|
|
|
Zante
|
 Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 9:26 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
|
|
If someone puts up a tax blockade in a hunting area, and one refuses to pay, they are free to kill you, and then offer a raise, I get that much.
After that, are they not required to leave you alone and let you continue hunting? I would think following you over 3 areas and keeping up the harassment after they got their gold and kill already would be a no-do.
The rules used to say you are not allowed to keep someone out of an area, or passing. Did that change as well?
_________________ 
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Transcendental Templar
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 9:38 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: Deep within the Fortress of Regrets...
|
|
From what I know, after a character/party is ICly turned back or killed while trying to pass a blockade, they are to be OOC raised via the PvP tool and/or allowed to continue their hunt through that area.
[Edit] Also, something tells me this is connected to a specific incident, if such is the case, it should be described to a member of the staff via a PM.
_________________
"All along the watchtower,
Princes kept the view
While all the women came and went
,bare-foot servants, too.
Outside in the distance
A wild cat did growl,
Two riders were approaching,
The wind began to howl
All along the watchtower!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 10:07 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Nov 2005
|
Transcendental Templar wrote: after a character/party is ICly turned back or killed while trying to pass a blockade, they are to be OOC raised via the PvP tool and/or allowed to continue their hunt through that area.
...then what's the point? I know you don't like players whining about not getting their way but that's ridiculous.
Last edited by Jan on Mon, Apr 13 2009, 10:09 AM, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zante
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 10:09 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
|
|
PKing doesn't need a point.
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lascivar
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 10:12 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Location: Queensland, Australia.
|
I'm not a DM, so this is an opinion only:
If they've paid the tax (which I sure as hell wouldn't), then they should leave you be afterward, unless there's some very specific reason they've followed you, and have good RP in mind. Aside from that, they should just be letting you hunt/pass in peace.
Transcendental Templar wrote: they are to be OOC raised via the PvP tool and/or allowed to continue their hunt through that area.
I don't understand this, to be honest.. If they didn't make it past the blockade in an IC manner, then why should they be allowed to proceed? If they met someone beyond the blockaded area and were asked how they made it there, the person doesn't have -any- IC response to give them.
_________________
Current characters:
Nazeris Defir
Malicar Drakespire
Last edited by Lascivar on Mon, Apr 13 2009, 10:15 AM, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transcendental Templar
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 10:15 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: Deep within the Fortress of Regrets...
|
Jan wrote: Transcendental Templar wrote: after a character/party is ICly turned back or killed while trying to pass a blockade, they are to be OOC raised via the PvP tool and/or allowed to continue their hunt through that area. ...then what's the point? I know you don't like players whining about not getting their way but that's ridiculous. The rule is there to, among other things, prevent bored level 30 epics from being able to cut off lowbies from their hunting spots. ICly you can tax them, block them from the area, whatever. But after the IC RP is concluded, OOCly they have to be allowed to pass and continue their hunt.
I believe you wouldn't like to see a world where every path for your lowbie character is blocked by a bored level 30 epic that has nothing better to do then keep you out of a certain area, effectively rendering you unable to level up.
_________________
"All along the watchtower,
Princes kept the view
While all the women came and went
,bare-foot servants, too.
Outside in the distance
A wild cat did growl,
Two riders were approaching,
The wind began to howl
All along the watchtower!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lascivar
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 10:23 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Location: Queensland, Australia.
|
Transcendental Templar wrote: I believe you wouldn't like to see a world where every path for your lowbie character is blocked by a bored level 30 epic that has nothing better to do then keep you out of a certain area, effectively rendering you unable to level up.
>_> I don't have any lowbie characters, so that doesn't affect me, but I can still see your point. This doesn't change the fact that anyone who OOCly passed the blockade has no IC answer for how they made it beyond.
_________________
Current characters:
Nazeris Defir
Malicar Drakespire
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 10:29 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
Transcendental Templar wrote: Jan wrote: Transcendental Templar wrote: after a character/party is ICly turned back or killed while trying to pass a blockade, they are to be OOC raised via the PvP tool and/or allowed to continue their hunt through that area. ...then what's the point? I know you don't like players whining about not getting their way but that's ridiculous. The rule is there to, among other things, prevent bored level 30 epics from being able to cut off lowbies from their hunting spots. ICly you can tax them, block them from the area, whatever. But after the IC RP is concluded, OOCly they have to be allowed to pass and continue their hunt. I believe you wouldn't like to see a world where every path for your lowbie character is blocked by a bored level 30 epic that has nothing better to do then keep you out of a certain area, effectively rendering you unable to level up. While I think that is fair, how does it mesh with "There is no such thing as an OOC hunt"?
