Rethinking Conflict

An area to facilitate free-form feedback on systems (in-game or out) related to Arelith.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Active DMs, Contributors

User avatar
Yma23
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 4:41 pm
Location: UK

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by Yma23 » Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:57 am

I think it kinda helps if you can get a handle on what other people want from a situaiton, in any intreaction. I think that it helps if you work to be tolerant and accomodating of that rp if you can be, and also understanding that you don't live in a bubble, and you won't always get what you want.

Being all about the Social RP is absolutly fine. You can be 100% against conflict if you like. But accept and oocly embrace that it'll probably come anyway and try not to come down on it too heavily when it does. For example maybe your Mayor of Bendir does just want to make Bendir a haven for parties/hugs/peace, awsome. But consider also taking time to allow the more action orientated stuff to develop too, even if it isn't your scene. Rather than exiling any character that shows the smallest amount of a more conflict driven style, nurture it but try to make sure you don't get dragged into it too much, for example.

Enjoying Conflict rp, even PVP is also absolutly fine. But try not to shove it down peoples throats too much if they obviously arn't interested. Try not to (and I've done this myself in the past) drag them kicking and screaming into rp they're not interested in. So long as they're making room for you to do your conflict-story type thing, that's awsome. Give people space to do their social RP sometimes.

Just a bit of tolerance and accomodation can be fun for all sides. And I think also it helps if everyone is fairly willing to roleplay and accept 'loss', and to treat it with reasonable scale.

Let's say your Drow war party has come across a level 5, and snatched them.

If your defacto ultimatum is 'Be eslaved by us or DIE!' then most people will chose death, get bashed, and all that'll come out of it is 'jonny drow killed me and I came back Jonny drow are mean.'

Likewise if your default Pirate option is 'Pay us 100000 gold or DIE!' most people will choose death, because for most people the above amount of gold is simply insane when compared with the penalties for a respawn.

And a simple death/bash rarelyend up in good story and roleplay.

(I think Typically Good characters have it rough here actually. It's a little harder to come up with 'win' scenarios for good guys that dont involve trying to kill evil guys. This isn't a critisism of anyone btw, merely a sad fact of the typical alignment system. It's possible mark you - there's imprisonment/vows/ect - but it can be harder.)

So consider smaller stakes in your 'win's. Ones that make more story that players can run with. Things pcs can get over. E.g. - maiming, imprisonment, trials, humiliation, questioning, mind controle, things like that.

And another flip side of this, respect it when people, even those of your own side, choose to loose, or roll with a loss.

It kinda annoys me when someone takes a loss and say, becomes enslaved and then some people respond with 'oh that's lame we can whip that collar right off - you probably WANTED to be enslaved anyway whats the point in ever helping them they shoulda just chosen to die and respawn.'

consider the message that sends. Consider how disenheartening that is for the player.

I'm not saying everyone should jump onto the 'free the slave' train or 'pity party' or whatever. But at the least it's nice to try and be a bit tolerant of it. I think it's vastly hypocritical to be critical of those on your 'side' who choose to rp loss in some manner, and yet expect your enemy to respect a loss.

So those are some of my thoughts.

sarithia
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 4:59 pm

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by sarithia » Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:31 am

I personally agree with what YMA said.

I'm a fan of conflict, personally. It creates a nice tension if it's done well. Whether that's a good or bad thing, I don't know, but I personally enjoyed the concept of tension arising from the threat rather than the constant daily impositions that are being practiced, most of which I have found, have been PvP focused. I'm not against PvP, not at all; if it's done with RP in mind, and there is a mutual agreement OOC'ly, then that's brilliant, but the conflict I feel more excited about is the subterfuge, and not the PvP. There's a few fabulous characters in the pirate faction that I absolutely adore hearing about. I love seeing some of their messages on the message boards IG that have arisen from them making the effort to disguise up, walk in and post, and then simply leave. It's more unsettling to me, personally, but this is just my opinion. PvP these days to me is just a shrug moment; I'm no longer surprised if John Doe with the strong weaponmaster build comes in and starts being chaotic because I'm immediately assuming it's a person with a decent build, unafraid to take on the low levels that are sat around wanting to drink their mead. That's a bit of a vague generalisation, but it's what I can think of right now lol. Some people enjoy this play style and that's fine, just the same as the people that enjoy the latter of the social aspects, and that's fine too.

On the positive scale of PvP, I've had good experiences, too. Highwaymen RP, for example. Two gnolls (Valepaws, I think?) going around robbing people. I had a brilliant exchange with the players about it; they where very considering, etc, and though the RP/PvP was brief because lets face it, Ana is squishy, I had fun with it. That's what PvP should bring to the table. Fun on both sides instead of a mere display of power.

