Jump to content
supernal

General chat thread

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, jaistlyn said:

It usually involves the buildup of backstories too, so it’s unlikely to be a surprise. If I just went in guns blazing, I would most likely be faced with HAHA NOPE and have my face blasted by 10 years of canon by 10 different people invested in the city, or, no one would acknowledge the attack, making it pointless. The community self-corrects in this sense. In this shared setting, what constitutes as truth (of lore) is what people accept and then in turn use in their own writing.

On a smaller scale, I may be able to push my way through one or two newer characters/settings, but meanwhile making a few people unhappy and not being able to affect too much of the larger lore anyway. No doubt, I may feel superior and powerful for a short period of time, but I won’t get anywhere important. In short, collaboration is the way to go for lasting and in-depth plots.

But I feel like we are just rehashing topics that have been visited before..

1) super yes!

2) A-LOL

3) Very well said. And that, to me, is the very essence of collaboration. It isn't just about 'me' getting what 'I' want

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, supernal said:

I like everything you said and just wanted to comment on this in particular, because although the hyperbole makes it easier to underscore the point you're making, I want to emphasize that the point is not lost even if you mitigate some of the peripheral behavior

If it's 5 paragraphs with good spelling and no grammar mistakes, but still a random dude you've been aware of for all of three minutes, or five days, or two months, the end result is still the same. Although a certain amount of polish to the post content itself makes it more palatable, a shoehorn is a shoehorn. But if you take this end result of "our characters must come into conflict" and instead I spend multiple posts, perhaps even multiple threads, tracking down your character so that they can get into a show down, that's a tasty meal

However, this is an organic reaction to content already put down (your character raided a city, my character is a LEO going after your character) and not an abstractedly spontaneous happening that pits us against one another in what is presumably the opening scene. That's more like your evil character just murdered someone and oh look it's the Dark Knight up there in the rafters descending on you with righteous fury. Even though the nature of the character make sense to be antagonistic to one another, I still see the shape of a shoehorn

Also this hits on something regarding the cost of character creation for this particular forum. Some sites require that you start your character at 0 and literally level up and literally buy items through a point market, and that's what justified my ability to hammer you despite you only knowing me for three minutes. Alexandrian made a character in the noble class and then spent half a dozen threads building them up. But someone else could make a noble and their first act be to target Alexandrian's noble. There was next to no cost for my character, no real attachment, so I don't mind throwing him at you and not caring if he lives or dies - your character is another matter entirely

And run that cycle again if you choose to be a human and I a phoenix capable of resurrection. Even if we have the same character cost, the same amount of time building them up, character death costs a lot less for me than for you by design. It isn't really sensible to weight them the same

An overpowered character is one that can circumvent an undefined amount of risk for an indefinite period of time. Most characters don't throw black holes, nor are they immortal creatures, but they are overpowered if not for the conscientiousness of the players who run them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Anything goes" might not be an on-the-nose summation of what I was positing before, at least, not the way it's been misconstrued. Just the opposite, I believe that there is, and should be, praxis in rolepay. What I'm arguing, however, is what that praxis should be, especially when dealing with adversity in roleplays, themselves. @Die Shize @supernal @jaistlyn @The Alexandrian

In this artform, you relinquish total autonomy over a story and its fate, the moment you resign to build it with someone else; such is the nature of interactive storytelling, and the nature of what you and I call "roleplaying". What is often remissly consigned to total oblivion and absence of due consideration in many roleplaying communities, is that in the broad scope of this interactive artform, the only thing we have any real and inherent "autonomy" over, whatsoever, are the characters we use to interact within it; and even this governorship does not necessarily vouchsafe to us the leisurely privilege to "void" or retconn whole interactions by virtue of an unwanted conflict, hardship, adversity, or hostility met within a narrative simply because our characters wind up at their adverse ends, especially when we refer to the that fact that roleplaying is innately interactive, and more importantly, contributive. If you want some unshared dominion over the narrative, full control over the trajectory of that story and its inevitable outcome, or of how the characters subject, interact with and reciprocate one another, write a book; if you enjoy the concept of collaborative world-building, but are still mildly discomforted by the idea of interacting in a world that does not, in some way, shape or form, bend to your desires for predetermination or prefixation, or of whose characters, do not innately yield to your preferential standards and expectations, you have the option to assert preclusion through prefaced rules and the like.

