Ownership, Plots, and PC-PC Conflict

[Gimfalisette]

Since I inadvertently started the most recent pro/anti/whatever-magicker thread-flame-fest-o-rama with a pretty innocent desire to talk about systematic influences on player choices, I thought I'd start a new thread that has NOTHING TO DO WITH MAGICK, and may provide an interesting diversion while still discussing systems.

Context: I have recently been watching the TV series Deadwood and just finished the first season. (Plz no spoilers!) While there are a couple things that annoy me about the show, I find it very interesting for its deep character portrayals, many-threaded plots, and intense conflict that doesn't always end in lethality. In many ways it is a good comparison to ARM, as other players have said, and it's got me thinking a lot about plots...how to run them, what makes an interesting basis for plot, and so on.

The primary thing I want to discuss here is ownership, by which I mean simply that: Owning property, owning a person, owning an item, owning a position, owning leadership. Possession. In Deadwood, ownership and possession drive almost all the plots. There is conflict over a gold claim. There is conflict over possession of sexual/emotional relationships with particular people. There is conflict over generic stuff, like a wagon full of goods or a bag full of dope. There is conflict over position and power. There is conflict over real property in town. There is conflict over money.

What I'm noticing is that, in comparison to Deadwood, we have very little ownership in ARM. Most of the stuff that's really owned is owned by large, faceless, NPC-run organizations against whom it's impossible to strive. Characters own item stuff on their person, in a clan locker, and maybe in an apartment, but that's about it. The docs say that multiple sexual/emotional relationships is quite common, so the playerbase often interprets that as an entire lack of possession issues there. Even apped leaders, while they may hold some kind of power, don't really "own" it often: It's a given of the title, not something to be strived for. Leadership can sometimes be gained by ranking up, but to be honest there's not a ton of competition for that type of ownership.

So it seems like it usually ends up that the only thing most characters own is their bodies. And sure, this is in keeping with the documentation about most of the populace being wretchedly poor, but it seems to me like it's a very limited platform for plot and conflict. In order to take ownership of a PC's body, an aggressor usually chooses to kill the PC, and that's the end of conflict.

Many plots in ARM seem to have to revolve around artificial quest-type items (MacGuffins) in order to generate interest and action. These are the larger-scale imm-supported plots. The Copper War is a good example of a MacGuffin plot; there was contested ownership, but in the end the ownership seems to have not amounted to anything. (A MacGuffin is an item used as a plot device, which in and of itself has no worth in the course of the story. The spy papers, the briefcase of money, the illicit video tape.)

I don't have any proposed solutions for this in the current version of ARM, but it looks like ownership will be a much-expanded area of play in 2.ARM. Are there ways that true ownership and possession could be used to drive plots now? (Versus using MacGuffins.)

Edited a couple of spots where my previous edits created grammar errors.

[Kill4Free]

Since I inadvertently started the most recent pro/anti/whatever-magicker thread-flame-fest-o-rama with a pretty innocent desire to talk about systematic influences on player choices, I thought I'd start a new thread that has NOTHING TO DO WITH MAGICK, and may provide an interesting diversion while still discussing systems.

Nothing to do with Magick... I dont know, I dont like the look of new fancy threads like that!

Im not sure what you are aiming at in general I probably need to see deadwood to truly appreciate what you say, so I think that I will check it out

[Gimfalisette]

Another point I neglected to put in, perhaps this will further illuminate.

In Deadwood there is displayed racism against the Chinese populace. At first glance this looks like ARM-type racism, but when examined further it becomes clear that from a sociological perspective, Deadwood's racism is used as a tool to further ownership claims. In American history, in fact, racism has often been a convenient pretext for taking other people's stuff; "they are inferior people" -> "let's drive them out of town" -> "and then take their stuff!"

Likewise, sexism in Deadwood all revolves around possession. Every woman is some man's wife, or daughter, or else she's just a whore...and the definition of "whore" is a woman who belongs to anyone. (Note that I'm not asking for sexism in ARM, I'm just pointing out how sexism and ownership are linked in a historical context.)

[number13]

Years and years ago, I was in a group that got lost in the desert and ran out of water. All the characters were dehydrated and dying, spurring some rather memorable conflict and interaction.  If the basics of living were much harder to come by in general, then we'd see more conflict along those lines.