Greivern Elisbrinn [Active]
Yaen Oakenshade [We'll see]
Anakhsun Emeratu [Shelved]
Jihael [Dead]
Nhil [Inactive]


User avatar
Royal Blood
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:12 am

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by Royal Blood » Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:39 pm

What YMA said about slavery is so true. That is... Perhaps a super prime example of OOC knowledge bleeding IC. You know OOC that someone had to give consent to be enslaved. Then you look at the IC Situation through that OOC lense. That's not right. Anyways just wanted to agree with that assessment it is one I have seen before. That really disjunctions the story when OOC knowledge or Bias is pushing a characters perceptions of things.

If we're being 'real' Respawning isn't a given. So death isn't a way out of slavery. That is another reason I strongly advocate for the Automatic Subdue mechanic instead of players -killing- each other every time PVP plays out. I think reducing deaths would help give death more weight and avoid weird situations like that.

Anyways, on the subject of conflict more pointedly, I disagree that PVP should be consensual. ((Posted by another user a few posts up.)) There needs to be this element of 'Life isn't fair'. I do have some gripes about some things, Mechanically strong players hold considerable sway. If you don't have a capable build you're going to struggle. That's just a matter of fact unless you have companions with builds to supplement you. Learning to be competent in PVP has been important to gaining IC clout etc.

That doesn't mean you can't have fun without a strong build, but it does put you in positions where like 1-2 people are killing 8-10 and you're just like "What in the nine hells is even happening". I've disliked that feeling of helplessness where I know my build can't compete and the other side might know that too so it's not even a challenge. It's just like "Okay, we know our group can easily destroy yours, so we're just going to cut to the chase. Do this or get wrecked."

I hate that. So being able to hold your own in PVP forces the other side to dialog rather then just roll over you.

I also want to clarify I'm not -against- people utilizing strong builds or numbers to Force RP a certain way. I'm just expressing that I really disliked feeling helpless knowing my previous build was garbage so I stood no chance.

The element of PVP I think will never go away. The only way you can really balance the scales in that I think is to play on a low level server. Where like top levels are maybe 10-12. Even then you still have 'strong' people but from my experience it's much more balanced. You won't have 1 guy soloing 10.

Annnd final thought to edit it: I'd really support the mindset if you find yourself in a situation that you don't like whether it be PVP or RP. Think about like "What can I do to avoid being in this situation again?" As opposed to dwelling on what the -other- people did that you didn't like. I could say this like a million times. Focus on being the best Rper you yourself can be. improve your self to improve your situations.
I am not on a team.
I do not win, I do not lose.
I tell a story, and when I'm lucky,
Play a part in the story you tell too.

Subutai
Arelith Silver Supporter
Arelith Silver Supporter
Posts: 428
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:55 am

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by Subutai » Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:48 pm

As others have said, I agree that one of the big issues with conflict is that death has no real consequence. In fact, even ignoring death, very few other actions have consequences. A band of brigands can rob and murder to their hearts' delight, but when some do-gooders show up to put a stop to it, what? Death is meaningless, the do-gooders can't get the gold back, they can't put them in jail because at least the Cordorian jail cells all have escape routes to make jail meaningless. If they can get their real names out of them, they could pariah them from a settlement, but that's honestly pretty much it. And once they're pariahed, they can't be punished further, so they can just keep doing whatever they want.

This leads to the unpleasant situation where there really isn't anywhere to go with the conflict. All avenues of justice have been closed off, making the only real avenue of conflict getting into more and more PvP with them and attempting to drive their characters off the surface and into the Underdark.

This isn't as much of a problem in the UD not only because, as was said earlier, there's nowhere to drive them off to, but because of the way Andunor is structured on a conceptual level. As an evil city of plotters, schemers, and murderers, the cultural drive to bring justice to evil-doers isn't there. The necromancer whose evil scheme failed isn't a villain that needs to be treated, he's just a failure.

This simply isn't, and can never be, true on the surface. If the surface isn't predominantly good, it's predominantly neutral, and surface people simply aren't going to look the other way when an evil mastermind or a hive of thieves appears. In fact, to do would be doing exactly what so many people have been complaining about, which is ignoring conflict RP. The evil mastermind or the hive of thieves has to be taken care of. But how do you do that? There really isn't a way to handle it.

This, I think, is also part of the reason surface RP tends to avoid larger violent conflict, and settles more on politics, social conflict, etc. Good vs. Evil conflict, or law vs. crime, or other kinds of more traditional conflict simply doesn't have a way to be logically resolved. Pirates can't be handled, drow can't be handled, Banites can't be handled. They just keep coming back because there's no way to do anything except to exclude them via the pariah system. So when faced with an impossible task, many people choose to just not do the task. Ignore the conflict, avoid the conflict, whatever.

If someone has any ideas for how to make that kind of conflict fun and interesting, while also offering a way for the conflict to be resolved in way that's satisfactory to everyone involved, I'd be very happy to hear it.

As it stands, though, I feel that conflict RP on the surface is, generally speaking, better served with political and social conflicts rather than violence, banditry, etc.

Seven Sons of Sin
Posts: 2184
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:40 am

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by Seven Sons of Sin » Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:03 pm

I want to take a moment to respond, because while a lot of these discussions have been had before, there are some important nuggets in this thread, and some stuff that has to be clarified.

