Main Battles Moving Forward

[Sin]

No worries. I also believe it should absolutely always be the choice of author/creator on whether or not their character dies. I will never expect someone to kill their character off if they don't want to. It's collaborative storytelling. People need to work together and help each other out.

I take it you don't put your characters in situations where they are in a position where they might die very often and that's fine. Some people aren't so self aware though.

 

[Outlander]

I'm a roleplayer/writer, I have two eyes, and a brain. What more does someone need to "qualify" to give their opinion?

Take an NFL game announcer. Do they have to be on the field playing the game to comment? No. They used to play football, they watch the game with their eyes, and they use their noggin' to analyze what they are seeing from their point of view.

My point is that you have no actual experience with the system your bashing, or the system that preceded it. A large part of your analogy is that the announcer played football.

No, you don't have to be qualified to give your opinion. But its my opinion that what your saying is coming from a place with little factual backing or experience with what you're talking about.

But that's not really on topic, so I'll be dropping the point here

 

[Marf]

I take it you don't put your characters in situations where they are in a position where they might die very often and that's fine. Some people aren't so self aware though.

Oh, I do. I mean, my character is a Sith Warrior, which is massively out of my comfort zone, but if I didn't have her fight in a battle every so often it would be against her character. Like you said though, should I be one of those threads, I will collaborate with the other writer to make it an enjoyable thread for both of us instead of having it end up just a mindless competition to see who can get another name on their kill list.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

a mindless competition to see who can get another name on their kill list.

I'm going to chime in real quick on this point by saying this:

The fear of killing for the sake of killing exists WAY more than the existence of killing for the sake of killing. I rarely see people engaging in mindless competition to see who can get another name on their kill list, but I see the fear of that all the time. It's irrational, frankly.

 

[Marf]

@Brandon Rhea

I am aware, and it was this realization that made me start taking more risks, because I knew that the other writer was very likely feeling the same way I was. I still get paranoid when the topic is brought up though, it's irrational I know.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

That's good that it's known, at least. I'll be honest: I think "no death" threads have gotten out of hand, so I will say this. While we won't be disallowing them, I have started a discussion amongst the staff about restricting their use. I have no details on that right now, just be aware that there may be changes to how "no death" threads are created.

 

[Outlander]

That's good that it's known, at least. I'll be honest: I think "no death" threads have gotten out of hand, so I will say this. While we won't be disallowing them, I have started a discussion amongst the staff about restricting their use. I have no details on that right now, just be aware that there may be changes to how "no death" threads are created.

Agreed. The misconception has started where "No Death" means your character is invincible, and it's begun harming threads drastically.

 

[StormWolf]

That would be where the "risk ratings" I mentioned before would come in handy, and could very possibly eliminate "no death" threads. In my personal opinion, "no death" should be restricted to strictly social threads. Characters interacting on a private and personal level in a "safe space". A mission in the field may have a low risk, but things can still go wrong. Like walking to the grocery store – you don't expect that some semi is going to run through a puddle and drench you in stanky gutter water, but sometimes it just happens. "No death" in threads that have action gives the player that sense of "god mode", often allowing them to do/say something completely moronic without suffering any consequences.

One of my favorite threads in the current timeline was the thread in which Padawan Rhonan went up against a Sith to try and save his significant other and ended up losing his hand via Force Combustion. It changed the way Rhonan fought, looked, and behaved. If that thread was a "safe place" kind of thread, none of that would have happened.

 

[Gamov]

One of my favorite threads in the current timeline was the thread in which Padawan Rhonan went up against a Sith to try and save his significant other and ended up losing his hand via Force Combustion. It changed the way Rhonan fought, looked, and behaved. If that thread was a "safe place" kind of thread, none of that would have happened.

You can still have that personal impact on your character without throwing them into a potential meat grinder. Those events could have just as easily been planned out in advance, and were not at all reliant upon tossing your character into the unknown.

On the flip side of this notion that "no death = god complex", I feel that there is an equally established mindset that "death-enabled = 100% chance of death". This idea that if you participate in a death enabled thread, someone has to die. I don't think this is necessarily the case, but the mindset is firmly established none the less.

Personally, I don't feel that restricting "no death" threads is going to curb the "metagaming mentality". If anything it may well attract those with a more competitive outlook and foster a "superiority complex" among those who thrive on such things. Meanwhile, your average, casual RPer/writer who doesn't come here with the explicit purpose of fighting other characters will be stuck doing "safe" social threads.

In my opinion, main faction missions and large scale main faction events should be the only threads strictly restricted to "death enabled" status. The main factions are going to inherently have more risk involved in them as the actions they take will shape not only the course of the site wide story, but the very environment in which that story takes place. People who want to risk their characters in helping to imagine those things for their faction should be allowed to do so. But for everyone else, re-writing the rules on how "no death" vs. "death enabled" threads are handled is probably going to send the wrong message about the kinds of things the site expects from it's writers.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

But for everyone else, re-writing the rules on how "no death" vs. "death enabled" threads are handled is probably going to send the wrong message about the kinds of things the site expects from it's writers.

This tendency towards "no death" is a relatively recent phenomenon. Our tacit encouragement of that by not handling it sooner was what rewrote the rules.

 

[Marcus]

I'll have to say that after all this discussion, I too am not really a fan of requiring death as a possibility in order to "progress" your character within the faction. In a book, the author has complete control over his/her characters. Since 50-100 (or whatever) of us are writing this book collectively, we should all have a say, but it should not be NOT up to the owner of that character. I think ultimately the choice should be the character's owner.

That said, I AM all for risk enabled and enforced for character growth. How we get there, I'm not sure. Maybe if a battle/duel gets bad enough that a character is downed (e.g., could be considered dead on the battlefield), the owner has the option of not letting the character die but instead taking a heavy hit to stats and time. For example, instead of outright dying by having his arm cut off in a duel and/or stabbed by the saber, the character cannot do battle threads for a period of time, must retrain after a period of healing, and then will have some sort of permanent weakness due to that injury.

Basically, the owner could turn the death into a severe maiming.

Again, I don't know the answer, but I don't like death being required for growth in a main. I'll do it if I have to, but I don't think it should be up to other people whether my character lives or not. This is NOT real life, but instead we are all in this together writing as good a story as we can for ourselves and for the rest of the players.

 

[Green Ranger]

I think part of the problem is the collaberative storytelling line that we've used in the past, something we tested a lot this timeline. Now, by and large, we're effectively dropping that idea for next timeline, because while it's s nice idea, it's not a great fit for the majority of the site. A lot of the stuff we've announced revolves around the core idea of bringing the RP back to the story.

You know what one of the keystones of RP is? Not everything is under your control. You are supposed to be thrown curveballs, by the environment, by other plays, and by the story. You may prefer collaberative writing where you can control everything, but it's not a good formula for the site because frankly it creates cliques of people orchestrating their own heavily scripted stories, and we want people to come together as a broader community and not only trying new things, but having those questions and scenarios thrown at them as well, encouraging members to learn to adapt to change. And yeah, that means introducing more risks, making environmemts less controlled, and making death more prevalent.

You still absolutely can play it safe if you prefer, but like I've said before, the rewards will go to those who bring the RP back to the site.

 

[Gamov]

This tendency towards "no death" is a relatively recent phenomenon. Our tacit encouragement of that by not handling it sooner was what rewrote the rules.

Forgive my bluntness, but it really doesn't seem like it should be up to the Admins to police threads and make sure everyone is playing nice. Not that I am implying the Admins will be hovering over the Story boards every hour of the day like a hawk just looking for people who are metagaming or being unreasonable in their threads. However, redefining the rules on how people are expected to conduct threads certainly - at least on its face, I have no clue what changes the Admins intend to implement - appears to be a move towards eliminating a certain degree of freedom in an attempt to curb these "out of hand no death threads".

I will say that, for the record, I have never once experienced a thread where the people involved tried to metagame or portrayed their characters unrealistically. So strictly from the confines of my own subjective view on the subject, the system we have now is working. At some point though, individuals do need to be held accountable for the actions they take in threads. It is up to each and every writer to make sure they are playing their character accurately and fairly based on the character they wrote. They should know better than anyone what their characters are and aren't capable of.

