IC consistency VS OOC Fun

[DaveM]

Question - What comes first: OOC Fun or IC consistency

Here's a scenario to illustrate a dilemma I've often had about conflict-RP and that's kept me away from it to some extent:

Character A is being himself. Character B is being himself. Neither of them are a much exagerated character, but each are quite agressive in their own ways. Both should seem asses to some and seem as acting adequately to other characters around them, especially their race/class/cultural/organization peers. Both of them being themselves leads to conflict.

Let's say something that A did is obviously insulting to B's core values.

It makes perfect sense to Character B's profile that after some non-physical verbal conflict they've started having, he will try to kill/maim Character A, and not necessarily in a fair fight (he's that kind'a guy).

Can character B try to murderise Charcter A? To what extent? And what level of agreement from A's player does he need?

What gets compromised first in this situation - A's desire to keep his character alive despite acting in ways that are bound to piss off other chars., or B's value system that demands payback? Can B do it all dirty-ambush with 2-3 of his friends?


(N.B.1. Character warnings work while someone is being a prick and they are about to die right then, in consequence - What I'm asking is how they work when an elaborate grudge is formed. -Let's say the initial clash is in a neutral city where the guards would have interfered- Should B have given A the CWarning when A was doing the stuff: "Player Warning, continueing may result in a grudge that may later lead to Char death/maim, etc." ? Should the warning come when B is about to get ganked?)

(N.B.2. I perfectly understand -and want to make note- that a good RPer will try to get the best plot development and RP sequences out of any such conflict and will not try to maximize the chances of “autokilling” his opponent but rather try to set up a balanced-chance context for the conflict to take place in, so as to get all that sweet RP tension.)

The short awnser, I know, is: “People should be reasonable, and try to agree so as to have the best RP together”. But we wouldn't have rules and rulings if everybody was perfectly reasonable.

Second of all it might authentically be a clash between IC consistency and OOC desire for balanced fun RP. What comes first? Sure, there is no universal ruling, it's a very case-by-case thing, but what would be the less obvious guidelines? Is any character that may form a death-grudge because of the standard behaviour of a more extreme member of another race/faction a character that shouldn't be played? (That'd be very weird).

So to summarize: My question basically is what the “ruling” would be if one of the sides of an ongoing personal (or organizational) conflict would act highly auto-killy, despite being justified IC.


Sorry if this was too long and/or not expressed brilliantly.

[Piken]

Well, first off(I know it's just an example you used, but it happens) if people are going to go crazy "omg I'm so gonna kill you" because of an argument like "Hey it's stupid that you think that" then people need to take a step back and look at their character. Sometimes people tend to play overly confrontational and aggressive characters who kill over silly reasons, so that's one thing that needs to be looked for.

But anyway. I personally don't give character warnings.. ever anymore. It's rare that I'll do it, because -usually- the events leading up to anything that may need a warning are so incredibly blatant that they shouldn't need to be told. That said, I feel it works here, as well. Especially if it's two aggressive characters. So I feel that.. hey, if it's warranted action, character A gets the crap beat out of him by a few guys. Not -everything- has to be killing. I think that's something people don't seem to get sometimes. Sometimes it a lot more damaging to someone, and their ego, to beat them up bad and leave you mark, instead of /kill.

So that's my opinion. /nod

[timmyd123]

If a situation arises where a character may die, then you should -always- give a character warning. Blatently obvious or not. They should be given long before the fighting starts so that a character has a chance to leave the area or the situation, (and they should be given a -fair- chance). If the character responds by trying to leave the situation and getting out of it, don't hound them and go after them. Let it be. Don't give a character warning after you emote the 'killing blow' either. That.. really sort of defeats the objective of character warnings, which are there so that players have a fair chance to leave and survive. Character warnings shoulden't really be given in neutral cities because you have to factor in the guards.

In my view, player killing does nothing for RP whatsoever. It just cuts that players story short while for the most part, the rest of the community will be like 'so and so's dead.. ah well!'

If I enter conflict RP and I beat someone, I tend to leave them "to die" or to let them retreat, rather than making sure they're finished off. The fact that some players go out of their way to burn the corpses of the people they kill is bothersome to me. Is ending that characters life entirely going to really further RP? In most cases it won't. By all means, if a rare such occasion comes along whereby it will further RP, and the player agrees, then kill their character, but otherwise, try to avoid it. That's my view anyway.

Just be sensible with conflict RP, offer warnings to the person in question and communicate with them to establish what they're happy with and what they're not happy with. It would cut down on alot of drama that tends to arise with character death and will not cut player character stories short.

It's really easy for people to argue that 'people die all the time so it should happen in WoW', but when you actually lose a character of your own that you really enjoy, it tends not to be very much fun. Alot of people really back the idea of killing player characters, though often change their views after having characters die because they quickly realise that most of the time, it doesn't further RP for them, or anyone else for that matter.

Might seem like a bit of a rant but these are my views, and views that are shared by quite a few other people that I have spoken to.

Just thought I would talk about my views on character death and warnings. *nod nod*

-Val <3

[star2316]

If a situation arises where a character may die, then you should -always- give a character warning. Blatently obvious or not. They should be given long before the fighting starts so that a character has a chance to leave the area or the situation, (and they should be given a -fair- chance). If the character responds by trying to leave the situation and getting out of it, don't hound them and go after them. Let it be. Don't give a character warning after you emote the 'killing blow' either. That.. really sort of defeats the objective of character warnings, which are there so that players have a fair chance to leave and survive. Character warnings shoulden't really be given in neutral cities because you have to factor in the guards.