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transcendental Templar
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 10:33 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: Deep within the Fortress of Regrets...
|
|
When you die alone, or your whole party dies in the abyss/x/y/z place with numerous foes around you (That sometimes might even like to nomnom on corpses) you have to make up a nice story for yourself, about how your character came back to life after getting killed there, or about how he didn't really die, no? The respawn button is an OOC thing afterall.
I'd believe this is much the same case. Some compromises simply need to exist.
_________________
"All along the watchtower,
Princes kept the view
While all the women came and went
,bare-foot servants, too.
Outside in the distance
A wild cat did growl,
Two riders were approaching,
The wind began to howl
All along the watchtower!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 10:37 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Nov 2005
|
Transcendental Templar wrote: The rule is there to, among other things, prevent bored level 30 epics from being able to cut off lowbies from their hunting spots.
You're overgeneralizing epic characters, if there actually are some power abusive tards, BAN them, don't make rules which render RP pointless.
If "bored level 15 characters" can't access the minotaurs for mindless grinding RIGHT NOW, well poo, there'll be another day.
Or how about they come up with IC plans to get past the blockade and y'know, RP. I'd still like RP to be encouraged above hunting.
And what about that level 8 character blocking the way for a level 3? It's not just epics trying to do something creative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transcendental Templar
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 10:48 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: Deep within the Fortress of Regrets...
|
|
Sure, maybe we should go one step further and bring Perma Death to Amia? Clearly a character surviving an assassin's attack, because only the player can rule on his character's final death, is something that renders assassin RP largely pointless.
While it is fine for them to try getting past the blockade ICly, if they fail and/or get killed they still have to be allowed to pass OOCly, that's how it works like now, from what I know. For somewhat similar reasons, according to the rules a party cant steal another party's hunting spot by killing off the one that got there first.
_________________
"All along the watchtower,
Princes kept the view
While all the women came and went
,bare-foot servants, too.
Outside in the distance
A wild cat did growl,
Two riders were approaching,
The wind began to howl
All along the watchtower!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 10:52 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
Indeed. There's no reason good role-players can't be good sports and handle the situation in a believable way, but there needs to be the option to avoid griefing. One of Amia's principles from the beginning has been the protection rules give from the OOC whims of other players, and this is in keeping with that. Or what, should we ban those highwaymen who don't meet our standards of quality RP and embrace those who do?
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terra_777
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 10:58 AM |
|
|
Administrative Developer
Joined: 31 Jan 2007
Location: Sweden
|
Most hunting grounds can be accessed from more then one point, too! 
_________________
Fear is not evil… It tells you what your weakness is. And once you know your weakness, you can become stronger as well as kinder. - Gildarts Clive, Fairy Tail, Hiro Mashima.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 11:13 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Nov 2005
|
Transcendental Templar wrote: Sure, maybe we should go one step further and bring Perma Death to Amia? Clearly a character surviving an assassin's attack, because only the player can rule on his character's final death, is something that renders assassin RP largely pointless.
I haven't seen a lot of assassin RP since Dipnit et al, have you? It *is* pointless so nobody does it. Drow don't count. For the same reason I've never ever run into a road block, because the mindset is "screw this he'll be allowed to get past anyway, let's go hunt".
I once robbed a lower level character off all her gold and offered it back in an OOC tell, and y'know what? She declined because she enjoyed the RP "and it's so easy to get more". Lowbies can and should be good sports too, so don't put all the burden on the highwayman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nekhy
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 11:15 AM |
|
|
Player
|
|
Also remember, that when playing robbery like this tax collecting, you have to accept the tax being payed to you RPly. The victim is allowed to you give you only 1gp or a small amount of gold.
One could ask, what's the point of playing a robber then... well, we don't accept grieving, so the robber will have to settle for vanilla results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 11:21 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Nov 2005
|
Nekhy wrote: One could ask, what's the point of playing a robber then... well, we don't accept grieving, so the robber will have to settle for vanilla results.
