|
|
|
Champion
 
Group: Eos Staff
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:48 AM
Posts: 424,
Visits: 1,813
|
|
| Ultimately, I tend to feel like if my character would kill person x (be they PC, NPC or whatever) they they bloody well should do. Depending on the system, I am usually fairly happy to play characters who will resort to violence/murder to get their way. I tend to accept (IC and OOC) that this kinda opens me up to similar retaliation: at Resistance, once I'd done my first uptime kill (which was a massive hurdle) the next came rather easy. Still, when I came to do my first uptime PC kills (towards the end of the final event) it was still a big deal IC -- the people I was killing were both mages and my "friends"/colleagues, and I was killing them based on a suspicion, and there were two of them. If five people ganged up on me to kill me I'd think it was probably overkill, but I'd be quite pleased! Although only if there was a decent IC reason -- albeit not necessarily one of my own choice. I mean, it'd be pretty cold comfort if I played an orc and I got jobbed by five dudes because orc buttocks make excellent magical components, but it's a lot better than "I was bored." So, yeah, player-killing allowed, please. I find it hard to enjoy games where there's no risk of being offed by another PC (and thus I can do what I like, effectively without consequence). I find it much harder when the organiser doesn't have the guts to kill PCs.
---
Joe Rooney, the Enemy Of Fun
Insurrection LRP: high fantasy in a dystopian setting. First event: 24-26 October 2008, in Leicestershire. Book online before October 1st for £10 discount!
Bladelands: Raoul Ortez - heretic, medium, bodyguard and scumbag
EOS: staff
Joe R's LARPCard
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:23 AM
Posts: 1,930,
Visits: 8,156
|
|
Pete Bridges (4/16/2008)
I also try and put in some narrative for those around me (certainly in my combat style) because that is what I want for myself and I would be heinously selfish if I didn't practice what I preach.
Since you can only be sure about you want for yourself, I don't think it makes sense to view any behaviour (other than what's requested in the social contract for the game) as necessarily self-interested. Ditto behaving in a way calculated to influence others to behave in the manner you want is also sensibly self-interested, so long as it seems reasonably sustainable.
Pete Bridges (4/16/2008)
Back to the title of the thread, if I'm going to die then I'd like a bit of time spent on my death but appreciate that el random mugging and scarper does happen. If it's a loved character I'm going to be upset because the rules of etiquette say that really you can't play the same or similar character for at least a decent amount of time, and to have that taken away without some kind of payoff is quite gutting.
I'm not sure what sort of payoff you can expect - perhaps it's better to view characters as rented rather than owned (which chimes in nicely with the opening post - if people are only renting characters, they may well be inclined to invest less money in them and treat them more abusively).
Pete Bridges (4/16/2008)
So I think really this question can be split into two: is the intent to kill a character and a particular method of execution (pardon the pun) wrong, rather than "is killing a character wrong". I would have to say no and yes respectively.
This seems to be the "There are Good Deaths and there are Bad Deaths" position I've never been able to get my head around - if you're not playing in a narrative game (in which all things are labelled Good/Bad with respect to discriminating between narrative potential).
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Initiate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:20 PM
Posts: 8,
Visits: 33
|
|
Marios (4/18/2008)
I'm not sure what sort of payoff you can expect - perhaps it's better to view characters as rented rather than owned (which chimes in nicely with the opening post - if people are only renting characters, they may well be inclined to invest less money in them and treat them more abusively).Rent a character? My characters useably have lives of there own but a character isn't owned because it doesn’t exist. Personally I try not to influence what my character dose when I get ic I become the character my ooc self dose not influence the character. I can't control it if it did itself I can't really own it as I don't really own myself. If your going into that much depth good and bad are points of view one persons good is another’s bad. So basically a good or bad death is opinion only the person who’s character dies can say if it had a good or bad death. Personally I would say a good death is a glories discrete death on a large battle field helping others is a good death but others may not see it the same.
Semper Fidelis - you'll learn what it means.
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, September 04, 2008 2:52 AM
Posts: 505,
Visits: 950
|
|
Definitely with Lanky on that one. Playing my Orc in Eos blew me away for the simple fact that I came up with a simple concept and once I started playing then Jarn came to the fore and pushed me back into the passenger seat. I ended up ignoring the original concept entirely 5 seconds into it and being handed that lovely bastard mace (which I ended up buying). When I play Jarn it's actually someone else there. In fact it hit me so hard that the days after the event I thought I might have experienced some pseudo-schizophrenia and as such Jarn is totally a part of me (albeit a rather dark and bleak part that enjoys the freedom of being in control of the physrep).
Because of this, if/when he dies (I suspect "when", since he's not very amiable) I know that no matter how much I'm going to try and style it off, I am going to be really upset because the death will be real for me as it's a real aspect of myself. Ergo, if the likelihood of death is high then to ease this I want his death to be a good one. In order to increase the likelihood of a good death then I must make sure that everyone that interacts with me gets 110% of Jarn and feels like he's affected them in some way (be it scared, dead etc) and added to their own story. Now Jarn could go around and kill people silently since his physrep can also do that (the silent sneaky part anyway... the rules don't allow instakills currently AFAIK), but if Jarn went around killing people in underhanded and unfulfilling ways then the general population might not put the effort in for me. Likewise, if I give people good interaction then it will encourage everyone I meet to do likewise with their character (or their next).
Treat others as you would have them treat you... then loot them over a drink and mutual ego-massaging compliments ;D
___________________________________________________
PD:- Dr/Cpt Heinrich Bellamorto - Pickled Surgeon
- "Shoot him in the eye, the face is for ruffians and amateurs."
- "I'm holding a pistol and I have a pocket that cries PARTY! We are NOT having a quiet one!"