I understand that there does exist a certain argument pertaining to those things that are theme and setting, that there are characters who may merely exist in a story all but bereft of "combat" and other, unique incarnations of conflict, so and so forth; and, I cannot stress enough, there is nothing flawed about the predisposition for commonality and furthermore nothing wrong with its enforcement -- where that predisposition is righted to be enforced, however. The desire for preference is understandable, certainly; you may not want fiery hellspawns, complete with talons and acid breath, sullying the heartfelt mood of that romantic high school roleplay you've worked so hard to build over the years; you may not want some advanced, military drone, outfitted with a number of ballistic armaments and the like, crashing down on the ball of your sexy Victorian, vampire drama. However, to step into environments which, by contrast, host liberty ( or open-world ) interactions, while expecting others to yield to those preferences in these interactions, or furthermore, a desire for some fixed outcome within them, just because our characters are made inclusive, or just because we'd hate to see our favorite badass god of space and time defeated, or even killed, is not a premise without its own fair share of glaring faults; we should not be engaged in interactions that are explicitly open-world, if we are not willing to fully immerse ourselves in the boundless possibility of the experience in the first place.

What I mean by "open-world", is the liberty to act, with our characters, as we intend; interactions that do not have an asserted standard for the nature of what that roleplay should be beyond Valcure's pervasive standards in-story, and the prostration to T1 etiquette; interactions, where I don't have to message anyone "on the side" for permission on what my character intends to do; where my character is free to engage in conflict, and even become its sourcepool. I know that Valcure is home to many of these kinds of roleplays.

In many hypothetical-scenarios I have given, ones that take place in the breadth of these open-world settings, those that give birth to natural in-character conflict, a peculiar rhetoric seems to be the favored declamation for player reaction; "I don't do combative roleplaying", and my response is "no one is asking you to." Some of you have developed a fine reproach for combative roleplaying, and some of you, may merely have characters that lack the means to be adequately combative; there is no vice in either of these things, inherently. However, we need to understand that combative roleplaying is twofold, and is very much a mutualistic sport; which means, that when that seven foot orc slings his weighty steel mallet at your character in some explosive fit of rage, no one is demanding that your glittering fae "fight" back, or that it does anything beyond its natural inclination to do, but be mindful of the fact that just because it can't fight back, doesn't mean that the interaction can't go on, or that it is somehow magically due for annul. I am certain that a wealthy demographic of you prefer a strict adherence to impassive roles and parts, of characters who are alienated from combat, but the consequences that come with playing these roles in a precarious open-world setting, needs to be thoroughly ascertained when you do; there is an unhealthy expectation many roleplayers have that asserts the notion that the world should pander to the survivability of a character in favor of one's attachment to them. Conflict, even if foreign, spontaneous and unexpected, should not be looked upon as some universal impediment to roleplay's progression, but as a fun wall to climb -- one that incentivizes the purpose to proceed. 

When we refer to liberty interactions, scenarios like these don't have to be cause for an interaction's inconclusive demise just because your character winds up at the bitter end of the shaft; when my character goes to try and push @Die Shize's off his swing, it doesn't have to be "ignored" simply because you weren't looking for trouble, and it shouldn't. As roleplayers, as writers and as storybuilders, this is where I stress the importance of adhering to the roles we play, and to an honoring of innovation. When your weak and fearful dwarven elf is overcome by something mightier than itself, it should be fleeing or cowering, doing whatever was written by its author to do in that circumstance; that is the nature of a "role", and extensively roleplaying. 

And yes, as much as it may be difficult to accept, characters do die, and naturally so; the prospects of character death shouldn't be looked upon with some pandemic fear or paranoia. When we speak of contribution, which, like a game of Exquisite Corpse, represents the nature of interactive story-telling -- as a pastime vitally dependent on what its participants can add and give, to draw the portrait, death in a narrative can lend bountiful harvests to the life and fulfillment of a story and its progression beyond the character's; because, in this artform, it should never be forgotten, that our characters are merely instruments for that progression in the end. All too often do we slobber obsessively over the role of our characters above the stories and worlds they exist in -- focus, far too heavily on what it is our character's can glean from the world as opposed to what the world can glean from our characters, which, in this broad stroking artform, highlights a great need for change.

Edited by Valushia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In this artform, you relinquish total autonomy over a story and its fate, the moment you resign to build it with someone else; such is the nature of interactive storytelling, and the nature of what you and I call "roleplaying"."

Where autonomy means "the quality or state of being self-governing", which is what it means according to the dictionary, this assertion of yours is false on Valucre because here we have a line item in the RP FAQ that talks about "player primacy". You are absolutely able to dictate the terms by which someone is able to join in on your story. You are able to do so even to your own chagrin, if the criteria that you saddle your story with do more to deter than to attract, but the assumption that by merely engaging in the act of roleplay you lose all power to all elements of the roleplay is simply not accurate

"the only thing we have any real and inherent "autonomy" over, whatsoever, are the characters we use to interact within it; and even this governorship does not necessarily vouchsafe to us the leisurely privilege to "void" or retconn whole interactions by virtue of an unwanted conflict, hardship, adversity, or hostility met within a narrative simply because our characters wind up at their adverse ends"

