PK poll one

[My 2 sids]

Okay, so we've had a few discussions on PK and hatred in which some have suggested PKs are the only way to ensure people don't try to retaliate.  So, I'm wondering if players would allow their PCs to be punished, insulted, threatned, beaten, humiliated, enslaved, etc.  w/o trying to seek revenge.   I mean, it seems a lot of times things boil down to "Do I trust the player of this grubber not to try and retaliate over my noble?"

[X-D]

Not voting,  two of my possible choices are not there.

Namely, Yes, but if the oportunity came for revenge I'd take it.

And, No, but he can fake it.

[Barzalene]

I'm not voting either because I don't agree that pks are a bad thing. So, I don't see the point in finding alternatives to them.

I have found that overwhelmingly the player-base is already behaving very responsibly. Occasionally you will find a newbie idiot, but they that newbie idiot probably isn't interested in finding alternatives to pking.

[My 2 sids]

Okay, so my follow up question would be...

If society is hierarchtical, how does one justify lower-classes trying to seek revenge?   How about why a noble should really care if some no-body lowly aide got into a spat with some other lowly aide in the Gaj?  

[Barzalene]

Why have people been slashed with box cutters for stepping on someone's shoes on the subway?

[My 2 sids]

Why have people been slashed with box cutters for stepping on someone's shoes on the subway?

Strange analogy, but still waaay out of the norm reaction.    This thread is more about what the norm should be vs. what the norm is because of OOC reasons.

[Barzalene]

I see your point. And to some extent I do agree. If your aide and your friend's aide have a fight, then you would tell your aide to behave. If it's the fault of your friend's aide, chances are you can ask your friend to correct the problem.

If your ally's aide causes a problem, you decide if it's worth complaining about.

If an acquaintance's aide causes a problem you would usually tell your aide to take care of their own issues, unless they are rendering your aide in some way useless in which case you might complain or retaliate, depending on the value of the aide.

But what if it's your enemy? Or what if it happens on a day when you're feeling mean? Then an overreaction might be understandable icly, and ocly move things forward. Do you go around killing people's aides cause they bother yours? Of course not, there has to be more to it than that

OOcly we know that conflict is good for the game. Aide problems should rarely rise to the level of a real problem for nobles. It's just an aide. They're replaceable. They're interchangeable.

[X-D]

If society is hierarchtical, how does one justify lower-classes trying to seek revenge?   How about why a noble should really care if some no-body lowly aide got into a spat with some other lowly aide in the Gaj?  

You don't. Personaly I think that when a city commoner does do these things, Most the time staff should step in, freeze the account and tell them to come back after they have read the docs.

Same applies for nobles. Nobles should always try to remember they are So far above commoners that they cannot smell the stink if they are throwing it around.

As to PK, its a good thing...not enough right now...Meh.

[touringCompl3t3]

It's funny the amount of fuss that this poll is raising, given the potential breakthrough that a group understanding of this complicated issue is. 

It boils down to trust. 

I've wanted to post about this....

......I mean, go to a construction yard, go to a biker bar, go drinking with marines some time -- you'll see big, macho dudes talk a lot of shit to each other, and get into conflicts.

Very rarely, you will see a fight.

But you don't see people shooting each other or stabbing each other very often, except in the movies.  Most of the time that two dudes get into a scuffle with each other, they might throw a few punches to let their aggression out, but after that they will want to back down and try to save some face.

I'm not saying that people should PK each other less, but I am saying that people should choose to PK each other for more realistic reasons than just because they got into an argument.  It's realism.

[Maybe42or54]

I would prefer to see more rivalry without ending dead than currently. Everytime I get someone pissed at me = I have to die. It is really hard to continue to piss people off IG.

[Adiadochokinesis]

I would prefer to see more rivalry without ending dead than currently. Everytime I get someone pissed at me = I have to die. It is really hard to continue to piss people off IG.

It seems like this has been getting better.

[Lizzie]

I found myself in 42/54's scenario on the other side with a previous character. She had a mental list of everyone she wanted to kill. Anyone who pissed her off, anyone who was mean, or tried to cheat her, anyone who was intentionally ill-mannered, was on that list. From templars to rinth-rats. Suffice it to say she had a pretty big list - most Zalanthans, I've discovered, are either eager to piss people off, or mean, or try to cheat other people, or are intenionally ill-mannered. There aren't all that many sincerely "nice" PCs in the game. Which is fine...but it makes for a pretty exhausting list of "people my PC needs to kill if she survives long enough to be capable of killing people."

