Equality.

[Grakor456]

You hear this anecdote a lot, but I honestly could not recall the last time I saw a Westfall hick try to take on a saronite-clad juggernaut of death with a pitchfork. :P

Unless the Appleflows have been up to no good again.

Aye. It is indeed an anecdote that you hear a lot from both sides, but it's also not one that tends to have much practical application. Typically, I tend to find that people who are willing to play a simple country bumpkin purposefully (and wisely) avoid RP-PvP conflict or they are willing to say "Yeah, he'd lose this."

So, the problem here has really never been "country hick vs. saronite-clad juggernaut of death." I think even bringing that up is just going to spark unneeded arguments. No, you should instead start to worry when it's "saronite-clad juggernaut of death vs. holy-armored paladin radiating Light." Because at that point, you have egos clashing and both are going to think that they should be better than the other.

[Kage]

Whoa there buddies, such a post made it this far in the span of less then a day? Props for keeping the discussion clean!

And now here's my short toss in.

Characters who are weaker then the others are made such. They literally are weaker then another, and many people choose to play those. I use to try and figure out why, but now it makes sense. Cause it's fun.

I wont go on much of a rant, but after reading a couple of these comments, I'd like to bring something up (If it already had, apologies). There is a difference between event biased villains npced by dms vs. Character villains. Sadly many character villains end up meeting their match in a hero, simply because there are so many. If anything, I think the bad guys should have a bit of a higher limit, if only to protect their play in stories that would otherwise have them be a common gnoll in comparison.

Anyway, I think there are more people here to be trusted then the vibe this thread is giving off. We're all here after getting accepted, and that's enough for me.

[Jonoth]

Not everyone is equal. There is simply an upper limit, and people wish to typically place themselves there.

'tis why we call them "trust fights." In order to have a positive RP experience outside of the grand neutralizer of rolls, you need to be able to trust the individual you're engaged in an IC conflict with. Getting to that level of trust requires commitment.

And frankly?

That's not something I can have with everyone. I only engage in trust combat with people that I know will be able to handle it. And as much as I rage about losing a roll fight to a lazy rp'r who does boring, unimaginative, unoriginal, bland combat emotes ( /e blocks your attack then stabs you with his sword), it's much easier then having to argue with them over how many badass points I should stick on their character just BECUZ MAN BECUZ.

The problem of the original post can be resolved with enough work, communication, and diligence from the players. However, very few are willing to do that.

All my this. These are the big issues I feel. The issue I noticed with prestiges wasn't that a character was more powerful than another, but that some of those characters constantly used it as an excuse to interject on RPs and pick fights with random strangers, then wave the "I get a roll bonus" card as an excuse to trample them. I think people fundamentally understand the advantages and disadvantages between characters (and yes, the farmer/DK analogy is overused XD). The problem is that it tends more often than not to disrupt the flow of a story when a character drops in to add another notch on his belt. And I can almost guarantee that most of the people having problems with not having the difference in power scale are the ones looking to be at the top, not the ones who intentionally put themselves at the middle or bottom.

Power is a perceived notion. If you want people to see you as stronger than they are, earn it. Not through picking fights with random strangers, or with the people you IC or OOC hear are the top dogs, but by how you present yourself.

And to reiterate:

People aren't as bad as other people seem to think they are.

If you have something that increases a character's power for the sake of story hardly anyone is going to say no; If you have something that increases a character's power for no reason at all hardly anyone is going to say yes.

[Grakor456]

If anything, I think the bad guys should have a bit of a higher limit, if only to protect their play in stories that would otherwise have them be a common gnoll in comparison.

This is understandably an issue with PC villains, but it really depends on how you play the character in question. Most of the memorable villains in fiction weren't stronger than the good guys: they were just clever and moved one step ahead of them. The problem wasn't the actual fight to the death, it was pinning him down in a position where he wasn't given the advantage and that he couldn't easily escape from.

Really, though, giving some sort of "bonus" to evil characters to facilitate villain RP doesn't strike me as a good idea. I could immediately see the complaints of good guys getting hit with a "good alignment tax" and I could easily see folks rolling evil characters just to pointlessly bully people around. Not positive changes in either sense.

[Scout]

Having only read the first page, I will say this:

It's not impossible to play a character that's stronger than other characters. However, you will find it very hard for people to take you seriously if you just decide to go out and roll a character and make claims of power. It's something that, often, has to be built up over time.

My own character, Therai, has widely been considered to be powerful for a long time now. This wasn't built up because I insisted upon roll bonuses for her in fights, or because I went up to people and said "this character is powerful, you have to let her be powerful." It was built up through in character interaction and prestige over a long period of time. She hardly ever gets involved in direct fights, but that doesn't stop people from fearing her.

It takes a lot of work to build up that sort of momentum, though.

In short: characters don't become powerful because of roll bonuses, they become powerful through their IC attitude and storytelling.

[Scow2]

On the subject of player Death Knight vs. Player Farmer... It's not as clear-cut in favor of the Death Knight as you might think! ...though I'd expect that in that situation, it would be the Death Knight acting as the aggressor.

Personally, I play "Powerful" characters... but I also like taking hits. I do not like the Roll system, because I've been victim of it reporting 'artificial' defeats*, and disrupting the narrative flow of combat by tying attacks and defenses to a completely arbitrary, dissociated mechanic.


*Usually due to "Weak" attackers that seem to be holding back and delivering five out of a thousand cuts. Or, they do incredibly idiotic things (such as meeting a character's strength's head-on), which forces the character to "Break" character by being extremely uncharacteristic of their notable traits.

[SachikoMaeda]

A Death Knight would most certainly mow down a standard farmer/civilian. How would they know how to stop an undead killing machine?