But robbing isn't grieving, robbing the same character six times per reset is.
Gold is SO abundant on Amia, everyone seems to have a couple hundred thousand within weeks, there is absolutely no point in "RP payment".
Of course there's no point in demanding a specific sum either, I'll gladly settle for a hundred or a thousand pieces, but the 1GP get out of jail for free card screams for abuse more than any robber being a griefer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transcendental Templar
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 11:25 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: Deep within the Fortress of Regrets...
|
|
If they -agree- to turn back and are fine with such a turn of events, that's fine. But no matter what happens they have a -right- to continue, and if they express such a wish, they have to be allowed to do so, according to the rules.
_________________
"All along the watchtower,
Princes kept the view
While all the women came and went
,bare-foot servants, too.
Outside in the distance
A wild cat did growl,
Two riders were approaching,
The wind began to howl
All along the watchtower!"
Last edited by Transcendental Templar on Mon, Apr 13 2009, 11:26 AM, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 11:26 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Nov 2005
|
|
Why? This was about someone going to hunt, why oh why does that take priority over RP?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transcendental Templar
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 11:27 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: Deep within the Fortress of Regrets...
|
|
Because common sense isn't common, we can't be there to supervise every IC roadblock around, and make sure no griefing is involved.
_________________
"All along the watchtower,
Princes kept the view
While all the women came and went
,bare-foot servants, too.
Outside in the distance
A wild cat did growl,
Two riders were approaching,
The wind began to howl
All along the watchtower!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 11:33 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Nov 2005
|
|
Then turn off the server and let everyone go do something else, you can't be there to supervise every player as long as you have a 39:1 player/DM ratio (and that's low traffic time).
How about you tell those whining players the fancy "roll with the punches" story, request screenshot proof for griefing allegations, and ban the tards who do.
The majority of players aren't the kindergarteners you're treating them as. (and if they are, "fix" it, don't let them ruin other's fun)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transcendental Templar
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 11:42 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: Deep within the Fortress of Regrets...
|
Jan wrote: Then turn off the server and let everyone go do something else, you can't be there to supervise every player as long as you have a 39:1 player/DM ratio (and that's low traffic time).
How about you tell those whining players the fancy "roll with the punches" story, request screenshot proof for griefing allegations, and ban the tards who do.
Not everyone browses the forums, not everyone knows their rights under the rules, and not everyone screams "bloody murder" when they are mistreated.
Also, there's a long road between the ideal theory of your words, and the practical effects they'd have in all honesty.
_________________
"All along the watchtower,
Princes kept the view
While all the women came and went
,bare-foot servants, too.
Outside in the distance
A wild cat did growl,
Two riders were approaching,
The wind began to howl
All along the watchtower!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nekhy
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 11:54 AM |
|
|
Player
|
|
It's a compromise between preventing grieving and giving all the players the freedom to RP as they wish. It reflects the values this server is based on, as do many other rules we have. You obviously disagree with it. We'll have to settle for you disagreeing with it, then.
I dare to say, it obstructs your RP only as much as you allow it to obstruct your RP. Use your imagination to make up ICly for it. Pretend you got whatever gold your character asked for. That's what RP is all about in the end, pretending.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kjetta
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 11:56 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2006
Location: A Clean, Well-Lighted Place
|
|
Even if I don't necessarily agree with Jan, I do share his frustration in this case. I think we hurt our atmosphere by being overprotective against harmful OOC antics of stupid players.
Now, there's only a few instances where players aren't in 100% control of their characters. I could go on and on about why this is bad, but I have accepted that I am a minority on Amia when it comes to this.
C'est la vie, I guess.
_________________ To err is human; to forgive divine, but VENGEANCE IS MINE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 12:05 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Nov 2005
|
|
You can't prevent griefing through rules (except "don't grief others"), you ban those who do. You're doing it the wrong way around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 12:06 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Jan wrote: You can't prevent griefing through rules (except "don't grief others"), you ban those who do. You're doing it the wrong way around.