Fortunately for everyone on the list, she died before ever learning how to kill a single person.

[Dakurus]

Death is very Zalanthas. I'm not so sure killing is, for your typical everyday Zalanthan.
Starvation, disease, sickness, overwork, beatings, accidents, hunting and other such factors likely make death fairly commonplace, but in nearly every community and culture on Zalanthas there are laws against assault and murder. Pretty clear laws, and in a fair amount of places the law is pretty heavy handed.
Now sure, like any other crime, murder happens, and I'm sure at a higher rate then we're used to, but likely still in the minor percentages.

Player characters don't tend to be a great reflection of the typical Zalanthan population unfortunately. They tend experience things your typical Zalanthan doesn't, involve themselves in activities, go to distant locales, gather wealth, and have much less dull occupations. Most characters are more akin to a burning sparkler (sometimes a pretty long one), then the slow burning tallow candle of a typical zalanthan. This means more focus, more attention, and a limited playing pool where it's far far easier to clash with others in the pool. And most things involving player characters burn as quick and bright as players themselves, which includes their conflicts.

Killing is by far the most effective conflict resolver. In one action, that particular opposition is gone, the chance for direct revenge extinguished, opportunities for a lengthy grudge or annoyance denied, and quite possibility breathing room achieved as it may be a length of time before another player takes up an opposition role, if at all. Did I mention the sense of power, and adrenaline rush? Torturing, embarrassment, and other such options can be lots of fun as an alternative, but leave so many loose ends and assured followup issues that I usually see them more neglected except by those that are so confident in their power and position that they don't mind having LIVING enemies.

I think that killing satisfies multiple IC and OOC goals and is currently often the easiest and most final solution. (This isn't to say it's easy, nor that you won't get in a load of trouble.) People will be less inclined to use it as an option, when the negatives to doing it, outweigh the percieved gains.

[JustAnotherGuy]

I personally see it as something that add to the RP value, but I know with my currently Character... he'd go to the ends of the world to try to get back at the person that did it to him... hence my choice.  But he'd probably end up dead...  or beaten again.. hehe.

[X-D]

I usually see them more neglected except by those that are so confident in their power and position that they don't mind having LIVING enemies.

Actually, when you get to that point you go out of your way to make them just to have something to do.

If I have a 20 day warrior(or most other classes) If he makes an enemy, the focus will be to kill. But if I have a 50+ day PC...Meh....beat em down, take the pants and shoes and mount and be on your way:)

[Kalden]

If someone isn't an outright dangerous enemy, I'll always give them a chance to make good. If they don't do things right, they die. It's pretty simple.

With a dangerous enemy, you have to crush them totally. Two ways to do that: befriend them, or destroy them. The former is often too risky.

This idea that in a hierarchical society you can't plot revenge against your betters is ridiculous. It's ahistorical. Revolutions have often been plotted by the underlings, and there have been plenty of them. It's great if Joe Commoner decides that he's going to avenge his dead sister by killing the Templar. Obviously his chances of success are slim to nil.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I have no problems with conflict. Battle makes the world go around.

[Ghost]

Well said Dakurus.

Torturing, embarrassment, and other such options can be lots of fun as an alternative, but leave so many loose ends and assured followup issues that I usually see them more neglected except by those that are so confident in their power and position that they don't mind having LIVING enemies.

Unless you are a templar, you will find it by experience that you really should kill your enemies in Arm.  If you let them go, by whatever reasons and whatever conditions or whatever the kind of fear you put in them, they almost always get back and let's remember, dying is very easy on arm.  No matter who you are (unless you are a templar... well, maybe noble too) you can be killed very easily.  Entire organisations can be wiped out, your best henchmen can be killed by the very person whose arms and legs were broken and was told worse would happen to him and his family if he pisses you off again.  Well, he will come back.

Unless you really kill like crazy (like several dozens crazy) including mages, scary monsters or even defilers for a few pc generations, your rivals will almost always come back.  If you however give an image of death and destruction, then chances are you won't be bothered for most, but only for folks who might want some fat loot.  From that point on, leaving someone alive is an option.

