Mechanics & RP (PK discussion)

Illikaal

There -is- a way of RPing being a badass without being all "Lol you're beneath me" when I'm clearly 19054892308290% of your might. 

In this particular incident though, this was not the case. I think that the use of game mechanics to disprove that point was more than acceptable in this case. 

Areka

Rambling two cents:
It's largely a discrepancy in what a 'badass' is. Typically it's treated like the leader of a biker gang - brute force and dominion by might as right (might in PK, might in metagame, might in brute force, etc). This leads to several branches of issues, from beheading someone because they said something you didn't like (even if it isn't "you're a little turd" or something equally as inflammatory), to the values the playerbase IC and OOC places upon things.

The definition of 'badass' is also subjective. I personally find Ghandi more badass than Casanova or  biker gangs.

Mechanics are also an iffy ground when it comes to reconciling these different stances. Both you can't play a juicehead and not have the PK ability to make it stand up and be taken seriously, just as you can't rely on various scores or RP to accurately represent org health or leadership capability (as has been seen with the Houses, or with how guilds rise and fall on TopGuilds. They give some inclination, but aren't enough on their own, both for the good and bad), or the pack system and superiority.

The largest thing in mediating in all of this is ownership, which typically wavers or is only half-present (on all sides of the fence). I think these issues would be lessened if there was more accountability (to RP, to game rules, etc - "Yes, I can't PK that well, I should tone down my shouts." "Yes, I'm being a hypocrite, I should either acknowledge this as a flaw in a character vs wanting to have my cake and eat it too," "Yes, I have Y idea, maybe I shouldn't make degrading proclamations until I research it and figure out if it's viable or not" etc.  ) initiated and maintained.

Edhain

Yeah, I've always disliked it when somebody who was a self-described "RPer" looked down on "PKers". There's some kind of resentment or defensiveness that makes them see "PKers" as dumb brutes, or something. It's not smart to verbalize those sorts of thoughts unless you want to get owned.

It's also not smart to think those thoughts at all, but you know. Off-topic.

Areka

That goes both ways, though usually that stance is due to the power shifts. Those who can PK tend to hold more power and influence over others' playing time, which creates legitimate and illegitimate issues. A lot of RPers don't put as much..hrm. Mph, into their RP, to balance this out (we've seen RPers hold equally as much influence, such as miss Varys, I mean Villi). Everyone expects everyone else to come meet them on the field in which they're comfortable/have the upper hand (RPers on RP turf, PKers on PK turf, both ends belittling/ignoring the challenges/investment of the other, though that also is human nature).

Lately the PK issue has been a non issue, though. A lot of the horror days haven't been reoccurring in a few RL years now, for the most part, and there's been more blending in grounds (people dabbling with the learning curve of PK, PKers emoting and integrating characters into combat). That aspect's been quite pleasant to observe.

Moirean

Here's my thing about your point, @Valenae: it's very hard to find situations where badassery is established without some element of combat ability (or at least the effort to try). Many of the game's mechanics revolve around PK interactions.

In your example, you cite a GM randomly killing guildmates who disagree - even though the Carnifex have that in their laws that I can do that whenever I want (and I swear I didn't make up that rule) I'm not GOING to. That's just bad politics, and a GM who does stuff like that is not a badass, but an idiot who is going to be voted out pretty quickly - or they ARE a badass because they have a ton of people who support them in their choices. That badassness does not spring from the simple murder, though, but from other actions which have made them popular as a leader, and random murder of allies erodes that popularity. Trust me, I know.

Now, there definitely are cases of people who don't fight who have achieved "don't mess with me" status. I wouldn't call these people badasses, but I would say that they command power and can strike at people, even fighters, in ways that will hurt them, such as in the political/civic arena. OldVilli is a great example of this - with Severn's backing, she was able to execute a lot of political assassinations and manipulate a lot of things in government. I would not call her a badass or strong, but she had ability and power, but this is not something that came from simply a post or two. She invested a serious amount of effort, research and character building to become who she was.