Sure you can. We've been doing it successfully for, what, four years now? _________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
Last edited by IronAngel on Mon, Apr 13 2009, 12:10 PM, edited 2 times in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 12:08 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Nov 2005
|
|
Elaborate. How is your way of unwritten rules and common sense better than "don't be an ass to others"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 12:10 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
|
Unwritten rules? Have you seen how many rules we've added over the years?
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 12:12 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
Kjetta wrote: Even if I don't necessarily agree with Jan, I do share his frustration in this case. I think we hurt our atmosphere by being overprotective against harmful OOC antics of stupid players.
Now, there's only a few instances where players aren't in 100% control of their characters. I could go on and on about why this is bad, but I have accepted that I am a minority on Amia when it comes to this.
C'est la vie, I guess.
I agree with that.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 12:13 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
"Don't be an ass to others" is the same as "unwritten rules and common sense."
This policy has always been in place on Amia; at least I do not recall its addition in the last three and a half years. We do not suffer from wanton griefing under the guise of highwaymen. Therefore, it obviously works as intended. It's not perfect, but it certainly prevents issues better than expecting new, clueless and scared players to understand what constitutes griefing on Amia and screenshot it if they fall victim to it, especially since there likely isn't a DM around. And, as I said, it's mighty dangerous to ban people for "inadequate RP" - which is what griefing is - when there's no technical rule against what they're doing.
You yourself mentioned an example in which the victim graciously played along. That proves it can happen just fine, and the rule doesn't have to have any effect on your game experience. I find I've never had to concern myself about PvP or hunting area rules, because I just play along in good spirits. The rule only affects those instances where the RP isn't enjoyable to one or both parties and can be interpreted as griefing. If all is cool and everyone's enjoying themselves, why wouldn't they play along with the IC consequences? You get treated the way you treat others, so I guess people who find the game full of problems they can't overcome should take a look in the mirror.
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transcendental Templar
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 12:24 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: Deep within the Fortress of Regrets...
|
|
I've come to terms with the fact that when characters interact, -pleasurable RP- can only come out of that interaction as long as both players enjoy themselves. One player will -willingly- allow his character to be permanently killed after an assassination, because that'll float his boat and he'll face those consequences with pleasure. Another player will not, because of x,y,x reason.
Who's definition of "fun," is more proper? Player A: Who embraces permadeath, or Player B: Who enjoys playing his character too much to kill it permanently upon another player's/character's whim?
For god's sake, is it really so hard to respect another player's fun? Those who'll want to turn back, will, and it'll probably spawn fun RP to boot. Those who'll want to pass on with their hunt after the IC RP of turning back, may do so, it's their fun, and it's their choice. Where is the problem?
_________________
"All along the watchtower,
Princes kept the view
While all the women came and went
,bare-foot servants, too.
Outside in the distance
A wild cat did growl,
Two riders were approaching,
The wind began to howl
All along the watchtower!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 12:25 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Nov 2005
|
TormakSaber wrote: Unwritten rules? Have you seen how many rules we've added over the years? I can't find the one this thread's about, and I recall Nekh saying something like "we're trying to not fill them with specifics and rely on common sense". IronAngel wrote: It's not perfect, but it certainly prevents issues better than expecting new, clueless and scared players to understand what constitutes griefing on Amia and screenshot it if they fall victim to it, especially since there likely isn't a DM around. You're overexaggerating the risk those robbers pose to newbies. Nobody should be robbing level 3s in the sewers anyway. Once they're out of there they should be aware of Amia's rules, if not, it's their fault really. Knowing the rules of your server is common sense too. This requires that they are written down somewhere, and the players are aware of their location. NWN is a conflict based game, everyone knows what multiplayer is, and if they are more offended by a highwayman than getting killed by an unknown spawn, they're the problem. You can still ban griefers all you want, powergamers who PK anyone going out of Cordor, but if someone really feels mistreated by a highwayman using common sense, let them bring it up with the DMs, instead of preventing any meaningful highwayman RP. Transcendental Templar wrote: Those who'll want to pass on with their hunt after the IC RP of turning back, may do so, it's their fun, and it's their choice. Where is the problem?
This happens the majority of times and leaves the blockade guys with a bitter aftertaste of "why are we standing here again?"
