AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Your character shouldn't have been alive again in the first place except for the OOC raise though. Your mere continued existence is "metagaming".

Wow. Just wow. :lol:

And now this is where you make the constructive comment instead of spamming.

Actually, this is where I take the time to wait for your constructive argument, and use spam as a hint of that. :wink:

TormakSaber wrote:

Your character shouldn't have been alive again in the first place except for the OOC raise though. Your mere continued existence is "metagaming".

You already got it. Stop spamming and answer.

You just said that if you get killed before a server reset you're metagming. What should we do? Run back to the spot we died and wait there?

How is that a constructive argument, Tormak? Seriously. It's an online multiplayer game, where dying is an inevitable part of the experience.

Untill Amia's rules say that when you die, well shit... You die, it's not OOC that my character is alive.

Or is this a case of "I'm saying it's like this, so that's how it is?" If that right there is a general DM ruling, I'll be happy to follow that as a common rule. Given, of course, that every character that has ever died is actually made unplayable permadead.

If you were to take the game at face value, I'd agree with you, Yurell. However, we know it's ridicilous that your character comes back time and again. By all rights, she shouldn't. It's a OOC favor granted to you. That's why it should be treated with a grain of salt, and ignored or glossed over IC as much as possible; for example, my PCs never die on hunts. They get knocked out, in coma, or whatever. I think it's our responsibility to suspend our disbelief and ignore this empirical evidence, because the fact that we get to continue playing our characters in the first place is an undeserved act of charity from the game mechanics/server policy.

Last edited by Mishy moo on Sun, Nov 15 2009, 23:53 PM, edited 2 times in total.

Should invent something that automatically knocks off a level of the deader after pvp... People might start taking it seriously then.

But seriously, I loved role playing out the after effects of been killed/serverly injured within an inch of life... I already know i'll lose in a pvp with just about any one but it's always about the rp... I like that it makes my character damaged (emotionally), it's so much more fun to explore and see how different her reactions will be the next time some one makes an attempt on her life.

Ofcourse, each to there own.. but there is a point where it becomes a load of bullshittery, frustrating and not enjoyable, to not see a normal kind of reaction to something as big as dying or badly badly hurt (with consent) especially when the player takes alot of care in role playing out their character before the final draw of breath. And it should still be a big deal even if a day later you can come back which ever way you chose to rp it.

IronAngel wrote:

If you were to take the game at face value, I'd agree with you, Yurell. However, we know it's ridicilous that your character comes back time and again. By all rights, she shouldn't. It's a OOC favor granted to you. That's why it should be treated with a grain of salt, and ignored or glossed over IC as much as possible; for example, my PCs never die on hunts. They get knocked out, in coma, or whatever. I think it's our responsibility to suspend our disbelief and ignore this empirical evidence, because the fact that we get to continue playing our characters in the first place is an undeserved act of charity from the game mechanics/server policy.

Why can't we treat that IC when we have to treat every hunt IC? Shouldn't it become OOC, since the fact that all the monsters return every fifteen minute is also an OOC courtesy provided?

You're not grasping the point. Between treating something IC and treating something OOC, there's the vast ground of "glossing over." And it applies to hunting, too: surely you don't actually, IC, assume that you slaughter hundreds of giants daily, and watch new spawn from the mountain in a matter of minutes? Of course not. It's a game, and we know this OOC. We should treat it with as low profile as possible, IC, and explain it away in the least awkward way possible. That's just common sense.

Example:

Fire Giants, yeah someone runs through and pounds them all to heck: Who says there isn't a Fire giant complex undercity deep beyond what characters'd reach, and that after taking through what's currently there, reinforcements come along.

I don't see how it's "common sense" at all. If I'm in a party and someone in said party dies, I treat it as if they're dead, and have my character respond accordingly. So, I should instead "gloss" it over and have my character... What? Forget about it when the guy/gal's back on their feet?

