Less than real life, but far more than a game.

[Black Canyon]

So do I act on the OOC knowledge (which I'm not supposed to do) and keep the town leader alive for a few days of death-bed roleplaying, or do I act in the true spirit of the character I've chosen to play (which I gather from the perspective of many, is the ultimate, sacred goal of the game) and kill the leader immediately?

This is interesting and I must admit that I've not broken down the argument this way. But I'll have to say that I lean toward acting in the true spirit of the character and in many cases the survival of that character in sacrifice to any RP needs that the other characters might have. I have been in the position of having characters killed and my characters have killed others. Although it has been gut-wrenching to watch my character or my character's loved ones die at the hands of a murderer, I can't say that I've ever felt the strong expectation that they should have been allowed to role-play their deaths in the exact way I think they should die. Because a violent death at the hands of another can't really be prettied up with a lot of words, unless it's a situation where all parties know each other well (dying by the hand of their lover, for instance).

And in the cases where my characters have done the killing, often they are driven by blind rage or the desperate fear to survive. Not a lot of room for words as they're running someone through with their longsword. Currently, I have a character driven by her desire for vengeance. When she finds those who she seeks, her only satisfaction will be to see their dead bodies at her feet. Any words out of their mouths will be nothing more than lies and there will be no mercy. So..... yeah. Most likely no cool role-play opportunities for their players

[Doug R.]

I think Saz summed up how I feel about this quite accurately and succinctly. I'm not going to have my characters act out of character for another player's benefit. They'll behave how their personality and situation dictates that they behave, and if that means they're going to kill your character straight off, then that's what's going to happen. It's not being an ass, it's just how things are.

And, for the record, I've had two characters butchered in their sleep in lightning attacks, so I speak also as a victim.

If a player feels badly about it after, I'm more than happy to engage in discussion as to my character's motives, but ooc stays ooc.

[LittleSoul]

Saz asked the perfect question for the argument, and my opinion is the same as both Dough and Black Canyon.

[computaertist]

For the situation described and similar situations the motives are clear and I would not complain. The character had something to gain from killing, so they did. Got it; moving on.

All I want is to have some understanding as to why the conflict happened, because if the character stood to gain from mine's life (e.g., I would have happily played a slave if they let me, giving them years of unpaid work) and gained nothing I could perceive from mine's death it leaves me baffled and makes it hard to move on. I hope that's not too much to ask, because I agree a fun game requires some source of conflict, and few are creative enough to achieve that without violence it seems. So if your character stands to gain from killing my character without RP, do it. I'll make no fuss. But if mine's life could benefit yours, may mine live please? Or else, just help me understand? Please?

That's not a request to any previous murdering characters' players; I'm good about you two now , but to any future ones.

[Uma]

the only thing i hate about Saz's scenario is that the game's mechanically perfect time to murder some one and ruin their months of work, is when they're not online. You engineer a situation wherein the player isn't online, then use the perfect amount of damage to pull them behind a lock, NDS them, get their keys, then end them. All in the time it took for them to get up to go use the bathroom

I think suggestions like the fighting overhaul some one suggested recently where EVERY conflict took 24 RL hours to conclude would fix this problem. ie you 'grab some one' and it's resolved in 24 hours. along with all the other activities in the brawl.

though in answer to saz's scenario, i think you should kill the leader, lest he explain in graphic detail to his next of kin who you are and how to wreak vengeance upon you.

I just think it's awful that the game mechanics make sneak-stab-drag the go-to means of resolving game conflicts. It's just so scummy of a way for a slow-pace roleplay-and-resource based game to deal with battle.

[LittleSoul]

I understand your point Uma, but the whole online thing comes down to this.

We have games like this one, where events can happen while you are offline. This comes with pros and cons, one pro being that I don't have to be online all friggin' day just to catch other players to be able to play at all, since the whole game is basically based on interaction. The con, is that the combat system will tend to favor strategies taking advantage of 'sleeping' characters.