Good players still have fun even if they can't go kill minotaurs for the 4th time in a row.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transcendental Templar
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 12:33 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: Deep within the Fortress of Regrets...
|
Jan wrote: Transcendental Templar wrote: Those who'll want to pass on with their hunt after the IC RP of turning back, may do so, it's their fun, and it's their choice. Where is the problem? This happens the majority of times and leaves the blockade guys with a bitter aftertaste of "why are we standing here again?" And that differs how from a character ultimately walking away alive from every case of PvP/PvM he dies in? Should we give the killer the power to decide the fate of a character he kills, to prevent him getting that same "bitter aftertaste?"
_________________
"All along the watchtower,
Princes kept the view
While all the women came and went
,bare-foot servants, too.
Outside in the distance
A wild cat did growl,
Two riders were approaching,
The wind began to howl
All along the watchtower!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 12:36 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Nov 2005
|
|
You'll have to admit that there's a difference between permadeath and temporary inaccess to a specific area.
Using NPC guards as a DM tool to prevent stupidity is fine, imposing such restrictions on blockade RP makes it pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nekhy
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 12:40 PM |
|
|
Player
|
It's very possible, and can be done effectively. Sure, the rules aren't foolproof, because there's also players who are very smart at incorporating grieving as part of their RP, but the amount of players who err a few times and fix their conduct after consulting the rules makes up for that. Those are the players you're asking us to ban. We prefer helping them to get into Amia's RP culture, instead.
I don't necessarily like restricting rules, like the PvP rules, personally. But I find it the lesser evil, based on the stuff I've seen during my years here.
You know the syndrome where 80% of drivers considers themselves an "above average driver"? In similar way, at least 80% of us (players and DMs) consider ourselves "above average" when it comes to common sense. Which obviously can't be true, first of all because the definition of "common sense" differs from one person to another. As does one player's definition of "enjoyable game" or "fun".
In a homogeneous group, common sense works. But we're not a homogeneous group as a server, not even the DM team is. We are extremely varied in our backgrounds and opinions. We just have to find a common ground to work on, instead of common sense to follow. That common ground is bound to be a compromise, to take into account all the different players who will be affected by it.
But I'm gonna say this again: the PvP rules hinder your RP only as much as you allow them to. Find the kind of players who share your ideals of a robbery situation, you are perfectly allowed to do that. Or adjust your RP to match the situation. Dump the bodies into water, and let them pass into the next area? Works for both the victim and the robber.
Quote: I recall Nekh saying something like "we're trying to not fill them with specifics and rely on common sense".
Yups, that is the ideal we should aim for. Doesn't mean it actually works in practice, no matter how much I want it to work. Communism is very good on paper, but sucks when put into action. Yet, doesn't mean we should disregard the spirit of equality, but we can instead apply some aspects of Marxism, the ones that work and benefit us all. We on Amia try to catch the bigger issues and make them into rules, while leaving the lesser issues to be solved by common sense... until common sense starts failing. It starts failing when enough people have differing ideas of common sense.
I'm into bad analogies today, but I hope you get my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Dark Faith-
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 12:50 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Location: Portugal
|
Jan wrote: You're overexaggerating the risk those robbers pose to newbies. Nobody should be robbing level 3s in the sewers anyway.
Really? it's funny.. because one of my first experiences on the server was getting mugged on South Cordor while I was doing my starter quests...
Coincidentally, a few days later that same character got murdered outside the bramble woods close to cordor by an orc and a gnoll. And they looted my body afterwards (with permission).
I actually had fun. And noticed that there were people who could do such things right. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but getting mugged is something you'd expect if you're a new person wandering around an unexplored world (in that case) where plenty of evil people and creatures prowl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 12:52 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
Highwayman RP done wrong is comparable to spawn/area camping, which too is illegal. Highwayman RP done right shouldn't bother anyone and therefore no one would even think to accuse the other party of rulebreaking.