1. "Social Roleplay" =/= "second life"

This is a very important distinction, and my schtick with Irongron's use of this term (and I mean no disrespect) is that these 2 terms have wildly different connotations.

Social Roleplay is the roleplay of a character in a social setting.
Second Life is the beginning (or the end) of when playing an extension of yourself in a social setting. This is where you are playing less a "character" and more an "avatar." That's literally what the game Second Life is. It's also like you're not playing Isaiah the Bartender, you're playing a "second life" on Arelith. I don't think this healthy stance or term to use in the server, because suddenly we're not playing characters any more which means we're not taking part in a collaborative experience. Suddenly, we're wanting to play avatars - and this means, when things go wrong to our avatars, we start to interpret this as an offense to our "second life" - our peace and quiet, our little house, and our time to unwind. This can be deeply problematic and I will firmly stand that if you're roleplaying a second life, and not social roleplay, it's going to hit you in the face one day. And hurt.

2. Mechanics don't equate to PvP

I think there's an interpretation that if a system or tool exists, it has to be used in conjunction with the Dislike button. That's not true at all. People will point to Exiles, Outcasts, Pariahs, etc., as new methodology for managing conflict. But to be frank, that's not honest. Most of the tools that exist on the server are actual forms of conflict resolution and punishment.

-disguise and stealth and -scry are tools of creating conflict. Branding someone a pirate arguably is too. But exiling does not instigate conflict, it attempts to resolve it.

3. Conflict fatigue

I think this is fair and honest, and I'm glad people can speak honestly that being constantly beleagured with some new threat is tiresome. That's totally fair.

The flipside, is that a lot of the time people who start to feel Conflict Exhaustion are typically Leaders. You know who's craving conflict? The little guy. The fresh recruit. The adventurer trying to make a name. The new Banite acolyte dying to start a rivalry with a hedge-knight.

Not everything has to be solved by your character. Not everything has to be solved by level 30s. I think if you ever start to feel Conflict Exhaustion, you need to delegate to someone who's craving for it.

(on the flipside, because I know people are thinking, "but but if I don't solve this new threat, ppl are gunna think im a bad rper and that my toon is weak and that im doing a bad job of leading a faction." I'm going to stop you and reassure you - they'll think the complete opposite. Or they should.)

4. Nevrus' Post

Go read it. The idea of "controversy" as instigating conflict is a great read. That was exactly the kind of ideas I was hoping to tease out. You bet I'm going to be rereading it over the next few days to totally digest it.

5. Ork's idea about 'neutral battlegrounds'

This has been something that has been echoed before, and something I'll continue to support. Mithreas often talked about how evil wins when good guys do nothing. That's true. The problem is that the good guys don't often have clear lines of play when it comes to conflict. I know, I know, that roleplay and ingenuity can solve a lot. But we have to be honest with our expectations.

If there were nudges and suggestions built-in to the server for things good guys to hold on to, to fight for clearly, rather than being recipients of Villainry, you bet there would be something more dynamic going on.

Additionally, imagine if conflict actually occurred beyond a settlement's walls? Imagine if people who thrive in conflict could congregate in certain areas where they knew it was more dangerous, rather than sitting around in settlements?

Maybe the idea of segregating player types is problematic, but there's something to be said that sometimes people have wildly different wants and needs. Or, is the idea that if you love conflict, just play in Andunor? (which isn't honestly a bad idea, but on the flipside, like I want to play a paladin)

---

And again, not everything has to be resolved in PvP. A mechanic doesn't need to be about winning, sometimes it can just be about creating an opportunity to get people involved. There's some great ideas in this thread for new things that could be added, and new perspectives for creating relationships (both friendly ones, and antagonistic ones).
Previous:
Oskarr of Procampur, Ro Irokon, Nahal Azyen, Nelehein Afsana (of Impiltur), Vencenti Medici, Nizram ali Balazdam, (Roznik) Naethandreil

Subutai
Arelith Silver Supporter
Arelith Silver Supporter
Posts: 428
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:55 am

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by Subutai » Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:27 pm

On the subject of "neutral battlegrounds", I want to add something that I notice gets brought up a lot when battleground are mentioned. There seems to be this idea that a battleground, war mechanic, etc., must be something that's relatively easily handled by small group PvP. That castle that's a "battleground" and has an iron mine must inherently be something that a group of Banites could take over with a party of 5, and a group of Paladins could take back with a party of 6.

I think we really need to take a step back from the small party dynamics, and consider a larger scale. Why would a party of Banites even be able to get into a paladin-owned stronghold in the first place? On Arelith, they'd just use the universally-known "secret" back entrance, then kill the paladins when they're unbuffed, and call it a day. This doesn't have to be the case. With enough thought and planning, and carefully designed mechanics, taking and holding neutral battleground could go far beyond PvP, and could even make PvP simply the final step in a long process of conflict.