From reading this thread, though, it sounds like you want non-fighters to be able to be viewed the same as fighters in terms of threat, and I don't agree with that. PKers pose a certain threat, and those with other strengths can pose threats, too...but not the same types. In either case, each requires a lot of investment of time and effort, and indicates high competence and ability. Orgs are recognizing that investment and that competence when they defer to these people, which is why someone who is adept at leading fights or very skilled at micromanaging the city's economy or even great at infiltrating and getting info is going to affect org priority and preference when dealing with them.

Haven

@Moirean: You're essentially arguing your definition of a badass. As said earlier in the thread, badass is subjective. Exactly like the word "evil" or "bad" is.

To me? A badass is someone tough who rises above the standard and kicks ass. The ass kicking doesn't even need to be the physical kind as arenas and competitions arise in many, many different forms. The trick is rising above the standard and essentially paving the way for a new level of play/standard. They're kinda like trendsetters in that regard. But that's just my personal opinion.

Moirean

Not, really. I'm saying that you shouldn't expect sheer RP to be able to compete against PK on grounds where combat would solve the issue, nor should you expect PK to carry you when you're tackling an issue in a non-combatative arena, such as economics. 

Edit: In Valanae's example of a leader PKing people who disagree with him/her, it's not their PK ability that is protecting them, it's whatever political pull they built up to make people tolerant of that kill. 

For example, when I was a lifer, for a while I had that sort of pull and got away with killing people who annoyed me, but I eventually killed the wrong ally (in my defense my autobash was on, so, ironically, that one wasn't intentional), one backed by Arion's order, and ended up stepping down and choosing to leave the city over the backlash. Before it got ugly, however, there were some very interesting and engaging hostile interactions from the Order as a unit - Elanth, for example, countered me at every turn, using political tactics like trying to get me ejected by making Omei's order banned in Enorian. Some others got involved, though, and it ended up being a headache, so I bowed out and left - but what I learned from that situation is that PK doesn't trump everything, but neither does RP. You need to know when to use each, and how to use them effectively.

Serrice

PK ALL the economists! 

Haven

Moirean said:

Not, really. I'm saying that you shouldn't expect sheer RP to be able to compete against PK on grounds where combat would solve the issue, nor should you expect PK to carry you when you're tackling an issue in a non-combatative arena, such as economics. 

Oh, my bad. Guess we're saying the same thing. The beginning of your post threw me for a loop.

Moirean

Serrice said:

PK ALL the economists! 

IF I HIT HIM HARD ENOUGH MAYBE HE WILL LOWER MY SHOP TAXES

Valenae

Alright dudes, dudettes and anyone outside of those labels: I'm about to duck out until another point is made because I keep feeling like I'm rehashing the same argument. 

I define badassness differently which is still causing the same dissension: I'm saying that actions are badass and badassness is completely, 100% fluid and isn't based on popularity or even ability. I'm saying the general consensus that I keep arguing against in this thread is: Badassness is the same as being a good fighter or stellar RPer or both. However, you can do badass things and not be conventionally skilled in one area or another. 

An example is when there was a PKer/RPer running through Enorian afflicting people, we had two non-coms say over CT 'Hey, stop! This isn't right'. In turn they were bullied too but it didn't matter, they stood for what they believed was right and because enough people started to stand up the leadership couldn't ignore it and eventually the douche was tossed from the city. That is another example of what I consider to be badass. The same goes for the other side as well. From an ooc stand point, I think its badass when I see people defending their opinions with logic and having a measure of integrity. I think its badass when people are bold and courageous. Even if I don't agree with the points they're making, I always find it admirable when someone takes a stand. 

Having said that, I obviously don't think from what I've written here that PKers and RPers should pose the same threats. To be honest with  you I'm not even entirely sure as to how that connects to my arguments. I'm confused as to how you made that connection as most, if not all of my points, have been applied to structure and success of the ooc community, the treatment of fellow players and the norms therein, as well as the structure of ic societal organizational hierarchy. It's not on an individual level but more in a 'big picture' way that fosters a 'booming' Aetolia. 

tl;dr: I feel like we're two ships passing in the night at this point, so to speak. 

