine.
4. You can ride from Allanak to Tuluk in probably 5 minutes.

Yes, you have a point. 1, 2 and 4 are clear cut, and so was the part about people spamming flee when subdued by raiders.

This particular issue and the one about being at near death, however, are not clear cut. It's going to be really fuzzy now when it's ok to leave a room and when it's not, and I hate that. Fuzzy grey areas lead to bad will; it's inescapable. In this case I'd rather have an objective judge (the code) decide, and have some tools put into the game that let people trap others with a bit of work so they can unambiguously have a dramatic showdown then.

The argument on the near death to full health issue is still open. Halaster (I think) came out and said they could implement longer healing periods but will not, exactly because sitting around for two hours waiting to heal is not fun. I wish he had just said "Zalanthanians heal super-fast" because then that would have been that, but it's been left open for individual players to interpret.

[LoD]

It's going to be really fuzzy now when it's ok to leave a room and when it's not, and I hate that.

It shouldn't be fuzzy if you just play the scene as your character and not as the player.  I haven't seen anyone say the action of getting up and leaving a tavern is poor role-play, certainly not to the degree to make one feel as if they now don't know what to do in a given situation.  What I have heard is that several people feel that ignoring the circumstances in an effort to avoid a dangerous situation is poor role-play.

The argument on the near death to full health issue is still open. Halaster (I think) came out and said they could implement longer healing periods but will not, exactly because sitting around for two hours waiting to heal is not fun. I wish he had just said "Zalanthanians heal super-fast" because then that would have been that, but it's been left open for individual players to interpret.

It's left open to players to interpret because the damage may have been caused by a several different things: poison, falling, blunt weapons, sharp weapons, claws, teeth, fire, magick, etc...  But anyone who comes to "near death" from a result of any damage should probably not be up and around after a RL 10 minute "sleep".  That's the point.  The code isn't going to take the initiative and tell you exactly how long you should sleep, rest, RP a broken rib, mend wounds, etc...because the game wants to develop mature players, not micromanage immature ones.

The problem isn't the code.  The problem is that players need time to understand why their character shouldn't steal from a man with 5 vigilant guards, sneak away in the middle of a conversation, provoke newbies into attacking them in a bar, fight->flee->sleep->fight->repeat, keep 99 steaks in their backpack, suicide characters for good stats, etc...

Once a player comes to view their character as a person, the code will cease to represent your limitations and begin to represent your endless possibilities.

-LoD

[HardCarbon]

How many online games  require you to spend say 6 weeks in game healing from a broken arm?  How many even HAVE wound codes let alone  good ones..  (lets not even go into those toon games).

Example..
 Why do some woodcutters put logs into item X.  When its really not the right size?    Answer because they can't make them into a sledge and drag large numbers to town they way it was historicly done.

1. You can hide or sneak away while someone is talking to you.
2. You can carry 10 bowls of uncovered soup in a cloak.
3. You can be near death and, in 2 game hours, be perfectly fine.
4. You can ride from Allanak to Tuluk in probably 5 minutes.

Yes, you have a point. 1, 2 and 4 are clear cut, and so was the part about people spamming flee when subdued by raiders.

This particular issue and the one about being at near death, however, are not clear cut. It's going to be really fuzzy now when it's ok to leave a room and when it's not, and I hate that. Fuzzy grey areas lead to bad will; it's inescapable. In this case I'd rather have an objective judge (the code) decide, and have some tools put into the game that let people trap others with a bit of work so they can unambiguously have a dramatic showdown then.

The argument on the near death to full health issue is still open. Halaster (I think) came out and said they could implement longer healing periods but will not, exactly because sitting around for two hours waiting to heal is not fun. I wish he had just said "Zalanthanians heal super-fast" because then that would have been that, but it's been left open for individual players to interpret.

[Armaddict]

We are forced to second guess the code, because the code is loose. This opinion of doing what the code allows until an Immortal comes to tell you it's not acceptable and changes the code is, in my mind, twinkish. People should police themselves and consider what is realistic within what the code allows instead of waiting to be punished.

I didn't say if the code allows it, it's fine.  I said that there is code in place that can reflect what you're trying to prevent...in this example, it was a templar walking into a room and someone leaving even though his guards should be keeping him from leaving.  However, if the templar doesn't actually set his soldiers to guard, then they -aren't- preventing that person from leaving.

I didn't say this makes it permissable to leave.  What I said is that there is code in place that just doesn't get used because people instead rely on emotes fully.  If they would just utilize that code, then not only would the game be supporting their emotes, but neither side could really feel screwed, either.

"Oh man, that soldier stopped me from running and I died.  I should have tried to talk my way out of it, or let him take me to prison and see if he offered me something."

"Oh man, the guy ran and my soldier's guard failed.  He got away.  Man that sucks, I almost had him."