That said, I also agree with previous statements that DM plots and conflicts can be a lot of fun because it creates a conflict for everyone to join in on, where every side can go in knowing that, eventually, "they" will win, because the only loser will be the DM-created threat, which was created specifically to be overcome. These don't need to be constant things, but an occasional one would be fun.

Mechanics could even play a part. There are already mechanics for keeping various monster populations in check. What about antagonistic DM factions? Perhaps Blorthog rises as King of the Orcs, and manages, through sheer power of will and strength of arm, to bring the various orc tribes on Arelith under his thumb. The orc dungeon suddenly have more orcs, and their balance goes up faster as they flood out of their caves. Characters and settlements need to work together to fight back against orc outposts that suddenly crop up outside of traditional orc lands in order to prevent things like orcs ambushing carts, orcs blocking roads with fallen trees, etc. Throughout all this, DMs can occasionally run events where orcs raid Bendir Dale, or occupy Sibayad, and a concerted effort is needed to push them back.

Maybe there's a way, if the players coordinate well enough early enough, to stop the orcs before they become a major threat. Maybe they can only slow the inevitable. Eventually, though, Blorthog is either stopped before he can put his plans into action, or he does something dramatic like besiege Cordor, only to finally be defeated and the orc tribes scatter and separate into their old factions.

This would certainly require dev and DM effort, but I think dev and DM-lead conflicts could really be effective in bringing interesting conflict RP to Arelith. It could even allow other PCs to help out the DM-lead faction, and maybe shift things temporarily, while knowing they'd eventually lose. Maybe the drow help the orcs conquer Brogendenstein and the dwarves have to flee to Bendir and Guldorand, both sides with the full OOC knowledge that by the end of the arc, Brogendenstein will be returned to the dwarves and they can get their shops, quarters, etc., back.

I know this doesn't solve the issues with player-vs-player conflict, but I think it would serve the desire of players to take part in conflict that had a meaningful story. It might also be fun for DMs.

Seven Sons of Sin
Posts: 2184
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:40 am

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by Seven Sons of Sin » Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:35 pm

^ Some of the most delightful periods of server history have been when DM Events (small or large) have forced typically opposing sides to realign and fight a different threat. This is great too.

"Battlegrounds" can also be a loose term for a trading post, a dock, a piece of farmland, a hill, or like a small ruin a la Weathertop.

I think less is more, there just needs to be blank space that allows for conflict to occur, but I agree with a lot of what you're saying Subutai. Awesome points.
Previous:
Oskarr of Procampur, Ro Irokon, Nahal Azyen, Nelehein Afsana (of Impiltur), Vencenti Medici, Nizram ali Balazdam, (Roznik) Naethandreil

User avatar
R0GUE
Arelith Platinum Supporter
Arelith Platinum Supporter
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 3:10 pm
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by R0GUE » Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:36 pm

Let's not also forget, conflict doesn't have to just be good vs. evil or surface vs Underdark. As a player who doesn't prefer to PVP much, I avoid those situations, but I do find a lot of value in being vocal and stubborn in my opinions, even when it comes to other goodly players. The chaos vs. law axis can be just as contentious as the good vs. evil axis. Even though my character is kind and polite and sweet for the most part, she highly values personal freedom over rule of law, an opinion which often puts her at odds with probably the majority of Cordor's goodly folk. This kind of conflict is more subtle and might not be for everyone, but I find it can be actually more challenging to overcome people's ideas and preconceptions, than to simply overcome them in a battle. Sometimes it can be more frustrating too, since alignment tends to cause people to dig in their heels. But the rewards can be great.

I have a whole other thought about good/evil, surface/UD player conflict, but it's pretty radical and I don't know if the rest of the community views it like this. The basic gist of it would be that if we were treating Arelith like a big tabletop game experience, there would be a group of players and a DM generating the conflict for those players, as well as adjudicating the rules. In Arelith, the game engine adjudicates the rules, the DM's are mostly there for oversight and to occasionally run an event, but overall it's up to the players to generate the conflict themselves. Now suppose the Underdark/evil players treated their role as more like a tabletop DM than as an actual player? In this model they would funnel their creativity into generating the challenges and conflict for surface players, and instead of focusing on "winning" that conflict, their focus would be on making it the most enjoyable experience possible. This view obviously requires an extreme amount of generosity on behalf of the UD/evil players, as well as a tacit agreement by both sides that in fiction, the "good guys" are the protagonists and the "bad guys" are antagonists, and those tropes aren't being subverted in some way.

I assume some evil/UD players already view their role in this way, but I think if the majority of them did, the server would really reach its full potential.

User avatar
Zavandar
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:12 am

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by Zavandar » Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:39 pm

I've said I really before and I'll say it again: the Heartstone Crisis was my favorite time on the server. Opposing factions working up together above the table and still scheming against each other below. A common enemy. Both UD and Surface involvement. Working SEVERAL factions into it. It was conflict but we all experienced it together because it forced just a tiny bit of cooperation instead of "leave or die". There were just as many moral and ethic conundrums as there were physical dangers.