About nobles or aides:  I don't think nobles should really give a shit about what aide#1 is going through and how aide#3 is making fun of her.  If it is someone high ranking I would understand.  But aide is something you just recruit from the streets.  Even if you lose one of them, the other one will be on the streets too.  I don't think the noble should be bothered that his aide lost a pissing contest to another noble's aide.  If it is a rival noble, I think it is -your aide's- responsibility to be creative and not lose any pissing contest.  That is how you as a noble will know who really is a go getter and who is a bugger.

[Doppelganger]

Unless you are a templar, you will find it by experience that you really should kill your enemies in Arm.

It is worth to clarify that you should kill player as well as character. Otherwise,

Well, he will come back.

Murdering his family and RL friends is wise, using weapons of mass destruction is a plus, but you should deal with his AIM list first.

[Barzalene]

Unless you are a templar, you will find it by experience that you really should kill your enemies in Arm.

It is worth to clarify that you should kill player as well as character. Otherwise,

Well, he will come back.

Murdering his family and RL friends is wise, using weapons of mass destruction is a plus, but you should deal with his AIM list first.

I love our players. They're all silly.

[Maybe42or54]

I just like to harass my enemies until them, their friends, and their friends start ignoring me. Which actually is more of a problem for me than them killing me, oddly enough. I also prefer it less.

[Ghost]

Well, he will come back.

Murdering his family and RL friends is wise, using weapons of mass destruction is a plus, but you should deal with his AIM list first.

words of wisdom

[Malken]

Wow, I'm the only one who doesn't trust any of you, that's awesome!

[Dresan]

I've never pked or been pked by anyone really (well not true but one involved a magic insta screwed spell, the other method is extremely frowned upon by the staff now). I personally hate the crime code and wished it only worked for nobles, templars and special locations like taverns and maybe crowded vnpc places. People fighting and dying brings conflict and alot of fun to the game and i think people would setting for humiliating people if they think that if they need to they'll be able to kill them off just as easy later on.

Also I don't know why thier character being humilated or insulted in anyway is such a big deal for people though bordom/ nothing else to worry about probably has something to do with it. I was once robbed blind in the desert (again magic) but when i woke up the only thing me and my character could think of is 'HaHa, i'm still alive', he shrugged it off as an unfortunately expense and moved on with his life, at least it made a good story to tell his friends later on, i could have found out who they were and reported them but meh too much trouble had better things to do. 

[Rindan]

It really depends on the level of conflict.  If you are talking about two organizational heads, I am all for killing and calling it a day.  If senior agent Kurac kills rival senior agent Kadius in his battle to secure resource X or make a deal with person Y, so be it.  When it comes to fights between commoners, or conflicts between commoners and nobles, I take a different view.  I see nothing wrong with organizational heads (be they nobles, merchants, whatever) trying to decapitate other organizational heads with murder.

When a commoner gets the pissed beat out of him by a noble/templar, 99% of time that commoner should thank Tek that they are still alive, suck it up, and deal with it.  Getting beaten down by your betters is simply life, and you stand absolutely no chance of getting revenge.  Unless they have done something REALLY horrible to you, like enslaved and raped your family, seeking vengeance over a bloody nose, a few bruises, and some lost dignity is just dumb.  You probably can't even conceive of how  you would get vengeance, much less want to take the absurd risk in getting it.  At worst, the most you might think of doing is putting yourself in the power of a rival "great power" who might actually have the resources to get some sort of revenge.  For most people though, getting beaten up by a noble is like an angel coming down from heaven and kicking the shit out of you.  You are more likely to try and avoid getting beaten up in the future than plot to kill god.

When it comes to the reverse situation, with a noble deciding if he should smack the crap out of a commoner or kill him, I think nobles should generally show some level of restrain and quickly escalate to murder.  A commoner shows disrespect should probably be humiliated in some non-lethal way.  A commoner who persists in showing disrespect after "corrective measures" have been taken should probably be disposed of and be made an example of.  You do this not because you fear that particular commoner.  You do this to drive home the point that disrespecting your betters is a very bad idea.  You are instructing ALL commoners why it is a bad idea to be disrespectful, not showing that one commoner why it is a bad idea.  Generally, the more showy and public the punishment, the more instructive the example is to an audience.  Nobles maintain their positions by constantly reinforcing that they are powerful, must be respected, and that those who don't will suffer.  All that said, I think nobles and Templars should be given a lot of latitude in how they deal with problems.  Nobles and Templars are clearly the ones in power and as such can safely indulge their propensity to be bloody minded, sadistic, murderous, or magnanimous so long as their actions don't make them seem low.  A noble who kills at the first overt sign of disrespect wouldn't bother me in the slightest, nor would one that tries multiple "corrective" measures before giving into simple murder.  A noble should be led by his personality and his overriding need to show that he/she is a class above in deciding how he deals with problem commoners.

As far as commoners beating on commoners goes, I think that people should, in general, meet threat with roughly equal threat.  Name calling probably doesn't really call for murder.  Pick pocketing calls for a good beating, but probably not for chopping someone's head off.  An attempt at murder or a credible threat of murder probably calls for murder in response.  Unless you are playing a very bloody minded person, murder probably should probably not be your first response to any offense.  That said, I think commoners should feel pretty free to respond how they like to each others provocations.  People should just keep in mind that murder isn't a casual thing for most people.  Your mercenary thug might very well respond to insult with murder, but realize that that makes him kind of a psychopath, not your average Allanaki.  Most people should probably gradually raise the stakes, meeting each escalation of conflict with escalation of their own.

[My 2 sids]

I think Ridan has hit the mark:  People should keep in mind murder isn't a casual thing for most people.   We know it isn't casual for most people because although it's perfectly legal to pass a begger on the street without feeding them (death by starvation) it isn't legal for people to walk around gutting other people... that's why law says you can't do it. 

Dresan also made a great point:  staying alive gives PC's great stories! 

Dakurus,   you start by saying you're not sure how much killing is an every-day occurance   but end by saying killing is ICly the most realistic.  How?  How is it realistic ICly if most people don't consider murder an easy or standarad occurance?

[Cerelum]

Dakurus,   you start by saying you're not sure how much killing is an every-day occurance   but end by saying killing is ICly the most realistic.  How?  How is it realistic ICly if most people don't consider murder an easy or standarad occurance?

I took him to being say that because all of us, pcs, are not your typical zalanthan that we can be bloodthirsty and all that shit.

I personally don't like that assumption cause it's like saying that none of us could be a normal guy and we are all just capable of murder for little things like insults just cause we aren't npcs.

J-Rod

[Dalmeth]

Dakurus,   you start by saying you're not sure how much killing is an every-day occurance   but end by saying killing is ICly the most realistic.  How?  How is it realistic ICly if most people don't consider murder an easy or standarad occurance?

It's quite simple.  He gave a thorough analysis of the situation.  Normal people simply don't have much reason to murder others.  Particularly in civilized society, there's just too much to lose.  People still do, though.  That's because it is very effective at resolving conflicts.  Half the point of playing this game is to stir up conflict.  So it's no wonder that our players might find murder to be a common option within the game.  It might not be the most fun solution for all parties involved, but it is the most effective.

[touringCompl3t3]

I really like the way that Dakarus expressed it above.

[My 2 sids]

There is a difference between revenge and conflict.

Revenge is about retaliation:  make someone suffer the same or greater pain as a result of whatever perceived wrongdoing they caused.  Dakurus is correct that murder is an efficient way to insure 'winning' and seek revenge.  Example:  Suzy Commoner pisses off Noble Fancy.  For two OOC days Noble Fancy doesn't speak to or acknowledges Suzy, on the third day an elf simply murders her.

On the other hand, conflict is more about building tension and conflict.   It requires a good protagonist and antagonist to build it correctly and can take awhile to obtain (in a writing sort of way).  However, quick and sudden death (without any other build up) often hinders conflict building.    Example:  Suzy Commoner pisses off Noble Fancy.  For the next OOC month Suzy and Noble exchange glares, hushed insults, and humiliation... drawing others into their web of revenge (even if so subtle so as only they notice... maybe Suzy spits in his food, maybe he makes it a habit to always take over whatever table she was sitting)

And maybe that is what I'm really asking.  Do more people play Arm to 'win' (where revenge would be well suited)  or would more people think of Arm as more a writing project where there are an array of complex emotions and character-interaction.  (where sustained conflict is better suited). 

