Insurgencies and LOTC - Are they good RP?

[Franczhiz 4053]

Insurgency is based.

[Ibn Khaldun 7728]

1 hour ago, The King Of The Moon said:

The RP can be good, problem is with almost all conflicts impacting nation leadership it's never contained to RP for long.

 

I'm going to mald, cope and/or seathe a bit here, but I promise it's with intent. 

 

There are painfully few rebellions/ uprisings that've occured since Axios that weren't first meticulously planned in a backroom voice or group chat before anyone risked actually discussing things via emotes.

 

Insurgencies, due both to bad player attitudes reinforced by Discord and the increasingly OOC necessity of group leadership with the modern nation ruleset very quickly seem to devolve into "me vs him" rather than "my character vs his character" (as with most wars). IC disagreements get hyped up as OOC slights, and before you know it either side of an insurgence is clamouring to get the other banned and friend groups are torn apart as a result of it... and sadly I can't think of any way to fix that.

 

It's always been a problem, but I suppose in the Skype/ Teamspeak days OOC-win mentality was a lot less practical to enable and moderation was also a lot more vigilant about metagaming (the closest rule we really have to dealing with OOC scheming/ player versus player "win" mentality), thus it was less commonplace.

Nation and war rules were also vastly different back then, in some ways better and other ways worse; coup rules didn't even exist until the Haelun'or NL was overthrown by Oren-backed insurgents, which left everyone scratching their heads as to whether or not it was valid for the humans to be able to conquer a nation with no interest in vassalisation without a single warclaim.

Today's climate is very different. LoTC as a whole is different. This is in my opinion felt most severely in nations and other groups with high OOC engagement. With everyone sat in a voicechat as they RP with eachother things tend to devolve into an echochamber, and storytelling (which we're all here to do) becomes second banana to sterilising any sort of IC leadership that might've once RP'd as flawed for fear of OOCly displeasing the players you hang out with.

Insurgencies turn this closeness on its head more often than not. We've a whole generation of players now that don't remember things being any different, and ultimately I feel OOC sensitivity to what should be RP-contained conflict is at its all-time height. People fail to separate other people's characters from the players themselves in a meaningful way, and vice versa. So then people get upset and people get angry. Players are harassed, players quit.

 

I do not think these sorts of behaviours should be accommodated either, though. Roleplay should be allowed to progress naturally. We're all here for RP - dynamic, freeform and improvised narrative - not to act out a script. We shouldn't feel obliged to ask permission to roleplay. 

It's a whole can of worms, and I don't have any solutions to offer.

 

I would like insurgencies to be good. Insurgencies in concept are not at all the issue, but due to the aforementioned I personally struggle to find enjoyment, due to the more often than not rampant toxicity that comes to overshadow the actual roleplay surrounding them.   

 

I am just quoting this post to express my general agreement with his premise.

 

I think anyone willfully trying to ignore the fact that a number of nation leaders (won't mention any names, I am out of the meta-narrative of the server for awhile now so I'd only be able to list dated cases) tend to drag any conflict roleplay out into the out-of-character domain where it didn't start nor does it belong. I think stricter moderation should be wielded to trounce nation leaders who are treating their position too much like a real-life job posting that they fear to be laid off from or sacked from and to ensure both sides are not too deep in the kool-aid in terms of blurring IC and OOC through the duration of the conflict.

 

I do think, just to set the tone, that conflict roleplayers (whether insurgencies, rebels, enemy nation/settlement/lair) should have an "initial handshake" confirming the intentions to engage in conflict. Think of it as tapping gloves in a boxing match before going into separate corners and coming out with the fists raised.

 

I also find it a little surprising that nation leaders aren't seeking to invite conflict against their playergroup. It gives one something to strive against and unite against. I remember when I was with the Clandom of Vistulia for a brief time, I built a whole crannogtown ripe with secret hideaways and was trying to invite criminal roleplayers to use it as a staging ground for theft and other forms of villainy. One would think it win-win in that the "villain" gets a "population to go after" and the nation gets an organic target by which to struggle against. 

[Burnsider 4542]

14 hours ago, MaltaMoss said:

I dont think we ever interacted with you once

 

I'm sorry. I confused you guys and the group that Gustav led. I was talking about Gustav.

 

My original post was hidden apparently because I called someone toxic? Is that all it takes now? [EDIT: it is no longer hidden. But the below expands on my first post.] But I think there was important information in there, so I'm going to repost part of it.

 

Insurgency is fine, as long as it's kept only IC and there is frequent "after-care" reach out to other players after antagonizing them. Honestly, this should just be done normally in all player conflict situations.

 

I think this really should become the gold standard for LOTC. When you have a great beneficial RP with someone, you tend to reach out to them afterwards, maybe friend them, definitely add them on discord, etc. This should be the same when you have a great antagonistic RP with someone.

 

Let me be clear. The best stories (some may say the only stories worth mentioning) come out of conflict. While this can be internal conflict, it is most often external. And we are here to tell stories. If a persona is a great antagonist to your character, it only makes sense to become friends with the player behind that antagonist so that you can schedule more conflict and tell a greater story. People often ask "why do human RP always center around war?" And the reason is because they are seeking conflict, whereas other places find conflict in other ways (magical differences, spook interactions, ST storylines, etc).

 

Now humans have a significant problem in that there is often OOC animosity involved in these conflicts. When an ST does a storyline with you, you thank the ST afterwards. "Thanks for putting on this event for us, man. We really appreciate it." We should (no, we must) do the same thing when player conflict happens.

[Aehkaj 516]

The Mercators were a prime example of how conflict should be handled, and that exact type of conflict makes a nation feel more alive. Especially something thats supposed to be an Empire where insurgent groups are GOING to pop up

 

(Although higher higher ups in said nation kinda fucked with it for no reason other than oocly being scared)

[monkeypoacher 6993]

i never really understood what the mercators stood for or why they were rebelling against oren, but it sure was a welcome relief to the onslaught of dudes trying to collect clips of me failing at pvp to just have some guys light the tavern on fire

 

rebelling against a nation requires you to actually recognize and have some stake in the politics of it, which is cool too. would rather have 8 parties rebelling against me in a controlled burn of hostile sentiments than 1 group of people splitting off and joining a coalition against me in the future

[Shmeepicus 3942]

MRA was such a sick storyline and group and the dudes that spearheaded it did it to provide a great experience for every1 involved. As long as it's in the nature of story-telling and rather than to be an ******* I always approve. MRA were Goats.

[Qaz_The_Great 1189]

Any conflict RP that can negatively impact nation/settlement stability or stats will be cracked down on and depending on who those NLs are known to associate with depends on the consequences for partaking in that type of RP.  The MRA were pretty based as they generally had a good demeanor about everything (though I only really remember beating them in a skirm and second hand accounts from Jav) and they were really not toxic or rule lawyer-y when I did have a rare engagement.  I think small groups like that encourage good conflict RP and can add a tangible reason to have guard/military RP but because of nation/settlement fears of lowered activity or loss of mineman power it is rarely accepted.

[ibraheemc2000 2565]

On 4/18/2023 at 10:18 PM, Borin said:

big up the mujahideen

Hehe