I wish there were more things like that. It was well-rounded, engaging, and it felt meaningful. You didn't know how things were going to end.

I think that event would be a great source of reflection for what can be done better.
Intelligence is too important

User avatar
Kreindis
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:35 am
Location: Lake Stevens, WA

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by Kreindis » Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:53 pm

Subutai wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:27 pm
This would certainly require dev and DM effort, but I think dev and DM-lead conflicts could really be effective in bringing interesting conflict RP to Arelith. It could even allow other PCs to help out the DM-lead faction, and maybe shift things temporarily, while knowing they'd eventually lose. Maybe the drow help the orcs conquer Brogendenstein and the dwarves have to flee to Bendir and Guldorand, both sides with the full OOC knowledge that by the end of the arc, Brogendenstein will be returned to the dwarves and they can get their shops, quarters, etc., back.

I know this doesn't solve the issues with player-vs-player conflict, but I think it would serve the desire of players to take part in conflict that had a meaningful story. It might also be fun for DMs.
In my experience, the issue with DM events is that players treat them exactly as they do with normal PvP.

There is an extreme level of aggression to stop the antagonist of the event immediately, or apathy to just ignore what the event is doing.

The reason I bring this up is because there has actually been a DM event in the past where a neutral (leaning good) NPC besieged an evil PC faction. I'm not sure how many players sided (if any) with the DM during the event, but I definitely know that there were plenty of PCs that tried to dismiss the event entirely afterward, mostly in RP from my perspective.

Although I do like DM events because they're much more accessible as far as getting involved in conflict goes.

And because I'm snarky and unfortunately believe I need to clarify: Do I think that DMs need to be the ones to facilitate conflict? Not really. While it's nice that some actually do make whole plotlines that they do on their own. It's really on PCs to try to make them meaningful rather than killfests. And the same applies to PC conflicts. On both sides.

The problem with conflict in Arelith is that as soon as it turns to actual PvP engagements, all narrative goes out of the window.

There is no meaningful narrative being made about 2-4 round engagements or haste sprinting through multiple zone transitions, or heal potion spamming.

That all happens because Arelith is ultimately set in a CRPG with mechanics and system that allow there to be a clear winner to engagements. Some people will abuse the hell out of systems to win regardless, others will lose intentionally just to be nice or to see where the narrative goes. Most people will just fight to the best of their build and ability to not lose. All of these things are influenced by factors heavily overshadow any sort of RP.

If I were to suggest one thing to everyone to improving conflict, it's sportsmanship.

I don't think everyone needs a super villain or a chess master harper to make meaningful conflict. A bandit who aggressively confronts their opponent to kill can be just as meaningful as a long term plot, although when that same bandit waits at transition points where people would be unwarded, only attacks underleveled people, or uses non-combat systems to get a favorable outcome, I see that more as griefing at worst, and a waste of my time at best.

The main difference is in execution. Even in the simplest confrontations, look for alternatives rather than just killing. And even if PvP commences, look for alternatives rather than just haste sprinting to win.

This is what distinguishes a good encounter from ganking.
Former Characters: Madeline Thorne, Falloren Ciel (FL), Sorina Lokevir, Ceinwen Randallar.

User avatar
Durvayas
Arelith Supporter
Arelith Supporter
Posts: 2207
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 6:20 am

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by Durvayas » Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:41 pm

Subutai wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:48 pm
This, I think, is also part of the reason surface RP tends to avoid larger violent conflict, and settles more on politics, social conflict, etc. Good vs. Evil conflict, or law vs. crime, or other kinds of more traditional conflict simply doesn't have a way to be logically resolved. Pirates can't be handled, drow can't be handled, Banites can't be handled. They just keep coming back because there's no way to do anything except to exclude them via the pariah system. So when faced with an impossible task, many people choose to just not do the task. Ignore the conflict, avoid the conflict, whatever.

If someone has any ideas for how to make that kind of conflict fun and interesting, while also offering a way for the conflict to be resolved in way that's satisfactory to everyone involved, I'd be very happy to hear it.
Well you could start by actually making a token effort to find out what said drow, banites, pirates, etc are actually trying to achieve in the first place, rather than defaulting to calling every high epic possible to mash the hostile button and engage them in battle ASAP.

As someone who has played UD for ages and led my fair share of raids, I very rarely even get a chance to say more than a line or two of dialogue to any surface forces before we get engaged in battle, and I certainly never receive any tells from the other side until after a battle or two. I've found I almost always NEED a captive audience to get to meaningfully RP. (see what I did there? ;) )

Its damn near impossible to invite people to a plot if the other side isn't interested in hearing it, and this is what people are talking about when they talk about good PCs squashing evil RP before it can get off the ground.

Those banites, those drow, those pirates, are trying to achieve something, but they very often will not be given the time of day to even set up the chess board before the table is kicked over by the other side looking to 'put the threat down' immediately. You aren't going to get any satisfying conflict RP if you won't let it happen.