It precisely vouchsafes exactly that privilege. How people use or abuse that privilege, under what conditions and how frequently and to what extent, are matters of taste and preference and you can find those whose preferences align with yours and play the same kind of game but - well, see player primacy above. It answers this too. Your other examples set up something of a false dichotomy, in that there is a wide spectrum between unequivocal control of all aspects of a story and exclusive control over your own character asset or other resources

"we should not be engaged in interactions that are explicitly open-world, if we are not willing to fully immerse ourselves in the boundless possibility of the experience in the first place. "

Referencing bartle's taxonomy of player types - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_taxonomy_of_player_types

Valucre isn't built to cater to "killers". It caters most to achievers and explorers, and second most to socializers, then to killers (in, say, allowing people to self-organize tournaments with their own combat rules but we no longer host our own site-wide tournaments). The boundless possibilities are there for the players involved to conscientiously select and experience at their leisure. That is the purpose of game. Some people script out an ending but, again, there is a spectrum between the points of "accept all possible permutations of boundless possibilities" and "script out an ending and follow it color-by-numbers style". Most people exist in a comfortable medium where some things may be decided on ahead of time for positive, i.e. we do this, or negative, i.e. we don't do this, without becoming formulaic

Real example - some players put up their characters for assassination. They opted in to one of the limitless possibilities, they weren't forced into it by someone else who just felt like playing an assassin at a time convenient for them rather than contributing to the pacing and structure of the pre-existing story. One player was fine taking damage (scars, being crippled, etc; in effect, having their story affected) but not doing full character death. Another didn't like the idea of "T1ing" for character death but was totally fine with RNG to determine if their character died or just got hurt, and if hurt, to what extent. That's how they were able to leverage "boundless possibility" without having to sway their story around the whims of any potential number of people at any given point in time. It's fine to have limitless options but you can't reasonably plan plots that span months and years around any number of limitless options becoming reality at sporadic moments in time. Some people may like that, and those people can have that, but others don't, and those people aren't forced to have that foisted on them by making it status quo

You have a specific vision of roleplay in mind and it's fine to have that. If you think it's the golden standard of how roleplay should be run then I encourage you to do that and show us the way. In my experience running Valucre, it's when people are provided the psychological safety of knowing that they can pick and choose the things that they do and experience that they have the comfort in the ability to do things like bet their characters' lives on random number generators, and allows them to invest in storylines that span literal years because they aren't concerned they could wake up tomorrow and all their hard work is on fire "because boundless possibilities". I've yet to see the opposite style of site management yield stories of similar depth, complexity, or longevity, nor have I seen a system that allows for consistent and seamless conflict resolution where "boundless possibility" means "I don't have to message anyone for permission" (for anything, presumably)

On that note you don't have to message anyone for permission. Just that if you don't get it, that is if you don't engage in active and conscientious collaboration, if you want to take a gmable on whether you can tell a strong enough story to generate buy-in by the people whose storylines you're collapsing boundless impossibility into a specific wave-form of "reality", that is totally fine and many people have done this successfully. But you run the risk of not getting any buy in, of being not actively ignored but passively neglected because it simply isn't interesting to anyone else but you. You may end up writing posts that don't have the impact you want, which is also totally fine, but a reality you have to be prepared for if you don't care to take on the burden of transparent communication

"A wealthy demographic of you prefer a strict adherence to impassive roles and parts, of characters who are alienated from combat"

Can I see where you're pulling these numbers from? I'm curious what's informing your declarative statements of fact

"Conflict, even if foreign and spontaneously unexpected, should not be looked upon as some universal impediment to a roleplay's progression, but as a fun wall to climb -- one that incentivizes the purpose to proceed. "

This depends on the nature of the conflict in question. You may find fighting seven foot orcs fun because of your killer taxonomy type. As an explorer, adventurer, or socializer, though, that may not be the case. The conflict that would never fail to engage you may be something I am simply not interested in, and it is up to you to convince me otherwise if you want me to buy into your particular brand of conflict. That's the nature of collaboration. Either we can discuss it before you invest time in writing the post, or you can write the post and hope for the best - and not get hurt if I just don't care about what you care about

"when my character goes to try and push @Die Shize's off his swing, it doesn't have to be "ignored" simply because you weren't looking for trouble, and it shouldn't"

To take a page from your book, no one is saying it has to be ignored. Just that it can be if you fail to generate buy-in because your conflict is thin, poory structured, and poorly introduced into my story. Whether it should or shouldn't depends on the quality of the conflict, not just the fact of its introduction by some random party

"And yes, as much as it may be difficult to accept, characters do die, and naturally so; the prospects of character death shouldn't be looked upon with some pandemic fear or paranoia. "

