Posts made by Tinuviel

Lord Sir Maximilian Somethingorother FitzPatrick-Lanford. It was fine.

FPL liked Kaleb. Nobody liked FPL.

Kaleb wasn't a diva. He was simply... rather more open to expressing his needs and desires than the average. Okay? Okay.

The problem with adding failure as a probability (rather than something that is merely possible, but unlikely in the long run) is that many people turn to online roleplaying as an escape from their lives, in which everyone fails at something all of the time.

Now, I'm not saying that's a good thing just pointing out that it is a thing.

How do we mitigate the sore feelings of failure? Do we even want to?

@Ganymede With more sex.

@Derp Sure. But if people are given a timeline (this game will last six months) then they know they have a limited time to get the stories they want told done with. I had an idea for a Star Trek game (because of course I did) that had timejumps.

Every six months (I was feeling optimistic) the game would 'restart' and the timeline would jump forward a set amount of time. Two years, five. Whatever made sense at that point in the story. Former PCs would age, be promoted, reassigned, whatever, and a new bunch of junior crew (the new player characters) would join the station. The problem arises when games are expected to last forever. No game does, ever. So why not conclude a story, rather than just... let it fade away?

To bring this "idea" back to the topic at hand, having defined goals for all groups, staff and players of all stripes alike, brings restriction. And restriction, I've found, is of great import when it comes to creativity. When you can do, be, tell anything... you end up doing nothing, or nothing important.

I'd also advocate for more stories with an end. A story that gives every group (not necessarily every individual) a goal, with plot to drive that goal home.

Another issue I've found with playing an adversarial type character is that... people just don't generally know how to deal with them. In the aforementioned GM vs Player dynamic, the GM is a known quantity. The story, generally, will be tailored for your characters' abilities in such a way that it is possible for you to make worthwhile decisions when dealing with the adversary. Running, attacking, interrogating, wetting one's self, et cetera.

Another PC taking an adversarial position, however, is... wrong, in some people's minds. Most have been, or know someone who has been, in a situation where they lose their PC to another PC for reasons that weren't explained to them. That scares some people. So, they react to the idea of an adversarial character with force. Full force. All of the force.

After some thinking, I think that to have PC antagonists/adversaries in a game such a thing has to be baked into the game's foundations and culture from the start. The reasons that X group dislikes Y group have to be made clear. Not clear to us. Clear to stupid people. So clear that if it were solid you could see through it.

Adversary is better than antagonist. Everyone is the protagonist of their story, most of the time. An adversary is not always going to act against you in all situations, which fits most MUing circumstances better.

@Ghost That has been done before...

@Lisse24 I don't like the idea of a 'designated antagonist'. if someone sees my PC as their PC's antagonist, but my PC doesn't give a shit about their PC... then what? And what about when antagonisms change, as they often (and imho should) do.

Secondly... to be antagonistic is a choice. Just because you're Catholic and I'm Protestant doesn't mean we have to be antagonistic even if our organisations are supposed to be.

@Misadventure And for those of us that don't have friends?

@WTFE No, no, and maybe. Though I did like that one place that used (I think) the FASA Star Trek system, a system itself probably isn't required depending on how the game is organised.

As a person that worked, extensively, with ASpace in the early 2000s... fuck space systems.

@Arkandel That has been the case on some kinds of Star Trek games. Others staff just burn out trying to run things, the game is set in a timescale where promotions and advancement just don't happen, it becomes akin to RPing through jobs... and various other things.

@Arkandel said in PC antagonism done right:

@Tinuviel said in PC antagonism done right:

I believe that having any kind of antagonist at all requires active, interested, and creative staff. That is a must. Sure, one can run NPCs in their PrPs, but for a truly game-mattering antagonist staff have to be involved.

Notice that in the context of this thread an 'antagonist' doesn't need to be a bad guy. For example if you're playing a Crone and I'm playing a Sanctified we should be able to have a very adversarial relationship without it devolving into OOC unpleasantness. The objective is to somehow make this happen. Or to at least make it more likely.

Sure. But at the same time, anyone that is antagonistic is seen as a bad guy. If I'm playing a Crone (never) and you're playing a Sanctified, the fact that we believe wholly different things - or whatever the difference is - can and will be seen as one being the bad guy for the other.

In either case, staff input is important as ultimately their guiding of the game will determine who is an antagonist to whom, why those two parties are antagonists, and so forth.

That said, the key to any antagonist is that they are capable of winning and losing in a way that doesn't result in things ending AND provides for more RP around that situation. For example: Taking prisoners, escaping at the last moment, considering those he fights beneath him and leaving when he has the upper hand, et cetera.

Alright, so a good first step is to ensure death is a truly final solution and not a first inclination. Other than thematically (a decree from the old-fashioned Prince threatening nasty retaliation to anyone who destroys another) how can this be systematized? How do we make players and characters want to keep their adversaries around instead of just putting a knife into their eye socket?

Easy. Well, I say easy simply because we're speaking on theoreticals. Practically it might be an issue, especially with so many of us set in our ways. One rewards behaviour that they want to encourage, and penalises behaviour they want to discourage. It's like taxes. The government taxes cigarettes ostensibly because they want to discourage smoking, but they don't tax charitable contributions because they want to encourage that behaviour.

Thus, we reward people taking alternate avenues rather than killing, and we penalise those that kill.

I believe that having any kind of antagonist at all requires active, interested, and creative staff. That is a must. Sure, one can run NPCs in their PrPs, but for a truly game-mattering antagonist staff have to be involved.

That said, the key to any antagonist is that they are capable of winning and losing in a way that doesn't result in things ending AND provides for more RP around that situation. For example: Taking prisoners, escaping at the last moment, considering those he fights beneath him and leaving when he has the upper hand, et cetera.

Killing a PC is a sure fire way of making everyone hate that PC, OOC and IC, whether warranted or otherwise, and thus should be reserved for certain situations - like when the character keeps pressing on in spite of all sense, or when the player wishes to leave the character and wants a decent end.

Those are just some initial thoughts to muse over, I'm sure I'll think up others.

I'm still desperate for a decent Star Trek game. Doesn't have to be anything groundbreaking, just... decent.

@Clarity Most MUXes (which is where this sort of behaviour is traditionally found) don't have as much of a dependency on code that, say, a MUD or a MOO does. So it all goes through staff, in tickets or jobs. IC reasoning for it is, generally, I want to do X to Y without Y being able to do anything about it.

@surreality

You miserable longeared slack assed motherfucker with a cunt for a mouth, if only you could suck my ass while licking my balls then you would be considered to be half fucking human, but then again you are only the biggest cock sucker in the world with shit for brains and your fat ass is so open from being corned holed that you cannot even see your nose that is so far up the bosses ass that you need to be ejected before he takes a shit you lying no good cheating bastard with shit for brains take a long flying fuck off your ugly bitches pockmarked face while you suck eggs through a straw.

Naturally replacing any sex-specific terms to those that suit your configuration.

Are you the dick at your table?