Breaking Bad

[Leech]

Yeesh... am I the only one who actually likes the current state of things concerning this topic? I've sat here writing and rewriting my post only to find out that I honestly am at a lack of words. On one end I want to encourage people that antagonism doesn't need to come from evil persons. Is tavern RP and marriage really so fun that you'd prefer it over making enemies, getting friends, and abusing your enemies?

You know what really grinds my gears? Characters who are friends with eeeeeerybody. There has to be SOMETHING that sets your character off. Race, clothing, accents (heh). Use them as stressors, as things to allow you antagonistic factors in your RP.

------

On the other end, and slightly less preachy: playing bad guys SHOULD be hard. If it wasn't difficult, everybody would do it. From my experience as a villain, I found that the system had a wonderful level of risk and reward - especially now that the recommend system's been changed. I had a full REC percentage by the end of my play, and Naer was possibly the least strategic villain ever, with multiple sporadic crimes done in public.

In short, I really don't understand the problem except that "I can't play a super badass bad guy from the get-go, and if I do I'll probably get him killed within two months". I don't think that's a problem of the 'system'. If you don't want your bad guy to die, you'll have to play carefully.

Edit: On the matter of death XP, I think it's pretty simple; if you want more, you should probably do more. I always thought rewards like QP and death XP were there to encourage an active playerbase, and not to be handed out freely.

[Annalesa]

Yeesh... am I the only one who actually likes the current state of things concerning this topic? I've sat here writing and rewriting my post only to find out that I honestly am at a lack of words. On one end I want to encourage people that antagonism doesn't need to come from evil persons. Is tavern RP and marriage really so fun that you'd prefer it over making enemies, getting friends, and abusing your enemies?

You know what really grinds my gears? Characters who are friends with eeeeeerybody. There has to be SOMETHING that sets your character off. Race, clothing, accents (heh). Use them as stressors, as things to allow you antagonistic factors in your RP.

------

On the other end, and slightly less preachy: playing bad guys SHOULD be hard. If it wasn't difficult, everybody would do it. From my experience as a villain, I found that the system had a wonderful level of risk and reward - especially now that the recommend system's been changed. I had a full REC percentage by the end of my play, and Naer was possibly the least strategic villain ever, with multiple sporadic crimes done in public.

In short, I really don't understand the problem except that "I can't play a super badass bad guy from the get-go, and if I do I'll probably get him killed within two months". I don't think that's a problem of the 'system'. If you don't want your bad guy to die, you'll have to play carefully.

Edit: On the matter of death XP, I think it's pretty simple; if you want more, you should probably do more. I always thought rewards like QP and death XP were there to encourage an active playerbase, and not to be handed out freely.

Did you just skim over this post or something?

Seriously. The problem is that I can't play a super badass character from the start without it being majorly expensive and a huge drain on resources, but that it seems to be what a lot of people want.

I did this with the explicit intention of explaining why there aren't a buttload of super badies running around all the time and why so much of the action is so hidden and secretive.

Edit: As for your smart little remark about death XP... Did you completely miss the part where I said that I understood about there being a system for that? But the thing is, there's no guarantees, and you have to do a lot of stuff to make up for that. Realistically, most people are simply not going to be able to make up for that, and there's a good chance that most of us are never going to get anywhere close.

The bottom line is that if folks want more baddies, they need to actually reward people who play those kinds of characters and stick their necks out by using those tools.

Also, I'm sorry, but if I'm playing a char where getting caught = instant death, then a paltry 10% just does not cut it as an incentive.

Again, you seem to have completely missed everything that I said and are just throwing insults that are vaguely disguised as advise and commentary.

[Leech]

Anna, it seems like every time I post on these forums you take it as a personal insult. I would invite you, and completely encourage you to take up whatever issues you have with me directly, via tells.

The fact of the matter is I wasn't responding to only your post - and it's as simple as that. A large part of that, especially the edit, was directed at Cellan and Dice's posts.

When I say 'you', it is not a target, but a generalization of the player-base as a whole.

We don't need more baddies. We need more conflict.

When you say:

And then I can't just make a character I want.

It leaves me with the impression that you are bemoaning the QP/XP grind needed to make what you might consider a 'good' villain. I am sorry if I misunderstood. If you are indeed bemoaning it, and calling for changes - that post above is not there to insult you.

It's just there to disagree, with...

