NERO society

[Polare]

Ugh, that 2 minute edit limit on posts is really annoying.

I was reminded when I brought up a similar topic a couple of years ago that such "successful" characters wouldn't really be seen or noticed. Consider also that there are many, many cases where the law can/will be broken without anyone complaining about it, and I can see where "good" characters might not feel they get the chance to go after "bad" characters.

FWIW I'm on the other bandwagon from Phil... I prefer "character vs character" (whether PC or NPC) over "character vs environment/faceless horde o' doom". Personally I prefer games where each character can go after their own goals, with tons of lairs/side quests/group-specific plots without the interruption of a major "battle of death" that makes characters unable to pursue their goals due to time/resource issues. But I very much appreciate that both Phil and I can play and enjoy the same games, and our characters can interact in meaningful ways despite our different player preferences.

-Bryan

Edit: One last-minute point about JP's note of "players should try to increase the enjoyment of those around them" (if I can get it in under that annoying edit limit!). While I agree with his point, there are caveats expressed in the book. If you do something bad, expect to be punished for it at some point. If you do not enjoy the consequences of your fun action, then don't do the action in the first place. If being punished "lessens your enjoyment", you need to accept the risks of this.

 

[jpariury]

I'm not certain that was the key motivation of your example

My example was intended to speak to the timing, not to the actions themselves, a direct rebuttal to Phil's statement: "...PCs who decide this is a great time to start player bashing or player thefting becouse they know/think ooc that since staff is busy with the IG plot, staff/plot wont have time to play the law people required to punish/investigate them". I cannot think of a single instance of PC-on-PC conflict that was timed based on plot's ability to field NPCs to address the situation.

I would rather see the person play another character instead of the player skipping town too.

I absolutely agree. To a large extent, though, I feel this plays more into my "people need to play a diverse number of characters" rant, though.

I think part of the problem is that we have had some villianous PCs whose motivations appeared fuzzy along the IG/OOG line and I think it has made some people leary.

I think that same IG/OOG fuzziness is a large part of why people who play villains, or just characters in trouble with the town or the law, will take a break from the game entirely. If everyone operates under the belief that a villain player is acting for OOG reasons, and concurrently has OOG feelings of ill-will for the player, I can understand wanting to step away from NERO as a whole for a while. Who the heck wants to play with people who think I'm personally out to get them? I believe, however, that a good way to come back is to either NPC or start a new character with a very opposite or at least different mentality for an event or two.

 

[Kauss]

My example was intended to speak to the timing, not to the actions themselves, a direct rebuttal to Phil's statement: "...PCs who decide this is a great time to start player bashing or player thefting becouse they know/think ooc that since staff is busy with the IG plot, staff/plot wont have time to play the law people required to punish/investigate them". I cannot think of a single instance of PC-on-PC conflict that was timed based on plot's ability to field NPCs to address the situation.

I absolutely agree. To a large extent, though, I feel this plays more into my "people need to play a diverse number of characters" rant, though.

I think that same IG/OOG fuzziness is a large part of why people who play villains, or just characters in trouble with the town or the law, will take a break from the game entirely. If everyone operates under the belief that a villain player is acting for OOG reasons, and concurrently has OOG feelings of ill-will for the player, I can understand wanting to step away from NERO as a whole for a while. Who the heck wants to play with people who think I'm personally out to get them? I believe, however, that a good way to come back is to either NPC or start a new character with a very opposite or at least different mentality for an event or two.

See, I noted the staff not being avalable thing, becouse after the fact its been mentioned to me IG that the reason why X did it (X being the speaker or someone in on it) is becouse no one in plot would have time to follow up on it.

As to the heading for the hills note, I mean, charicter X does something wrong, and gets caught or suspected. Suddenly the charicter leaves the game untill people forget, but IG the charicter has always been around.

Now the fuzzy ooc/ic thing. People playing "villans" are not the problem (tho it can get tireing when charicter Y is yet again working for the villans) but people playing criminal jerks. If you have a finely crafted villan charicter with reasons and goals, go for it. Heck kauss might be such in some eyes. But when you use thin goals and reasons to excuse your actions, often with the battle cry of "Hey, I am only playing my charicter" More often than not, your just greefing and not making it more fun for others.

as I said, a good story is one thing, but in my view a lot of PC vs PC actions (the more open and well known ones) are far from good storys and are badly done.

 

[Cerulean Jax]

Edit: One last-minute point about JP's note of "players should try to increase the enjoyment of those around them" (if I can get it in under that annoying edit limit!). While I agree with his point, there are caveats expressed in the book. If you do something bad, expect to be punished for it at some point. If you do not enjoy the consequences of your fun action, then don't do the action in the first place. If being punished "lessens your enjoyment", you need to accept the risks of this.[/quote]

BOY do i agree with this thought. Consequences are NECESSARY for anything in the game to have real meaning..i've played in games where the Storytellers were afraid to smack players for being evil or dumb, so they just let them get away with whatever they wanted, and it made the whole game feel like there wasn't a point to it anymore..

 

[Cerulean Jax]

See, I noted the staff not being avalable thing, becouse after the fact its been mentioned to me IG that the reason why X did it (X being the speaker or someone in on it) is becouse no one in plot would have time to follow up on it.

As to the heading for the hills note, I mean, charicter X does something wrong, and gets caught or suspected. Suddenly the charicter leaves the game untill people forget, but IG the charicter has always been around.

