[Poll] Generating Player Conflict

Talk about anything TI here! Also include suggestions for the game, website, and these forums.

Moderators: Maeve, Maeve

Post Reply

Would you like to see a conflict command in game as described below?

Poll ended at Sun Sep 21, 2014 2:19 am

Yes
2
18%
No
6
55%
Maybe, comments below
3
27%
 
Total votes: 11
User avatar
Kinaed
Posts: 1984
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:54 pm
Discord Handle: ParaVox3#7579

Sun Sep 14, 2014 2:18 am

Due to talks with a few players, I'm pondering adding a new conflict command as follows:

Code: Select all

Syntax: conflict <name> <message>

OOC: Kinaed wishes to engage in conflict RP as follows: 
   <message>
Policy states that the result of this conflict may not be PK. Do you accept? Y/N

If the target player accepts, then Kinaed and that target player will get an underlying bonus to their XP when they RP together for the next 48 hours.
Why I'm considering this:
- I'd like to give people an XP bonus for RPing conflict, and it's hard to know when people are doing it.
- It'd be nice to skip the awkward 'I'm really a nice person, and I'm not TRYING TO KILL YOU' tells.
- As an extension of that, mitigating the high risk for low reward.

There's another aspect to this about flagging yourself available for conflict on the who list, or in your whois, but I'm pondering how best to do that. It has, however, been asked for in OOC meetings.

User avatar
Voxumo
Posts: 655
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:54 am
Location: Delta Junction, Alaska
Discord Handle: Voxumo#7925
Contact:

Sun Sep 14, 2014 2:50 am

So wait... would this mean that any form a conflict must be started through this syntax/command?
Lurks the Forums

User avatar
Kinaed
Posts: 1984
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:54 pm
Discord Handle: ParaVox3#7579

Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:40 am

No, just that if you do it this way that you're agreeing not to PK someone based off the RP and get an XP bonus for the conflict.

I wouldn't use it for PK attempts, for example, since explicitly this is aimed at improving conflicts where death isn't the intended endgame.

Also, you wouldn't HAVE to use it if you're not sure if your char intends to PK or if you're not interested in the XP bonus.

Dice
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:15 pm

Sun Sep 14, 2014 8:00 am

What worries me a bit about this is that the requested player doesn't know what they're agreeing to.

Somebody uses 'conflict' on you and then proceeds to engage in RP that in any circumstance really WOULD make you PK them in return... and now you're bound, sight unseen, not to do so. Now, generally I don't want to PK anybody anyway, but I can see a real potential problem there in that this limits the ability of the 'requested' player to respond to the conflict initiated by the other.

User avatar
Inertia
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:24 pm

Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:09 am

Dice wrote:What worries me a bit about this is that the requested player doesn't know what they're agreeing to.

Somebody uses 'conflict' on you and then proceeds to engage in RP that in any circumstance really WOULD make you PK them in return... and now you're bound, sight unseen, not to do so. Now, generally I don't want to PK anybody anyway, but I can see a real potential problem there in that this limits the ability of the 'requested' player to respond to the conflict initiated by the other.

Having not run any STs myself yet, maybe this isn't a great comparison but I'm kind of seeing this command as ST-Lite - a way that a player can stir up a little trouble with the safety net of player consent, without the need for staff permission.

The way I'm interpreting this command, a player should know what they're agreeing to up front, and it wouldn't override policies already in place that restrict pkilling already.

For example, as a Lithmorran I might stumble across a Vavardi that I think is just a little too full of himself. So I decide, hey, I've had some drinks, my tongue is loose, I'm gonna give that pompous so-and-so a piece of my ale-addled mind. So I type something like 'conflict Vavardi I'm a belligerent drunk eager to cast aspersions on you and your entire family line.'

Maybe that character flies off the handle when people talk about his mother so he declines, knowing that such a situation, for him, WOULD be a pkill situation. Alternatively, maybe he agrees to go along with it but the trading of barbs is starting to seem like it will come to blows so he wants to opt out.

I like it as a rough draft so far. I think that as long as there's a way to 'resolve' the conflict command too, so people can signal that it's time to wrap up, this could be a really nice and relatively no-fuss way of encouraging and supporting more everyday conflicts between PCs.

Dice
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:15 pm

Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:18 am

I think it's helpful to be able to add that tag AFTER conflict to explain what it's for, but even then... if you allow people to opt out halfway through, this command doesn't ensure safety as it's supposed to, and if you don't allow people to opt out, then it limits RP.

I also don't think that most people avoid conflict because they're worried about getting pkilled - with TI's atmosphere, that doesn't seem likely. Pkills are too rare for that, I think, to be a major factor in people's decision-making.

I'm not saying I think it's a system that could NEVER work for people, but I think it would probably add more code without actively encouraging new/different types of RP.

Tremere
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 3:45 am

Sun Sep 14, 2014 12:14 pm

I understand the intent here with this, however I think the system just isn't one that I would like or ever use. For me the rp of these things come naturally and it would take me out of things to say 'sir I want to engage in conflict with you' would take me right out of that.

I also worry that really what one person considers a conflict the other may not. And what happens if they deny the conflict request? That would actively discourage the rp even more. Yes the player always has the option of leaving if conflict arises, however I think that should all be done icly.

User avatar
Leech
Posts: 349
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 5:24 pm
Location: Behind you.

Sun Sep 14, 2014 2:28 pm

I dislike the command, but I love what it's trying to accomplish. For a while now I've been toying with some sort of system that allows people to RP without worry of either party being PKilled. I've seen MUSHs do it, via extensive policies to promote other alternatives to PK, but I felt super restricted. With this command, I'd feel plain silly.

One: I don't want to tell somebody I'm going to beat the shit out of them before I do it.

Two: I don't want to have another OOC thing aside from cnotes weighing down my IC decision making.

Three: I don't think this is an appropriate way to reward people who cause conflict. Increase the amount those people get from recommends, increase STP rewards, but if you take it into an automated system people will use the conflict command every time they call somebody an idiot. And Casimir calls a LOT of people idiots. All. The. Time.

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

With that said, what's wrong with sending a person a tell saying you promise not to kill them? Honestly, that's worked wonders for me. I've had numerous people RP hostile scenes with Autumn on the basis that, if it went south, one of us would let the other escape/run.
Player of: Alexander ab Courtland

User avatar
Kinaed
Posts: 1984
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:54 pm
Discord Handle: ParaVox3#7579

Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:59 pm

Nothing is wrong with a tell at all, but I personally feel awkward using tells because I don't want to be in tells with people I RP with.

Also, you can't reward it. I don't mind people using the conflict command for calling someone an idiot...

That said, what many MUSHes do is have a warning command that sends up a flag to the other player like so:

OOC: Kinaed warns that the content of this RP may lead to a Pkill situation. Please treat carefully and attempt to defuse the situation if this roleplay path is undesirable.

The idea is that people tend to remain calm or back off if they're not up for it.

I think people would generally know what the RP is about, given the ability to shove a message in there. I also think it should be fine to opt out if the RP goes that way, though players should have to clearly say that they're opting out if the above were to go in.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests