|
|
|
Overlord
 
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:40 PM
Posts: 1,595,
Visits: 4,256
|
|
| Agreed we are going off base, thanks to Anthony for bringing us back to the topic. I'm meandering a bit here, but I'll draw it back at the end. Cheeslord (4/14/2008)
Possibly what marios is saying is that people playing a role given to them by an authority figure (e.g. the ref team, or plot team if you have a seperate one in your system) dont invest as much of their ego into the achievement of goals associated with that role, compared to people playing a role they have been free to choose themselves within the bounds of the game world. See I already get this, as I mentioned its an aspiration to create and indistinguishable system and thereby defeating any objection to killing player characters because the majority of participants have an immersive opportunity to see no difference. Its the character crew's responsibility to be aware of how much players invest into a role and to try to live up to it. Back in the bad old days when I worked for the LT (boo hiss) they had NPC guidelines and probably still do. These were a list of do's and don'ts for NPCs, a lot of which revolved around killing players, doing jobs they could get players to do, etc... which led to a culture of signpost NPC's. In my view the first step is to remove any boundaries on NPCs granting them an equal set of options to players. The next step is to ensure they have a reason for what they are there to do. Cheeslord (4/14/2008)
Perversely this can in some cases lead to the ref-defined roles getting more stuck in to the roleplaying than the player-defined roles (more ego invested in following their brief in a creative, entertaining way. Their failure to achieve their goals might be totally inevitable anyway. Players be more likely to hold back/avoid risks). Now that is an interesting area that we haven't touched on. The generally "riskier" attitude of NPCs does led itself in some situations to more achievement or attrition, I agree. Relating this back to the thread question, I think the "pros" of having player characters killing player characters is that its an ultimate weapon in the armoury, a compliment to the murdered player and a tool to creating the most believable game environment. The "cons" usually revolve around the player base having the wrong attitude in relation to character death. The only way to ensure the right attitude is to set it out at the start and make all the character options really good ones. The other question that really should be asked is "why have NPCs?" If an NPC has no clearly defined purpose with intelligent depth, then they should not be there.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
Matt Pennington (4/14/2008)
My IC and OOC goals never align perfectly, and I don't think they do for anyone else either. Most people do not view the death of their character, the same way they view their own death, for instance. People in LRP are much more likely to sacrifice their character to have some fun, than they are in real life.
That's not what I meant by IC/OOC goals aligning! If your IC goal is to seek solitude appropriate to a hermit, but your OOC goal is to interact with lots of other players, that's what I would call misalignment. Equally, if your IC goal is to defeat your enemies but your OOC goal is to be defeated by your enemies (because, say, you really don't like having to kill another PC) then I think that might constitute a systematically difficult misalignment (rather than simply a failure of planning).
Matt Pennington (4/14/2008)
No, it's really not like that at all. It's like saying "I enjoy playing chess, winning or losing doesn't actually bother me, so long as I feel I've played well against a good opponent."
Again, I think it's rather hanging on the word 'bother'. If by that you mean that you'd 'prefer to win, but the dominant factor is that playing is much better than not playing', then that's perfectly sustainable, but if you mean 'I don't actually care whether I win or lose - but don't worry, I'll do my best to pretend I do' then I find that rather contradictory - after all, isn't this part of the reason you'd prefer to play with a PC over an NPC?
Matt Pennington (4/14/2008)
It's just as easy to do everything within the rules to win a game of chess and then enjoy it immensely when you lose as it is to want to survive and triumph in LRP and then enjoy getting chopped up, ignominiously by your enemies.
Absolutely - in no way am I saying that dying/failing to acheive some contested IC goal is not enjoyable - but I think asserting that it is (if that is what you're doing - reading over your post again you seem more ambiguous than you did the last time this came up) _more_ enjoyable than winning/achieving some contested IC goal is flagging up a serious issue. Either you've misdesigned your character so that what your character wants to do IC opposes what you want them to do OOC (which I think we've agreed before is generally undesirable if you can avoid it?) or there's something wrong with the game (assuming the game is designed to support IC goals).
Matt Pennington (4/14/2008)
My character's goals are not my goals, my goals are to have fun, to try and roleplay my character in a way that I think adds to the game for everyone, neither of which could ever possibly be character goals.
