The Thurse Thread

[luminier]

Remove undead ability to wield, make them decay like golems do?
And definitely prevent this thing about taking living monsters and setting them up as traps. That is way beyond stupid, in an RP sense. Why would they stay indeed. The only reason this can happen is because the code allows it, even if there's no way to explain it IC. I mean, if somebody captures a thurse and drags it across the continent, it's not going to sit there obediently and guard the place for them. It's PROBABLY going to hunt them down or at least go home.

If A Satho captures me, I usually guard the place for them. Least I could do.

[fernao]

Where is the problem with thurses being out of place?
And mind you, they were at the Amward bridge, a place prone to hold a scrag quite often.
It is where the civilized lands end and the danger begins. If you run into there without looking, shame on you, not the one placing undeads, scrags or anything else there.
Unless you move without thinking and looking you cannot end up on the bridge. A follow road, without destination, will stop you in front of the bridge.
Sometimes I think people really should bother a lot more about their surroundings....
And yes, I too ran into undeads and died due to them because I didn't look, I never blamed anyone but myself though.

[ferranifer]

They weren't just there. Someone put them there to kill people. It's an instant death trap that doesn't even care who triggers it. Even undeads have safeties. I presume that's exactly why they were NOT undead.

It was something done for no other reason than to cause indiscriminate grief without even being there. That's the problem with it. That kind of trap doesn't even care about who steps in it. You're flipping the finger to the whole MUD.

That and it doesn't make any sense IC whatsoever. But seriously, it's such a gigantic jerk move.

[louis]

They weren't just there. Someone put them there to kill people. It's an instant death trap that doesn't even care who triggers it. Even undeads have safeties. I presume that's exactly why they were NOT undead.

It was something done for no other reason than to cause indiscriminate grief without even being there. That's the problem with it. That kind of trap doesn't even care about who steps in it. You're flipping the finger to the whole MUD.

That and it doesn't make any sense IC whatsoever. But seriously, it's such a gigantic jerk move.

Hi! I personally do not like this wording very much, I think we have no jerks amongst our players. Also, there are a lot of assumptions in your posting - and, isn't it about time to calm down this shitstorm a little?

Please lets try to remember the manners our moms teached us all, lets try to be polite to each other. Louis.

[Allurana]

Some thoughts from my end, from my experiences of being on both sides of "monster traps":

1. Thurses (and many other NPCS) are props from an OOC PoV, but ICly, they are living, thinking creatures. I would think they would be more likely to attempt to return home than to obediently guard some random location just because they were placed there. One could argue that using them as a trap is reliant on the OOC knowledge of their code, which shouldn't be applied ICly.

2. If the intent was to create "danger", I feel there are many ways to give that feeling than to set up what is obviously a potential death trap for the average player. While opinions may vary, I feel forcing a character to flee is preferable to outright killing them. A player surviving a harrowing experience could have the thrill/satisfaction of managing to survive, while a character outright killed, weakened, and having their belongings lost (whether temporarily or permanently) is more frustrating and mood-killing. I feel the former makes the situation more satisfying for both sides than the latter.

3. If the intent is to kill other players... well, I feel the game itself offers numerous enough opportunities for NPCs to kill PCs that we don't really need a helping hand with even more of them. I feel a better alternative would be actual PvP, as that creates interaction between players and a potential for RP- whereas NPCs killing PCs doesn't really achieve that effect (other than asking powerful players to go hack and slash said NPC mobs, which they would do regardless).

But again, I will state that I am very much against "proxy wars" of using NPCs to attack/kill PCs. I feel it takes away from player vs. player interaction and roleplay when people can simply set up NPCs anonymously (whether it be watchtowers, undeads, NPCs, or whatever) to do their dirty work for them while they exempt themselves entirely from the conflict taking place, consequence-free.

That's not to say I'm outright against placeable NPCs, as I do feel they do serve a role in the game (they are very important for Crusaders and Sathos)- but I feel they should be used to support player interactions rather than replace them entirely.

In one of these threads, someone mentioned a rule of another game of players needing to be present and accounted for when they set up monster traps for other players. I think something in that direction would be a good step towards creating more player vs. player interaction than would the situation of setting up lethal mobs at various locations without a follow-up.

[Sairina]

I don't mind the monster traps as such, but in this case, I'm not sure I can see any possible IC reasoning to create it in the first place. Never mind that the thurse doesn't have an IC reason to stay on the bridge, but what reason does a player character have to drag that thurse down there, other than that he can do it? To guard a bridge to the wilderness? Is there even anything they might want to protect on the other side? Wouldn't an evil char have a much stronger motivation to turn that thing into a zombie? I don't know, maybe I'm actually missing something, I've never played an evil char, so there's plenty of their background that I don't know...

[luminier]

I am sort of in both boats.

On the one hand, yes, a thurse has no IC reason to stay there after being beaten to a pulp. And, No, an evil definitely has more motivation to actually sacrifice a strong enemy to his god rather than just leave it some place for it to stand.