Perhaps neither way is bad per say, but they are different and I think if we knew how our fellow players viewed the game we may role-play things a bit differently.

[Jherlen]

Do more people play Arm to 'win' (where revenge would be well suited)  or would more people think of Arm as more a writing project where there are an array of complex emotions and character-interaction.  (where sustained conflict is better suited).

I think most people play to 'win'. I disagree (and I think it's silly, playing to win a game you can never really win), but it seems like that's how most people play. And if you are playing to win, then I guess Ghost is exactly right - kill everybody who could ever possibly be a threat to you. You never know who might come back to screw you over. The safest way to be is to eliminate any character who poses a danger, never leaving anyone alive with a reason or will to do yours harm. It's definitely a harsh and brutal way to play, and those are the words it seems like everyone gets off to while we play this game. I'm not such a fan, though. I've seen phases of the game where powerful characters put that theory into practice, and it never seemed that great to me. It can very easily suck the fun out of the game and replace it with paranoia, stress, and OOC bickering on the GDB and elsewhere.

Just speaking for myself, the most intense conflicts my characters have had have been ones where the parties on both sides DIDN'T go and immediately kill each other or each other's subordinates or friends. There was certainly plotting to do this on both sides, and murders did happen, but they weren't hair-trigger "you spit on my friend, I kill your aide" type situations. The conflict built up and built up and built up, but as long as both parties were playing fairly, conflict like that made me want to play more. Conflict where people go off killing everyone doesn't get to build or get interesting and often pushes me away from the game.

When it comes to the reverse situation, with a noble deciding if he should smack the crap out of a commoner or kill him, I think nobles should generally show some level of restrain and quickly escalate to murder.  A commoner shows disrespect should probably be humiliated in some non-lethal way.  A commoner who persists in showing disrespect after "corrective measures" have been taken should probably be disposed of and be made an example of.  You do this not because you fear that particular commoner.  You do this to drive home the point that disrespecting your betters is a very bad idea.  You are instructing ALL commoners why it is a bad idea to be disrespectful, not showing that one commoner why it is a bad idea.

I agree with this, and I'd like to take it further and say it doesn't just apply to nobility or templars, but anybody in a position of power that commands respect out of fear. Crime lords, powerful rogue mages, and on the smaller scale, even characters in positions of power inside organisations shouldn't always go off and immediately kill somebody for disrespect. A good part of these people's reputations relies on fear of force rather than force itself, in the esteemed words of Grand Moff Tarkin. In other words, if you go around blowing up everyone who disrespects you with your Death Star, who's left to bow down and do your bidding?

The art is knowing when killing someone to make an example of them is the best course of action (for your character, as well as the game) and when it isn't. All I can say is that the characters in the game that I've feared most have shared a couple characteristics: they've appeared powerful enough to kill nearly whoever they pleased, while also appearing restrained and calculating enough to know when to leave someone trembling alive instead.

[Barzalene]

I don't disagree with what the op is asking for. What pisses me off, (maybe I'm drinking too much caffeine is it over the top to get pissed?) is that the implication is that this is currently not happening, that people are being killed willy-nilly. I don' think it's so. I'm not perceiving a problem.

Last year my pc was killed for reason that seemed very silly to me, but there were reasons. The upside was that she got to be worried and paranoid and taken in. And in the end flattered that all those people had gone to all that trouble. And it was likely they might have even had reasons that made sense.

The best part is that now, with each pc I worry. And I think that's fun. I like having to look over my shoulder. If everyone is going out of their way to avoid killing everyone else, then I might still die, but I won't be able to enjoy being tense before I die. I'd miss that.

Mostly, I think people play well. I think that there's no surfeit of crazed killers to complain about. Things are working.

[X-D]

There is not nearly enough PK going on right now...DAMM the end of the world and people trying to keep a PC alive to see it(me included)

[naatok]

Just to qualify my 'yes' vote on this:
First, not every one of my characters would or would not seek revenge/escape/justice/etc. for harsh treatment from other characters.
Some of them would probably do so immediately and with predictable deadly results.
Some of them might bide their time and wait for the perfect moment, or attempt to 'arrange' the perfect moment for revenge/escape.
Some of them would simply take the abuse as part of harsh life.

