|  | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:05 am |  |
I have also observed one thing about IC conflict. I have seen a couple times where one character started some sort of conflict with another and suddenly they were swarmed by about 15 other people, all sticking up for their family member/friend.
It has even been a mixture of families that do it as well, not just one. I think we should jump off this style of play and let some of the conflicts work themselves out between the people directly involved and not immediately jump up in arms and team up on someone. If that family member can't stand up for themselves, let them run and ask for help, but otherwise just give them a chance to resolve it themselves, you know?
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:08 pm | |
Now, I shouldn't talk, because I've completely forgotten how to play these games and know basically zilch about the present situation, but my favorite conflicts were always the ones where characters found themselves not directly opposed, but working at purposes diagonal to each other, so to speak:
The criminal gang where one member dreams of being a stereotypical 'master thief', one wants to be a wealthy and respected member of the society at large, another loves to thumb his nose at the authorities, and the fourth cares most about his relationships within the gang itself.
Friendships in which each party sees things (or wishes for things) slightly differently than the other -- more or less a mentorship, a romance, a matter of patronage, partnership of equals, a business opportunity, a process of mutual discovery and openness, a political connection, a temporary alliance, etc. Characters who wish each other well, but who disagree on what that "well" means.
I've always imagined that one of the most intriguing aspects of Parallel would be the tension between characters who resented Hyperion badly enough that they'd just as soon see it destroyed, ones who found it an irresistible curiosity, ones who wanted to conquer its present inhabitants (and rule over them, or exile them to Rust), ones who feared its unknowns, ones who wished they could join it and leave the rest of the Rusters and their problems behind, ones who wanted to unlock its secrets and use them to rebuild the rest of Luna, ones who had worked it into quasi-religious myths ... all the myriad possibilities there.
Characters for whom steps 1 and 2 of the plan might be identical, but whose hopes for step 3 differed wildly, or characters who agreed entirely on the ends but less so on the means.
Insofar as the Families could be said to represent certain ideals or philosophies, rather than merely alliances of historical coincidence and present convenience, I've imagined that similar variations of interpretation and vision might surface within them, as well. How many different answers might you get if you asked each member of the New Guard, say, what made them better than the rest of the slummers? If you asked Niners about the purpose of life, or the Reds about the value of the militaristic elements of their Family culture? If you asked any of them about the relationship between their Family and the non-member residents of their turf?
I've had more or less directly oppositional conflict that I enjoyed too, but I've also found it a lot quicker to turn to both IC impasses and OOC headaches.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
WorkerDrone
Registered
Duke Attitude
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:50 pm | |
That's funny, Ras (I agree with you) because you can ask anyone a simple question in a specific group of people (like the Reds, or the New Guard, or the Niners, yes) and I guarantee you, even if you don't get a straight up answer, character A will probably give you one answer while when you ask character B, whom character A might share a good relationship with, will give you an entirely different one about that subject.
Characters don't necessarily state their intended goals even in private in regards to what their idealization is, whatever those idealizations are, and that's likely why they get along. Another reason why characters might get along, even if state intentions/goals for similar focal concept points are too different, is that neither of you can get there without each other--or abandoning each other before the end goal sets a bad precedent for others.
In uh, latter regards to opposing people getting into conflict with each other directly, I've found that when you've run into a wall and you've got people at your back willing to throw down with you, but not very eager to, and the person you're opposing is backed by others, sometimes that sets the stage for escalating encounters.
Also, me and Irkallia were discussing this earlier, but it seems like the general perception around here, at least on the forums, is that all PVP will result in people on one side or another being killed. When I actually see death as an uncommon or even rare happenstance of people taking shots at eachother, -if- and only if the PLAYER, OOC, didn't intend upon PKing another person.
When tensions are hot, I don't see it as unlikely for rival gangs to take pot shots at each other in the street, and then break away before they attract undue attention for racking off gold in every direction, probably hitting a breastfeeding mother or a rival slumlord or something.
Another thought I had that curbs some of the Family lulz where one member gets opposed and twenty more jump in is--
When you make indie characters (and please do make them! I find those characters cool), don't search for conflict in the market, or even on Family turf. Form slum gangs, rule your block of Southside with an iron fist, start a rivalry with another slumgang.
Given those rare moments, I think both "opposing" players will learn to appreciate each other's presence on a role playing level enough not to PK without probable cause, like being mortally endangered.
But again! I understand -why- the perception is there. The lack of trust in others and the price paid. It can still bother me, can't it?
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:59 pm | |
| WorkerDrone wrote: |
| Things. |
This.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| I would prefer not to. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
grandpa
Registered
Entrenched Oldbie
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 9:11 pm | |
| WorkerDrone wrote: |
When I actually see death as an uncommon or even rare happenstance of people taking shots at eachother, -if- and only if the PLAYER, OOC, didn't intend upon PKing another person.
|
Death only occurs rarely when people take potshots at eachother, and only if the player OOCly didn't intend to kill anyone?
...what?
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 9:18 pm | |
| grandpa wrote: |
| WorkerDrone wrote: |
When I actually see death as an uncommon or even rare happenstance of people taking shots at eachother, -if- and only if the PLAYER, OOC, didn't intend upon PKing another person.
|
Death only occurs rarely when people take potshots at eachother, and only if the player OOCly didn't intend to kill anyone?
...what? |
What I understood them to mean (but I could be wrong), is that so long as neither player actually intends for any PCs to die, PC death is unlikely to occur in the case of a coded shootout.
Which is to say it's totally possible to wing each other and run off without anybody getting killed (usually). Which is to say it's possible to have on-going physical antagonism with the remote threat of death to the unlucky, but a relatively low PK count.
I think ultimately the point (or possibly my point) is that PK doesn't actually have to be the goal of armed conflict, and maybe we could have more armed conflict if less of it was intended to result in PK.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| I would prefer not to. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 9:32 pm | |
I am uncertain about this. I mean, all it takes is one unlucky bit of gold smashing into someone's eye, and suddenly they have a horrible wound that is spurting (or worse), and if one of the other people isn't a medic, or one or two more shots thud into the person before it is noticed? Then that person is -very- dead before a lot can be done. With melee weapons this is, of course, far more feasible, and I agree that the possibility of death is more remote if both parties don't intend to kill, but I would hesitate before saying gun combat is that controllable by any means.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 9:39 pm | |
I agree it's still fairly dangerous, but it sort of wouldn't be Rust if it weren't. Would there be any point at all, if there were no risk of losing control of the situation?
Obviously it would suck to be a non-com who happened to catch a stray warning shot in the skull, but I think part of trying to avoid PK is not firing first on the guy in the lab coat.
That said, melee works too.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| I would prefer not to. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:11 pm | |
^ also very true.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
WorkerDrone
Registered
Duke Attitude
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:56 pm | |
| Quote: |
What I understood them to mean (but I could be wrong), is that so long as neither player actually intends for any PCs to die, PC death is unlikely to occur in the case of a coded shootout.
Which is to say it's totally possible to wing each other and run off without anybody getting killed (usually). Which is to say it's possible to have on-going physical antagonism with the remote threat of death to the unlucky, but a relatively low PK count.
I think ultimately the point (or possibly my point) is that PK doesn't actually have to be the goal of armed conflict, and maybe we could have more armed conflict if less of it was intended to result in PK. |
This is essentially what I meant.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