The bottom line is that if folks want more baddies, they need to actually reward people who play those kinds of characters and stick their necks out by using those tools.

and

The problem is that I can't play a super badass character from the start without it being majorly expensive and a huge drain on resources, but that it seems to be what a lot of people want.

[SlyViolin]

To be honest, all my favourite baddies so far haven't been baddies from the get go. They've been normal characters you would meet hanging about church square or a Tavern and then for some reason they've turned bad and you've been able to watch the turn somewhat. It's great for Rp if you pace your badness.

Naer for example was beautifully played out, from a boy drinking in a tavern and then 3 months later he's suddenly stabbing you in the ribs in front of a bunch of Reeves. He took the time to get to know people, get to know their weaknesses and used them to his advantage is subtle plots.

Dagerian is another who took the time to get know as a character before sorta turning. (I miss him :( ) as well as Rurik (him to). Your bad deeds will hit deeper if players have a emotional connection to the bad guy. It's like the difference between hearing about a murder on the tv news, and actually knowing the murderer/victim. Two drastically different responses to the same scenario.

[Dice]

Leech, what I think may be part of the problem here is that you are an unusual player. I mean that in the absolute best of ways, of course!

But most of us - myself included - are not very good at or comfortable with STARTING conflict. Now, if you give me even the tiniest hook I will run with it for miles. But when it comes to taking that first initiative? I suck. It's partially lack of imagination, partially fear about losing my PCs, partially my desire to play characters who I can feel are 'good' - partially a lot of things no doubt. But, at the end of the day, I'm not good at starting conflict, and I suspect most of the game's players aren't either.

It is these players whom we need to incentivize, people for whom starting conflict is difficult and even sometimes uncomfortable. These people start off already less likely to stir the pot, and then when they are faced with a risk/reward ratio that will generally result in loss for doing a thing that is good for the game but not necessarily what they even wanted to do? Well, is it any wonder in those circumstances you may not get that much conflict?

I have never played on a game that was wholly supported by player agency in the realm of plot/conflict, because it seems to be a constant that wherever you go, most players are more like me and less like you. Honestly, TI is by far the most player-driven game in that regard that I've ever played, in fact.

But I know that I don't feel competent to do much villainry due to lacking ideas; I don't feel comfortable because sincerely and genuinely hurting other PCs makes me squirmy inside; I don't feel like I'll survive unless my character is fairly tough; once they're fairly tough, I've invested so much in them (both XP-wise and RP-wise) that I have so much to lose. In short, the deck is just stacked so many ways to make it difficult.

I don't know that this is something we can change. Certainly the issues of competence and comfort are my problem, not the game's. But the one thing that is 100% in the game's control is the incentive level. So I think it's a natural place to look.

tldr: Some of us hate making conflict enough that we need reasons to induce us to try.

[Leech]

Thanks Dice, that puts it into perspective for me; and see, I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. I started RPing in hardcore RP games where it's an almost weekly thing to lose your character, and when you get a character and actually achieve something with it, you'll probably cry and rage against the world when they die.

But it's like that in the really good RP MUDs, honestly. That's the incentive, that emotional attachment. Dem feels, basically - getting your character to that stage. Watching them grow up in this world that might be fully against them. I'm not one of the ones crying out for people to start murdering rampages, or be a classic 'Joker' villain. Nobody needs to sacrifice their character for conflict, and certainly it should be the extreme. But every time I hear about a small little bar fight, or an argument, or somebody screwing somebody else's wife, by golly it puts a big silly grin on my face because I know that people are actually making conflict.

To reiterate, just like Church punishment, not all conflict has to end with death. One of the one's I thought was really great was when Dag and what's-his-bucket had a duel - and then Dag starts working for him? I was like WTF. Wasn't even a part of it, but that huge turn around made me want to be.

On the flip side, I think the people asking for villains should be the ones making conflict. Super villains are going to be rare, and rightly so. So, in between every cataclysmic event, just do what your character does. Conflict should be natural, not something you have to force - and it always should be fun.

Edit: I should add in a bit more about my viewpoint on incentive - and this is just my opinion, folks. I really think that the rec system is fine, and that they can get QPs easily enough (Although giving GLs a set budget of GUILD EVENT QPs might help to drive story). What I'd like to see as an incentive is more special junk. Magic obviously has a long way to go, and so does thieving with the sewers being built, poison stuff on the horizon, and if I beg enough a rooftop climbing system.

