Conquest of the Horde

I am genuinely curious here:
What do the naysayers think is going to go so abhorrently wrong with this idea that it'll be the worst idea CotH has ever seen?

Before I came here, I roleplayed in a place where death was not only NC(no consent), but regular people would OOCly summon up about 20 others, sometimes their own alts, to go and hunt down one person. There was no escape from this, and the owners of the establishment even set up a rule that said if you left the RP for whatever reason your character forfeits and DIES no questions asked, no revivals. Oh, and all fights were trust, and you didn't 'trust' anybody 'cuz if they had their mind set on killing you, you were dead. AND YET. We didn't have half the drama or half the death of chars that's being talked about here. If anything it weeded out the people generally caused trouble in areas where this kind of practice wasn't in effect, and kept them out of everyone else's hair and stopped them ruining RP and causing drama elsewhere.

I honestly love the way CotH is set up but I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss the utter retarded chaos that was /that last place/.

Delta Wrote:I am genuinely curious here:
What do the naysayers think is going to go so abhorrently wrong with this idea that it'll be the worst idea CotH has ever seen?

The 'worst idea' ever is a tad bit of an overstatement.
I don't see the idea as bad, just the fact of how players are.

I haven't been around nearly as long as other people,
but I have seen my fair share of evidence that players can't be trusted with ideas like this.
There is always those few that ruin it for everyone else and tag the concept as bad.
I'm honestly a bit nervous to see such a concept because I feel like a lot of past drama has just died down.
Call me jaded I suppose.

Delta, that server and our server are two entirely different communities. I don't think you could make a direct comparison. It also seems that death might have been so common place on that server that people just accepted it and knew it was useless to argue.

But here, we do have drama, and we did have drama sometimes because of character fights or character deaths.

I still think we should at least try giving this a chance.

Well, I think every place has drama over fights and death. That server sure did, there was no escaping it.
But I mean, is it gonna be significantly worse than now? I don't think I could agree that it will be. Maybe that's because I don't get to see the ticket pile after a messy roleplay, but even where GM workload is concerned, measures can be taken.
I don't trust a mass of people blindly, but I can't see CotHers honestly going hog wild on this.

Well, people must understand that they are going to a zone that their character -can- die at -any- given time. If they piss off the bartender, he can easily pull out a shotgun and start attempting to blow your face off.

Cheat at a game of cards, and that whole table might want to gut you.


The risk and -IC- drama is great, it's just when the -OOC- drama comes, then it ruins the fun.


Personally, I'm only taking characters that I deem expendable. I have an approved character that I have in mind of taking there, but if it gets me great RP, I don't mind him dieing. Even if he gets ganged by like, 10 other people for no reason.

See, I have no real problem with a lawless area. Risk's great. Thing is, I think it could be acomplished just with a lack of guards. Removing Character warning's just asking for drama unnecisseraly.

Well...Actually thinking about it, doesn't the character warning system already have that clause that, if your character does something monumentally stupid, then its like automatically accepting that your character would die? If people were aware of that, then I guess it wouldn't be SO bad to have the character warnings as a courtesy rather than a demand. MY only issue is, generally there are cocky, smarmy character who do as they please knowing they can't be killed due to the character warning system that they can just say "no" to. If we made it clear that its a warning, not a choice, and if they, basically, don't run, then a fight that could involve character death will ensue. But right now, the only issue I ever come across with character warnings is a scenario where a character acts like an idiot, they get a character warning, which they "deny", not allowing their character to die, but continue to act in the way that would mean their likely death. I don't know how to handle that scenario, as I DON'T want to create OOC drama, but in this town, not having this thing would make it a lot simpler. Heck, even with a no character warning needed thing in the town, I would still give a heads up to a person if they could be about to come to harm, though personally, ill be surprised if I actually kill anyone in this town.

No character warning's would make the town seem more "real". And that's what I like about RP, even in a fantasy setting, an element of realism, draws me in and makes me think more, and identify with the characters involved.

If it were decided to keep the warning system, but make a town with no guards, I wouldn't be disappointed. I'd prefer there not to be the CW system for this little place, but if it were a compromise that the GM's thought would create a lot less headaches, then I guess I could go for it.

That's not actually the case, Miah. If someone gives a warning, it means you're in danger of dying and they can kill you. If it was a question, it'd be called Character Request.