I don't know. This is going in circles. I see your point very well, but it's a two-edged sword. The more restrictions we place, the more we theoretically hamper both bad and good highwayman RP. The less restrictions we have, the easier it'll be to engage in both bad and good highwayman RP. I think we have a fine balance, though it might very well warrant minor tweaking. From my experience, the majority of people who set road blocks and demand tithes are doing it for personal gain and the wrong reasons, whereas the truly enjoyable, good role-players are a minority. Even if I'm wrong, it's still true that the rule does more harm to bad conduct than it does to good, which can still proceed normally if everyone is fine with it. (Which, in an ideal RP situation between good players, should always be the case.) That's why I think it's more practical than opening the doors wide to both good and bad conduct, and trying to stop the bad conduct by investigating reports and issuing punishments possibly several days after the incidents. Realistically, we could not react immediately and many new players might leave the server, upset and unaware that the injustice they faced would've been corrected if it went through the right channels. In a server like Amia, I find it's better to prevent problems beforehand than run around extinguishing fires left and right. (Well, I disagree with this in some instances, but it applies here.)
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transcendental Templar
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 13:04 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: Deep within the Fortress of Regrets...
|
|
For me, it's a matter of philosophy. On one hand you have a world where the player has almost complete monopoly over his character's fate, and can give that power to another player if he/she so chooses, and the IC RP warrants it. (Which in an ideal situation should be always)
On the other hand you have a world where another player has complete control over what happens to your character, whether you like/enjoy it or not, and whether his RP warranted it or not.
It has it's flaws, but I'd still prefer the first option.
_________________
"All along the watchtower,
Princes kept the view
While all the women came and went
,bare-foot servants, too.
Outside in the distance
A wild cat did growl,
Two riders were approaching,
The wind began to howl
All along the watchtower!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
soundofastream
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 13:20 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
|
|
On another server I was on once, I once got told off for not killing the people who refused to pay. The DMs didn't want their evil villains being carebears and I lost xp for not roleplaying my pc to how it would normally act. Here, I think the rules heavily favour the victim of an evil act. The role of the highway robber is to ask for their money or their life...
That said, I'm sure that the coins handed over by the victim would only constitute as griefing if it broke the 20k 'gift rule' or they were killed because they had no coin (thus not actually giving them a way out).
Robbing real gold should be a legitimate and proper 'business' but robbers with such rules should not complain if they get killed and thrown in jail, etc..
But one question is, how many screens does a person have to flee before its default escape? Most servers I've seen have a 2 areas rule...what's the ruling here?
_________________
Illithira Frostmaiden (Snow Elf) Guardian of the Frostfell
Elithiel Issatheerin (Shadow Elf) She who Lurks
Isolia Oussea'lylth (Sun Elf) Apprentice Wizardess
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lascivar
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 13:23 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Location: Queensland, Australia.
|
|
Hm, here's a completely different situation.. I was going to make a new post, but the thread name makes it suitable to put here.
The whole "This hunting ground belongs to whoever was here first OOC rule" gets a bit stretched occasionally, and I'd like clarification on a very particular situation that happened:
(Go go Parody mode!)
Feranis was hunting in the snake chicka temple, all the spawns were active up until the psychotic Crabbylon, in which two people, Bill and Ted were buffing themselves behind her throne, awaiting to kill her again.. Feranis figured he'd go talk to them for a bit, considering this is an RP server and all.
Bill seemed rather quiet, but polite when he spoke, although said nothing of value. Ted on the other hand, immediately approached and spoke (literal quote) "u need to leav the boss is ours and were here first".
Feranis asked why he had to leave, and Ted replied that it was because of the rules (IC mind you); with Feranis digging a little deeper, and asking who's rules they were, he replied it was the "server's" (still IC, woo.. And mind you I'm well aware of the hunting rule, but he was trying to avoid RP as much as possible, so I couldn't help myself.)
Now this is where the PvP bit comes in: Ted decided to call Feranis a d*ck, and told him to leave again because it's their "boss spawn" (quoted literally again). Bill sent Feranis a tell apologising OOCly for Ted's IC actions, because Ted is apparently a poor RPer. Feranis decided to switch his game a little, and replied that he wasn't there for hunting, and instead asked Ted "I'm not here for the lovely snake women, perhaps I'm here for you?".
Ted replied by again, calling him a d*ck and said Feranis was breaking the rules. Feranis grew impatient by being insulted twice now, and was quite simply going to kill Ted on the spot and just give Bill a scroll to revive him with once Feranis left.
Fortunately! Feranis replied with a warming smile, except to Bill "Simply because I'm in a good mood, I'll let your little friend's tongue remain free from being carved out today.. Enjoy the hunt." and upon this, Feranis left and went to strut around Cordor in his loincloth again.