Just saying...use the code as well.  We all love a good scene (one of my favorite death scenes is one where a magicker was getting uber-whacked by an imm-controlled uber-character.  I had my character panic and forget incantations that could have saved him), but they are subject to get spoiled when people -do- assume that they can get away or whatever, simply because the code doesn't reflect what was actually going on.  Use the code where available to support your RP, don't just dismiss it because you want to emphasize your trust.

Edited to remove content offensive to some players.

[Bogre]

Okay.

If someone tries to raid you when they enter a room opposite you, how hard is it to type AT LEAST:

>pemote eyes narrow on %man and he immediately kicks ~kank
>w

I mean, come on.

And conversely, how hard is it to type:

>emote lifts his weapon, running towards ~man
>kill man

And you can get out of almost any death situation without spamming flee or running. Most experienced players don't always want to kill you, but if their character has too then they will. But there are always ways to give people reasons to let you survive. AND ITS PURE RP.

Sides, you independent hunters have tons of sid anyways.  :wink:

[The Dude(just visiting)]

If this game and its playerbase was in fact mostly as Salt Merchant would like it, I for one certainly would have moved on by now.

[jhunter]

If this game and its playerbase was in fact mostly as Salt Merchant would like it, I for one certainly would have moved on by now.

[Salt Merchant]

If this game and its playerbase was in fact mostly as Salt Merchant would like it, I for one certainly would have moved on by now.

Go ahead and congratulate yourselves on how wonderful you all are, then. I'll say no more.

[Larrath]

When you subdue someone, that someone can spam Flee until they get away.  In reality, if someone tried to struggle a few times and failed, they'd probably get a strong bump to the head that would knock them out cold.
The code is not there to be looked at as a complete game.  The code is a framework that supports Zalanthas' IC reality, and this IC reality is the vast majority of the full game.  This is why many successful characters have nothing but IC interactions and no combat, while characters who have nothing but combat and no IC interactions are unwanted by just about everything.

"Gee, I sure pissed that noble off, even the 'rinth can't hide me anymore now that he brought every single bodyguard under his command with him into the heart of the 'rinth and is killing everything in his path until he can find and kill me."
Uhh, no.

EDIT: Removed half of this post, which was not related to this topic.

[jhunter]

If this game and its playerbase was in fact mostly as Salt Merchant would like it, I for one certainly would have moved on by now.

Go ahead and congratulate yourselves on how wonderful you all are, then. I'll say no more.

There's no need for snarky comments. It's just plain obvious that you don't "get it". Some of us were trying to help you to understand, if you choose not to hear us, then I'm sorry. At least we gave it an effort.

[LoD]

Go ahead and congratulate yourselves on how wonderful you all are, then. I'll say no more.

There's no need for snarky comments. It's just plain obvious that you don't "get it". Some of us were trying to help you to understand, if you choose not to hear us, then I'm sorry. At least we gave it an effort.

I also wouldn't be put off, SM, because it takes most people a long while to "get it" if they don't have someone experienced hand holding them through the entire process.  Even people who have played the game for years sometimes don't "get it" yet and continue to rationalize suspect behavior or cheat the system.  None of us are perfect in either our understanding of the game or in its execution, but some of us have played the game for a very long time and quickly recognize particular mindsets.

Many of us recognize them because we were once the exact same way.

-LoD

[jhunter]

Go ahead and congratulate yourselves on how wonderful you all are, then. I'll say no more.

There's no need for snarky comments. It's just plain obvious that you don't "get it". Some of us were trying to help you to understand, if you choose not to hear us, then I'm sorry. At least we gave it an effort.

I also wouldn't be put off, SM, because it takes most people a long while to "get it" if they don't have someone experienced hand holding them through the entire process.  Even people who have played the game for years sometimes don't "get it" yet and continue to rationalize suspect behavior or cheat the system.  None of us are perfect in either our understanding of the game or in its execution, but some of us have played the game for a very long time and quickly recognize particular mindsets.

Many of us recognize them because we were once the exact same way.

-LoD

You've got that right. I look back on some things that I did and it makes me laugh now. And you're right LoD there's always room for any of us to improve our play. I try to find ways to improve mine all the time.

[bloodfromstone]

I do think it's kind of presumptious to say that SM doesn't "get it" based on this conversation. I don't think he said anything that gave me that impression, only that he wants to code to give a channel to what is possible and not, rather than leaving it up in the air for two players to interperate differently, and therefore end up annoyed at one another so they could run to the GDB and complain. I think it's especially unnecessary to say that you could quit playing if everyone was like him, unless you've actually RPed with him IG recently. And, even if so, it's still a rather mean thing to say.

I think we're all here to have fun. Whether or not our impressions of the game are exactly the same, if we're enjoying ourselves and trying our best to make the game enjoyable for others, I think we "get it".

[Armaddict]

I do think it's kind of presumptious to say that SM doesn't "get it" based on this conversation.