Now the fuzzy ooc/ic thing. People playing "villans" are not the problem (tho it can get tireing when charicter Y is yet again working for the villans) but people playing criminal jerks. If you have a finely crafted villan charicter with reasons and goals, go for it. Heck kauss might be such in some eyes. But when you use thin goals and reasons to excuse your actions, often with the battle cry of "Hey, I am only playing my charicter" More often than not, your just greefing and not making it more fun for others.

as I said, a good story is one thing, but in my view a lot of PC vs PC actions (the more open and well known ones) are far from good storys and are badly done.

This too i agree with, on points, as i've witnessed on other games. SOME people *not all, but some* seem to think that doing something really bad or stupid with their character, and then decided conveniently not to play the character once it's apparent that they're going to get smacked for it, is a prime way to get out of any conqequences.

I still enjoy PC vs. PC conflict, if it's for a good reason, but too many times i've seen *and been told in person in other games i've played in * that "well my character is going to do so-and-so to this other character because player X pissed me off last week" OR " i'm gonna kill player y's character because player y is a whiny bitch"

 

[jpariury]

BOY do i agree with this thought. Consequences are NECESSARY for anything in the game to have real meaning..i've played in games where the Storytellers were afraid to smack players for being evil or dumb, so they just let them get away with whatever they wanted, and it made the whole game feel like there wasn't a point to it anymore..

I believe that when consequences are in the hands of plot, those consequences should increase the chance for storytelling, rather than decrease them. I also believe that players are better served by being creative and coming with ways other than "Oooh, bad guy, kill him". Problem players should be removed from the game, problem characters, otoh, should be encouraged as much as any other kind of character.

Forgotten Realms Avatar series gives an excellent example of this. Its protagonists are found guilty of committing assorted crimes. Now, in many NERO worlds, the law would say "give us your stuff, and/or die". The route that the novel set takes, however, is "Well, your legal status is in question, so, while we do this, go find the cup of niftiness/clean up lowtown". In the first situation, you end punishing the player much more than you punish the character. In the second, you reward the player and punish the character. I believe that whenever possible, plot has a duty, and players are better served, by taking that same mindset: punish the character, but reward the player.

 

[Anonymous]

Wow I missed alot of this thread. I have had a lot of characters both good and bad. now I like the PC vs. PC conflict hence why many of my characters have become hated by other characters like Snare for example. Snare started out a good character, very confused, but would still help others, well mainly Dark Elves since they were the only ones he felt fomfortable with. BUT certain problems he had with other NPCs made him start to hate other races. he started out with a hate for dwarves and I can remember the first two people I ran into when I brought him into game was kauss and (insert Jacobs name) and they compltely thought I was there to attack them, it was great. but the who time I played snare I act uncomfortable around them and ignored most of what they said to me. I think Racism is a good character development aspect that can make the game more fun for not only the player, but what kind of role play is brought about by it for the other players. I admit many of my characters have turned out "evil" in a way but then I also like characters like Sarrin, whom many of you never met and Brox. If the costume wasn't so painful I would have kept playing him. I think that if you want to have a sort of racism or sexist view with your character then make it more prominant in how you play because otherwise its only gravy for the plot team who gets to read your history much like taking phobia of kittens in VTM: its not something you are going to run into on a regular basis in game. But if you want to sum it up, nobody gets more PC vs. PC conflict then me, I LOVE IT!


Brewer

 

[Ashe]

...Problem players should be removed from the game, problem characters, otoh, should be encouraged as much as any other kind of character.

That statement soooo scares me. The reason that it scares me being that it is an unqualified statement; it's purely subjective given the current context. I've know people who were labelled 'problem' players who from my experiences, and those of my freinds as well, we all considered said 'problem' player to be an asset. I've also known many a 'golden child' who I considered to be quite a problem as a player. Personally i'm of the opinion that so long as a player is not cheating, metagaming, or being intentionally 'mean' OOCly to other players, that they should be allowed to play as they play. However, unless they are actively cheating or some other quantifable measure which can be proven to show that said player is disruptive OOCly, said player should be left alone to play as they play.

 

[Kauss]

That statement soooo scares me. The reason that it scares me being that it is an unqualified statement; it's purely subjective given the current context. I've know people who were labelled 'problem' players who from my experiences, and those of my freinds as well, we all considered said 'problem' player to be an asset. I've also known many a 'golden child' who I considered to be quite a problem as a player. Personally i'm of the opinion that so long as a player is not cheating, metagaming, or being intentionally 'mean' OOCly to other players, that they should be allowed to play as they play. However, unless they are actively cheating or some other quantifable measure which can be proven to show that said player is disruptive OOCly, said player should be left alone to play as they play.

The problem is there is a large gray area in the "spirit of then rules" section. I know we have had a few people IG who have (In my view) violated the spirit of the rules, and so in my view become problem players. Everytime I have seen this, its always been with someone who is a "problem charicter" as well.

Now I have seen players who have both problem charicters and non problem charicters who have violated some other rule, but most the time there its always been an accident, oversite,heat of the moment thing. (You know the NPC who took 2 times his body, and when the marshal talks to him it was an ooops, but normaly he is a fine guy.)

Lucky for a few, I have no ability to toss people out, tho as a marshal I do get to report rule violations including spirit of the rule violations. However since that area of the rules is very subjective, you have to break it very definetly, or over and over again for it to be provable.