Illikaal

I think you missed the whole "Badass is Subjective" bit. But that's okay. I'll be over here trying to connect the last piece of your argument to the rest of it right alongside of you while we try to cross this invisible bridge. 

That example that you brought up reminds me of this funny story, by the way. 

Angwe

I feel like you guys are arguing the same points, really.

Valenae

Illidan, sometimes you make me want to smash my head into my desk. lol

Calipso

hmm. Im beginning to see a pattern here :P.

Illikaal

Valenae said:

Illidan, sometimes you make me want to smash my head into my desk. lol

I know I do bb. I know I do. 

Moirean

Valenae said:

I think if someone rps that they can physically take you down when they have no physical prowess - its silly and ineffective. However, I do not agree that all strength and badassness resides in how effective of a combatant you are. I think its very possible to rp having strength of character, integrity, and boldness without ever engaging in what can be seen as excessive physical confrontation. I think disregarding the potential of a non-com in social situations icly is ignorant and ineffective. If someone wants to challenge you intellectually and your response is to simply kill them in order to win the argument you haven't won - you just look like a socially inept asshat. 

----------------------------------

However, I've seen non-coms stand-up to people they knew they couldn't beat in a physical confrontation and say, 'I don't like this action. Leave that person alone' and they were killed in Enorian AS CITIZENS OF ENORIAN under another Vanguard. It doesn't mean the fighter who killed them was a badass, it means they literally had zero communication tools to deal with anything other than killing that person and how is that praised above a person taking a stance against something they knew was wrong? 

tl;dr: I feel like some people have their priorities mixed up. 

I was referring to those posts, sorry for not initially quoting. I disagree with the notion that simply standing up and saying things, no matter how well they are said, gives you any sort of innate strength of position, or that others should modify their behavior. I mean, on the OOC level, yeah it's important that we all play nice, but part of why I love MUDs are the layers of intrigues and player interactions. 

Mechanics are not just about hitting people and curing afflictions - they are also about the political system and all the various ways we can interact. If someone is being a jerk, use those mechanics to undermine them. Simply shouting an insult (to return to the original point of the thread) or making a post isn't going to cut it, but EVERYONE in this game has weaknesses. To me (and Moi), words are just words, and lots of them get thrown around. It's when those words come backed with clever actions, like with Villi or Elanth's use of the system, that they carry strength.

Phoenecia

Instead of writing a huge, long post people are going to skim over, I'll sum up what the main point of contention is: you shouldn't be trying to pass your character off as something that you can't pull off or trying to claim things that don't have significant backing. If you can't stand toe to toe with the top fighters, keep getting stomped, but then keep taunting them as if you still won and then get offended when no one takes you seriously, you might want to rethink what you're doing.

Same if you're trying to come off as a cunning political mastermind that's trying to pull everyone's strings only to have NO ONE listen to you because your moves are painfully obvious and people consider your character a joke.

To put it in D&D terms: don't play your character as having good diplomacy skills or being attractive and charming when Charisma is your dump stat. You have to realize what areas you're weak in and either focus on improving in those, or just focusing on what you're actually good at.

Edit: Also, Moirean explained it pretty well. Words are nice and pretty, but they can only take you so far. Words don't get ANY credibility unless there's actions to back them up, and being SUCCESSFUL and getting results with said actions. -That- is how you develop enough weight in order to do things, make an impact, and have people actually care about it.

Illikaal

I'm just gonna keep it real. 

Everybody knows i'm a PKer. I've always been a PKer. I'll probably always be a PKer. I would otherwise be considered a 'badass' (subjectively) by PK standards. 

I'm not a politician/economist. If I EVER stepped out onto the political field, which I hope will never happen as I've never wanted to involve myself with Aetolian politics, I'd probably get destroyed. I am by no means a 'badass' (subjectively) in that regard. 

However, if you do run your mouth at my character, and my character is more than capable of silencing yours via killing them? You'd bet your unicorns that I'd do it. Would I do it differently if I had -that- kind of political power? I don't know. Either way, I would use either avenue that I was the strongest in/felt most comfortable in using to take care of my business. 