That's why I said 'aligned' rather than 'identical'. If you enjoy talking to lots of other players then a character whose motivations lead them to talk to lots of characters has IC goals aligned to your OOC goals.
Matt Pennington (4/14/2008)
I can't help feeling that we're derailing this thread rather badly. I also suspect that Rule7 represents a rather biased viewpoint on this, being a fairly selective slice of the LRP community, rather than a representative one.
I think the original post took the unrepresentative nature of boards into account and we are still discussing the merits of killing other people's characters (rather than what does/does not constitute an NPC).
AnthonyK (4/14/2008)
I agree that its harder to get into the depth of character of NPC's as you havent thought up all the random little traits and background but a good ref covers for this i think, you get the detialed big NPC's who tend to be very detialed
I'm not arguing that it's impossible/undesirable to make NPCs _more like_ PCs - I'm just saying that I don't think you can make them indistinguishable while still making a distinction in who gets to 'devise' the NPCs. I think, insofar as NPCs serve an explicit organiser purpose they aren't ever going to indistinguishable from PCs, regardless of the skill of the NPC/organiser. You can't avoid thumb-prints _and_ still mould things.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, November 21, 2008 7:33 PM
Posts: 1,456,
Visits: 2,020
|
|
Marios (4/14/2008)
That's why I said 'aligned' rather than 'identical'. If you enjoy talking to lots of other players then a character whose motivations lead them to talk to lots of characters has IC goals aligned to your OOC goals.
Got you and my bad. I tend to play characters who provoke trouble and refuse to back down. That tends to get me killed a lot. Since I rather enjoy a good death, I think that probably means my IC goals and OOC goals are aligned. I've never felt there was a significant tendency for me to underplay my characters in an attempt to get myself killed, but I accept that it could be happening.
Marios
You can't avoid thumb-prints _and_ still mould things.
I agree. I think you can disguise NPCs as PCs, but the best way to do this is to make them as much like PCs as possible. Build them using PC stats, give the person playing it total free will, encourage them to play to the limit of their game, don't tell them any plot their character wouldn't know, don't give them any plot resources a PC wouldn't have, get them to design the character, so they know it inside out, rather than you writing it, ask them to think of themselves as a PC rather than an NPC.
If you do all that, you have the near perfect disguise. You only need to do one more thing to perfect the illusion and make it impossible to distinguish the PC from the NPC - namely make the person playing the part pay full price for their ticket...
I used to think hiding NPCs as PCs was the height of good game, these days I can't honestly see the point. Story-led plot has lots of interesting aspects to it, that work perfectly well without it needing to pretend it's really PvP in disguise.
History is an important source for LRP. Along with other works of fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Sunday, November 16, 2008 3:01 AM
Posts: 338,
Visits: 1,961
|
|
Matt Pennington (4/14/2008)
You only need to do one more thing to perfect the illusion and make it impossible to distinguish the PC from the NPC - namely make the person playing the part pay full price for their ticket....
Spoken like a true businessman.
*winking smiley*
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
Matt Pennington (4/14/2008)
I've never felt there was a significant tendency for me to underplay my characters in an attempt to get myself killed, but I accept that it could be happening.
Even if that is the case, I think it's fair enough so long as you aren't advocating it. I'm sensitive - possibly oversensitive - to the suggestion that it's better to be the Jesus than the Romans. Obviously, it's a step up from "Romans are evil! No one could really want to be the Jesus!" but having been the Jesus and having been the Romans, I think its ten times harder to be the Romans (~someone who _initiates_ conflict and wins) than it is to be the Jesus (someone who initiates conflict and loses) and Romans, I think, give more to the game than Jesis, so they have greater need of advocacy.
If it truly is the case that
(i) that winning/achieving a contested IC goal is generally less OOC enjoyable than losing
(ii) and your game relies on people creating characters which strive to realise contested IC goals
then I think you've got a real problem. Obviously, I think it _ought_ to be the case that generally winning>losing - but from what people have posted I'm not sure that's the case. The perceived sense of OOC social sanction sounds like it might be so oppressive that it would undermine whatever joy might be gained in achieving your contested IC goal - OOC it's easy to see why that moral is conditioned into well-behaved members of society - but I don't think it has a place in a larp PvP game.