Where are you getting this from? Who have you seen rejecting the idea of character death so much so that you'd call it a pandemic fear or paranoia? I've seen lots of players have characters die or be willing to let their characters die and they just haven't (see above) and I've seen those same players not want to let other characters die because they have long-term plans for those characters and don't want to stop playing the game they're using that character for - nor should they have to because of someone else's perspective of how a game should be run. Each person can run their own game under the rules they think are going to lead to more success

Edited by supernal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

supernal’s words sum up why I love Valucre and its particular playstyle. I have not played in any other RP sites before, but from various players’ discussion over the years, different sites have different rules and etiquette. @Valushia you say it as though if we plan out part of our stories at all, it will not produce stories that are rich. That is not true, based on how Valucre has been doing it successfully for years. Also, it is not true that our only autonomy is over our characters. We also control the location, the NPCs, the weather. What if you shoved me off the swing, but I say that you get struck by lightning next? That is entirely possible, and is totally consistent with my character, because they literally didn’t do anything, lol. 

When we say communication, we do not mean that you hash out every single detail with your partner. (You could, but I think we would all agree that it isn’t too fun.) I’ll give another real example, one that you were there to witness this afternoon.

Pasion Pasiva told me in the chat that she would be playing a villain in a story that I run. I have a buncha paladins who are trying to cleanse a tainted land of monsters. Pasion’s character empathizes with them (this was established in previous RPs), but this is the first I’ve heard that she actually wants to free the monsters. This entails a fight because my paladins will stop her. Pasion further informs that King will be stepping in to stop her character. That is enough information for me to say “okay, this sounds fun! let’s do it.” The format of the battle, how long it will be, how many casualties there will be, these are all up in the air to be spontaneously written. Perhaps some of the monsters will actually escape and cause havoc somewhere. We’ll see when we get there. What matters is that the intention has been communicated, and I know the brief outline - Pasion’s character will be able to convince some of the monsters to go with her, there will be a battle, and then there will be someone to come in and stop her. We will have to each establish our limit, for example I say that the head of the paladins cannot be killed, because then that would majorly disrupt a long running plot - but every other paladin is free game. 

And I do have a thread where everything is fully spontaneous. It’s a funsies thread, and because it’s so spontaneous, we bounce from being attacked by an angler-fish-dinosaur to meeting a Gollum-like creature to being kidnapped by a giant and then one of the heroes get a cursed sword which turns him into a giant too! I mean, the thread is awesome fun, but I wouldn’t use this freely spontaneous format for a plot I intend to be long-term and/or involve many players lol.

Another example of spontaneity is when I used to write with my friends, we spontaneously killed each other in as many ways as we possibly could, and revive ourselves in as many ways. Was this purely spontaneous? Yeah! Was it totally fun? Yeah! Was it as rich as the stories I have told on Valucre? Definitely not.

I don’t know if you will enjoy this format of collaborative RP, but I say give it a try. Discussing about how it works is different from actually experiencing it.

Edited by jaistlyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully intend on reaching out to @jaistlyn once I have a far more well rounded idea for this plot, and of course, I only plan on moving forward with her blessing since it's her setting. I envision this plot to be a multiple thread story that will hopefully produce lots of subplots for many people, and that will produce lots of activity for Yh'mi. But like Jaistlyn said, I literally just came up with the idea hours ago -- I still have to talk to King about it, I have to mention it to the other people I write with, I think I even threw an invitation out at you @Valushia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jaistlyn said:

@Pasion Pasiva is one of those who is really good at collaborative conflict, maintaining communication, while still keeping things fresh. She’s a source of inspiration! 

I am sure there are a handful of people who would disagree...

I am also one of the people who has had to put people on ignore, which I honestly think is a completely valid resource when people not only refuse to cooperate, but get downright nasty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Where autonomy means "the quality or state of being self-governing", which is what it means according to the dictionary, this assertion of yours is false on Valucre because here we have a line item in the RP FAQ that talks about "player primacy". You are absolutely able to dictate the terms by which someone is able to join in on your story. You are able to do so even to your own chagrin, if the criteria that you saddle your story with do more to deter than to attract, but the assumption that by merely engaging in the act of roleplay you lose all power to all elements of the roleplay is simply not accurate"

Relinquishing total autonomy over a story and its fate, and losing "all power to all elements of the roleplay", are two different things; you can relinquish total autonomy over a story and its fate, while still having the power to impact the elements within it; the former only means that how a story ends in an "open-world setting", is not up to your preferential standards for desired outcome, but merely by the procession of events that unfold, and what it is you can logically effectuate, in character. 

You play a role in a story, it is only natural that you have some power -- the only dissent here, in this discussion, is extent. 