It is a game, and I do believe that leaving your char with the fear of death is the best way to deal with it as far as suspension of disbelief goes, which is why all of my characters fear death.
What I don't like is saying one person's means of glossing over is invalid for another person's means, when the information is available to the character. When confronted by someone else about why my character was afraid of death when she always comes back, she could provide a list of reasons - from not being sure to " i' bloody hur'. "

So while I do get annoyed at seeing people say "If you kill me I'll just be back" they've a very good reason - they will be back. There is no rule saying that our characters are not allowed to know this, and if there were I'd support the rule, but as it stands the reasoning seems entirely valid depending on how you want to 'gloss over' the fact.

Last edited by Nekhy on Mon, Nov 16 2009, 0:02 AM, edited 1 time in total.

I've always been of the opinion that death should be abolished and everyone should simply get KNOCKED OUT, regardless of it being a PvP or PvE knock-out.

Death could be reserved for the truly meaningful incidents, where people really DIE, with a possibility of coming back. Not certainty of coming back.

And this should be a server rule enforced by scripts for both PvP and PvE.

Ugh, I have reiterated this once again.

IronAngel wrote:

You're not grasping the point. Between treating something IC and treating something OOC, there's the vast ground of "glossing over." And it applies to hunting, too: surely you don't actually, IC, assume that you slaughter hundreds of giants daily, and watch new spawn from the mountain in a matter of minutes? Of course not. It's a game, and we know this OOC. We should treat it with as low profile as possible, IC, and explain it away in the least awkward way possible. That's just common sense.

its a game and has OOC rules it will allways be kind of stupid, why cant a level 30 mage follow his friend out of party and buff him to all hell as his friend kills crap to level(OOC rules) why cant you give that friend 100k gold(OOC rules) why does fishing or picking apples let you summon demons and dev crit people(how the system works)

so no matter what you do your screwed,monsters would kill you and any and all effects of PVP death should effect people 2x as bad as in PvM deaths because lets face it some players are just looking to gank players hence the need for OOC rules about killing lowbies,no traps on spawn points no seting free monsters in towns/lowbie zones...ect when IC you could to tame a bear and set him free in the delta and watch him kill people.

I do like that idea.

Edit: @ Nekhy

This...

Yurell wrote:

It is a game, and I do believe that leaving your char with the fear of death is the best way to deal with it as far as suspension of disbelief goes, which is why all of my characters fear death.
What I don't like is saying one person's means of glossing over is invalid for another person's means, when the information is available to the character. When confronted by someone else about why my character was afraid of death when she always comes back, she could provide a list of reasons - from not being sure to " i' bloody hur'. "

So while I do get annoyed at seeing people say "If you kill me I'll just be back" they've a very good reason - they will be back. There is no rule saying that our characters are not allowed to know this, and if there were I'd support the rule, but as it stands the reasoning seems entirely valid depending on how you want to 'gloss over' the fact.

...and this...

Nekhy wrote:

I've always been of the opinion that death should be abolished and everyone should simply get KNOCKED OUT, regardless of it being a PvP or PvE knock-out.

Death could be reserved for the truly meaningful incidents, where people really DIE, with a possibility of coming back. Not certainty of coming back.

And this should be a server rule enforced by scripts for both PvP and PvE.

...I like.

And fully agree to.

Doesn't work because then you have to say it's ICly impossible to kill someone, and it most assuredly is not.

Death happens often, death is the outcome of many conflicts, a lot of characters kill other characters (temporarily). If you take this away, you can very well just prohibit a lot of the hostile RP that happens, you can prohibit torture, assassination, most kinds of conflict in fact.

You can't RP these with just knocking your enemies out. The ability to kill is fundamental, and I would rather see harsher penalties at the expense of the killed instead of the entire playerbase having to wear a chastity belt, figuratively speaking.

There is NOTHING stopping one character to end the life of another character that is subdued, unconscious or just plain weaker than the first.

TormakSaber wrote:

Doesn't work because then you have to say it's ICly impossible to kill someone, and it most assuredly is not.

Surely that's just another 'gloss over'?