On the other hand, currently there are simply -some- game mechanics that work in ways that don't make sense in reality. Yes of course the thurse would either go home or hunt whoever did that. However, in some ways the "evils" in this game sort of exist to make the game more interesting and dangerous for everyone else. I don't really mind that someone went out of their way to cause some harm and discomfort to some people.

Was it -really- a jerk move? Maybe. The reverse argument could also be made, why would anyone just go to the West Amward not expecting danger? Theres hundreds of greenskins there. Who's to say some ogres or giants randomly decided to switch up standing positions and surprise some traveller. It just happened to be thurse. It couldve easily been thurse undead instead and the encounter wouldve been just as deadly.

Whats my point here?

Look before you move, scout skill is important. Death and losing your stuff is really just a minor inconvenience, you can easily ask for help to get it back from many different players (Asrals, Crusaders, Taniels). This whole thread has been kind of "witch hunt"-y and really it wasn't even that big of a deal to begin with.

To Ferranifer, I really do like you as a player and as a person with exceptional ideas and someone who clearly cares about the MUD a lot. I understand, dying sucks. I've done probably more than enough of it for everyone on the MUD. All the more reason to go IC with it and start making a stink about how people are making you mad (this is for everyone, not just poFerr). And if you think the Sathos did it IC, start making a stink about that IC. Death is a part of the game. It totally sucks I agree with you there, but it's a part of the game. I don't remember seeing anyone talking much about it IC, maybe I am wrong. But try to deal with things IC before hoping OOC right away. If this was a recurring daily thing, that would be maybe an issue worth talking about. This seemed like kind of a one off.

[ferranifer]

IC there is not much more to say or do about this than an escalation over the normal "undead at the gorge" level of care, rising the alarms and so on.

This is an OOC problem with player behavior, not an IC one (if we ignore the whole why are these thurses not returning home issue). We were having a conversation about how we should treat each other and I think this kind of play falls directly into the "did you really have to do this?" bucket. This was originally posted in that thread and it had no further intention than to make people think about how actions like this do have a direct impact on how you make the people you share the game with feel. I honestly don't even know why the conversation was moved away from the original thread, but hey, this thread has ended up highlighting other similar issues with watchtowers, proxy wars and the like, so that's cool.

There have been some arguments about the amward bridge being already dangerous to start with anyways and the importance of scout. Well, yes, to a degree. Is it ok to put 2 ogres at the nibbler's hut? It is a dangerous place for some characters, isn't it? I don't think anyone would complain about undead at the gorge, maybe even thurses at the gorge, but if someone put two extra trolls at the orc tower then wouldn't we be talking about what is the real intention behind that move? Is it to project power or to grief people?

Dying sucks, but that's not why I posted. I posted because this is exactly the kind of potentially harmful behavior that we were talking about regulating. I agree that the thread might have outlived it's usefulness, but would this kind of action be a one-off if we didn't talk about it?

[louis]

Howdy,
to explain that, I decided to move it, because I expected at least 50-60 notes around this topic - and that would in my eyes have totally derailed the other, also important, thead.

Louis

[louis]

There have been some arguments about the amward bridge being already dangerous to start with anyways and the importance of scout. Well, yes, to a degree. Is it ok to put 2 ogres at the nibbler's hut? It is a dangerous place for some characters, isn't it? I don't think anyone would complain about undead at the gorge, maybe even thurses at the gorge, but if someone put two extra trolls at the orc tower then wouldn't we be talking about what is the real intention behind that move? Is it to project power or to grief people?

The nibbler hut is a bad example, thats a newbie area and as such under special protection - the west amward is currently not that much a newbie thing - I personally have the impression, that this is also a "how much dynamic is cool, when does it become uncool" matter - since I am a total fan of a dynamic game world, I personally appreciate every single monster that moves - the farer, the better - usually. - -Anyway ...

Now, we could of course argue, hey, placing two nibblers randomly anywhere is totally cool, but placing two - lets say ironhold giants, isn't. Ok. The next player might then likely argue, hey, two ogres is totally uncool too, lets ostracise that too - the next, nono, orcs are very hard already, thats also uncool - we would likely end up that placing anything anywhere is to be ostracised. I personally think that this is not such a good option, but well.

Shall we maybe restrict the monster placing areas? Like, you are allowed to place monster here, but not there?
(Edit: I personally wouldnt be a big fan of that neither, I personally like it when players are not allowed to feel too safe. But thats only my opinion.)

So or so, to avoid all mishaps, the game would require a "monster-placing-rule" then. A reliable guide where to expect which randomly placed monsters, and where not. So, if you would be in the need to define a rule, cool/uncool, social and unsocial, perfect gameplay and unfair behavior amongst players, that precisely describes what is still allowed, and what is to be disallowed, what would you write? Because, "common sense" is a problematic thing, you see things your way, others might not and this bears, like we see, a lot of conflict potential. And to make sure, that the game monsters are always placed in a totally "cool" way for every player, it would require a rule that does not allow any misinterpretation.