This abjuration of complete jurisdiction over a story's end, translates to a simple philosophy; if your character and mine are engaged in a competitively fun game of basketball, just because I think my Adam's a nice guy and is thereby better deserving of the win, doesn't mean he will if he can't cement the victory through skill -- that, and his guard is shitty. 

Let it also be known, that "the terms by which someone is able to join in on your story", is still not the same as relinquishing total autonomy over a story and its fate; by contrast, I state that the desire for preference is fine, and its enforcement is finer, what we're arguing, however, is where that preferences should be enforced. 

Again, my argument refers exclusively to "open-world" roleplays and interactions, where possibility is not confined; where characters can join as they see fit; so, we aren't discussing roleplays that lie under other unique dictations of term. I find it to be notably interesting, moreover, that you also seem prone to using determiners like "yours", "mine", "his", and  "theirs" when we talk of story; but, in a setting that is expressly open-world, in threads that make these liberty interactions permissible, how much of the story is "yours" as juxtaposed to "ours", if neither of us run the thread? 

"It precisely vouchsafes exactly that privilege. How people use or abuse that privilege, under what conditions and how frequently and to what extent, are matters of taste and preference and you can find those whose preferences align with yours and play the same kind of game but - well, see player primacy above. It answers this too. Your other examples set up something of a false dichotomy, in that there is a wide spectrum between unequivocal control of all aspects of a story and exclusive control over your own character asset or other resources"

You might've made a premature response here, glanced over my last post too hastily, or without thorough dissection; this is where I'll direct you to my the third paragraph; as aforementioned, my argument pertains, exclusively, to "open-world" settings. I am not debating "taste and preference" in its totality, what we're arguing is whether or not a desire for taste and preference; for themes; and for things like fixed possibility or outcomes, should extend to settings that are expressly open-world -- free settings unhinged and unaffixed to any one possibility or outcome. 

"Valucre isn't built to cater to "killers". It caters most to achievers and explorers, and second most to socializers, then to killers (in, say, allowing people to self-organize tournaments with their own combat rules but we no longer host our own site-wide tournaments). The boundless possibilities are there for the players involved to conscientiously select and experience at their leisure. That is the purpose of game. Some people script out an ending but, again, there is a spectrum between the points of "accept all possible permutations of boundless possibilities" and "script out an ending and follow it color-by-numbers style". Most people exist in a comfortable medium where some things may be decided on ahead of time for positive, i.e. we do this, or negative, i.e. we don't do this, without becoming formulaic"

I'd hope Valcure was built to cater to roleplayers, irrespective of what they roles they played; be they killers, achievers, explorers or otherwise. 

And, once more, we're talking about "open-world" interactions that aren't bound to the course of a predetermined outcome; take the moment to ask yourself, sensibly, what a "script" is, and then look at what was previously defined to be "open-world"; how can the occasional predilection for "scripted" roleplay be pertinent, if the interactions we're referring to are not affixed, by its players, to have a predestination?

"You have a specific vision of roleplay in mind and it's fine to have that. If you think it's the golden standard of how roleplay should be run then I encourage you to do that and show us the way. In my experience running Valucre, it's when people are provided the psychological safety of knowing that they can pick and choose the things that they do and experience that they have the comfort in the ability to do things like bet their characters' lives on random number generators, and allows them to invest in storylines that span literal years because they aren't concerned they could wake up tomorrow and all their hard work is on fire "because boundless possibilities". I've yet to see the opposite style of site management yield stories of similar depth, complexity, or longevity, nor have I seen a system that allows for consistent and seamless conflict resolution where "boundless possibility" means "I don't have to message anyone for permission" (for anything, presumably)"

Much as providing people with a psychological safe-space might be virtuous, I have to question the sagacity of those who would place their characters into the breadth of a setting that they knew welcomed the breadth of that "boundless" possibility, only to express reproach after the results weren't in their character's favor. 

"Where are you getting this from? Who have you seen rejecting the idea of character death so much so that you'd call it a pandemic fear or paranoia? I've seen lots of players have characters die or be willing to let their characters die and they just haven't (see above) and I've seen those same players not want to let other characters die because they have long-term plans for those characters and don't want to stop playing the game they're using that character for - nor should they have to because of someone else's perspective of how a game should be run. Each person can run their own game under the rules they think are going to lead to more success"

Read this excerpt aloud, and ask yourself where I could be "getting this from"; if you've seen players "not want to let their characters die because they have long-term plans for those characters and don't want to stop playing the game they're using that character for", the answer should be self-evident. I've seen this reproach too, and countless times before. The fallacy in this way of thinking, lies is in that character death somehow means the end of roleplaying. Just because a character dies doesn't mean that they have to "stop playing the game". Hop back in and start anew.

Especially if you were blown up by some alien power or force while frolicking haphazardly in the meadows of a setting you knew to be freely-accepting of the precarious danger and possibility.

