Don’t forget we moved!
https://brandmu.day/
IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance
-
@imstillhere said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
@Alveraxus good luck lol
Thanks.
We’re really hoping that it’s more antagonistic scheming and jockeying for positions and influence, and not character on character violence, because there will be (ideally) ICly consequences among “society” that would stop people from shanking others in the street.
But we’re also fully prepared for this to catastrophically implode if the experiment doesn’t work.
-
@Alveraxus said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
I would like to think that with a mature player base, PVP conflict would be limited to IC stuff, and thinks like character death wouldn’t come along willy nilly like “I encounter a character on the grid and he looks funny, I want to kill him”.
Heh, I witnessed exactly this happen in one of my first MU scenes.
I wish you luck (sincerely) because I like to see people try different things in the hobby. Just because conventional wisdom says it won’t work doesn’t mean that it can’t be done.
Just go into it eyes-open to the reality that this hobby as a whole has a terrible history when it comes to maturely separating IC and OOC conflict. I mean, I only ran PVE games for years and I still had to mediate all sorts of nonsense.
-
I think the biggest issue with these games is just that they can attract very certain types of toxic players that will make the experience miserable for everyone else, so it’s important to know what you’ll do about them from the outset, and learn how to spot them early.
For example, you will absolutely get players that just want to run around and PK everyone for any or even no reason whatsoever, so it’s best to have some guard rails in place at the start to curb that tendency and some explicit guidelines that say it’s not gonna be something you, as game staff, will permit (or whatever your policy on such things will be).
You’ll also get bully players that threaten to PK anyone they don’t OOCly like/anyone who criticizes them/anyone not doing exactly what they want, so that’s another type of player you’ll want some guard rails in to protect against.
That sorta thing.
-
@kalakh said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
For example, you will absolutely get players that just want to run around and PK everyone for any or even no reason whatsoever, so it’s best to have some guard rails in place at the start to curb that tendency and some explicit guidelines that say it’s not gonna be something you, as game staff, will permit (or whatever your policy on such things will be).
You’ll also get bully players that threaten to PK anyone they don’t OOCly like/anyone who criticizes them/anyone not doing exactly what they want, so that’s another type of player you’ll want some guard rails in to protect against.
I know I’ve mentioned character death, but really, it is intended as a polite society where for the most part player vs player conflict will be trying to scheme a family out of control of a particular port, or trying to jockey for recognition.
Actual violent acts between characters should be few and far between because there will be law (strict law) that governs things. So sure, you can stab a guy for looking at you sideways in the market, but then you’re going to end up potentially sentenced to death for committing murder.
-
@Alveraxus said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
So sure, you can stab a guy for looking at you sideways in the market, but then you’re going to end up potentially sentenced to death for committing murder.
While that’s totally a valid way to deal with that person, I think you may be overlooking the impact on other players. When you make it impossible to tell stories without worrying about someone griefing you for no reason, it ripples through the culture.
-
@Faraday said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
@Alveraxus said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
So sure, you can stab a guy for looking at you sideways in the market, but then you’re going to end up potentially sentenced to death for committing murder.
While that’s totally a valid way to deal with that person, I think you may be overlooking the impact on other players. When you make it impossible to tell stories without worrying about someone griefing you for no reason, it ripples through the culture.
I mean, I’m oversimplifying things. In the current model we are leaning towards, staff would need to be involved in any scene with potential character death where there might be a conflict.
You can’t necessarily stab a guy on 5th avenue and get away with it because there are also those who would intervene.
Really, focus is on subterfuge and scheming and ruining someone politically or economically, not facestabbing.
Nothing says staff can’t intervene in a griefing situation and say that the killing blow doesn’t actually kill the person, etc.
-
It’s infinitely easier for griefers to tear down someone’s work, because they don’t care that their gimmicky full-combat alt is going to go to jail if they’re going to get to murder the person they have a grudge against on their main.
Mostly, PvP punishes you for giving a shit.
-
@kalakh This.