I understand the original issue and agree. Fully. But let's also be honest with ourselves, a lot of us have been guilty of doing this once or twice at some point of being on Amia. The point is, looking back at when and if you did it and realizing why it was stupid to do and trying your best not to do it again. Sadly, there are people out there who do it over and over and over and over and really have no shame in doing it. Lord knows I see it all the damn time. Especially on Willow.

I really can't think of a mechanical way to make this a bit more "realistic". Well, Aside from something that is implemented in the server I used to play, and seldom visit. It's a script that knocks a level(s) off your character for a certain length of time. To be honest, I can't recall how long it lasted or how many levels were knocked off. It was done through the level draining spell script. I'm not sure how they did it, but Greater Restoration and the fountains didn't work to bypass the effect. Anyway, just thinking out loud. I'm not suggesting it, but I wouldn't really be against it either.

The difference between winning a PvP and killing a character is a single-line emote.

Yurell wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

Doesn't work because then you have to say it's ICly impossible to kill someone, and it most assuredly is not.

Surely that's just another 'gloss over'?

No. It's not. Xordae is right.

xordae wrote:

Death happens often, death is the outcome of many conflicts, a lot of characters kill other characters (temporarily). If you take this away, you can very well just prohibit a lot of the hostile RP that happens, you can prohibit torture, assassination, most kinds of conflict in fact.

You can't RP these with just knocking your enemies out. The ability to kill is fundamental, and I would rather see harsher penalties at the expense of the killed instead of the entire playerbase having to wear a chastity belt, figuratively speaking.

There is NOTHING stopping one character to end the life of another character that is subdued, unconscious or just plain weaker than the first.

This.. again.

Being knocked unconscious just validates the: "I could care less, doesn't matter if you're the most powerful and intimidating character on Amia, you can't do anything to me anyway"

TormakSaber wrote:

Doesn't work because then you have to say it's ICly impossible to kill someone, and it most assuredly is not.

alot of the OOC rules are absurd when viewed from IC like I listed about friends following out of party and buffing, healing, giving money...ect why would they not be able to do that?

TormakSaber wrote:

Doesn't work because then you have to say it's ICly impossible to kill someone, and it most assuredly is not.

It doesn't mean that at all. It would simply mean that people by default start beating the shit out of each other as a punishment for insolence instead of killing each other, if knock-out was the first option and killing the "use rarely" option enforced with scripts.

Right now, you have to beg and negotiate with the other players if you don't want death to lose meaningfulness for your character. Why couldn't it be, that you have to do the negotiating if you want to be properly killed instead? It's not an either-or thing, it's a question which option we give the priority.

It's really quite a simple thing. Right now, we assume people will find the best way to RP out death. Well, they DON'T, if you look around.

Mr Mago wrote:

xordae wrote:

Death happens often, death is the outcome of many conflicts, a lot of characters kill other characters (temporarily). If you take this away, you can very well just prohibit a lot of the hostile RP that happens, you can prohibit torture, assassination, most kinds of conflict in fact.

You can't RP these with just knocking your enemies out. The ability to kill is fundamental, and I would rather see harsher penalties at the expense of the killed instead of the entire playerbase having to wear a chastity belt, figuratively speaking.

There is NOTHING stopping one character to end the life of another character that is subdued, unconscious or just plain weaker than the first.

This.. again.

Being knocked unconscious just validates the: "I could care less, doesn't matter if you're the most powerful and intimidating character on Amia, you can't do anything to me anyway"

Whereas automatically coming back to life doesn't? Either way, bad guy is invalidated, just with death, death to is also invalidated.

Mr Mago wrote:

Being knocked unconscious just validates the: "I could care less, doesn't matter if you're the most powerful and intimidating character on Amia, you can't do anything to me anyway"

Certainly. But which is worse for the immersion, seriously?

"Beat me up all you like! I'll come right back soon after you're finished!"

or...

"Kill me all you like! I'll come right back soon after you're finished!"