This aforementioned "fear" was also in regards to our discussion held in chatterbox, in the subject pertaining to Death Matches and PvP ( as bouts are called here ), @Die Shize mentioned that the "problem is most people don’t want to lose their PCs and most roleplay on Val is non-PVP".  However, I would also extend this attribute to be a prevailing characteristic of roleplayers even seen outside of Valcure.

It's a natural sentiment, and our discussion has to do, in some part, with how to deal with it healthily. 

Edited by Valushia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally try to avoid PvP, as I've just had too many issues in the past. I'm never afraid to admit to my characters limits and flaws, regardless of how attached I am, just because good stories are often built upon struggles. But I've met way to many people that want to rule a thread with their character, a street lever character suddenly becoming nigh-omnipotent was a regular occurrence. 

I think the canonization works well in this regard, just because someone does something doesn't mean it's canon. "Oh, your character killed everyone else in the party with one flick of their wrist? WELL IT'S NOT CANON TIMMY SO F*** OFF!" Just because it 'happened' doesn't mean it happened.

When I do engage PvP I've often found IC debates are fun and sparing generally tends to be the best way to fight. Sparing gives people a reason to scale their characters, debates are pretty good on places like Valucre as their is an in place economic system.

As for ignoring, I am guilty of this on a number of occasions. Rarely purposefully, but a genuine mistake as I often don't finish my day till 9.30pm and can miss things when reading just out of tiredness. I have ignored people who've taken ridiculous entitlements with aspects of a story, but that is rare. 

I think ignoring can often come from an unwillingness to change, which is often the driving point to a ruined thread or character IMO. I'm always willing to change just because changing is something I consider it to be an important element of roleplay. Whether it be scaling a character to match others or fixing mistakes, I think a lot of people need to be willing to press that edit button (Both the real one and the one in their heads.)

And of course fun, little point in doing any of this with that feeling. I'm a lover of brutal RGN and having a story behind every item my character uses, to me it gives everything much more value. But I get not everyone wants to grind so hard for items, so I'm cool with people magically poofing things into existence.

I've been on RP sites where people have to level up their characters in order to get items and powers, it quickly kills them off due to the insane grinding and leaves the sites feeling empty. It limits character interaction, makes people feel useless and restricts creativity. Which is why Valucre works well, freedom of creativity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pasion Pasiva said:

I fully intend on reaching out to @jaistlyn once I have a far more well rounded idea for this plot, and of course, I only plan on moving forward with her blessing since it's her setting. I envision this plot to be a multiple thread story that will hopefully produce lots of subplots for many people, and that will produce lots of activity for Yh'mi. But like Jaistlyn said, I literally just came up with the idea hours ago -- I still have to talk to King about it, I have to mention it to the other people I write with, I think I even threw an invitation out at you @Valushia

I wouldn't mind taking part, if I could somehow gape the free-time.  

I think I recall accepting, but my schedule is somewhat limited. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Valushia

When your character walks up to my character and pushes him off a swing then you are forcing interaction between our characters. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing but it means that I might respond in kind. I might force lightning upon you because, hey, it’s all about interaction.

You could write the push as an attempt and not a guarantee but I might write that my swing suddenly got faster in time to swing into your push and send you flying. 

So, sure, the conflict mechanics go both ways that allow both parties to acknowledge together whether a PVP is about to take place or not. But if one person doesn’t want to fight and the other person does, and the one who does keeps trying to force a fight onto the other, then this is no longer collaboration. This is one person trying to force their whims and their story on the other.

This is still subjective though. If a PC who invades a city doesn’t want to fight then they should not have invaded a city. So let’s isolate the scenario to a PC merrily swinging on a swing and minding their own business in a park that belongs to no one. 

Open world does not mean anything goes, at least not on Valucre, and that’s what I was gearing toward. Open world can still include rules and guidelines or else anything does go. So you’re either allowed to force conflict on another player or you’re not. And where do you draw the line? If you can randomly walk up to a PC and swing an axe at them and the roleplayer must ultimately PVP you or run away because you keep on swinging then is there a rule against spontaneously exploding because you also randomly stepped into a trap they were saving for angry orcs with axes? Well that all depends on the site and its rules. Covered above my post.

Now if we’re purely going the route of rhetoric then I think it’s important to understand that roleplay is not confined to any one system. Like video games, there are different types of roleplay. There are also different types of open world roleplay. Some people roleplay because they want to write with other people and explore a single character for IRL years, making it a mission to avoid putting their PC in situations where another PC might kill them, but enjoying open instead of closed threads in order to spontaneously meet others.

