Ownership, Plots, and PC-PC Conflict

[Dakurus]

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

I didn't mean to ignore the part about ownership, but I honestly feel there's conflict based on ownership in Arm, along with other reasons. I see people confronting folks for being on their turf, being in the wrong place, for their boots, pack, bow, and such. I see them confronting folks for being a particular race, tribe, belonging to a certain house, being drunkards, asses, spice addicts, stealing, their looks, and their personalities. Plenty of conflict, and when it's reflected in thinks, emotes, says and psis, it adds that wonderful story we like so well. So I don't feel ownership is so much the issue. Could they argue about property, sure, morals, and beliefs, you betcha as well. I think it's worthwhile to talk about how we make those things more alive and tangible to players so they have more invested in them and conflict is richer, but I am far more concerned over the short path of destruction typical arm conflict takes, which in my opinion is the real short coming.

[Fathi]

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.

I would vehemently oppose this idea if these things were merely tied to your PK count. There would have to be other factors taken into account: environment/region, disguises/visibility, etc.

If I'm dressing up in sandcloth and whacking obsidian miners, the NPC soldiers in Tuluk better not go harder on my character just because of a hard-coded feature of my pfile.

Edited for clarity.

[Morrolan]

I would vehemently oppose this idea if these things were merely tied to your PK count.

Agreed.

But I think we're talking at cross-purposes.  No one suggested gate-guards or legal authorities at all.  At least in my mind, crimcode is a separate system entirely.

There would have to be other factors taken into account: environment/region, disguises/visibility, etc.

If I'm dressing up in sandcloth and whacking obsidian miners, the NPC soldiers in Tuluk better not go harder on my character just because of a hard-coded feature of my pile.

I think these points are entirely relevant to the crim-code, but not for what I am suggesting.  I'm suggesting that killing sentients (not just PCs--gith and halflings would count every bit as much!) on a regular basis might have an effect noticible by a) certain types of magickers, b) certain classes of creatures, and c) those who often inhabit some of the more vile NPCs in Zalanthas.

[Gimfalisette]

I am far more concerned over the short path of destruction typical arm conflict takes, which in my opinion is the real short coming.

I definitely agree with you on this. Conflict on ARM is usually too quick and too bloody. Some things that might help:

-- Leaders should attempt to be VERY restrained about killing PCs. Example from Deadwood, since that's my theme here: Al Swearingen is clearly a very dangerous, ruthless guy; someone you wouldn't want to cross. However, he does take care not to just kill every other character he could kill, and from whose death he might benefit. He seems to have some kind of ethical stand on the issue, even if it's as simple as, "That's just too chaotic." He allows conflict with other characters over the long-term and even seems to give a measure of respect to those who stand up to him. I have known a PC or two in ARM who were leaders and in a position to kill many, many, many characters (including mine, more than once)...and yet didn't. They found IC reasons not to do it, and still remained very formidable, scary characters.

-- Those in a position to mete out punishment should find more creative methods than execution. Torture, slavery, exile, public beatings, fines, public humiliation, etc. should be used far more often.

-- Those in a position to punish wrongdoing should turn a blind eye more often. This extends from the templar who suspects the Bynner of some crime, all the way down to those sitting at the bar who notice a pickpocket trying to take something. Not all wrongs need an immediate, harsh reaction. Chaos will not suddenly reign in the city if people start getting away with a little more.

-- Players overall should be less paranoid about whether or not another PC will come back to get some kind of revenge. In my experience, having a lot of PCs hate my PCs and/or have really excellent reasons to want payback, it's been quite rare for anyone to try anything.

-- And now I'm going to return to my original point. If PCs owned more, and thus had more investment in their characters and more to lose, then it would be possible to take something valuable from them other than just life. And the taking would be beneficial to the taker. Also the PC who is taken from could plot to take back. But with so little ownership, we're reduced to squabbling over intangibles and things we, the players, don't really care about much.

[Fathi]

I would vehemently oppose this idea if these things were merely tied to your PK count.

Agreed.

But I think we're talking at cross-purposes.  No one suggested gate-guards or legal authorities at all.  At least in my mind, crimcode is a separate system entirely

I wasn't replying to your idea. I was replying to the bolded part of jhunter's post which did, in fact, suggest legal authorities.

-- And now I'm going to return to my original point. If PCs owned more, and thus had more investment in their characters and more to lose, then it would be possible to take something valuable from them other than just life. And the taking would be beneficial to the taker. Also the PC who is taken from could plot to take back. But with so little ownership, we're reduced to squabbling over intangibles and things we, the players, don't really care about much.

Food for thought: I think one of the reasons why losing property isn't considered a "big deal" by PCs is because it might be too easy to regain it all.

[Dakurus]

Food for thought: I think one of the reasons why losing property isn't considered a "big deal" by PCs is because it might be too easy to regain it all.

DING DING DING

You'd be amazed at how more folks are attached to having their descriptions changed (disfigurement, etc) then the items they can acquire during a character's lifetime.

It's about the things hard to acquire and change, because of code or hard work. Reputation and status, descs (that can't be easily healed), and even relationships/friends.

Some of these can't be replaced easily with a new character, or they require lots of work.

[Gimfalisette]

Food for thought: I think one of the reasons why losing property isn't considered a "big deal" by PCs is because it might be too easy to regain it all.

I'm sure that's true, but that's really because PCs can't own much, due to social and coded restrictions. While in RL you might have a dream to own a house...or Al Swearingen wants to own a lot of Deadwood...most PCs will never own anything nearly comparable. Even individual nobles, templars, and merchants, though they may grow to be very rich, will not own anything close to what Al's got. And rank is all given entirely with the clan, so there's a limited pool of competition there, too; in theory, separate PCs from Houses Fale, Oash, and Tor could all become Senators simultaneously and never compete with each other over it at all.

[flurry]

What does a character have that you can meddle with?

• job
• wealth
• reputation
• citizenship
• health
• security
• sanity
• allies
• lovers
• sentimental objects
• dreams

[mansa]

Perhaps we should write a document on the main pages about how to create conflicts within ArmageddonMUD, describing different ways to interact and how to go about doing it.

Flurry's post is awesome with a list, but we should describe how to go about doing that in more detail.  Perhaps.

[aeshyw]

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.

Wow. Its been a long time since I've even peeked here, but its great to see that someone else still remembers back to those days.   By the time Oseres met Pearl she was already a pretty old woman, but I remember how he'd bribe her with crazy nice Kadian goods (or sell them to her at obnoxius prices) and in turn she'd spend hours convincing templars he was worth more alive than dead.  When I think back to what I enjoyed the most about Arm, it was the constant conflict and danger of those days.  We all liked and hated each other at the same time and you knew never to step into a room with even your "best friend" without at least three guards - and yet it was somehow all civilized and pleasant.