It boils down to choosing what's the least awkward thing to ignore and gloss over. You have to pick something, and I do believe my option seems the smoothest and most reasonable of all the options presented here. You may be ridicilous no matter what you do, but you're certainly the least ridicilous if you choose not to make the (somewhat poorly justified) IC conclusion that you're immortal. Certainly, you can justify that conclusion as well, but at the expense of some other factor of sensibility. So why even try?

Again... I don't see it as a problem with people not RP'ing consequences of death, but people not RP'ing the risk of having to suffer realistic consequences of death (even if they're not OOCly executed by the player in the case of death).

Looking at it from a characters perspective:

If I die, the following could happen:

# Someone steals all my gear.
# Someone uses my corpse for a purpose which strongly goes against my values.
# Someone sacrifices my soul, fueling an evil cause which I do not support.
# I might not get raised, and will forever be dead.

Isn't it reasonable to have characters ICly fear death, even though OOCly some of those potential consequences won't take place?

Last edited by Nekhy on Mon, Nov 16 2009, 0:19 AM, edited 1 time in total.

IronAngel wrote:

It boils down to choosing what's the least awkward thing to ignore and gloss over.

Indeed. And I think enforcing the lesser evil would be good, because not enforcing it doesn't make enough people select it. And that's hampering immersion.

Mind that, I also think real death should be an option. But it shouldn't be the first option, not the default option.

IronAngel wrote:

It boils down to choosing what's the least awkward thing to ignore and gloss over. You have to pick something, and I do believe my option seems the smoothest and most reasonable of all the options presented here. You may be ridicilous no matter what you do, but you're certainly the least ridicilous if you choose not to make the (somewhat poorly justified) IC conclusion that you're immortal. Certainly, you can justify that conclusion as well, but at the expense of some other factor of sensibility. So why even try?

Isn't it easier to gloss over the fact that people can kill you but don't than you were just killed and came back to life?

There will be much less willingness to enter into PvP if continued life is not a guaranteed thing, at least as far as the four hours between resets is concerned, and especially if you've used up three lives and have just one left.

I'm sorry, is just too simple to have a finite number of lives, something which we can all be well aware of the next time we make a smart comment to some mean sword-dude?

Selmak wrote:

There will be much less willingness to enter into PvP if continued life is not a guaranteed thing, at least as far as the four hours between resets is concerned, and especially if you've used up three lives and have just one left.

I'm sorry, is just too simple to have a finite number of lives, something which we can all be well aware of the next time we make a smart comment to some mean sword-dude?

My main concern over that would be people griefing tbh. But apart from that ... respawning x number of times within a reset means that you can't respawn for the rest of that reset sounds alright (if it's possible / not too hard to script).

So! We've found a bug in IC reality, now how is that bug patched in the most effective way?

Terra_777 wrote:

So! We've found a bug in IC reality, now how is that bug patched in the most effective way?

all OOC rules are a bug in IC reality, they were placed there for a reason, removing one would mean you should remove them all.

Quote:

Isn't it easier to gloss over the fact that people can kill you but don't than you were just killed and came back to life?

No, because 99.9% of people WILL kill you.

Last edited by Azrael on Mon, Nov 16 2009, 0:44 AM, edited 1 time in total.

I fully agree with Mago, Tormak, Iron, and xordae. I was witnessing an incident of this just this earlier today. (not going into any specifics tho)

Hypothetical line:
"Do whatever you want, you can't kill me anyway, I'll be back in a matter of minutes."

...makes me want to puke insanity all over them.

Your character, no matter how many times they've been 'saved/reset rescued/ooc raised/actually Icly rescued' got by ICly on Luck. It's like jumping off a bridge with the bunji cord half cut.

Incorrect version:"Oh dear, did I die again? Oh well, I died last tuesday, and wednesday, and three times on friday, nothing can stop me now, I guess I'm immortal."

Correct version: "Phew I'm glad I made it out of that one! I must be really lucky, best not test the fates too much, never know what might happen." should be the general response.