Take for example, the story of Robin Hood;

If the sheriff of Nottingham roused a battalion of guards and slaughtered Robin and his merry men in the woods on day one, they would have never gotten a reputation, they would have never needed to have the archery contest to try to lure him into town to capture him. It would have made for a very boring story.

If you see bandits, RP with them. Don't deploy the entire cordor guard to massacre them immediately. Let them do their thing for a bit, play some cat and mouse. Someone stealing the milk money of random people on the side of the road should be a much lower priority than the bitter coast bandits or the wharftown boys, who straight up attempt to murder anyone who walks their roads. Don't ignore them, but don't go for the throat either.

If you see drow, parlay with them. Don't immediately assemble an army to go after them. (I remember once my Hounynrae went up to the gate of wharftown to trade more than once. The first time it was just me, and I was spotted and intercepted by 6 high epics(who weren't even WT locals, just players who had seen a drow log into the surface server from the UD server and squaded up) who attempted to gank with barely a word. The second time, I had to bring a squad. )
Point is, drow do not go topside without an objective. Find out what it is.

If you see Banites, RP with them. I'm sure they have their own motivations for doing what they're doing.

If you see pirates, parlay with them. They're PIRATES; Pay them off, sell out a rival, duel the captain, have the party wizard surrender all the rum.

Find.
Out.
What.
The.
Other.
Side.
Wants.

Its not a hard concept, but somehow, its so rare, and thats frustrating.
Worth noting:
If a group of raiders(or other army) is marauding through an area, the one or two people the group of 20 find on the road are not going to get to find out the big plot unless they surrender and are dragged along. They'll usually get killed or captured because a roving band doesn't have time to stand and RP with one or two people when they have places to be and things to do before the inevitable army assembles and deploys to counter them, and letting those people go alerts the local armies of their presence and location earlier than is desired.

While its valid to be intercepted by an army before your forces arrive at the intended destination, its more enjoyable and cinematic to be able to deliver your plot exposition and villain speech at the gates of a town, rather than in the forest 20 kilometers west of it every time you attempt to do something.
Plays: Durvayas(deleted), Marco(deleted), Hounynrae(NPC), Sinithra Auvry'ndal(rolled), Rauvlin Barrith(Active), Madeline Clavelle(Shelved)

Subutai
Arelith Silver Supporter
Arelith Silver Supporter
Posts: 428
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:55 am

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by Subutai » Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:07 pm

Durvayas wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:41 pm
As someone who has played UD for ages and led my fair share of raids, I very rarely even get a chance to say more than a line or two of dialogue to any surface forces before we get engaged in battle
I totally get what you're saying, and I have a lot of sympathy. Zavandar, Irongron, and others have also expressed how difficult it is to get evil RP started.

One thing that I feel is in some ways detrimental (as I believe I've stated before) is the inability to see levels or comparative challenge ratings. Since there genuinely are a lot of players out there who seem to really want to start PvP all the time, and these players are, almost by definition, extremely likely to have very powerful builds that are perfectly geared and ready to fight anyone, the response to "There's a bandit" is often "He's probably a powerbuilt level 30, so we have to be ready for that".

It's very hard to justify sending a couple of low level guards out to check out a bandit camp when you can be sure that, more often than not, it's a group of epic level characters eager for PvP. This leads to the problem that when it isn't that, and when it's someone who really wants some good bandit RP, they're immediately faced with a group of warded up powerbuilds, themselves, who are there under the assumption that they're going to have to fight warded up powerbuilds.

Showing CR's might have the effect of people who want PvP to be more eager for it when they see that someone is rated much lower in comparison, but I suspect that most of these players are already hungry for PvP anyway, and probably don't shy away from it much.

On the other hand, showing it might provide people with the little bit of knowledge to say, "Okay hey, this guy isn't a huge threat, we don't need to worry about him ganking lowbies in the woods. Let's send out a couple low level guards to talk to him".

There's a bit of OOC knowledge going on here, but I think OOC knowledge already plays heavily into these encounters already, and this kind of information might make people a little less likely to go to PvP.



Another idea would be to sync up a little bit OOC before any kind of confrontation occurs. If your antagonist is going to antagonize, it might be effective to send a tell before hand, "Hey, I don't intend to get into PvP unless we really have to. I'd love to RP some good conflict and I'm happy to work with you". People can be very defensive and on-edge when they expect to be ganked suddenly at any time, or fear they'll be forced to pick from "Be enslaved or die". I think putting their mind at ease before things get going could, potentially, do a world of good.

User avatar
Yma23
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 4:41 pm
Location: UK

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by Yma23 » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:29 pm

Just a small thought to bring to the table - not realy an 'answer' but more of a general 'tip' that helps...

Instead of thinking that it's only fun when you win, try and remember that when you're having fun, you're always winning!


If you can turn most situation, even the lamtes of pvp kills, into a situation you can have fun with - then you're always winning!