Honestly, I think the thing PvP needs above all else is clarity, transparency, and systems. Hope for good actors, expect bad actors, but plan for the majority of people in the middle who can be good as long as they feel secure and like they understand their options and risks.
Don’t rely on IC ‘consequences’ to stop bad actors. Because what you see as IC consequences meant to discourage behavior, a griefing player sees as attention focused on me me me me me. The toxic PvP player LOVES to play the ‘villain’ and LOVES to experience (certain forms) of consequences because it means everyone else has to stop what they’re doing and Deal With This Guy. You can practically feel them on the other end of the screen, wanking furiously while everyone else’s fun grinds to a halt so that ‘IC consequences’ by means of imprisonment, trial, or punishment can take place - and they’ll drag it out as long as they can, because that’s longer focus and more spotlight. It won’t ever stop the IC behavior, because that player got exactly what they wanted from it: attention.
If you don’t want characters killing each other or only want it within specific bounds, then just state it clearly and make it clear that anyone breaking those bounds will be removed from the game without fuss or fanfare. Create transparent systems, do your best to make sure players understand the systems and outcomes, and ruthlessly cull bad actors the first time they step out of line.
-
@Pyrephox Yup. a Social Contract type framework is probably even more important for PvP than it is for more traditional STed roleplay. https://shatteredmu.com/wiki/ooc:policies
-
@Polk said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
The way I think of it is, some people just want to hole up and tell their own story arcs. They don’t want to mess with you and they don’t want you messing with them.
But there are also players (fewer, but they exist in substantial numbers) who feel empty if they can’t “influence the grid” in some way. They want consequences to exist.
I feel like you’re describing one extreme and then somewhere in the middle of a spectrum and trying to set them up as diametrically opposed when I’m not sure that they are. It feels to me like the majority of players want to have significant control over their own character’s story arc, but still influence the game world as a whole.
Or maybe that’s just me and I’m projecting. I certainly don’t see the latter group as being PvP-advocates (they certainly could be, but they don’t have to be). I also don’t know why a MUSH would particularly want players who are just going to hole up in their rooms and tell their own stories, except for the illusion of activity. But if you step off the extreme on that point of the spectrum and get to the players who mostly want to tell their own stories within a greater world – I think that those players work very well with the players who want to influence the grid, and I don’t think there’s much threading of the needle to be done.
@Alveraxus said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
Let’s say the player of Helen wants to have a fun little plot where she gets kidnapped by the character of Paris.
I don’t think that theoretical Helen-player is the hide-in-their-room type, and has to know that running off with the wife of a proud king is going to have major impact on the grid.
@Alveraxus said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
Actual violent acts between characters should be few and far between because there will be law (strict law) that governs things.
In my experience, PvP-eager players tend to be very bad at determining the “right” level of response to a threat. I know that I’m generalizing very broadly, but from what I’ve seen, even in social situations, the tendency seems to be to go from 0 to 100 immediately, because if you don’t go scorched earth, they’ll just come back and attack you. Never mind that a back-and-forth antagonism makes for great RP as long as both players are onboard for winning some and losing some.
I would suggest being very, very explicit in what is allowed/encouraged and what is not, and perhaps even putting in very clear bumpers like “This society is highly-policed and security-conscious, if your character attacks or murders someone, they will be caught and removed from the grid as they are held for trial, put on trial, and sentenced to imprisonment.” That’s probably too strong, not knowing the theme you’re looking at, but it would probably be good to have something in policy that makes it very clear that you’re looking for social violence, not physical violence, and that those going over the top into physical violence will not be tolerated. – Oh look, @Pyrephox got there before me!
-
@Roadspike said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
In my experience, PvP-eager players tend to be very bad at determining the “right” level of response to a threat. I know that I’m generalizing very broadly, but from what I’ve seen, even in social situations, the tendency seems to be to go from 0 to 100 immediately, because if you don’t go scorched earth, they’ll just come back and attack you. Never mind that a back-and-forth antagonism makes for great RP as long as both players are onboard for winning some and losing some.
