[Completed]Conflict Rules and the issues they present.

[Elennanore 2713]

13 hours ago, Temp said:

So, the rules we currently have which can be found here have some pretty hefty issues when put into practice.

For starters, the conflict rules flatly state, “As long as you’ve got 3 people or less, you’re good to go! You don’t need to request any staff supervision, check any special cooldowns, or buy any custom tools. If you can run or jump your way in, you’re in! The only requirement is roleplay itself. Know why your character is there and what their goal is.”

This directly conflicts with the server rules found here.

The verbatim quote is as follows, “§5.15     If three or more people enter a city with the intent to disrupt/cause trouble, it classifies as a raid.”

Another major issue I have is from the conflict rules which state, “Poor roleplay or abrasive and inflammatory behaviour may lead upset players to report you for a conflict blacklist. Together, we write a cooperative story based in mutual respect—even if our characters violently disagree. Their reality may be one of steel and sorcery, but we are just writers having a good time—the consequences for our characters are wildly different from ours which are, at most, mild disappointment.”

This doesn’t make the effort to cover poor victim RP. At all. It’s extremely common behavior for players to simply run from potentially negative RP that they assume their character will be defeated in. Essentially nothing keeps players from just hard bailing on RP and if a player comes across another that they’re at war with, I’m seeing the routine victim excuse of, “Copy & Pasted emotes!” What the hell does this even mean? If someone pre-emotes because they know the other side is going to bail the moment they get close, they’re to be punished. Do the staff actually expect the attackers to sit somewhere for 10 – 30 seconds typing out a meaningful emote that precise moment?

I suggest changing this to cover both sides of the field and not just the attacker. As much as I understand and deal with sub-par villainy, if there’s any RP prior to PvP at all, It’s flawed to direct attentions in one direction. I strongly suggest going the “As fair as the situation permits at that given moment,” route instead of playing into the favor of either side.


The Good-Spirit Clause.

Whilst I understand this and the desire to press toward this, it’s not possible with the playerbase we have present.

What’s stated is, “Wars are roleplay events involving the characters of two or more nations. Both sides cooperate in good-spirit out-of-character to write a gripping and meaningful story in-character. As stated in our community guidelines, there is no path to “victory”. 

Together, we weave an epic tale involving hundreds of unique characters. Characters with a family to protect, a legacy to uphold, and personal ambitions, fears, and fascinations.”

Unfortunately, I’ve never seen this happen. The defender typically maintains the ‘hero’ persona with little to no regard for the IC situation and legitimate odds. People would rather outright leave than roleplay on the defensive and faltering leg. Those that wish to remain often fall back into the rules of the server and claim that they’re being OOCly targeted, that the RP around the encounter was bad, etc etc etc. Alongside this, there’s little to no incentive for leaders to press for agreeable terms to defend their citizens and quickly bring the conflict to a close.

Once again the best that we can do, at least from my perspective is assess the IC logic of the encounter against set requirements that are deemed as ‘fair’ as the server can allow. Rules and how they apply should never be subjective. Ever.

Before even looking further, it’d be decent to get these talking points weighed on.

With forward note, I 100% agree with everything you have said in this post, with a few minor complaints.

Yes, you make the observation that poor Villainy RP is not the only problem LotC experiences, but also poor Victim RP. This is true. However, I feel as if this post is targeted at events that may have happened recently if you catch my drift. I certainly don’t see you as a person to conduct any of this behavior, but perhaps you missed out on the part where a settlement was raided 4 times within 10 hours, by the same groups of players that orchestrated it behind the scenes? Perhaps, that may or may not have happened, but as a person who has done his fair share of rule loop-holing and OOC abuse of mechanics. Honestly, I cannot believe any of what happened last night to truly just be ‘RP focused’. Maybe I've grown soft? I’m not sure, my time as a Snorlander tells me that groups will intentionally or unintentionally **** with people beyond what is acceptable. We had very strict raid rules that I think most people thought were acceptable, 10 people maximum, 3 people minimum, 4 day cooldown, etc. Simple stuff really. Do you think raiding a settlement with 3 different parties, made of different people, from different factions, within the span of only 1 hour is an acceptable way to RP? Especially when no RP is done and the players are downed and popped?

I like your post, but I feel as if there is something wrong here.

 

[Burnsider 4542]

37 minutes ago, Stargush said:

What I said was in regards to creating stories in war-claims and that in war the story made is more dynamic rather than attempting to cooperate with the opposing side to write out a meta on how they would pursue the war.

 

I disagree. I believe that consent storytelling is becoming the new norm in role-playing, as it should. Here is an article which, though it concentrates on LARP, nicely summarizes why consent role-playing, even (or especially) in conflict, should be how we approach things

 

https://thespacebetweenstories.com/2018/08/08/negotiating-for-drama-consent-driven-narrative-roleplay/

[𝕾𝖙𝖆𝖗𝖌𝖚𝖘𝖍 2236]

Quote

I disagree. I believe that consent storytelling is becoming the new norm in role-playing, as it should.

We can agree to disagree then and also it’s not exactly the norm if it’s new.

 

I’m speaking of war-claims as LoTC as known them and while it seems like an ideal situation it is never really conducted in such a way. I can’t say I know everything but I understand it to a degree since i have experience attending and leading some battles and wars.

[Temp 2006]

4 hours ago, Elennanore said:

With forward note, I 100% agree with everything you have said in this post, with a few minor complaints.

Yes, you make the observation that poor Villainy RP is not the only problem LotC experiences, but also poor Victim RP. This is true. However, I feel as if this post is targeted at events that may have happened recently if you catch my drift. I certainly don’t see you as a person to conduct any of this behavior, but perhaps you missed out on the part where a settlement was raided 4 times within 10 hours, by the same groups of players that orchestrated it behind the scenes? Perhaps, that may or may not have happened, but as a person who has done his fair share of rule loop-holing and OOC abuse of mechanics. Honestly, I cannot believe any of what happened last night to truly just be ‘RP focused’. Maybe I've grown soft? I’m not sure, my time as a Snorlander tells me that groups will intentionally or unintentionally **** with people beyond what is acceptable. We had very strict raid rules that I think most people thought were acceptable, 10 people maximum, 3 people minimum, 4 day cooldown, etc. Simple stuff really. Do you think raiding a settlement with 3 different parties, made of different people, from different factions, within the span of only 1 hour is an acceptable way to RP? Especially when no RP is done and the players are downed and popped?

I like your post, but I feel as if there is something wrong here.

 

Nah, the incident unfortunately underlined some of the more obvious issues with the system for me, seeing as I wasn’t exclusively the defender in this situation.

[garentoft 8352]

This thread has been deemed inactive and the debate concluded. If you feel this was mistake, please contact a moderator.