I think it's a bit like running a game where action is intended to be driven by the economic system - it rests on the assumption that the majority of people will want more money, rather than less. If there's a widespread "money is a sign of sin" ethic then your economy stagnates as everyone wanders about conspicuously not consuming and trying to find someone willing to receive their charitable donation.
Matt Pennington (4/14/2008)
I used to think hiding NPCs as PCs was the height of good game, these days I can't honestly see the point. Story-led plot has lots of interesting aspects to it, that work perfectly well without it needing to pretend it's really PvP in disguise.
Such seems to be the way with all good dissident faiths. First you're a despised heresy, adopted only by the deeply committed. Then you're the orthodoxy and all who question the truth of the new prestige faith are backward fools! Worse, the new adherents will say things like "Protestant frugality is great - I love how it means nothing intercedes between God and the souls of the faithful! But you know what would make it even better? Some sacraments and some clergy to show people the way! Don't worry - our bishops aren't like Catholic bishops - they are very subtle, they will guide people to the Truth, but the people will also find the Truth on their own.".
Don't worry - the wheel turns. Soon story-led PvP will be the only authentic kind of PvP and only obscure larp puritans will obstinately reject the tender ministrations of stealth NPCs. In the meantime, there's nothing for it but to make common cause with the Catholics.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, November 13, 2008 6:37 PM
Posts: 185,
Visits: 626
|
|
| I have no issue wth player killing - it's a useful weapon in your arsenal, and means you can be made to feel the consequences of your actions - even if those actions happen to be carrying a magic sword/cash etc. Then again, it also depends on the setting. There's LRP where it just wouldn't be suitable, either because of the style or the genre of game...and games where refusing to do so is equally against the style/genre. I agree that pitting yourself against other players can be alot of fun, but LRP can be about alot more than that - and more story-based games help enable this. In terms of differentiating between PCs and NPCs, if you want an NPC to be indistinguishable from a PC, why would anyone ever want to pay to be a PC, rather than NPC for free? Alternatively, why not charge people to NPC for you? It seems the main difference would be NPCs getting a cool plot tie-in from word go. Shouldn't those NPCs thus be charged more? In other words, why have NPCs at all? Now I'm all for NPCs in story-based games, and I understand the desire to make them indistinguishable from PCs (I personally hate interacting wih NPCs - as I often feel somehow cheapened by the act of hassling them for info), but I don't think that making them identical to PCs is the answer. Clever briefing and intelligent roleplay should help to narrow this gap - though I accept this is easily said, and hard to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Overlord
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:40 PM
Posts: 1,595,
Visits: 4,256
|
|
| Ah sorry, I think I haven't put this across clearly. A character immersive environment where players don't think about the NPC/PC difference isn't the same as a totally level playing field where there is absolutely no difference. The example I can give is that at Eos all summoned creatures are NPCs, but our ambition is to give them a comparable depth of agenda to the players.
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, November 07, 2008 11:08 AM
Posts: 350,
Visits: 1,612
|
|
| As has been stated before, it is entirely appropriate to the type of game that you are playing in, thus I think it is vital for an organiser to actually clarify with their playerbase what they deem to be appropriate for their game setting. If you turned up at Maelstrom or Eos (where the play style is overwhelmingly PvP) with a desire to fight 'the bad guys' you would have to locate the 'bad guys' according to your own agendas and then fight them, bearing in mind that those people who you have decided are 'bad guys' are other people's allies etc. If you turned up to a game such as F&H or TT where the playstyle is overwhelmingly PvE with the same desire, then you would have the bad-guys located for you, you would go on your adventure, and find them, possibly monologuing, probably attacking in waves of 8-10. There will be games that hit a middle ground, where you can do player killing within a PvE environment. I know that GD managed to achieve this feel, as do most big fests (CP< focus on PvE but sanction PvP) As long as you know *what* type of game you are getting into, you know how to behave. If you hate PvM then you won't attend a game that markets itself as pure PvM as you know that you will not enjoy it, but also that you will not ruin the game for the others.
|
|
| |