Once Upon a Time, back on WORA, I remember having some very baffling conversations with people about PvP. Strong voices in the WOD community were completely unapologetic about the fact that they would escalate to PK as soon as possible, whenever possible. In their words, it was “stupid” to accept any outcome other than the destruction of your IC enemies, because the assumption was that if they didn’t, their enemies would. The whole point was to use as much violence, preferably in as stacked a conflict as possible (even better if you could kill by +job), because there was no fun in conflict, there was only ‘removing this obstacle to my fun’.
It’s a completely different mindset from anything I’d ever been interested in, but it explained a lot about the situations I was running into with WoD games of the time.
-
One of the greatest relationships I ever played was enemies to grudging allies to friends and my only regret is that both characters were our secondary “alts” so we didn’t get as much screentime (so to speak) as we could have. I paid for art of them at one point which was clearly @Tez’s character about to stab mine with a broken bottle. (sorry this is clearly me doing the tangent about myself thing, hello adhd - but here’s the art: https://64.media.tumblr.com/3d2d241f9b0da3c151dd6feca676288c/tumblr_nbcjhfqI2r1rj81qdo1_1280.jpg)
I prefer PvP that is character versus character, not player versus player. I don’t want to be combative with other players. It is not my jam.
-
@sao said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
I prefer PvP that is character versus character, not player versus player. I don’t want to be combative with other players. It is not my jam.
I remember a push a while back for PvP to be renamed to CvC to emphasize exactly this point. I think it’s a great point that needs to be made and feeds into @Pyrephox’s point above: if you’re actually playing player-versus-player you might as well be playing Team Fortress Classic, because the only acceptable move is to obliterate the other person as soon as you can, so they don’t do it to you.
If you’re playing character-versus-character, there’s room for infinite intermediate steps that can build a relationship between the characters, even if it’s one based on hatred and mistrust. It leads to ongoing stories, not an orgy (or a whimper for said job-based kills) of destruction that then ends the storyline of at least one character.
Formerly known as Seraphim73 (he/him)
-
@Pyrephox said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
it was “stupid” to accept any outcome other than the destruction of your IC enemies, because the assumption was that if they didn’t, their enemies would
If you’re a thief, you’re worried about being robbed. If you’re infidelious, you’re worried you’re going to get cheated on. If you’re a murder hobo, you’re worried about being ganked at spawn.
-
@Roadspike said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
I remember a push a while back for PvP to be renamed to CvC to emphasize exactly this point. I think it’s a great point that needs to be made and feeds into @Pyrephox’s point above: if you’re actually playing player-versus-player you might as well be playing Team Fortress Classic, because the only acceptable move is to obliterate the other person as soon as you can, so they don’t do it to you.
I get where you’re coming from, but I think most people ARE playing player-vs-player. It’s just baked into gaming at this point. It’s like a battle of wits where someone “wins” and someone “loses”.
When you’re just talking about organic story antagonism, I think that leads to a more cooperative sort of environment where you’re not really doing either PvP or CvC–you’re just telling stories and sometimes characters are acting cross-purposes with each other.
-
@Solstice said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
Mostly, PvP punishes you for giving a shit.
Hahah. Yeah.
Hell, a lot of dealings regarding ‘OOC Acceptance’ do too. There’s a tendancy to vilify player investment as not chill and reward indifferent players as chill.
Over-investment is certainly a thing, but there’s also some cases where it seems like that the meta-game of the MU is to get what you want by making yourself look like the more easy-going and thus ‘better’ player in any conflict.
Abelard: “Uh, hey Awesome, Bridget RPed setting fire to my PC’s lawn. At that IC time he would have been at home staring out the front window with an uzi in his lap, like he does every night, but at the OOC time I was at work. So this is kind of a problem.”
AwesomeStaffer: “All right, how do you guys want to resolve this?”
Bridget: “Oh, I’m fine with anything. Whatever you like.”
Abelard: “Cool, how about option A?”