That said, it's always good to try and make fun for others, bring more to the table than mindless pvp ect, ect... But as an addendum to all the truly excellent points that have been made- I find the above helps a little too.

Cerk Evermoore
Posts: 680
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:30 am

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by Cerk Evermoore » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:38 pm

I think some areas could maybe be contested every half year and they can generate resources for a settlement

That means evil could attack the Cordor coal mine to reduce resources gained. Or fight over a resource located at Stonehold.

User avatar
Cortex
Posts: 3553
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:12 pm

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by Cortex » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:38 pm

What use is rethinking conflict when people are not willing to do conflict with whole groups of well meaning people, to the point some groups were openly defamed in public discords? The problem isn't conflict or how its been dealt so much as individuals and cliques they're in.
:)

Seven Sons of Sin
Posts: 2184
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:40 am

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by Seven Sons of Sin » Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:38 pm

Cortex wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:38 pm
What use is rethinking conflict when people are not willing to do conflict with whole groups of well meaning people, to the point some groups were openly defamed in public discords? The problem isn't conflict or how its been dealt so much as individuals and cliques they're in.
Irongron has alluded to similar Discord problems.

Are DMs asleep at the wheel?

There should be action taken against this. It shouldn't be a problem if its public-facing.
Previous:
Oskarr of Procampur, Ro Irokon, Nahal Azyen, Nelehein Afsana (of Impiltur), Vencenti Medici, Nizram ali Balazdam, (Roznik) Naethandreil

User avatar
The GrumpyCat
Dungeon Master
Dungeon Master
Posts: 6566
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by The GrumpyCat » Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:02 pm

Seven Sons of Sin wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:38 pm
Cortex wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:38 pm
What use is rethinking conflict when people are not willing to do conflict with whole groups of well meaning people, to the point some groups were openly defamed in public discords? The problem isn't conflict or how its been dealt so much as individuals and cliques they're in.
Irongron has alluded to similar Discord problems.

Are DMs asleep at the wheel?

There should be action taken against this. It shouldn't be a problem if its public-facing.
This can only be looked at when it is reported.

For some strange reason the people in Discord Groups don't often report themselves for metagaming. Funny that.

And whilst we are certianly in the habit of dealing with accusations of metagaming when brought to us, other issues on Discord are less black and white.

Also can I just say that I personaly find the accusation of the DM Team as being 'Asleep behind the wheel' as increadibly hurtful and insulting.

EDIT: To ammend a little and explain

1) We as DMs do not have access to all private group Discords. Nor am I convinced enforcing our presence in such would go down well.

2) I imagine that there are dozens upon dozens of group discords. Ridgidly policing them all would take a lot of time out from our other duties.

3) Even if points 1 and 2 were true - we handle such cases privatly and not publicaly. So if we were dealing with such, unless you were part of said group, you wouldn't neccesarly know of it.
This too shall pass.

(I now have a DM Discord (I hope) It's DM GrumpyCat#7185 but please keep in mind I'm very busy IRL so I can't promise how quick I'll get back to you.)

User avatar
Berried
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:33 am

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by Berried » Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:35 am

Something that seems to be getting overlooked: Drow aren't allowed to rp with surface settlements. They have to avoid being seen by surface NPCs, outside the context of a raid.
Irongron wrote: If you can't do that, there's absolutely no rule that says I can't delete your character for bastardizing the role play of the entire server. In fact, ask around, I will do it without hesitation or remorse if I feel as if in any way your rp is corrupting the vision of RP for the server.
Subutai wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:07 pm
If your antagonist is going to antagonize, it might be effective to send a tell before hand, "Hey, I don't intend to get into PvP unless we really have to. I'd love to RP some good conflict and I'm happy to work with you". People can be very defensive and on-edge when they expect to be ganked suddenly at any time, or fear they'll be forced to pick from "Be enslaved or die". I think putting their mind at ease before things get going could, potentially, do a world of good.
I absolutely empathize with how frustrating 'be enslaved or die' rp must be. But I ask that you also try to empathize with the UD side of things: Imagine how you would feel if a character you've spent dozens of hours of your life building- a character that your friends (even the ones that don't play the game!) enjoy writing, and drawing, and joking about, were suddenly and permanently deleted.

I can't speak on behalf of other players, but that's why I don't take my drow's intrigue RP topside.

If you want to be enslaved by monster PCs, stay where you are and wait for the DMs to greenlight a raid. If you want open dialogue with monster PCs, come to the underdark. If you want to be ignored altogether, wait until the suggestion forum is open and suggest that monster PCs not be allowed to attack surface settlements. If you want monsters to arrive to surface settlements diplomatically and attempt peaceful dialogue, then essentially you want a bunch of players to get banned.

I won't lie, it kind of stings to see drow players repeatedly characterized as raid-obsessed, slavemongering, PVP fanatics by surface players who don't seem to understand that this is the only form of interaction drow are allowed to have with surface settlements.
Irongron wrote: This is not a discussion.

