"Batman Theory," or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the RP

[Rothgar]

Hey guys and gals! I'm making this long, ranting post - if you don't want to read the entire thing (I don't blame you at all, I go off sometimes), you can scroll to the bottom of the post and read the TL;DR (Too long; didn't read) version of it. This is for general consideration, and reflects a bit on what I've seen/done/experienced during my time at TI. Please stand advised that this is an opinion, and my opinion can be (and more then likely is) wrong. Dead wrong.

First off, let me say that I'm neither the best, nor the most regular player. Everyone knows that I can be a whiny... Dude... At times, and anyone who's OOC'ly contacted me knows that I'm not exactly the brightest bulb in the Happy Meal, nor am I the easiest of people to deal to. I feel like I'm better then when I started out (Oh Lord, those characters were awful), but I've still got a lot of ground to cover. I'm not going to go out of my way to name names - Hell, I don't even want to call anyone out for specific RP - good or bad. That ain't my jive. I do, however, want to have an open conversation on what I refer to as 'BBEG's' - in layman's terms : Big Bad Evil Guys (or Gals).

In the past, we've had some spectacular ones. Mages, Brotherhood Agents - we've even had some BBEG's who are 'lawful' characters, and it's been a blast. I've lost my characters to at least a couple of them, and while I was salty at the time, it was usually handled pretty damnably well. At the very least, it made me feel warm and fuzzy to be a part of a larger plot. That being said, I've seen some BBEG's fall flat - not through any failure of their own, but simply because the 'good guys,' woefully outnumber the 'bad guys,' in terms of physical and mental power. The Manus was dissolved because people (rightfully) claimed that it gave the Mages too much power - they could sit in the Tower all day and simply RP with other Mages that happened to wander in and/or scry people through multiple manners, getting thier RP fix in that manner. The Brotherhood, while not dissolved, is... Well. I spoke about it at the OOC meeting, but to put it frankly - it's dead. Cyclic revolutions, obviously - When I first joined the Brotherhood, it was alive with the sound of music. In fact, -both- times I joined, it was amazing and broad-scoped - at the beginning. Both times they either fizzled out or were completely ripped to shreds from within, and that's just a thing that totally happens. I think it was TPB Margaux that said at the OOC meeting, as well, that every time she'd joined, she got absolutely burned by folks turning on her. That's happened to me -twice- with my current character, I totally understand that.

In any case, that sort of got rambling. What I'm suggesting here - for open consideration, not for immediate or drastic change - is the "Batman Method" approach to Evil Dudes. Even if you've never read or seen Batman, most people are familiar with the characters. Batman, our stereotypical 'good guy,' with a hard edge, comes across people like The Joker, Two-Face, Penguin... The list goes on. In a typical story arc, the villains do something unquestionably evil, Batman basically beats the ever-loving piss out of them, and they get sent to a place called 'Arkham Asylum.' The board game has nothing to do with Batman, trust me. In any case, they're sent to Arkham to be re-educated - there's always an aspiring doctor or legal assistant that believes that they can be the ones to 'save' the villains, that they can be the ones to finally turn them around. Inevitably, they're shanked in lieu of the BBEG being big and evil, the BBEG's escape, and Batman is once again forced to track them down and capture them again - therefore setting the process in motion once again, allowing the series to go on and on.

Why do I bring this up? I have a copy of 'Detective Comics #27,' in my basement. This was published in 1939, and was the first appearance of Batman in the comic reel. Shortly after, his popularity made him get his own comic book series, and it's been running ever since.

Let me repeat that, in a simpler way : Batman has been running as a comic for SEVENTY SEVEN YEARS. His archrival - the Joker - appeared in the DEBUT of the Batman comics - On April 25th, 1940. Batman has been fighting the Joker for seventy six years. And the Joker is an absolute, no-holds-barred, madman. He murders. He plunders. He's terrible in every sense of the word - literally insane. But the comic lives on.

In the same manner that Batman fights the Joker once a month for the last 76 years, I propose that perhaps we start looking at the MUD like that. It's like a radio drama, a good MUD - it keeps you entertained by being larger then life itself. The pitfalls are tremendous and the mountains are larger then the Earth itself. Certainly, some stuff is... Honestly, ludicrous. But, overall, I feel like we have fun. We have a connection. There's folks on this MUD who've been with it since the late 90's, when it was brought out of Beta. At the very least, they're still hidden in the shadows, watching every so often, catching a blurb on MUDConnector or somesuch. But a good radio drama can't go anywhere without - you guessed it - DRAMA. We need it. The MUD would be dead without it. And what creates drama? I mean, certainly, everyday drama exists. I think I got into an argument with someone once over how an NPC's -ass- looked. That's drama, certainly. But big drama, larger then life drama, drama that keeps people on their toes and they discuss over the water cooler at work? That kind of drama needs -antagonists,- pure and simple. And I cannot for the life of me come up for a reason as to why we feel drawn to kill these characters. Injure? Certainly. Arrest? Sure, that's interesting RP. Have a showdown with? Hell to the yeah, that's straight up film making stuff right there. But burning them at the stake? Keeping them in jail with no chance for escape? Drawing and quartering them? It's interesting, sure, and it provides RP for a moment - but it doesn't allow for the -meat- of drama - grudges. Hatred. Passion. Fire. Rivalries. Some would say that the Joker only fights Batman because he's -jealous- of the guy for being the hero, or that he's just playing a -game- with Batman, knowing that if he ceases to exist, Batman will be forced to sit on his laurels and play with the Batmobile in that huge mansion of his.