-----------------------------------
Alrighty, big wall of text is over! That's about as accurate as I can get it.
Here's my question: The OOC rule of hunting shouldn't protect people from PvP if they're going to be an asshole about it, and to be honest I'm not sure if I was allowed to kill him, but I was sure as hell going to if he kept it up.
If the answer is 'yes, you were allowed to kill him', then a hypothetical question follows:
If someone is hunting alone, and they're rude, such as Ted was and end up getting themselves killed because of this.. Is the hunting ground still theirs, regardless that they're now a corpse?
_________________
Current characters:
Nazeris Defir
Malicar Drakespire
|
|
|
|
|
|
BrainSplitter
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 13:31 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
|
Quote: If someone is hunting alone, and they're rude, such as Ted was and end up getting themselves killed because of this.. Is the hunting ground still theirs, regardless that they're now a corpse?
Answer - Yes.
You can't take a hunting area via PvP or otherwise by force without the other person's consent... even if they damned well deserve it sometimes.
The hunting area is the 'property' of whoever is utilizing its spawns first. People in a campsite near spawns or setting up highways are not utilizing the spawns; the people coming to hunt are (for how it meshes with the primary thread topic), hence they get dominion over the ability to hunt.
_________________
Mostly Retired
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 13:35 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Nov 2005
|
|
But since Ted treated it as an OOC hunt he wasn't actually there IC... Right? Right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nekhy
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 13:48 PM |
|
|
Player
|
|
The people occupying the hunting area do not, however, have the right to keep occupying it after they finished it. In other words, they do not have the right to camp the area or clear it repeatedly if there's other people who want to hunt there, regardless of them being there first.
Someone being a dick OOCly and not RPing should be screenied and reported. It's a whole another rule they're breaking there than the area occupation rules...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Craig deathwalker
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 13:55 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
|
It’s a broken system both ways, unfortunately we do not play in a society of players who are responsible enough to take a more direct route allowing other characters even the slightest control over there characters.
Arguing the point is worthless it’s a fact of amia that will never change, the only thing you can do is take each robbery as it comes. Players who use the OOC knowledge that they will not die or loose gold and that the rules state they cannot be held away from an area are the ones you will learn to have nothing to do with. It’s the price you pay for being a villain, not everyone is worth the time and effort you put into them. Choose your victims carefully and sometimes the effort you put into realistic role play will pay off.
_________________ 
Ray's song! Thanks to Amarice, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujzp9ffPwPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vaylek
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 14:03 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Sep 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
|
Hmm, well my character robs just about anyone who comes into the south, Ive probably engaged in about six or seven cases of one-on-one highwaymen RP, and i havent had any real ooc problems. I'm going to throw a few things in the pot and agree with the DM's opinions here.
For me having my character rob people isnt about gaining gold at a reasonable rate. Its about giving my character and cordor south a bad reputation i think they both deserve. I could solo the yuan-ti temple and make 100x more gold in an hour than if i waited in the south, robbed ten characters and they were all happy to give me 200 gold each, which would never happen anyway.
I think if your trying to turn a profit by being a highwaymen your setting yourself up to be frustrated and to really piss some people off, because we all know hunting is the most profitable enterprise whether you call yourself a goodie a baddie or a neutral merchant, but what we all want is good rp. My secret weapon for creating fun highwayman RP over and over again: tells.
Send people *nice* tells once your character starts demanding gold. Use smiley faces. Tell them they dont need to give you any gold if they dont want to. Most people appreciate that because theyre too stingy to hand anything over anyway (dont let that deter you), but if you show them that you dont care about the gold then they will focus more on the RP and less on "some bored epic whos trying to rob my poor lowbie". Helps the player relax and thus lubricates the Rp.
Once the rp is finished send another tell. Thank them for the RP and tell them they acted maturely, especially if they actually handed over gold (99% of people Vaylek robs hand over actual cash quite readily). If they didn't hand over gold and only emoted it, say this. "All I ask is that you RP actually losing that gold." If youre polite, they'll agree.
Finish on a nice note, like saying 'hope theres no hard feelings' and give more smileys. Just show the player that your not an ass and they wont feel like your trying to screw them and they WILL respect your character and whatever RP your trying to cut out for them. I never feel like i shouldnt have to thank strangers for RP because it does take a decent level of maturity to accept playing the victim, and if they did it then they supported some RP where you were in control so they deserve your thanks.