The reset raises are OOC.
The respawn button is OOC.
Logging off after dying to get that raise is OOC.
The fact that the server has no forced perma-death is OOC.
The attitude of Immortality with lack of a phylactery is OOC.

Let's not kill realism, it's taken too many beatings already.

...your character feels pain, even if you don't.

TormakSaber wrote:

Quote:

Isn't it easier to gloss over the fact that people can kill you but don't than you were just killed and came back to life?

No, because 99.9% of people WILL kill you.

And 99.9% of people WILL come back to life

No they don't. They come back because of courtesy raises, because of OOC raises, because of OOC server resets, because you, by a rule designed to prevent griefing, will not be chopped up, burned to ash, and dumpedin the trackless sea to prevent you from doing evil/good ever ever again.

So really they didn't come back at all.

TormakSaber wrote:

No they don't. They come back because of courtesy raises, because of OOC raises, because of OOC server resets, because you, by a rule designed to prevent griefing, will not be chopped up, burned to ash, and dumpedin the trackless sea to prevent you from doing evil/good ever ever again.

So really they didn't come back at all.

So they didn't die, then?

They died ICly, they came back OOCly. Seems cut and dry.

We are already so far that you can't under ANY circumstances end a character's life for good, incarcerate him for any extended period of time, take any of his stuff or really screw him up mentally unless he gives you the go-ahead.

Please, let's not spoil ourselves even more. Removing death puts us right into the pink pony category of servers, and there are already a couple of things that steer in that direction.

People not respecting and RPing death as a profound experience is largely the choice of the individual (see: spoiled mindset). But another side of the coin is that Mago is known to have a great deal of PvP, whether he is pushing for it or his opponents. And that creates situations like these. I'll be a little blunt and say that if it was someone else's character in the situation that he described, the other guy might even have bitten the bullet and the PvP would have proceeded without any ridiculous statements.

TormakSaber wrote:

They died ICly, they came back OOCly. lrn2read.

Character A is alive ICly, Character A died ICly, since he was either raised or not alive, he was raised. Isn't that the simplest explanation? Why s your system that forces OOC better than one where the people just don't kill?

And what is is with your use of chatspeak? Does it make you feel intelligent to denigrate someone? "So really they didn't come back at all." You said that, in those exact words. If they didn't come back at all, how are they alive/ What, are our character supposed to think "I was dead, I'm alive now, but didn't come back"? How is that different from a suspension of disbelief viewpoint? In fact it is more complicated.

You abused an OOC mechanic to ensure a raise where there would have been none. Congrats on drawing out an argument needlessly though.

Xordae: Don't even bring personal insults into this. This has nothing to do with it being Darthion.

It's not meant as an insult at all.

TormakSaber wrote:

You abused an OOC mechanic to ensure a raise where there would have been none.

No, no I didn't. I stated that in my posts ... unless you cal using it at al abusing it, in which case I have and so has 99% of the server.

TormakSaber wrote:

Congrats on drawing out an argument needlessly though.

I'm sorry, I just had another pot / kettle moment.

TormakSaber wrote:

They died ICly, they came back OOCly. Seems cut and dry.

Yeah, and this is where the core of the issue is. This is an unbearable paradox for roleplay. Might work in Groundhog Day, but it makes things difficult for immersion here.

I don't see a whole lot of people here offering solutions, btw. You can criticise my idea of abolishing regular deaths, but the alternative solution of "Let's hope that everybody changes their behaviour if we yell about this enough!" isn't working.

Mortality is a bit nuts in a game. I like the fact that we, as players, get to decide when our character's story ends. Unlike real life - I think it's comforting to know that some random nut-job wont come out of nowhere and choose your time and place for you. I know at least two of my characters have been the victim of PvP twerps in the past. One of them ~may~ have deserved it, but it's clear that not everyone will abide by the PvP rules. I'd hate to be on the wrong side of a 'slay living' spell cast by some lootspeez guy with a lol-complex - and then have to pay in a a huge way afterwards too.

Mortality and You.

Who is online