Land is also a current resource with some amount of scarcity. Organizations and players could fight over the right to hunt/greb/whatever on a specific track of desert. On the shady side: turf wars, and not just in the Rinth. Criminals could, for example, fight over who gets to do X/Y/Z type crimes in specific locations.  Additionally, buildings/businesses. I don't know that it's possible to take control of businesses within a city as a general rule, but I've seen it happen before in the past.

Respect. A character wanting to be known as the best X would have a natural motivation for sabotaging his rivals.

The earnestly scarce resource in-game is players. Leaders fighting over the loyalty of players has provoked conflict in the past.

[Synthesis]

It sounds like a lot of the ideas in the new PC-driven economy system will take care of these sorts of concerns.  I foresee a -lot- of conflict revolving around that.

In the current version, some sources of the problem:

1.  You can't be logged in 24/7, so if you "stake a claim" on something, it's hard to enforce.  Furthermore, you don't want to sit on your claim when you -are- logged in.  There are plenty of places around the game that you could stake a claim on, but as I said, enforcing it is practically very difficult.

2. The skill system promotes "skilling up" over conflict.  You start out weak as a kitten, but there's a HUGE potential that looms in front of you.  Most people choose to reach for that potential first, and worry about the rest of the game after a suitable level of "badass-ness" has been reached.  Unfortunately, most people also die in this process, despite their attempts at playing it safe with respect to inter-character conflicts.

3.  cf. 2:  (most) people die quickly and frequently.  Usually, the easiest way of resolving a conflict is to sit and do nothing, and let the other character get himself killed.  Why enforce a claim on your cave when there's a 75% probability that the encroacher will be killed by raptor #12785 within a couple of weeks anyway?

4.  cf. 2:  By the time you've amassed the skills and friends you need to enforce a claim on something, you no longer -need- it.  Chances are you have all the gear you want, a fat wad of cash in the bank, an easy way of making money, and pretty much no worries.

5.  It's pretty easy for experienced players to get the stuff they need to survive, so why rock the boat?

Others?

[number13]

1.  You can't be logged in 24/7, so if you "stake a claim" on something, it's hard to enforce. 

I don't know. Just the threat that X might come should be enough. Obviously, it's going to be hard to enforce off-peak, but you still get the conflict drama, even if one only enforces the claim during certain hours of the RL day.

2. The skill system promotes "skilling up" over conflict.

Yes.

4.  cf. 2:  By the time you've amassed the skills and friends you need to enforce a claim on something, you no longer -need- it.  Chances are you have all the gear you want, a fat wad of cash in the bank, an easy way of making money, and pretty much no worries.

The claim is the goal.  The gear, cash, etc. are the tools. Ideally, anyway. If a character's only goal is survival, then he's not going to see a lot of PC-PC conflict in-game.

It's really not hard to find PC-PC conflict on a small scale.  It's super easy to make enemies, if you play your character with the OOC goal of making enemies.  If your OOC goal is leveling up and gearing up, then you'll achieve it most likely, generally without hindrance from other players.

(a snide aside, I've found that when you make one enemy, you tend to end up with 20. Small playerbase means that a single character is connected to every other character by only a degree or three of separation.)

[Forest Junkie]

You may be right.

I think this is one of the big things that the staff appear to be addressing for the new incarnation.

As for ways we can work to address the issue now, I'm not so sure it's possible. We have such an established foundation in regards to merchant/noble houses, as well as other clans in both city-states. I also think that with the game ending and all, these issues might be even harder to address, since the world-changing plots are going to be more prevalent in regards to the "faceless-npc orgs" you allude to.

If society starts to crumble as the game reaches its end, however, its possibel the system might become more flexible, dynamic, and open to change. At this point I can't offer any potential solutions, but I'll work on something.

[Gimfalisette]

3.  cf. 2:  (most) people die quickly and frequently.  Usually, the easiest way of resolving a conflict is to sit and do nothing, and let the other character get himself killed.  Why enforce a claim on your cave when there's a 75% probability that the encroacher will be killed by raptor #12785 within a couple of weeks anyway?