If they run right past you (illegal on amia - ignoring RP) or if they switch to OOC and start cussing or sending mean tells or something, just ignore them. Thats never happened to me but you dont want to be RPing with people like that so just dont waste your energy on them. Most folk on Amia are perfectly decent RPers and will go with your highwayman rp.
wow that post was way too long! hope theres something to glean from it...
_________________
Vaylek - The Worst Guy
Pu Liu - Descendant of the Great River Dragon
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Incognitos
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 14:32 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
|
|
What he said.
It would be nice to see more people act scared when being robbed.
And a question; is being told to "go to hell"(IC) after offering the classic 'your money or your life' line reason enough for PvP? I mean, you've offered a way out haven't you?
Oh and if there is a blockade, try and find another way through. It's the 'right' thing to do, just walking past anyway is lame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 14:34 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
The Incognitos wrote: What he said.
It would be nice to see more people act scared when being robbed.
And a question; is being told to "go to hell"(IC) after offering the classic 'your money or your life' line reason enough for PvP? I mean, you've offered a way out haven't you?
Oh and if there is a blockade, try and find another way through. It's the 'right' thing to do, just walking past anyway is lame.
I think if you include the option of running away too it should be fine ... they have an acceptable RP way out that isn't a lose/lose situation.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lascivar
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 14:58 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Location: Queensland, Australia.
|
The Incognitos wrote: What he said.
It would be nice to see more people act scared when being robbed.
And a question; is being told to "go to hell"(IC) after offering the classic 'your money or your life' line reason enough for PvP? I mean, you've offered a way out haven't you?
Oh and if there is a blockade, try and find another way through. It's the 'right' thing to do, just walking past anyway is lame.
This draws back to the fact there's no consequences on the server.. I personally preferred Ultima Online style consequences on servers in which if you die, you lose -everything- on your character to a corpse. The people can choose to loot the body if they like, and if not, you can loot it when you're revived.
This ofcourse, isn't everyone's cup of tea.
_________________
Current characters:
Nazeris Defir
Malicar Drakespire
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zante
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 15:48 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
|
Quote: I think if you include the option of running away too it should be fine ...
Curious about this as well actually. Is running away an acceptable out of a robbery? I once emoted *walks away peacefully* to get away but got ganked. A dm later said it was all right for them to do.
Not sure if this changed? I remember Ruce several times stating that if you just walk away without casting any spells from a pvp situation, the opposing party needs to let you. _________________
Last edited by Zante on Mon, Apr 13 2009, 15:49 PM, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nekhy
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 15:49 PM |
|
|
Player
|
|
Well, you are right, that there are no forced PvP consequences on Amia. PvE is another matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lascivar
|
Posted: Mon, Apr 13 2009, 16:02 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Location: Queensland, Australia.
|
Nekhy wrote: Well, you are right, that there are no forced PvP consequences on Amia. PvE is another matter.
I'd subject my characters to perma-death from PvP if there was a decent enough storyline to it.. Permanent mutilation also. (This doesn't always have to be gorey, I just mean retaining scars from confrontations.)
Some of the more interesting RP I've had was in the past on a War Priest of mine that got captured and had his tongue cut out, and I'd ended up spending a year playing a mute character that held one of the highest positions in his Church.
People often seem too concerned about losing what they think they've worked 'so hard for', when infact everything that you do has consequences, good, and bad.. People just seem to only want the good things for their characters and avoid the bad, unless it's completely beneficial to them still.
Again, nobody should take offense to this. My tastes lean towards more brutal PvP/RP in which death -really- is something to be feared, and people avoid it like the plague.
I love the twisted feeling in my stomach that I used to get when I thought I was going to die during some RP, and lose -everything- my character had, aswell as lose a level (levels were gained about once a week from level 15 up, it was incredibly harsh but fun) so my mind would race trying to think of every possible way out of the situations, whether it be RP or PvP.
_________________
Current characters:
Nazeris Defir
Malicar Drakespire
Last edited by Lascivar on Mon, Apr 13 2009, 16:04 PM, edited 2 times in total.
|
|
|
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Login