I have played text RPG's where being online was a requirement for any interaction between characters to occur, and I will just say this - it's exhausting. If you have a schedule where you can only get on certain times of the day, and everyone else around your character who plays only gets on at -other- times where you can't, you're screwed. You don't get to have any fun at all.

As for the suggestion, I think killing someone takes too long as it is, not to mention if you want to do it effectively you need like three other people if you're not super strong or super skilled or both.

How about this - you literally are unable to hit someone unless they are online. If the game could track the times of when players log on and off, and use those times to determine when they are online, then we can have a system where hitting will -never- occur unless the player is online at least, so it gives them a chance to react.

Now, if this were to be implemented, I think it should be balanced out with something given in advantage to the attacker, like all weapons having a little bit of a higher damage, or something like that, to keep fights from being too drawn out, because they already are.

This is just one idea, but it's the kind of line of thinking I'd encourage to find a compromise between players of both victims and attackers.

[SekoETC]

A system where damage was only applied when the victim is online but the hit itself happened earlier would take care of this problem and it has been suggested. It wouldn't make any sense to demand that both the attacker and victim must be online at the same moment for an attack to take place. That would completely ruin the game. Just because someone was online one time one day doesn't mean they will be there the same time the next day, for example if you do shift work. Or what about if you check the game at 5 am for ten minutes, then go to work but it might still record your status as online for a while afterwards if you didn't hit the logout button. The next day you might have a day off and wake up at 11 am.

[hyrle]

Except it would make it impossible to kill sleepers earlier than they'd starve.

[Doug R.]

I just think it's awful that the game mechanics make sneak-stab-drag the go-to means of resolving game conflicts.

I agree.

[Marian]

I didn't originally intend to turn into a discussion of combat mechanics, it just kind of happened because it's at the crux of the issue every time an 'unfair' or BS death comes up.

The current system has lasted all these years though, even when it doesn't fit with the rest of the game at all, that I wonder if it will ever be changed...though part of the problem is I've yet to see a suggestion that could be considered the 'perfect' fix. I'm sure a really simple, elegant solution is possible, but damned if I can figure it out!

The idea I'm most fond of at the moment is the one about making combat a project where both participants are locked together for a day (or even just an hour, would still be an improvement) with anyone trying to break it off early automatically taking an unblockable hit. (And maybe someone trying to drag them apart would take a hit themselves...awfully risky just jumping into the fray like that after all...) At least that way the people fighting would have to be face to face for a little while and there would be at least a chance of some exciting RP taking place.

Maybe even something like a defensive or aggressive stance that could be adopted on the fly so players could still have some control over how the battle went. Of course there's still all kinds of details that would need to be ironed out, like what happens when you have multiple participants or a battle takes place on the road and what not, and it's hard to say how it would all actually work out until it was tried.

And of course even if it worked out perfectly, obviously the issue isn't just about one character hitting another, but the whole business of dragging and locks...but that's the part where things become complicated right there. It seems like pretty much an impossible balancing act. The current system allows for easy grab and drag murders, but changing how all that works would create a nightmare for people trying to move a sleeping friend into a car or secure their goods against thieves or any of the other day to day things you use the same mechanics for.

[SekoETC]

It has been suggested several times that people could have a list of people that are allowed to drag them without resistance.

[Uma]

I certainly think "only hitable when online" is a bad idea, but if it took a real life day to resolve a conflict, and it was visible and the town could react, then there would be no incentive to time a sneak-stab-drag gang. However "hey lets go on a trip" and stab them in another town, or on the road, would work because the town couldn't aid the person.

It has been suggested several times that people could have a list of people that are allowed to drag them without resistance.

it would be cool if we could designate 'leaders' or 'friends and there was a 'beckon' or 'lead' button. like drag but friends only. it's always weird when some strangers arive and two of them shove one out of the car and come to find out that's their wife/leader/mother/child they're dragging around like a caveman