I do not play the same character concept over and over again.  Each of my characters is unique, although I must say I do gravitate toward certain personality 'types'.
Doesn't mean I always play those types.  For instance, my current character is VASTLY different from any character I've ever played before.

[Troicha]

I do not play the same character concept over and over again.  Each of my characters is unique, although I must say I do gravitate toward certain personality 'types'.

Sacrilege!

These polls make me giggle inside for just that reason.

[Malken]

I just want to know who is the other player that voted like me that he/she doesn't trust any of you Armageddon players.

That, right there, beats any E-harmony compatibility tests.

[Yam]

Me.

[Supreme Allah]

And maybe that is what I'm really asking.  Do more people play Arm to 'win' (where revenge would be well suited)  or would more people think of Arm as more a writing project where there are an array of complex emotions and character-interaction.  (where sustained conflict is better suited). 

Perhaps neither way is bad per say, but they are different and I think if we knew how our fellow players viewed the game we may role-play things a bit differently.

I wouldn't hesitate at all in saying that playing Arm 'to win' is bad. I think it's the reverse of what Arm is about: roleplay, and being a part of a compelling story that engages and stimulates the creative parts in all of us.

Really, people that seem to me like they are just trying to get their character(s) to be the "best" are the only negative parts of my experience here on Arm.

[Dalmeth]

I wouldn't hesitate at all in saying that playing Arm 'to win' is bad. I think it's the reverse of what Arm is about: roleplay, and being a part of a compelling story that engages and stimulates the creative parts in all of us.

Really, people that seem to me like they are just trying to get their character(s) to be the "best" are the only negative parts of my experience here on Arm.

How many characters in the game shouldn't be motivated to be the best at what they do?  Is it the player simply wanting to lord his or her power over players, or is the player merely acting on the goals and interests of the character?

[LoD]

Early in Armageddon's history, there was a different feel to the game.  Many of the same components existed, but they were shallow versions of themselves and much of the gameplay was largely superficial.  The lack of convenient OOC forums cut down on the widespread nature of OOC communication and limited it largely to small groups of friends.  It was much more difficult to know what other people were doing because players were either solo or working with 1-5 personal friends with no contact outside of their intimate island.  This meant you had less of a chance to know the other characters you encountered in-game, and certainly had less of a chance of communicating with them outside of it.

Imms were also fewer and farther between, I believe 100% male, and likely much younger than the median age we find in the Immortal Staff these days.  There was a sense of danger in playing the game that was as attractive as it was frustrating.  Pair all of this with the fact that Armageddon was lacking many of the qualities which non-combat characters appreciate today such as crafting skills, a wide variety of city-based clans with rich documentation and ages of IC development, hosts of emoting and communicative tools (i.e. tell, talk, emote targets), and you have a much different atmosphere.

There were many people playing the game "to win" back then because of this environment.  You also had people that wanted to develop the story, or realized there was a story to be told, but were forced to learn as much about the hard coded nature of the game (or more) than the powergamers in order to survive and succeed.  So out came this hybrid player that was simultaneously capable of driving plots and creating a breathing character with short-term and long-term goals while advancing their hard coded skills and ultimate coded power.

Then things began to change.  Channels of OOC communication were much improved with instant messaging, IRC chat rooms, and the emergence of the internet itself.  Friends brought more friends into the game and began to network with other players, share knowledge, and even keep opens lines of communication while they played.  New Imms and players joined the game with a different vision, lending touches of depth and sophistication to what was possible through crafting skills, advance in-game communication skills, and an emphasis on strong RP.

People with traits common to the "old game" soon found themselves occasionally on the bad end of the RP stick for continuing habits they'd formed out of necessity with regards to keeping their characters both skilled AND involved, at least at the same rate of growth.  New players joined that were capable of playing without lending any thought whatsoever to learning combat skills in order to succeed.  Some of them likely never had to branch a skill in order to be successful, because there were now checks and balances that kept some of the "coded crazies" from as easily dominating the game play.

And now I do feel as if a certain sense of that danger is gone.  That we have a large group of players who were never forced to learn how to survive in an environment with that level of unpredictability and danger lurking around every encounters.  And while there are still plenty of people that do silly things, it's more difficult to do them as often or as consistently without being reprimanded, punished, or eventually disallowed from doing them.