So, I'm submitting this for a general look-see. I want to see what you guys have to say about this - I've got a good feeling that my next character is going to be a lawful type, and I'm going to be damned sure to try to find as many reasons as I possibly can to disable myself into letting the bad guy go. I did it ONCE with Rothgar, and I think it earned me something like 20 QP because the aggressor had said that he'd never seen a Knight willing to let a Mage go (NOTE : NOT DISRESPECTING THE KNIGHTS. PLZ NO FLAME). That dude ran off and created -so much- RP for other people, and I'm reasonably certain that we encountered each other later and butted heads IC'ly, which was -awesome.- Having a person OOC'ly like your RP, not be afraid to tell you so, and IC'ly -knowing- that he's your archrival? Well. There's no better feeling on the Urth, for this guy. Almost like being Batman, I guess.

TL;DR
======
This MUD is touted as an RPI (Roleplay Intensive) MUD. It's my firm belief that Brotherhood and Mages and antagonists in general make the Urth go 'round - without them, we wouldn't have a MUD at all - but I've routinely seen them get ignored, abused, and just drug through the dirt. Characters with 5, 6, 700 hours of roleplay time erased from memory and RP because a person decided that they wanted to 'win,' or - even worse - simply wanted to play hero for the day. I propose we adopt the 'Batman Method' (catch and release) of dealing with superbad guys - Lawful characters get to play the heroes, unlawful or heretical characters get to live another day (albeit with limited RP chances from then on out), and everyone else gets to have a chance to RP or RP around the actions of characters that were involved with the arrest/release. Comments below, hatemail to my trash account, general sneering at my boyish sense of naivety in the PM box.

[BattleJenkins]

I agree with this post wholeheartedly - I've long been of the opinion that regular antagonists in the game should have some special treatment, and that killing them off or gimping them irrevocably should be the denouement to a long career of conflict and intrigue, if it happens at all. Part of the problem is, the theme as it stands doesn't allow very much for compromise - if I had my way, instead of burning mages at the stake, known mages would have severe restrictions placed on them and treated like second-class citizens, rather than the current straight-to-the-top-shelf 'no mercy' (or 'ultimate mercy', from the Order's perspective?) approach.

Part of the problem is is that our game's power scales a bit too high - even if the numbers are kept under control, having years' worth of connections and resources can make you untouchable in this game, and the only ones that get to stick around to build those resources and connections are the good guys. I've always thought that we should give our antagonists special treatment - give them a bit of a leg up, let them start with more power and resources and give them the opportunity to run amok with it for a while before they're shut down. And, like Rothgar says, I am absolutely 100% for recurring antagonists and rivalries - even if our villains lose in the end, I think it'll be much more fun for everyone if they get to lose over and over instead of just once, perhaps with a few victories mixed in.

[Kinaed]

How should/could we go about this?

[vaxin]

I actually sincerely disagree with this. I've played RP muds without permanent death and while the lows are less low, the thrills and highlights are much less high as well. I played the hell out of my last mage and I was caught in a way that gave me very little chance of survival. That sucked. But if you allow mages or baddies to live, you'll create a stagnant dynamic. What I love about TI is that there are real consequences for your actions, and this seems to take away from that. I only play bad guys, but I never feel underpowered. I can't think of a character in the game that I couldn't kidnap or kill with the proper planning.

If you just make mages second class citizens, you'll have the Manus problem all over again except worse.

[Romewhoa]

I agree with Vaxin in this. Without stakes, there's no reason to play a bad guy. I do, however, think that villains should get a leg up and more help so that they can actually do substantial things and leave their marks of the world. It is way too difficult to make a new villain character without established connections and resources. I'm not saying it should be easy, but it shouldn't be as near-impossible as it is now.

[vaxin]

It is way too difficult to make a new villain character without established connections and resources.

I've heard this a lot and I'm not sure why. There are four clear ways to become a powerful villain.