Bridget: “That would damage my character’s shoes, and isn’t acceptable to me.”
AwesomeStaffer: “What would work?”
Bridget: “How about I set fire to Abelard’s lawn and he just sat there? But you know, I’m good with anything.”
Abelard: “Abelard’s lawn is supremely important to him and he just would not behave that way. How about option B?”
Bridget: “That would delete all our scenes of planning to burn Abelard’s lawn, so, no.”
AwesomeStaffer: “You can’t have option A or B. Abelard, what do you want to do?”
Abelard: “… I don’t know.”
AwesomeStaffer: “You’re being a pain.”
'You ride the mechanical bull, you do not fight it.'
-
@Gashlycrumb God yes, some games are DEEP into the meta-game of making themselves seem reasonable to gamerunners as a way to win PvP scenarios. Putting on a super chill act during conflict is early stage manipul-itis - then players start designing their moves in anticipation of future staff arbitration. At that point the experience is basically dead and it’s time to get out.
-
@Gashlycrumb said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
Bridget: “How about I set fire to Abelard’s lawn and he just sat there? But you know, I’m good with anything.”
I feel this in my bones. I SEE YOU, BRIDGET.
-
@Gashlycrumb said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
@Solstice said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
Mostly, PvP punishes you for giving a shit.
Hahah. Yeah.
Hell, a lot of dealings regarding ‘OOC Acceptance’ do too. There’s a tendancy to vilify player investment as not chill and reward indifferent players as chill.
Over-investment is certainly a thing, but there’s also some cases where it seems like that the meta-game of the MU is to get what you want by making yourself look like the more easy-going and thus ‘better’ player in any conflict.
Abelard: “Uh, hey Awesome, Bridget RPed setting fire to my PC’s lawn. At that IC time he would have been at home staring out the front window with an uzi in his lap, like he does every night, but at the OOC time I was at work. So this is kind of a problem.”
AwesomeStaffer: “All right, how do you guys want to resolve this?”
Bridget: “Oh, I’m fine with anything. Whatever you like.”
Abelard: “Cool, how about option A?”
Bridget: “That would damage my character’s shoes, and isn’t acceptable to me.”
AwesomeStaffer: “What would work?”
Bridget: “How about I set fire to Abelard’s lawn and he just sat there? But you know, I’m good with anything.”
Abelard: “Abelard’s lawn is supremely important to him and he just would not behave that way. How about option B?”
Bridget: “That would delete all our scenes of planning to burn Abelard’s lawn, so, no.”
AwesomeStaffer: “You can’t have option A or B. Abelard, what do you want to do?”
Abelard: “… I don’t know.”
AwesomeStaffer: “You’re being a pain.”
This sort of thing is precisely why ‘simulationism’ is a dirty word with me. This veers toward the very worst of the RPI MUD experience, which is some of the most toxic stuff in the entire hobby.
-
@Gashlycrumb said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
AwesomeStaffer: “You’re being a pain.”
I mean… both players are kind of being a pain in that scenario so I’m not sure who I’m supposed to be rooting for here.
Abelard is refusing to compromise because it would damage something important to their character. Bridget is refusing to compromise because it would mean they failed at their goal.
That’s because they’re both viewing it from a PVP perspective. Someone wins and someone loses.
If either would come at it from a STORY perspective, they might realize all the possibilities that could come from it ICly.
Abelard could agree it happened. He has angst from the loss of his prized lawn, blaming himself for breaking his routine of nightly uzi-guarding or falling asleep on the job or getting up to go to the bathroom or whatever. Now he has to figure out who’s responsible and make them pay! And/or rebuild.
Bridget could agree she failed and figure out how Bridget would deal with that. Maybe she and her co-conspirators try again. Maybe there are some other consequences. Maybe she’s doubly mad at Abelard now because her shoes were damaged and she has to figure out how to repair/replace them.
But no. Every flipping thing has to be all or nothing. And that’s why I do everything in my power to avoid PVP setups on my games.