If you can't PK, then don't mess with a PKer and try to throw RP or Political power at them as a means to solve a problem (namely you running your mouth at them in an attempt to be an ever subjective 'badass'. Conversely, if you're a PKer, and you're trying to resolve a Political/RPable dispute (Such as telling a CL that they're a terrible leader and they'll never do anything to progress the city), then don't throw PK at them as if you trying to kill them will suddenly make them stop being CL. 

Calipso

A friend of mine just stated something that I found to fully explain this predicament of: Top troll fighters beating on new players for whatever reason. To those that enjoy to bring my character and her actions up, perhaps this will clarify.

(Web): <person> says, "I told you why earlier. They go to any length to grief kill Calipso cause she promotes conflict RP, and they only want pk conflict.

Simple and self-explanatory. This defines it perfectly why the current situation is as it is. Enjoy.

Alistaire

When someone causes conflict with enemy organizations, the enemy organizations are going to reply to that conflict. Chances are, they're going to do so by killing things, due to being enemies. How is this hard to comprehend?

Illikaal

Calipso said:

A friend of mine just stated something that I found to fully explain this predicament of: Top troll fighters beating on new players for whatever reason. To those that enjoy to bring my character and her actions up, perhaps this will clarify.

(Web): <person> says, "I told you why earlier. They go to any length to grief kill Calipso cause she promotes conflict RP, and they only want pk conflict.

Simple and self-explanatory. This defines it perfectly why the current situation is as it is. Enjoy.

I'm just going to go ahead and flat out say this, since everyone else seems to be afraid to. 

Congratulations. You've made yourself incredibly famous, by being even moreso infamous. 

You constantly bring PK upon yourself, repeatedly exterminating forest rooms (several times) and then whine repeatedly when you have multiple bounties set on you for doing such. Even after you couldn't comprehend why the bounties were set, and 3 different people explained it to you, you still couldn't grasp concept. Instead, you went on to brag and boast about what you did, followed by complaining about being 'griefed' when the PKers of the game are doing what they do. Playing the game, by killing those who have committed crimes against their city. 

The reason you have a slew of bounties on your head in the City of Duiran at this point in time is because you willingly and knowingly killed Duiran rangers repeatedly. Again, you bragged and boasted about your actions, but then that suddenly evolved to "I'm being griefed now" when the players did their duties. Somewhere, in your mind, you keep on losing the reality that this is not Aetolia which is frequently convened in your statements that start with "Well in Achaea". This is not Achaea. This is Aetolia. If you exterminate 20+ rooms, you're not going to get bountied ONE time. If you've killed 10+ Duiran rangers, you're not going to get bountied ONE time. 

You also raised cain about your liaison reports being rejected, when there were several things clearly wrong with them. Instead of saying, "Oh hey, let me try doing my research and some homework on how this game is played." you IMMEDIATELY jumped to "WELL THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN OKAY IF THIS WAS ACHAEA". You also got lost somewhere along the way and said "Lol, my reports got rejected because ONE liaison looked at my report and said nope." That's not how the liaison system works. At all. 

Your problem, Calipso, is that you keep on failing to grasp the reality of this game. At this point, you've become the little boy that has cried wolf too many times for anyone to give even half a fuck about your allegations of being 'griefed'. You did the crime, so now you're going to do the time. Your ignorance simply continues to shine through, time and time again. I say ignorance BECAUSE you lack knowledge of how this game is played, obviously. When someone tries to explain things to you, they always just go in one ear and right out the other. 

Also, picking Tina as a source to quote was perhaps even worse than trying to mimic Clouser. 

tl;dr You're not being griefed. You are perceiving the punishment that you brought upon yourself as such. 

Valenae

Can you take this to messages? I don't see how this is particularly productive in this given medium. 

Dhar

There's way too much conflict going on in this thread. Ha ha.

No, but really; everyone has said their piece and this is getting a little silly. Closed, move along.