-Be a mage
-Join the brotherhood(This one seems to be a little lacking at the moment, but hopefully the new Tenebrae will breathe a little life into the role)
-App into a role with lots of IC power. Not enough people play bent Inquisitors or Guildleaders.
-Grandmaster a couple combat skills

The game makes it really hard for the lawful characters to identify or find villains if they don't step out into the open.

I think what people forget is how powerful two or three villains working in tandem is. If you want to make change, find or recruit some allies.

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

I think that updating HELP CAPTIVITY and, more pointedly, removing the caps that make it way too protective of the lawkeepers themselves could be a great way to go about this. I'm guessing "legitimate prisoner access" means "get a PC with a key to Ahalin on your side" but, frankly, I think that's a pipe-dream in almost every situation that should maybe be navigable by getting other PCs who probably have the thematic clout to influence the system — the Tenebrae, Nobles, and/or Guild Leaders? — involved in the plan. For that matter, the noted percentages seem to really devalue an iron-clad plan.

I could go into more detail about what I think a system like that looks like that is both non-abusive to the lawkeepers but more appealing and potentially rewarding to the villains, but I'm not sure if I'm the only one who thinks adjustments to that system would be the way to go!

[Gerolf]

I feel like we have had this conversation a lot in recent months and it ends up being a lot of griping and not a lot of actionable suggestions. That being said I am going to provide my opinion again and like Rothgar’s it is just my opinion and experience.

I have played both lawful and grey characters. No one flat out evil. In my experience the people who are bad, and get caught, are just foolish and try to take on too much too soon. Disrupting the system requires time to grow your character. Plot, consolidate resources. Bluff, schmooze, bribe, intimidate, extort. Engage with the world. Using the Batman example Joker’s power come from his resources and his ability to disappear (despite the purple suit).

When I played strict moral characters, my character got killed. When I played grey characters I got more RP but they still got killed. Here is the thing: Lawfuls are just as likely to die as bad guys. Do you know what the life expectancy of an Inquisitor is? I calculated it and in the time I have been here it is not longer than three months. (Granted I included everyone in that sample set and should probably remove the outliers but it can’t be longer than six months.)

I am going to be blunt: People who just explode on the scene and go straight for treason, kinda get what they deserve. The reeves are incredibly lax these days, when you look at the history. Plus when I played a reeve I was never once bribed, intimidated, or otherwise coerced. So have you tried being more sneaky about your plans? Have you tried being more inclusive of them?

While the joker is a good villain I must also think about another villain who was able to topple a kingdom, get his nephew banished, and hook up with his brother’s wife:

https://youtu.be/XkU23m6yX04

Meticulous planning, tenacity spanning
Decades of denial is simply why I'll
Be king undisputed, respected, saluted
And seen for the wonder I am

TLDR: I don't know really how to change the perceptions that the law is too harsh when I think we aren't harsh enough. The law is incredibly handicapped as it is and are often fairly generous. I think the responsibility is on the covert to be better than that.

[vaxin]

I think what makes bad guys 'scarce' is the fact that there isn't much bad stuff you can do in between stealing things and treason/kidnap/murder. The latter require extensive cnotes and planning and risk, so no matter how evil you are... You can't do it often. It's also hard to act out socially due to the pressure from the forces of 'good' in Lithmore, who insure that any public figure at least pays lip-service to the noble virtues.

[BattleJenkins]

Oh, I definitely don't think we should change the status quo of the game that drastically - "if I had my way" definitely isn't always the best way, after all! But I agree that our antagonists need a little bit of a leg up, as long as they're careful and responsible with it. On another game I played, the regular antagonists run by GMs to shake things up were just simply completely overpowered, untouchable individuals who killed indiscriminately, and I definitely don't want to see that here.

Consider something like the White Flame plot: Something like that could never happen in the hands of players. It's just impossible to gather that many resources as an antagonist! What I propose is that we have a sort of application-like process by which players interested in playing troublemakers can apply their concept to staff and get a little assistance getting what they need to get their concept off the ground and start causing trouble.

For example: want to play a bandit that hates Vavardi traders more than anything, and camps out on the roads to and from the city to shake down any ponce with a 'dul' in their name? As it stands now, you're likely to rob someone exactly once before you're put away - and that first robbery probably won't even be successful, because Oldbie dul Tradesman's been around for years and trained his polearm skill to Grandmaster in his free time. I think if you could apply to staff with your concept, and get it approved, maybe they could lend you a hand - give you a little gang of NPC bandit cronies to fight at your side, a little hideout in the wilderness, and maybe a few legs up on your combat and thievery skills to get you started.

Of course, I think this should only really be put in the hands of trusted players, especially ones that are playing with the expectation that they're going to lose eventually and just want to shake things up and make some fun RP for everyone - anyone 'playing to win' definitely shouldn't be given a leg up on other players. I also think there should be tighter restrictions on these staff-assisted antagonists killing other player characters as well, for the sake of 'fairness' if nothing else.