All in all, I feel that this has been a good thing for the game, but I'd be lying if I said there weren't elements that got lost in the transition which lent the game a much more dangerous and unpredictable feel.  So I understand what people mean when they complain about players that seem to be focused on "winning" the game, but that largely exists because of what the game has become and some of the people you speak of may have simply learned to play prior to this transition and were forced to play a certain way in order to reach their goals and be successful.

People should feel free to pursue a realistic progression of their character, and to strive to be the best in what they do -- but they should also realize that there's something larger than themselves here to be experienced, and that sometimes restraint and patience will be more rewarding than ruthless efficiency to everyone involved.  That lesson is learned differently dependent upon the environment in which you must learn.  My time was different than your time, which was probably different than someone coming into the game for the very first time today.

And the mere fact that we have players at different stages in development leads to this frustration we see when one player feels their storytelling efforts are being trumped by someone trying to "win".

Sorry, this was a bit of a derailment -- but I think it can be a helpful perspective.

-LoD

[jhunter]

On the "playing to win" subject...

I don't think it has anything to do with anything negative on the player's part -most- of the time. I consider each of my pcs as their own individual entity, for the most part (like -any- living creature) they intend to "win" at life. Some of them might be held back by their own addictions/disabilities/peronality flaws, etc. I think it's unrealistic to believe that it's wrong for any living creature (especially those of any sort of human intelligence) to want to live life to "win". Most people don't wake up each day and think to themselves: "I'm gonna go out there and lose today, yay me!" "I'm gonna go do shitty and fail on purpose because that's what I want out of life."

The difference between your pc trying to "win" at life (which is 100% realistic and acceptable) and the player attempting to "win" at the game is if they are ignoring the setting or any flaws their character might have in order to get ahead when realistically, those things would hold them back.

[Salt Merchant]

I personally see it as something that add to the RP value, but I know with my currently Character... he'd go to the ends of the world to try to get back at the person that did it to him... hence my choice.  But he'd probably end up dead...  or beaten again.. hehe.

I see this as a very natural reaction.

Who wouldn't resent serious abuse and revenge themselves if possible?

Most of my characters aren't so enamored of the nobility that if they piss in her face, she'll thank them and ask for more. Even nobles had better be careful who they abuse. If a character doesn't have might of arm on her side, the influence of coin in the right pocket can be very dangerous.

[Vessol]

In general I love PKs. It adds a lot of dramatic roleplay to the game WHEN DONE RIGHT.

The generic, non-emote, ride in, kill and not emote a damn thing is no fun.

[psionic fungus]

I just skimmed over this thread, but I have a few things I'd like to comment on.

But you don't see people shooting each other or stabbing each other very often, except in the movies.  Most of the time that two dudes get into a scuffle with each other, they might throw a few punches to let their aggression out, but after that they will want to back down and try to save some face.

I've read a couple of studies that indicate these types of actions are happening more frequently.  In the 1990s, more violent crime and murder surrounded gang and illicit drug activity.  In the 2000s, a higher percentage of murders in the U.S. are happening over things like "disrespect".  It's sad, but true.  We are a culture that is being desensitized to violence.  Children are killing hundreds to thousands of virtual people in high-def environments, and every time it becomes easier to pull a real trigger (that's based on some studies too).

With that said... Zalanthas is supposed to be a world that is more harsh than our own.  If anything the denizens should be more desensitized to violence and therefor more willing to make use of it.

Secondly...

The lack of convenient OOC forums cut down on the widespread nature of OOC communication and limited it largely to small groups of friends.  It was much more difficult to know what other people were doing because players were either solo or working with 1-5 personal friends with no contact outside of their intimate island.  This meant you had less of a chance to know the other characters you encountered in-game, and certainly had less of a chance of communicating with them outside of it.

My experience was different.  ISCA BBS and the IRC channel were around since damn near the beginning.  When I began playing (1994, I believe) the amount of OOC communication was -at least- as bad as it is now.  I know LoD knows what I'm talking about, because I used to exchange information with him as well. For me personally, there was much -more- OOC communication back then.  I used to have various Staffers telling me all kinds of IC information on a daily basis.  ICQ and various other IM clients have not increased the amount of OOC communication in my experience, they have just decentralized the player-base...

I encounter the same issues with cliques and other OOC bullshit infiltrating the game today as I did then, which is also sad... But I don't think there is any way to ever stop it...