But really nothing is terribly spontaneous. No roleplayer randomly swings an axe at someone’s PC no matter how angry their orc is. The decision is made OOC before it is executed IC. And a person who doesn’t want to deal with that and engage in PVP conflict shouldn’t have to, as much as someone who doesn’t want to have their PC play basketball when the ball comes their way shouldn’t have to. They can catch the ball or let it fly past them and pick it up, pass the ball back or leave the ball, accept the players’ invitation or decline, and all is well and good, but if the players try to force basketball onto the other person then that’s a problem.

Also, whether a PC dies or not is endlessly subjective but if we generalize it as a roleplayer not wanting their character to die outside of clearly established death-is-a-go parameters then that’s their choice. Roleplay isn’t about who dies and who lives. It’s about writing stories and enjoying them. With other people, not against them.

You say go write a book but that’s not much different than self-defining what everyone’s roleplay should be like. It shouldn’t boil down to writing roleplay or writing a book, and really if someone wants everyone’s character to be able to die at just about any time then that person can also just go write a book.

I’ve been on both sides. I’ve been on sites where characters could face death at every corner and there’s a level of thrill involved and it’s cool. But right now I go nowhere else except Valucre and one reason is that I don’t really want to worry about losing my PC just because. I don’t want to have to make a new character every week because some douche canoe pushed my last one off a swing and sunk an axe into their noggin. I don’t have time to explore my characters in satisfying ways before they expire. I want to keep hold of them and write with them at my own leisure. And, really, as long as my decision doesn’t bother anyone else then no one else should be bothered by it.

Conflict is great but when you dig down to the bottom line you have to ask yourself: Is what I am attempting to do to this other roleplayer’s character contributing to the enjoyment of the roleplay for all parties involved? Is my ‘conflict’ collaborative in the sense that we all like what is happening? Or is it disruptive in that other parties don’t really want to deal with what I am trying to force upon them? Because if at any point the answer leads to acknowledging that group enjoyment is being sacrificed for individual enjoyment, such as the grinning bloodlust of an angry orc, then the ultimate answer to “Should I do it?” should probably be a loud “No”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Valushia said:

Read this excerpt aloud, and ask yourself where I could be "getting this from"; if you've seen players "not want to let their characters die because they have long-term plans for those characters and don't want to stop playing the game they're using that character for", the answer should be self-evident. I've seen this reproach too, and countless times before. The fallacy in this way of thinking, lies is in that character death somehow means the end of roleplaying. Just because a character dies doesn't mean that they have to "stop playing the game". Hop back in and start anew.

You made a statement of fact. I asked you what the data is that backs this up. You ask me in turn to speculate on how you arrived at this point. That misses the point of my question. I don't want to speculate and presume. I want you to actually tell me and substantiate your claim

If it's because you've seen it "countless times before", and knowing your profile is only a month old and you are presumably new to Valucre, it tells me that you're collating your experiences across time and mediums and not just what's on Valucre, whereas I'm approaching it from Valucre. You're talking about a motley crew of communities with varying structures and I'm only talking about one. We have conflicting sets of data and I have little-to-nothing to say about how other sites and other communities run their game. If you're dissatisfied with them you should be talking to them about it

I see you've edited your statement in the post to now to include some level of speculation. That is a much more appropriate way to have worded your statement to begin with. If you make statements of fact, I will almost certainly ask you about the data that led you there

The assumption at the end you've made there is also missing the mark. While true that a character dying doesn't mean they have to stop playing the game, people have different perspectives on how they handle character death. As a player I may think resurrection is cheap and so not want to engage in it for a character that dies and so be more restrictive around character death than another player that goes "death doesn't mean anything I resurrect my characters monthly" (supplementary to what Die expertly had to say on the subject)

"I'd hope Valcure was built to cater to roleplayers, irrespective of what they roles they played; be they killers, achievers, explorers or otherwise."

Valucre btw

And you can hope that but I already told you that the case is it caters to two types the most, a third type intermediately, and killers last. Killers can kill on the site but it does not cater to them in the sense that it does not prioritize their style of play over the others; other styles of play are prioritized instead, and this is done by conscious design.

I think this is an amusing excerpt from the Killer type and why I don't care about market capture for that taxonomy type, "multi-player appeal to the killer":

Quote

"Causing mayhem among computer-controlled people and things may be fun to the Killer, but nothing amounts to the joy of pitting one's skills against an actual player-controlled opponent. For most, the joy of being a Killer results from a friendly competitive spirit. They're in it for the sport, trying to read their opponent's moves and generally acting with honor.