User avatar
Ork
Arelith Gold Supporter
Arelith Gold Supporter
Posts: 2488
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 8:30 pm

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by Ork » Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:38 am

A reminder that if you are in a discord chat that are colluding OOC in a manner that is disingenuous to the spirit of our server, report it.

Cerk Evermoore
Posts: 680
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:30 am

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by Cerk Evermoore » Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:43 am

Berried wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:35 am
If you want to be ignored altogether, wait until the suggestion forum is open.
:lol:
I'm joking. U know I love you content contributors.

I do feel for Berries point of view however, it really is rough when you cannot interact with over half the server. People want to engage with new people and learn about their characters hopes dreams and aspirations. Not that Andunor is in any way a bad place, but it certainly suffers from a smaller pool of players to interact with.

xanrael
Posts: 507
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:13 pm

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by xanrael » Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:22 am

I think a lot of issues come with a failure to disconnect the character and the player sufficiently, especially with factions.

Yeah, a faction of characters obviously has players pulling the strings of the characters and players might schedule events like language lessons etc but players shouldn't directly belong to factions, rather indirectly be involved through their characters IMO.

Likewise I think people forget that past things like elections that are arbitrated by the system the player of the defeated PC gets to decide what that victory means. This isn't a game of Poker where after winning a hand the losers all have to give the winner $20.

For a server like Arelith, conflict is about selling the idea of change to the other side. Even taken to the extreme killing a PC every day doesn't force the player to roll them, put on a slave collar, or even change their behavior and is probably as likely to get a report sent to a DM as any of the former. Enticing the player(s) to think something is interesting and engaging then backing it up with action is going to go further than just the former IMO. That's not to say some people will not stonewall any change but generally I think those types are in the minority, while the majority of those that tend to stonewall just haven't had the change presented in the right manner.

Seven Sons of Sin
Posts: 2184
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:40 am

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by Seven Sons of Sin » Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:08 pm

DM GrumpyCat wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Seven Sons of Sin wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:38 pm
Cortex wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:38 pm
What use is rethinking conflict when people are not willing to do conflict with whole groups of well meaning people, to the point some groups were openly defamed in public discords? The problem isn't conflict or how its been dealt so much as individuals and cliques they're in.
Irongron has alluded to similar Discord problems.

Are DMs asleep at the wheel?

There should be action taken against this. It shouldn't be a problem if its public-facing.
This can only be looked at when it is reported.

For some strange reason the people in Discord Groups don't often report themselves for metagaming. Funny that.

And whilst we are certianly in the habit of dealing with accusations of metagaming when brought to us, other issues on Discord are less black and white.

Also can I just say that I personaly find the accusation of the DM Team as being 'Asleep behind the wheel' as increadibly hurtful and insulting.

EDIT: To ammend a little and explain

1) We as DMs do not have access to all private group Discords. Nor am I convinced enforcing our presence in such would go down well.

2) I imagine that there are dozens upon dozens of group discords. Ridgidly policing them all would take a lot of time out from our other duties.

3) Even if points 1 and 2 were true - we handle such cases privatly and not publicaly. So if we were dealing with such, unless you were part of said group, you wouldn't neccesarly know of it.
My fluency with Discord is at times super limited, but I didn't mean to be insulting! This was a genuine question if DMs have access access or insight into Discord behaviour. Cortex's point about "public shaming" just made me question how public is public, and if that is public enough to be DM-visible.

But if its the unfortunate truth that Discord behaviour has to be self-reported, I can see why that makes a DM's job even more difficult. It can be hard to know where and when a DM has boots on the ground.
Previous:
Oskarr of Procampur, Ro Irokon, Nahal Azyen, Nelehein Afsana (of Impiltur), Vencenti Medici, Nizram ali Balazdam, (Roznik) Naethandreil

User avatar
Royal Blood
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:12 am

Re: Rethinking Conflict

Post by Royal Blood » Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:27 pm

You know there's no good way to do this. If it wasn't discord there would be something else. I think it's an unfortunate truth that we can't really police discord. Maybe it's not even unfortunate. Most of us are adults we shouldn't need people to hold our hands for social interactions and being responsible.. Players have to handle themselves and decide to be better themselves. DMs can only work with what they see. If people want to use discord to Meta RP I think they just ruin their own stories. It's not fun if everything is pre-planned.

Regarding conflict, I think Diacord can really throw a wrench in conflict RP because people get tied into discord groups then don't want to allow the story to progress because they don't want to be removed from the OOC friend group

Another thing to consider is like suspicion. I've heard a lot.of chatter about suspicions. Sometimes this is reinforced by comments people make in discord. But again it's... Difficult. Even if someone says something OOC doesn't necessarily mean that is affecting RP.

It allll boils back to yourself as the player. You can't control these things, you can report things but ultimately you have to be content doing your own personal best
I am not on a team.
I do not win, I do not lose.
I tell a story, and when I'm lucky,
Play a part in the story you tell too.

Post Reply