Suggestions?

(EDIT2: I think, the approach are solely game mechanics - of course an instakill sucks, and maybe we should consider to reduce the chance thatfor - but I personally would not even take this "feature" totally out of the game. Because, if your char instakills something, thats a very very cool thing, isnt it? )

[luminier]

The rules should explain that in this game there are ways to move mobs to essentially any location. If your intent is to move a mob to actively try and screw someone over, thats not "fun". If your intent is to move a mob and try to create a more dynamic game environment thats fun. If you are going to place more mobs in an area, make sure those mobs are at or below the level of the creatures in the immediate area. Example, at a camp of ogres, pretty much anything goes from nibblers to giants. At a camp of orcs, ogres and giants would not be acceptable, but nibblers to orcs would be. There are also places where the monster variety differs greatly, one place is the canyon east of Elvandar, another is the west amward plains. Going just a few rooms from the entrance means youll encounter MUCH harder monsters. As long as you are placing mobs of threat near where someone could reasonably expect a threat that is fun.

The west amward plains were a relatively safe place even for newbies in the past. Though of course there were some ways to make it more challenging (scrag). As it stands now, the place is quite a bit more dangerous. I think the thurse being there would be in line with the rules I suggested.

[Allurana]

I personally have the impression, that this is also a "how much dynamic is cool, when does it become uncool" matter - since I am a total fan of a dynamic game world, I personally appreciate every single monster that moves - the farer, the better - usually. - -Anyway ...

I agree with this, I think a dynamic world is great, but I do feel there's probably a line between what's cool and what's a bit too much. I also think there should be risk and dangers in the world, including one-shots, but I think that they too have a line somewhere between what's fair game and what starts to lean towards being heavy-handed.

Was it -really- a jerk move? Maybe. The reverse argument could also be made, why would anyone just go to the West Amward not expecting danger? Theres hundreds of greenskins there. Who's to say some ogres or giants randomly decided to switch up standing positions and surprise some traveller.

Difference there would be the details behind the situation. If the game itself sets you up for death, that's just the way code and RNG fell. If a player sets you up for death, that was a very deliberate and specific intent to kill -someone-.

As for rules of monster placement, I feel like making the rules too specific or convoluted would ruin the fun of the 'feature', and take it away. I feel like it would be better to just try to use common sense, be reasonable, and consider the shoes of the would-be victims:

1. Place monsters where they might actually naturally roam (ogre in amward = okay. ogre at giat mountains = not okay).
2. Remember that danger does not necessitate death. Middling monsters or unarmed stronger monsters can often achieve the effect of threatening someone and scaring them away without having to outright kill them.
3. If you want to kill someone, play an active role in it. Let monsters weaken them, but then finish them off or capture them yourself. Don't set up a trap to kill people and then just leave to do other things.
4. Be reasonable with numbers and difficulty. One ogre somewhere in Amward, fine. Six ogres in the same room in Amward, that's a bit extreme.

(In the case of Sathos, I personally think "capture the hill" situations of them trying to control a zone can be interesting and fun, but in the case of specifically setting up death traps to kill people, I feel it would be better if they too attended the trap).

[Sairina]

As for rules of monster placement, I feel like making the rules too specific or convoluted would ruin the fun of the 'feature', and take it away. I feel like it would be better to just try to use common sense, be reasonable, and consider the shoes of the would-be victims:

Agreed.

Throwing a random idea out there: How about it if these monsters would remain in that place only for a while until they "get their bearings", and then return home... BUT if you really want them to stay, there would be a way to make them that would require some active effort on the side of the player that placed the trap - for instance, there could be a sort of mind-control amulet that has to be put on the creature, requires the controlling player to be "awake" and maybe causes some mental fatigue as well. If the player logs off, the monster would then awake, tear off and destroy the amulet, and after the normal waiting time return home.

[Delia]

for instance, there could be a sort of mind-control amulet that has to be put on the creature, requires the controlling player to be "awake" and maybe causes some mental fatigue as well. If the player logs off, the monster would then awake, tear off and destroy the amulet, and after the normal waiting time return home.

Ormian could hit the mind magic books on this one

Of course there could/should be some other means of doing these things, it is just that this sparks some nice research ideas

Anyways...some of the dangerous areas could be established into game lore in a more official sense. One could be having help files describing areas/cities/landmarks/whatnots and what is commonly known and/or add more "ask common joe about amward plains"-kinda stuff with some different NPC's in different regions answering somewhat differently.

Could be a worthy project, IMHO.

EDIT: One that could be gratifying to players as well as their living history would be recorded in things like mentioning the tundra gorge being a regular area for deadly ambushes and border skirmishes between the bonepriests and forces of Elvandar. All kinds of that kind of stuff. Some character names could be sparingly dropped as well. Could be fun, yes?