Agreed.  Very elitest, which is something I end up becoming all the time in discussions.

Someone -can- 'get it' and still not trust other players, guys.  Especially when you consider that someone who 'gets it' can do -all- of this flavorful role-play filled with conspiracy, intrigue, planning, and cunning, only to be called a 'twink' or someone who doesn't 'get it' because after all that planning, they had a doubt as to whether the target pc or whatever would play along since it would result in their certain death.  That -is- the case where you see most of these instances happen, right?  When you're either trying to bring or escape certain death?

Don't accuse someone of being a less valuable player just because one person's idea of RP did not occur.  They may have entertained a bunch of other PC's in the process of getting to that situation, or they may spur a lot of fun RP through the action itself, when your friends or their friends or a templar or whatever finds out.  Or when you don't come back and all your friends are put into a new RP position.  Or when someone finds your corpse after an emoteless raid that kills you, and a guy standing over it.
Endless possibilities for role-play for others, even if you didn't get your 'perfect death scene'.

[LoD]

I do think it's kind of presumptious to say that SM doesn't "get it" based on this conversation.

I believe the person claiming SM didn't "get it" was referring to this post:

But I think we should expect the code to define the world for us, and what is or is not possible.

All of these kinds of posts are about second-guessing the code to establish the sort of world you want to play in, and so in the end are just your opinion. I'll wait until the Imms hand down a definitive ruling or put it into the code, thanks.

This post states that SM wants the code, and the code alone, to define what is possible and not possible.  This just doesn't work.  It's not about elitism or snobbery, it's about disagreeing with the concept and providing reasons why it isn't valid.  

Someone -can- 'get it' and still not trust other players, guys.

This point has nothing to do with whether you trust another player, but rationalizing one's behavior because "the code allows it" as compared to using a combination of code, common sense, logic and a dash of realism.

There is a difference between elitism and debate.  The bulk of this thread has been debate about playing true to your character in the face of a potentially dangerous situation and the role of the code in that interaction.        No need to bring in the defense lawyers for a response that was born out of flame bait.

-LoD

[jhunter]

This point has nothing to do with whether you trust another player, but rationalizing one's behavior because "the code allows it" as compared to using a combination of code, common sense, logic and a dash of realism.

[Rindan]

Argue the points if you want, but there is absolutely not a single reason in the world to single out someone and start making comments about them personally.  If you want to tear into each others arguments, great, have at it.  Tearing into each other on the other hand is completely uncalled for.  You might not play the game if everyone thought the way he did.  You might think that he doesn't "get it".  You sure as hell don't have to tell him though.  If you really feel that you desperately need to tell him your personal opinion of him, don't be a jack ass and do it publicly, send him a PM.  What in the hell is accomplished by announcing your opinion of someone else?

If you want to tell someone they don't get it or that you would hate to play in a world where everyone was like them, do it privately and not for the entire bored to watch you sling shit at each other.

[Maybe42or54]

Thats why you email the mud and tell ginka to forward on a little bit of information about the other pcs death. Or send it to the mud in case the other asks.

"Sorry about killing your pc, been hunting them for quite a while, for a plot line."

[bloodfromstone]

Argue the points if you want, but there is absolutely not a single reason in the world to single out someone and start making comments about them personally.

Thank you. I honestly don't care what someone's philosphy of the game is like, as long as they're here to have fun and contribute. I think most of us are, or we wouldn't take the time to read and post on the boards. It always depresses me to see the lack of community on these boards, when we're really here for the same thing, whatever form it may take.

[Ritley]

Argue the points if you want, but there is absolutely not a single reason in the world to single out someone and start making comments about them personally.

Thank you. I honestly don't care what someone's philosphy of the game is like, as long as they're here to have fun and contribute. I think most of us are, or we wouldn't take the time to read and post on the boards. It always depresses me to see the lack of community on these boards, when we're really here for the same thing, whatever form it may take.

I agree with you on this. People can be idiots IRL can't they?

[jhunter]

:shock: Holy shit. It seems to me that the people defending Salt Merchant are making more rude comments than anyone else has made previously. I don't see anything that bad posted about Salt Merchant or that was a personal attack or namecalling (which is what I'm seeing others stoop to) Everyone else is flying off the handle and being ten times more rude, insulting and personally attacking than anyone else had been.

It wasn't my intent to be insulting to anyone. If anyone started this thread degrading with snarky comments it was Salt Merchant. Everyone else jumping on the bandwagon and saying "Poor Salt Merchant, how dare you assholes state your opinions."

Take a fucking chill pill. Geez.


This was a good thread. It isn't anymore. Lock please.

[Halaster]

Most of the last set of posts were hardly considered on topic or discussion of this thread.  Knock off the arguing and get back on the topic of this thread, or we'll probably just end up considering it "done" and locking it.