Quote:Keep in mind that if your character was simply murdered in cold blood (No warning, etc.) you should PM a GM about it, as this is a breach of policy on the murderer's part. However, if this was done in a zone known to be dangerous, or in the threatening or harassing of a guild or player known to have a predisposition for violence, you should accept the consequences (Keep in mind that metagaming and powergaming fall under a separate rule from this.).

Actually according to this, you don't even need to give a warning if your character is in a dangerous area. Seems like although this info might be outdated, we're already allowing dangerous people to do dangerous things in dangerous places, unchecked.

Hm, well then, looks like I've been had by the player's doing that. Eh, I likely wouldn't have killed them anyway but a friendly fire-bolt to the face might have knocked them down a peg or two

And if that's true, delta, maybe rather than classifying the place as "no character warning zone" We just emphasise its a danger zone. That way, if your the player who gives character warnings, your free too, and it would be polite, I know I will, but there isn't a guard to stop you, say, throwing a table at someone. Death could follow as a consequence of fights of course, but in no way is it necessary. If that changes the opinions of the nay-sayer's, then I'm all for it, much rather everyone is OK with how it works, as that way more people might use the place

Delta Wrote:That's not actually the case, Miah. If someone gives a warning, it means you're in danger of dying and they can kill you. If it was a question, it'd be called Character Request.

Quote:Keep in mind that if your character was simply murdered in cold blood (No warning, etc.) you should PM a GM about it, as this is a breach of policy on the murderer's part. However, if this was done in a zone known to be dangerous, or in the threatening or harassing of a guild or player known to have a predisposition for violence, you should accept the consequences (Keep in mind that metagaming and powergaming fall under a separate rule from this.).

Actually according to this, you don't even need to give a warning if your character is in a dangerous area. Seems like although this info might be outdated, we're already allowing dangerous people to do dangerous things in dangerous places, unchecked.

You're taking quotes out of context. The passage you're quoting is concerning character death, about if your character is dead you should accept the consequences and drawbacks of that death.

It's just strange that the first part about no warnings has nothing to do with the second since it continues with "however", although I'm guessing either you or Kret wrote that so I'll take your word if I read it wrong.

Grakor456 Wrote:

Delta Wrote:That's not actually the case, Miah. If someone gives a warning, it means you're in danger of dying and they can kill you. If it was a question, it'd be called Character Request.

Quote:Keep in mind that if your character was simply murdered in cold blood (No warning, etc.) you should PM a GM about it, as this is a breach of policy on the murderer's part. However, if this was done in a zone known to be dangerous, or in the threatening or harassing of a guild or player known to have a predisposition for violence, you should accept the consequences (Keep in mind that metagaming and powergaming fall under a separate rule from this.).

Actually according to this, you don't even need to give a warning if your character is in a dangerous area. Seems like although this info might be outdated, we're already allowing dangerous people to do dangerous things in dangerous places, unchecked.

You're taking quotes out of context. The passage you're quoting is concerning character death, about if your character is dead you should accept the consequences and drawbacks of that death.

I'm not quite sure how it was taken out of context, it says that it is only a policy breach if the character is murdered in cold blood, unless you're in a zone known to be dangerous. That does say, you need to accept the death, but it also applies to this situation, doesn't it?

Aphetoros Wrote:I'm not quite sure how it was taken out of context, it says that it is only a policy breach if the character is murdered in cold blood, unless you're in a zone known to be dangerous. That does say, you need to accept the death, but it also applies to this situation, doesn't it?

This is probably a case of the passage not being worded well. The entire section is on character death and the drawbacks of it. It is a reference that you can't just be killed for no reason as that's against policy, but if you're in a dangerous location then it's not a "killing in cold blood" since there's a reason it's dangerous. That does not, however, mean that character warnings do not exist. (If it helps: character warnings would not let you kill someone in cold blood, still. You need to have an actual reason why your character would kill someone else's, even if that reason is "they entered our base and were snooping around.")

What I say is everyone just needs to give character warnings and be polite about any situation. We really shouldn't have to be looking so deep into the character warning concept, it's simple and we all know exactly how it works. I would just suggest we stop looking for "grey areas" so-to-speak. We all get it, just obey the rules and have fun. As for the Lawless Area idea. I say we give it a try, but I would also suggest we don't make a town (due to the fact that one of the main reasons we did the restart was to retcon old CotH events and just go with WoW Lore...) more of a camp. I've been saying it for a few posts now but it's only because I truly think that it is for the best.

If we cannot handle something that small then... Dear God... I mean, isn't maturity what CotH is all about and why it's still in existence?