[Dice]

Ah, but why should I go for the unpleasant feels of really going out of my way to create conflict, paired with the high possibility of losing the character, which to me is inevitably pretty devastating emotionally on top of representing all this lost effort/time?

Just pursuing conflict when it comes gives me character development still, and very dramatic and enjoyable character development, with a much much lower chance of death.

I don't know. Just today I created some conflict by adhering close to thematic goals. It was terribly unfun, and reminded me of everything I hate about playing a noble, which is basically everything. The conflict you create by being a thematic noble (insisting on proper address and respect in public as the BARE MINIMUM) forces you to be the bad guy and it feels terrible.

I'm a little down because of that, but right now my mindset is 'Who in their right mind would choose to do this all the time? How do we end up with any villains at all?'

[Cellan]

Edit: On the matter of death XP, I think it's pretty simple; if you want more, you should probably do more. I always thought rewards like QP and death XP were there to encourage an active playerbase, and not to be handed out freely.

Just as a note: I'm happy with the amount of XP that I'm personally getting back (the death XP on Cellan would set me up for life). It's more a case, for me, of not being particularly against getting more death XP if this is a massive problem for people. <3

[Leech]

Dice, I've been racking my head over that problem for a while now, which is why I haven't posted sooner - and the honest truth is that there is no solution. I, personally, feel like that is the conflict we need - stuff that goes back to the theme of the Inquisition MUDs. We don't need huge villains. I'm not sure if others feel the same way; Anna says that people are bugging out for huge villains. At the risk of insulting people yet again, I'd just tell them to shut the hell up and make conflict themselves.

Obviously, the scenario you gave changes that a bit. How do you reward sticking to theme like that, and providing thematic conflict? Can you, on the staff level? Surely if you see a lot of recommends for somebody playing their noble character like a true noble, staff should step in and give them a pat on the back and maybe a cookie. But I can't think of a hard system where you can reward behavior like that other than what we have, simply because that behavior is so general, and it can come up in so many different ways (you can't raise death XP for all thematic characters who cause conflict, basically) - the players just have to be willing to reward it, which is often the problem, and the reason why a lot of the time it's "hard to play thematic".

Those super villains aren't thematic. They are the exception, and we have quite enough exceptions thank you very much. I personally love seeing nobles cracking down - it provides the conflict people crave, but I understand that for some people it just isn't fun.

The only response I've got, honestly, is that if it isn't fun for you don't do it. I can guarantee that there are people who love playing asshole nobles. They just need to do it, and they'll probably get around to it eventually. This whole outcry for villains is just... odd. Insert odd for stupid, and you have my general view on it. We don't need a huge massacre or anything, we just need... something. Anything. Conflict, events, whatever you name it. Always something to keep the ball rolling into excitement.

As always, I think we can solve a lot of these problems by expanding the game, and the playerbase. That doesn't just fall upon staff shoulders either. Players can add theme and create books. More players = more RP = more people filling all these roles without anybody having to move outside their 'comfort zone'.

Man, my posts are scatter-brained as all hell.

Basically: If you can't cause conflict, par say, cause excitement. Ignore people begging for super villainous plots. People begging for super villainous plots, know that they don't happen over night. Thematic characters are hard to play, but if you don't have fun cracking down on commoners, don't do it. There are players out there who love playing asshole nobles, but for whatever reason haven't gotten in the role yet - it's not something that can be fixed by putting rewards on it, or stickers - and this goes for those cliche villain types, too. I think we need more players to fill all the roles to peoples' expectations.

'Who in their right mind would choose to do this all the time? How do we end up with any villains at all?'

Because the people who like that role, do it. No amount of extra XP or perks is going to change that - it's just going to give them an unfair advantage.

Edit: @Cellan: Sounds like a good poll, to me.

[Kinaed]

I agree with Leech in a lot of ways. Well, all ways, really.

Dice's post in reply to his opened my eyes to a basic truth: some people do not find playing a villain fun. Seriously, on a game MADE for people to have fun where each and every person is around for entertainment... asking or expecting people to be villains if they don't enjoy the feel of it.... well, it's not going to work.

Would incentives get them to do it more? Maybe, but still only to a degree. It's unlikely, even, that the incentives that will motivate people to go outside of their comfort zone (and it looks like we mean 'waaaay' out for a good portion of the pbase) would be uniform.

I like Leech's suggestion of getting more players.