For others, it's more about power and the ability to hurt others or the thrill of the hunt. One such example is "ganking" or "owning", a process where the Killer takes their strong character to a place where inexperienced or weaker characters reside, and proceeds to kill them repeatedly. Once a killer finds a weaker character it becomes increasingly enjoyable to "Hunt" this character, stalking him through different zones. Repeatedly stalking and killing a weaker player adds a thrill of a certain type well described in the short story The Most Dangerous Game. Once stronger enemy players arrive to help, the Killer either waits patiently or stealthily sneaks somewhere else to repeat the process. These Killers love to have the notoriety of being someone that should be watched out for, or even better, someone to be "Killed on Sight"."

The first type isn't much of a problem because they don't mind engaging people on equitable terms, such as in a tournament or an open challenge (kind of like a pvp zone in a game that is not pvp everywhere). The second type though:

Games prefer certain types of players and inasmuch as there is a preferred player type for the kind of game that you want to run, there should be a way to prioritize the kind of play you want and de-prioritize the kind of player you don't want - or at the very least, not add overhead to system maintenance. For me that means people can run tournaments, but I won't take on the overhead of running them myself, as an example 

Also:

Quote

"In either case, a bored Killer can be a threat to the community, as their natural drive to compete and sometimes (or frequently) abrasive attitude will push them to stir up trouble even when they don't really mean to. "

On sites with free-for-all mentalities there are no bored killers, but there are also fewer of the other three types. Here, bored killers who vent their boredom by being disruptive are tamped down or figure out how to not be bored (by engaging with other killers, for example, vs trying to shoehorn the other three types into their version of what makes a fun game)

You seem to use PvP and Conflict interchangeably, and though you've admitted that conflict is not limited to PvP/combat, this seems to be the kind of conflict you reference the most. Character death, orcs swinging axes, and characters being pushed off swings seem to be the ready examples. Of the types of conflict, combat is often the simplest form, and the manner in which the killer taxonomy type structure their combat conflict tends to be both simplistic (as in linear, not "dumb" but it can be that too) and self-centered. You might still be able to pull of a reasonable level of engagement with this (Dredge has, for example) but that is why its incumbent on your ability to generate buy-in rather than the site endorsing your ability to disrupt on a whim

Edited by supernal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Die Shize said:

But really nothing is terribly spontaneous. No roleplayer randomly swings an axe at someone’s PC no matter how angry their orc is. The decision is made OOC before it is executed IC. And a person who doesn’t want to deal with that and engage in PVP conflict shouldn’t have to, as much as someone who doesn’t want to have their PC play basketball when the ball comes their way shouldn’t have to. They can catch the ball or let it fly past them and pick it up, pass the ball back or leave the ball, accept the players’ invitation or decline, and all is well and good, but if the players try to force basketball onto the other person then that’s a problem.

Also, whether a PC dies or not is endlessly subjective but if we generalize it as a roleplayer not wanting their character to die outside of clearly established death-is-a-go parameters then that’s their choice. Roleplay isn’t about who dies and who lives. It’s about writing stories and enjoying them. With other people, not against them.

Italics - I like this a lot. Good example. It also goes with the "realism vs verisimilitude" line in the FAQ. Some might say like "well it isn't realistic, like you can't just ignore someone wanting to slap you in real life", and the counter to that is that . . . this isn't life. This is a game. The point of the game is to have fun. Face-slappers should have fun slapping the faces of other face-slappers, not thinking that they can just go around slapping everyone they want to just because. But like a game of basketball, you have to generate buy-in. To put a game together you have to get people who want to play, not just throw basketballs at random people and go "haha guess you're in the game now!"

Bold - I like this the most. That could be a bumper sticker or t-shirt slogan

I’ve been on both sides. I’ve been on sites where characters could face death at every corner and there’s a level of thrill involved and it’s cool. But right now I go nowhere else except Valucre and one reason is that I don’t really want to worry about losing my PC just because. I don’t want to have to make a new character every week because some douche canoe pushed my last one off a swing and sunk an axe into their noggin. I don’t have time to explore my characters in satisfying ways before they expire. I want to keep hold of them and write with them at my own leisure. And, really, as long as my decision doesn’t bother anyone else then no one else should be bothered by it.

❤️

Notice how much of this conflict revolves around combat scenarios as if that's the only or best type of conflict to explore at any given time

Conflict is great but when you dig down to the bottom line you have to ask yourself: Is what I am attempting to do to this other roleplayer’s character contributing to the enjoyment of the roleplay for all parties involved? Is my ‘conflict’ collaborative in the sense that we all like what is happening? Or is it disruptive in that other parties don’t really want to deal with what I am trying to force upon them? Because if at any point the answer leads to acknowledging that group enjoyment is being sacrificed for individual enjoyment, such as the grinning bloodlust of an angry orc, then the ultimate answer to “Should I do it?” should probably be a loud “No”.

❤️ ❤️ ❤️

Well said! That is very much collaboration to me, and the kind of collaboration I like to see and prioritize around here

Edited by supernal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...