Regardless.

Fight systems are always chaotic. Some people go work a standard roll system. I usually trust in that I like my characters' strengths and weaknesses to show. Even when I do roll fights I still find ways for their traits to come through with logical reasons for them to take a hit or miss. Doran may have a higher dodge rating, but Leron has a higher strength rating.

OOCly, I set up my characters like Pokémon. That's right.

I give them their stats, movesets, strengths, weaknesses, ect. Sometimes for my more played characters, I set up what I call a "roll table" to use in trust fights. It's a simple rubric for possible outcomes depending on what attack is used or what they must defend. So even when I'm not rolling in game, I'm rolling on my desk.

Then I have to agree with Scout. It's not always the big bad strong guy that has to be powerful. Even crooked backed and crippled people can be strong without having to swing around a big sword/axe/hammer. Presentation of a character by how they act can determine who commands more respect.

I'm sure you're quicker to respect this guy herebefore you respect this girl guy right here.

[c0rzilla]

Hey. Hey. Annabelle was a farm girl. And she fought DKs.

WHAT NOW.

lol holy hand grenades

[SachikoMaeda]

Anna doesn't count because she's too cool for school farming.

[Harmonic]

Here's the thing though, and why I think more experienced players have commented against it, and why I think it's unfair to only ask newer players to comment.

The reason most of us oldies have spoken against it, is because we've seen it happen time and time again where there's the discussion as Krent said, about power levels. We keep seeing people do the same things over and over again when these rules are taking away, (Last time, it was with prestige classes, classes that we said were beyond the norm. People used it to flaunt power over one another.)

I hate to be this guy, but through experience, I can say it -does- happen when you take away these things. People do take advantage, and rather than saying no to said people fifty bazillion times and trying to play catch up to them, it's more beneficial to just say "Okay, you can only be -this- powerful. Respect other people and don't try to one-up them constantly. Give them a chance to beat you, and be fair."

Again, I find it can be fun when the underdog wins. Does that always indicate how "powerful" someone is? Not even slightly, sometimes people get lucky.

[Sol]

A Death Knight would most certainly mow down a standard farmer/civilian. How would they know how to stop an undead killing machine?

Interesting question.

Consider that agricultural labourers and peasants have historically been at the lower rungs of societies, and therefore have always been subject to drafts and levies when armies need to be raised. In England up until the 1500s, almost all young boys and men of common background would train with the longbow from childhood, because it was expected they'd see some fighting in their lives. The old maxim that 'when the rich wage war, it's the poor who die' has mounds of evidence that we can presume is reflected in Warcraft.

The common man and woman is the one who would be doing most of the fighting in any of the multiple wars that humanity has been involved in over the past thirty years. That the massive casualties of Northrend were largely of peasant or common stock is mentioned in the memorial ceremony we see at the Cathedral in The Shattering: Prelude to Cataclsym, and it is made clear in Westfall's post-Cataclysm storyline that most of the Transients and other suffering individuals are soldiers returning home from the wars.

Also consider that societies in Warcraft do not enjoy the modern social and legal infrastructures that we take for granted today, particularly in regards to crime prevention and protection against crime. The kingdom of Stormwind is marked by large stretches of forest and open country with guards patrolling the areas closer to the capital infrequently, with enormous bandit problems and an utter collapse of the crown's military presence in certain areas.

As in history, it strikes me that farmers would have to take justice into their own hands more often than not. Certainly, they would be forced to arm themselves to defend themselves, their properties, and their families occasionally. Westfall's People's Militia are all farmers, and in addition to fighting off the highly organised and well-supplied Defias, they were actually promoted and used as frontline soldiers in Northrend to overwhelming success.

The funny thing with Warcraft is that the setting is so stricken with war and violence that the 'average civilian' is probably just liable to be a complete badass as the player characters we run around as. Otherwise, they wouldn't be one of the 250,000 humans (or any other race that has been similarly depleted) left alive in the world today.

Don't f**k with farmers.

Or they'll farm you.

If anyone's wondering -- yes, I'm teasing, but this is certainly something to consider when you talk about 'heroes losing to peasants'.

[Scow2]

I think I should probably leave the "Farmers Vs. Death Knights" argument alone a bit. A Death Knight would probably kill a mere farmer or peasant easily. But against a family of red-blooded, home-grown, honest-to-God, salt-of-the-earth Hillbillies? The Deathknight would get a reminder that the Light truly has forsaken him. I'll leave how that works out to everyone's imaginations, and hope that it's as amusing to you as it is to me. (Tip: The only casualty on the Hillbilly side is the ol' trusty guard-dog. But even the mightiest of plagues are no match for Ma's home-cooked Chicken Soup and a couple days in bed.)

[Delta]

What about a Death Knight who once was a farmer?

[Scow2]

What about a Death Knight who once was a farmer?

Depends on who's on who's land/turf. Any farmer can tell you that.

[Vladdy]

In truth? I'd like it if the terms bumpkin and hick weren't used so often. I live on a farm IRL and it has a few offensive implications. (A few teenagers tipped my cows a few months back. When asked why they replied "Fucking hillbilly" and drove off. In a Honda. Damned city slickers... I mean what?

Y'SEE THE FUNNY THING...Is that not all farmers in WoW are helpless. I'm not saying they'd win every fight imaginable or anything of the sort; but they can stand their own using superior tactics, and the weapons supplied. Some peasants have seen war in WoW, and some can fight pretty damn well. Some were drafted into the army during the wars, and some do have some training. Can they beat a death knight? Well, not a lot of people can. If they had dynamite or a large amount of numbers? Then we'd see. I mean...Verna Furlbrow could probably whoop ass and still look good in a dress.