- "Lovable in a Hitler kind of way" - Sass 
EOS:- Jarn - Psychotic Runty Orc Beserker
- "Hello my Pretty Pretty...fancy some muddy cuddles?"
- "If we are what we eat, I could be you tomorrow..."
RL:- Pete Bridges - IT Mercenary and RA (special) Agent for Suffolk Mental Health Partnership
- "[LARP], it's not like drugs although it's probably just as expensive"
- "Yes, I snorted the Everclear and the Strawberry stuff with pips in"
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:28 AM
Posts: 770,
Visits: 2,093
|
|
This seems to be the "There are Good Deaths and there are Bad Deaths" position I've never been able to get my head around - if you're not playing in a narrative game (in which all things are labelled Good/Bad with respect to discriminating between narrative potential). It's because no one is purely of any one creative agenda. Most people have some narrativist tendencies, even if they are simulationists for the most part. They are applying their own creative agenda (to have a 'good death' in a narrativist sense) over and above whatever creative agenda the game itself is based on. As an aside, current research findings (based on qualititive interviews of a cross-section of larpers from different countries) suggest a majority of larpers are narrativists.
------ PD: St. Legion the blessed, ' "If you're a loyal eidolon, where were you when we killed the first-born?" RW: Ketta Sheng "Girls are evil. They break your heart, and then your spear, and then they get killed" EOS: Hasib Suran: "Yes, older brother, it's your choice. I only advise you." TNN: Druid Coran: "Do not heckle me, witch!"
|
|
|
|
|
Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:02 PM
Posts: 83,
Visits: 341
|
|
| Well some very interesting responses to my initial post, thank you all. This has convinced me completely once and for all that fest events are a different game to what I am used to running. In Heroquest you are in the spotlight for the entire event. I have spent my entire adult life organizing and running adventures where the paying players/customers get to have their 15 minutes of fame again and again as any number of characters. The entire concept of Heroquest is that we have written things for you to do from the time you get here till the time you leave. Player interaction and role playing is expected assisted and encouraged from your first ever live role playing experience. The more times you come along the more you get involved in the campaign and the more the campaign works for you and your character. There is no need in Heroquest for players to kill each other as they rely entirely on the rest of the party not to be killed by the monsters and NPCs that they meet throughout the event. Now thats Heroquest and Heroquest is not a fest event which is what almost all of you seem to be the most experienced in. I am however running Herofests now as fest events and was planning to avoid player vs player death because I thought that was what people wanted. I am still convinced that is what some people want however I am more than convinced that there is a solid number of people out there who are happier to kill and potentially be killed if the circumstances are right. I am not going to change the first Herofest at this late stage and will still allow ressurection for the first event as it fits with our plans. However I will be allowing death in the October event. I still stand by my statement that you can please all the people most of the time and I am still confident that I can run a good fest event that has enough happening so that everyone can be involved as much as they would like. Thanks again all for the feedback Mark/SFB
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:23 AM
Posts: 1,930,
Visits: 8,156
|
|
Lanky (4/18/2008)
So basically a good or bad death is opinion only the person who’s character dies can say if it had a good or bad death.
Pete Bridges (4/19/2008)
Definitely with Lanky on that one.[...]
Now Jarn could go around and kill people silently since his physrep can also do that (the silent sneaky part anyway... the rules don't allow instakills currently AFAIK), but if Jarn went around killing people in underhanded and unfulfilling ways then the general population might not put the effort in for me. Likewise, if I give people good interaction then it will encourage everyone I meet to do likewise with their character (or their next).
I read these two positions as contradictory (if you tried to apply to the same game). The first seems to be saying that "no one but the player can decide what counts as a "Beautiful Death"". I.e. for all you know other people want to be killed in an underhanded manner and would find that more fulfilling.
The second position only seems to work for a narrative game where we all agree (or all try to agree) on what counts as "good interaction"/adding to someone's story. I'm fine with in a narrative game or in strictly selfish terms, but I don't think it makes sense if you try to apply narrative "I'll help your story, you help mine" at a non-narrative game.
My view of a Good Death is one where I feel like the other players felt comfortable to do exactly as they pleased IC. The more OOC complications get in the way the worse and worst of all would be feeling like they compromised IC goals on the assumption that I expect or desire them to do that!
It's like any 'Good Violent IC Interaction'. A Bad Argument isn't one where I lose - it isn't even one where I get slapped down out-of-hand with the barest of attention and left looking an impotent twat IC. A Bad Argument is one where people drop OOC to ask whether I'm ok with a fervent IC argument/to assure me that they don't hate me they only hate my character - a Bad Argument would be one where you had reason to believe that even if they didn't drop OOC they were still trying to choose an IC response based on what they thought you'd want OOC. A Good Interaction is one where you realise that both you and the other are there to play the same game and can be sufficiently sure of that to be able to play. A Bad Interaction is one where either you or they isn't or can't be sure that the other is.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:23 AM
Posts: 1,930,
Visits: 8,156
|
|
Nath (4/19/2008)
They are applying their own creative agenda (to have a 'good death' in a narrativist sense) over and above whatever creative agenda the game itself is based on.
I don't think there's anything wrong with people having personal preferences (i.e. like being on the whole happier if their character succeeds in their IC goals!) - I think what needs to be stamped on is the tendency to redefining your personal preferences as not about you, but about what's best for others. I think this is problematic when (i) you don't know what they want and (ii) you're attending a game which doesn't have a social contract specifying what all players ought to want.
Narrativist concepts of "good roleplay" are fine in narrative games and they are fine as personal preferences in non-narrative games (up to a point where they start to contradict seriously with the social contract of the game) - but assuming that _ought_ to apply as general ethics is as bad as assuming that narrativist games _ought_ to admit the superiority of player-lead interaction.
Marios
|
|
| |