I have taken this "meh, s/he'll die soon" stand very, very often in the game. I think it's partly because characters die easily, but also partly because there is rarely a way to really solve conflicts without someone dying. Rarely can a demotion be caused, or a loss of property, or some other non-lethal way to "win." In Deadwood, there's a lot of winning and losing, but that doesn't always mean death.

Others?

6. We possibly do not have the playerbase to see the numbers of leaders, minions, and goal-strivers that would result in more plentiful PC conflict over ownership issues.

It's really not hard to find PC-PC conflict on a small scale.  It's super easy to make enemies, if you play your character with the OOC goal of making enemies.  If your OOC goal is leveling up and gearing up, then you'll achieve it most likely, generally without hindrance from other players.

It's definitely easy to make enemies, but in my experience that just means they try to kill the PC, rather than doing anything more creative or interesting. Because, as I've said, the only thing you can really -take- from a PC as it stands is his/her life.

[number13]

It's definitely easy to make enemies, but in my experience that just means they try to kill the PC, rather than doing anything more creative or interesting. Because, as I've said, the only thing you can really -take- from a PC as it stands is his/her life.

That's not a bad point, for commoners.  The players with noble/templar/merchant house family characters may have different experiences.  (I don't know, just supposing)

It is possible to have characters demoted, shamed, exiled. Very possible -- I've seen it happen.  Additionally, there are a few other nasty things that are probably too IC to mention, that still leave your humbled enemy breathing.

Honestly, all the tools are there for PC-PC conflict on small and medium scales. You just have to go in with the goal of stirring shit up. Once you've achieved that 100,000 gold pieces in the bank on your 30th level paladin, or the more tame goal of 5 'sids on your 2 day old pickpocket, start working towards a focus that will bring you into conflict with other players.

If you honestly work on it, and manage to get at least a few other players on your side, you'll end up with more PC-PC conflict than you can stomach.

Now, the larger scale stuff -- the occupation of Tuluk, the Copper Wars. Etc. That requires staff spurring it on, obviously via providing the McGuffian. There is the lofty goal of an Eve-Online style sandbox simulation, but I don't think the playerbase is large enough to support that sort of effort in full.  Even then, it should be noted that it's ridiculously difficult to get into a position where you can drive 'plotlines' in Eve-Online.  Most players in Eve are the equivalent of grebbers, with zero hope of getting a seat at the table.

In Arm, anyone with a little drive and some spare time can create and push a plotline. I've done it myself, on a modest scale, with 0 karma and no staff member assisting.  I actually think the stimulationist aspects of Arm.2 will make it more difficult for the average player to contribute to plotlines, not easier.

[mansa]

One of my best times playing ArmageddonMUD came when I was playing Oseres Kadius.

The game that I saw, in 2003-2004, was focused around Nobles of Allanak - Rebuilding and reforming traditions in Tuluk - and Merchant House conflict.

Events that happened were an RPT in the Labrynth that blew into the City - Wyvern in Tuluk - Mantis in Luir's.   As well as some Arena fights, and other player created conflict and events and games.


Oseres Kadius was a Merchant / Agent who lived in Allanak and sold items to the nobility.  He made mad cash.  He also had a spice addiction, with a huge collection of wines and alcohols.  


I enjoyed the game because of all the conflicts that happened with the Kadian Players under me, and the peers that Oseres had - there was no obvious killing of friends.  People did die - Pearl, for example, but the core friends of Oseres didn't try and kill themselves off.   Fianna Salarr, Veric-Da Kurac, Severin Nenyuk, Wyvare-Da Kurac, Pearl Teresh, Jizella Nenyuk, Ailin-di Kurac.

The focus was about cash.  Mad cash and deals for the merchant houses.  To see who can get the best contracts with the nobles of each city.  To knock down the pegs of the others deals and embarrass them.  We didn't overtly try to kill each other, and our group survived for about 6 months in real life, before people retired for other reasons.


I miss those times.  I've tried to recreate them but I get my characters murdered off before I can be in a power position to prevent people from killing me off - or if I'm in a power position and I try and create plots for my underlings - I get people who would rather kill me off than see what I'm trying to do.