In my view, player killing does nothing for RP whatsoever. It just cuts that players story short while for the most part, the rest of the community will be like 'so and so's dead.. ah well!'

If I enter conflict RP and I beat someone, I tend to leave them "to die" or to let them retreat, rather than making sure they're finished off. The fact that some players go out of their way to burn the corpses of the people they kill is bothersome to me. Is ending that characters life entirely going to really further RP? In most cases it won't. By all means, if a rare such occasion comes along whereby it will further RP, and the player agrees, then kill their character, but otherwise, try to avoid it. That's my view anyway.

Just be sensible with conflict RP, offer warnings to the person in question and communicate with them to establish what they're happy with and what they're not happy with. It would cut down on alot of drama that tends to arise with character death and will not cut player character stories short.

It's really easy for people to argue that 'people die all the time so it should happen in WoW', but when you actually lose a character of your own that you really enjoy, it tends not to be very much fun. Alot of people really back the idea of killing player characters, though often change their views after having characters die because they quickly realise that most of the time, it doesn't further RP for them, or anyone else for that matter.

Might seem like a bit of a rant but these are my views, and views that are shared by quite a few other people that I have spoken to.

Just thought I would talk about my views on character death and warnings. *nod nod*

-Val <3

I could had not said it better myself . We are all here to RP and character death just simple stop RP in a sense , sure it might create the flash-bang effect as i call it when that character's friend find out but it likely a flash-bang effect . It spark up and dies out then probably leave a large empty 'hole' for the player who lost the character , no more RP generated from that character so to speak .

[Rimewynd]

Personally, any time I log into a character I'm fully prepared for that character's life to end. I'd be a bit sorry if they died, but - for me - it's all in the name of good fun. Besides, we're allowed to re-roll as much as we like anyway.

More directly in answer to the question, I tend to lean with timmyd123 - a lot of times, I don't see death as something that's helpful to a storyline/RP. Now, sometimes, the reverse is true - but not usually. That said, people die for the most ridiculous of reasons IRL all the time. Like bar fights. This probably won't do much to advance the storyline - although it could, conceivably. (In fact, it might be fun to roll a few characters with the intent of letting them "go" to some of life's more tragic causes.) Despite this, I still think it better to limit that sort of end to a character (unless that was supposed to happen, you never know,) and reserve it for occasions when it would impact the characters around you in a meaningful way (if said thing is possible).

Character warnings are a mixed bag for me. I personally think they're funny - but I also worry that they might change my (and other's) approach to the situation. Plus, as Piken said - the point at which a character warning is issued is usually the point of no return anyways - so it's a bit moot. I still give them (although I haven't had to, much,) as a sort of "last chance" before my character feels it appropriate to take some highly violent action against another person's. And by violence I mean something that may be anything from disfigurement to death. While it might be a little overly-cautious, I'd rather be sure the player on the side is aware and doesn't mind.

As a final thing, with what timmyd and piken said (again,) most of my characters don't really kill kill. In fact, one of my favorite characters is liable to chain you down to a tree somewhere and start lecturing you on a sort of "What did we learn...?" basis. And then let the person go, satisfied that he's proved a point, and possibly caused someone to hate him for life. It's good fun.

Just my two bits, really.

[garrett]

For me, it's about having fun. That's why we are here.

Everyone has their own preferences. Me, I agree that character warnings should be given. As well as deciding up front whether you are battling to the death or leaving the loser to crawl to safety. (Like Grakor said elsewhere, 0HP means you are unconscious or you do a "tactical retreat", whatever you want to call it.)

That's how I plan to play things. I really doubt any of my characters will be doing the battle to death at the start, at least not without a really good reason for it.

I prefer to treat it like some RP forums I've been on, where you battle against others in wars or duels. It takes a lot to establish a character there, and it's really the stupidest rule that you should suffer because your opponent is a better duelist, or in our case, knows the game mechanics or lucks out with the /roll system. On the forum, you could say there is some RP skill involved in the fighting, but that's pretty much nonexistant here, it's all mechanics or luck.

So, in the case of the forums, player death cannot occur without the consent of the player. Plain and simple. You can't kill them, or maim them, without their permission beforehand. If you beat the snot out of them, you leave them to retreat, to live and fight another day. Or you drag them back to prison to torture for a while. But when the novelty of the RP wears off, you arrange things so that they can escape, so that they can go on with their RP lives.

For the most part, it works. Everyone is happy, and you can do whatever.

[Kaghuros]

While I believe the OOC fun of a player comes first, I will not hesitate to beat within an inch of death (or further) a character who pisses off my more violent characters IC'ly. Whether the player likes it or not, playing an aggressive person is a conscious decision by the player, and comes with its own consequences just like playing a character of one faction or the other.

Ultimately, if you're playing an aggressor, the blame rests squarely on you if your character gets into fights. You need to be willing to accept a brutal beating IC if you OOC'ly chose to have a character that likes ticking off those bigger guys.

[Grakor456]

If a consensus can't be reached...AKA, player A absolutely HAS to kill player B but player B absolutely DOESN'T want his character to die, then the two should really disengage from whatever it is they're doing and play nice somewhere else. Death is optional, that's why we have character warnings (or should, anyway.) There should always be an out unless the character is literally asking for it.

Giving someone a severe beating though? Well, that's fine.