luminier wrote:I can't speak for everyone but I feel like the player base is being stereotyped as being bad RPer's. Certainly there are a few bad eggs in the basket, but I think there are quite some numbers of good RPer's.
I think the wizards are being stereotyped as micromanaging, while the points brought up are in fact about some pretty fundamental/macro things.
But since you bring it up, let's be frank. Of course there are bad roleplayers. Probably also on GEAS. I think it would be a very strange thing if GEAS was somehow excused. I can only think of a few MUD's I experienced with a very high number of hardcore RP:ers who all did it well, but even then there were bad eggs. But for me personally, I think what matters it that you
try to RP. As long as player tries to RP, then that's good enough (at least) for me.
Delia wrote:About conflict in general there once used to be a trend in which most verbal confrontations easily evolved into PvP-situations.
Cuetlachtli wrote:I think it's fairly logical for people to try to minimize conflict for themselves. If your character has motives or interests that would immediately ostracize them and put them at risk, then naturally some characters would prefer to keep a cordial appearance...for as long as possible at least
Eluriel wrote:Yeah, that's the thing. If Eluriel really acted on how she feels, she'd probably get kicked out of Elvandar in a second and made enemies of at least a couple groups I can think of. It's a bit too easy to "neutralize" dissenters and those who are causing conflict.
The thing which is really at hand, is IMHO, again about the imbalances that we wizards wire into the setting and how they are consciously ignored. Or should I say systematically and consciously worked against/minimized.
Let me take another example that shares a common denominator with the mage issue. I remember back when a tshahark slave was introduced in Arborea, many voices were raised against this "change". It was unfair, horrible and totally ruined the game. Both IC and OOC. Basically all charcaters distanced themselves from this type of horrific element, even those who claim to be Arborean.
The only problem was that tshahark-racism has been a part of Arborea since its creation. It is there for a reason. A tshahark slave is totally in line with its history, norms and values of this society. Accepted officially? Maybe, maybe not. Inofficially? Surely, and by the vast majority of the citizens. Noone would react - the whole thing would be expected.
And there we have the problem again. Nobody wishes to play with it. It is supposed to be a norm in the city, but each character take distance from it (well, there were a few nice and rare examples in the history, but let's skip those for now). We are essentially left without anyone wishing to play the stereotype of their culture. And not just unwilling to pursue it and incorporate it in their Arborean, but even actively deny it and claim it's totally wrong.
Is this because players are "bad roleplayers"? I do not think so. Perhaps to some extent some people are unaware of the hints in the game and the history that the game provides.. but in general I'd say it's pretty obvious. It is not due to an roleplaying inability to incorporate the game setting into your character - it is an unwillingness to incorporate
any negative trait into your characters because.. yes.
On the one hand I can see that slavery would be an example of something that people would reject based on their OOC morals. Of course all of us think slavery is a bad thing. Failing to do the distinction between OOC and IC would of course be an example of "bad RP", or rather, a lack thereof. But I do not think this is the case.
I think it rather seems like a way of maximimizing your chances by avoiding any negative consequences that might arise from associating your character with certain valuess (such as trying to buy/sell slaves). A sort of "social" min-maxing.
And naturally it hampers the game. The thing naturally becomes the same with mages. Only that now the "bad element" that we wish to minimize is the idea that magic can be a bad thing. And with that background, unless someone finds the corpse of a dead child with "magic did this" written on it in blood - nobody will accept that magic can be bad. The default stance is that it's good (which is totally unfounded), and it must be proven evil (although help files are clear on the actual perception). If handling the imbalances wired into the background was different, the path to such suspicion is of course shorter and more natural.
I am not sure why people try to avoid this to such an extreme. Perhaps I possibly gave the answer myself, in part, that people who do go out on a limb for others, whip up a little interesting, evil RP, end up getting persecuted by the entire MUD. If this is the danger that everyone wishes to avoid (by minimizing conflict in all sorts of possible contexts), then I think we have a different problem. PVP is an excellent outcome from a conflict, but not to the extent where it permanently haunts your character to death. Of course choosing certain roles is expected to have a natural stance of conflict, so that can't be all of it either.
I rather think the real problem is somewhere around "if I do bad stuff, I lose interaction with everyone else". And let's face it, playing alone sucks. So essentially, just to preserve your ability to play with others, you reduce your risk-taking to essentially zero and stay friends with everyone.
The perception is that it is so ultimately destructive that nobody dares doing it (and yes, I do think it is a shame if nobody would dare buying/selling tshaharks or hunting mages).
If that is the case (and please correct me if I am wrong), then I think we ought to rather address proportion/size of the negative consequences / "punishment" of doing bad, saying bad, or being bad. And by "bad", I mean: something which is sometimes even supposed to be normal in e.g. that culture or role (as mage, in this instance)..
Perhaps I am wrong? Or not? How do we solve it?