In the past, on the GDB, I've tried to bring about a change at how players kill other players.  We've had discussions about it here: http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,27523.0.html
I wish there were better ways to conflict in Armageddon.  I also wish that we could harm players besides KILLING them...and harm them codedly.

For example..  If you attack another player, and take them to negative hit points, you can cut off their arm, or leg, or hand, and then let them live.  Or you can harm them besides killing them.



I know a lot of character that I've injured try and get revenge.  Some character's shouldn't try revenge, because the power players can't just keep knocking people to negative hit points, stealing their shit, and then let them survive.  We should be able to cut off a finger, then a hand, then an arm, then burn their face, and then if they keep on coming, we can kill them.  It would be easier if we didn't have to wish up to have these changes taken into effect.

[Gimfalisette]

It's definitely easy to make enemies, but in my experience that just means they try to kill the PC, rather than doing anything more creative or interesting. Because, as I've said, the only thing you can really -take- from a PC as it stands is his/her life.

That's not a bad point, for commoners.  The players with noble/templar/merchant house family characters may have different experiences.  (I don't know, just supposing)

Noble, templar, and merchant characters don't usually really "own" anything more than what they are carrying around and what's in the personal room they have at the clan estate, either. The changes in Tuluk in '06 introduced the potential for a kind of ownership amongst nobles, and conflict over that, but there hasn't been a big enough group of nobles in Tuluk since that time for there to be any conflict happening.

It is possible to have characters demoted, shamed, exiled. Very possible -- I've seen it happen.  Additionally, there are a few other nasty things that are probably too IC to mention, that still leave your humbled enemy breathing.

I've done this kind of thing to characters, but it really doesn't make for extended conflict opportunities between my PC and theirs. It's just a punishment...even if I can take a character's citizenship away (exile them), that doesn't gain me anything. It's not the same as "ooh they own a gold mine, let's see how I can take it from them." There's no strategy involved.

[AmandaGreathouse]

Um, I once accidentally got a character hated by -every- northern pc, except possibly clanmates. Really no one would talk to them much. I still feel bad about that, because I know it was unfun for the person playing the character. Unfun for an extended period of time. I guess my problem with 'exiling' someone, at least on the level that I managed it, is that I don't want to make other people have a shitty day when they log onto a game to have fun.

[number13]

I've done this kind of thing to characters, but it really doesn't make for extended conflict opportunities between my PC and theirs. It's just a punishment...even if I can take a character's citizenship away (exile them), that doesn't gain me anything. It's not the same as "ooh they own a gold mine, let's see how I can take it from them." There's no strategy involved.

I think you got your head stuck on land titles and such.  I don't see any great evidence that a simulationist Arm2 will be much better in that regard.  You might be able to 'own' a plot of land and plant some berries, but it seems to me largely equivelent to the apartment renting of Arm1. That is to say, it'll be almost as hard to figure out who owns the plot of land, and the only real way to steal it will be assassination and then camping the land-plot sellers shop waiting for rent to come due.

Let's say there are resource nodes in Arm2, and the ability for a player to cap them. What happens if that player never logs in again? How is his claim enforced? How can it be stolen?

[touringCompl3t3]

Bunch of insightful stuff

Yeah, I agree with the original post.  Having more stuff to fight over would make conflict more meaningful.

And therefore more intense.  And therefore more interesting.

[ale six]

Maybe like, if a character has a mount, and you want it, you could try and make friends with their mount so it likes you instead of them and then one day it follows you around and stuff?

Kinda like a cendi!

[Dakurus]

1. Death is a tidy solution.

2. Characters are easy and quick to create.

Death as a consequence and consequences in general aren't feared as much as they likely could be due to above.

Sadly, death as a solution tends to result in roleplay that results in more death, which really saps continuity, and long lasting low level simmering conflict.

But, due to 2, you're likely to have more folks you'll feel the need to kill tomorrow.

But we know all this, the question is how do you sustain low level, non deadly conflict over any number of issues (race, turf, looks, attitude, personality) without you as the player just holding your character back (IC personality, or not) and saying, but I don't want to kill them. Are there ways we can really bring coded or cultural consequences more to the present to make death an option, but not the seemingly "easiest" option.

[Morrolan]

The only approach I can think of is keeping coded track of how many "kills" a PC has and allow that affect how he is reacted to by certain classes of beings: spirits and demons, for instance.  Allow kills of sentient beings to affect one's "balance" with the world.

Yes, this is moralistic and high-handed.  But krathdamnit, it might just work.  I know it wouldn't stop a PC of mine from killing, but there would be coded results for being a homicidal maniac.  And most PCs would have no way of knowing this information.

Note, unlike traditional MUDs and things like that, I'm not distinguishing "good" from "evil".  I'm saying that killing people, in a magickal world, might have magickal/spiritual consequences.  Killing "bad guys" still could leave a "stain."  Being cursed by a magicker could leave a stain with the same effect.

EDIT to add: or using certain types of spells, as well...

Morrolan

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Allow kills of sentient beings to affect one's "balance" with the world.

Whether there is hard-defined right or wrong in the world or not, there is surely still right and wrong things to do. If there were not, the land wouldn't get pissy at certain times about certain things you might do, and happy at other times. Using this rational, killing someone could indeed make you more likely to have a demon pop up for no reason. Being good, on the other hand, wouldn't do anything at all for you, other than not having little imps and shit pop up on you in the middle of the bar.

[jhunter]

I kinda of like this idea. The more killing of sentient beings the more out of balance you are with the world. Perhaps some beasts would be more likely to target you first (because they sense something not quite right about you), maybe it could be also related to virtual "notoriety" as well when dealing with sentient beings. The npc law may go harder on you, some people may refuse service to you or give you better service out of fear, etc.

[Dakurus]

Not raining on the current idea, just wanted to also call out, ideally we'd want things that would encourage the leaders to choose low level, non deadly conflict, not just the actual hired hands.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Well, I have to say that the amount of time a fight takes makes me just want to kill the person so that I don't have to go through it again. That and the fact that imprisoning a person is hard (from the PC side), and the fact that people betray you. Betrayal or the spread of information elsewhere is easily the best reason I have for killing someone.

[Morrolan]

I would especially like this if it were implemented in the following ways:

1) Not too heavyhanded.  Killing someone once might not be the end of the world in Armageddon.
2) Have the effects be time-dependent.  Whatever this rating is, it regens over time.
3) Have the effects be psycho-spiritual for the most part, not hard-coded spanking for bad behavior:

Code Select Expand


think Krath, it's been a long day of killing people.  Big job, well paid.
You think:
   "Krath, it's been a long day of killing people.  Big job, well paid."
> sleep bed
You go to sleep in a comfy bed.
Ok.
(some time passes)
[b]The shadowy shape of "insert ldesc of someone off the kill list" appears before you.[/b]
>wake
You wake and sit up.
think Been a long time since I slept through the night.

You think:
Been a long time since I slept through the night.

See?  No judgement about how you'll react, no handcuffing about how your character reacts.  No assumptions that the person is a "ghost" or a "memory".  Just there.

4) Allow any coded spanking of homicidal maniacs to be decided by staff on a case-by-case basis.  But the data is attached to the pfile.

Morrolan

[Gimfalisette]

Wow, you guys have entirely diverted from the topic of ownership as the basis of conflict.

[Delstro]

That is really awesome Morrolan.


On another hill, playing a pick-pocket gives you a lot of low level, non-lethal action. That is entirely focused on their items, since they know you can't kill them. If the killers started going for items/pride/ownership more, we would have more low level, interesting conflict.

[Morrolan]

Wow, you guys have entirely diverted from the topic of ownership as the basis of conflict.

Shit, Gimf, sorry.  I got excited.  Back to the regularly scheduled topic...

Ownership.

I'm trying to think how we can make owning things more meaningful in the game.  Status symbols might work.  True land ownership that puts useful coin in the bank.

Here's a big one: characters that last longer.
Here's another one: Cultural rules of inheritance.
And one we might have: effective bookkeeping!

Morrolan

Edit to expand: Lines of inheritance might actually make a huge difference in how conflict is handled, specifically in population centers.  Imagine that a character dies in town, and instead of his farm/shop/land/whatever passing to whoever shells out the money, it passes to whomever he's designated as his heir.  Another PC, perhaps?

This seems to be an interesting way to generate conflict.

Morrolan