 

[Mog]

I was referring to Mog's comment about how he dealt with his character dying, and I gave an example of how it can be different for everyone. I was referring also to what Sin said about the risk of character death being ever present outside of main battles.

If what I said before didn't make much sense, I apologize. I got a tad panicky out of nowhere and wrote it pretty quickly ^^;

While I'm sure dealing with character death is a bit different for everyone, I think your reaction is very unique. I still bet that the average SWRPer only needs to experience death once to see that's it's not a huge deal.

It's odd to see anti-PvPers on this site, honestly. I did keep an eye on the timeline, but I really didn't expect the no-death threads to have such an impact on the community. The anti-PvP mindset is alien to me.

 

[Ser Gregor]

Death is a part of character development. My favorite thread I ever took part in resulted in my Dark Lord of the Sith being completely blindsided (along with me irl) by my apprentice, the former Grandmaster of the Jedi Order. It ended with Darth Nexus being paralyzed and decapitated in a coup d'état.

 

[StormWolf]

Rather than calling them "death enabled", as that invites the presumed requisite that someone dies as @Gamov said, that is why I lean towards the risk/rating system. A band of pirates would be a far less risky mission than trying to knock over an Imperial dreadnought. Versus the pirates, the Jedi would have a moderate risk of injury via laser burns and flak, where against the Empire you would all that and more from a considerably more elite force.
Death is a very real risk. One of the only certainties that every creature faces, but there are ways to cheat/dodge/outsmart death to buy yourself time. If your character makes a terrible choice in a dangerous situation, they'll have to sleep in the bed they made. Sometimes risks pay off, sometimes they don't, and I would bet some phat credits that the character you are fighting doesn't want to die either. Nothing is stopping you from, again as Gamov said, connecting with that player to discuss the combat and the parameters. A 2v2 could be resolved much like the Dooku vs Obi-Ani fight, where a character gets wounded and their side is forced to flee or get deus ex machina'd my a little green goblin.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Forgive my bluntness, but it really doesn't seem like it should be up to the Admins to police threads and make sure everyone is playing nice.

It is our responsibility to make sure the site is running effectively, though, and the risk aversion of this timeline was a major detriment and helped grind it to a halt. You joined in a time when that was already a problem - you never saw how much better timelines, including this one, was before March 2014. Which isn't to invalidate your opinion, but it is to say that we have a historical perspective that you do not.

 

[Gamov]

It is our responsibility to make sure the site is running effectively, though, and the risk aversion of this timeline was a major detriment and helped grind it to a halt. You joined in a time when that was already a problem - you never saw how much better timelines, including this one, was before March 2014. Which isn't to invalidate your opinion, but it is to say that we have a historical perspective that you do not.

Fair enough. I see how my own inexperience can color my opinion differently than those of a more "senior" member of the site who has been her far longer than I have.

I'll just wait to see what changes are implemented then. Who knows, I may just change my tune.

 

[Lav Savak]

Our characters live in a world full of hardships. Anything can happen at any time without notice. Death is a very real possibility and no character should be immune to it. Some of my favorite characters and threads are due to characters dying for their causes, their beliefs, etc. This galaxy is cruel and harsh. Why should people collaborate and hold their characters hands? It seems foolish to pardon death. If we go in to a fight 1v1 and I win due to better planning, skillful roleplaying etc, something should happen to the loser.

You are writing your character. You are making the choice to join a Death Enabled thread where the possibility of death is very real. If you are in a fight and do not realize you are going to lose and do not make the steps to either disengage or turn the tables due to either your character lacking the abilities or your own roleplay skills, that is on you. I believe death of a character brings people together in a story.

Wars, heroes, villains, they are not made, created without some sort of loss. Loss spurs stories forward due to people becoming more ingrained in them. My two cents.

 

[Jake]

The notions that death enabled = death required and that character death is somehow related to advancing in a faction are both completely unfounded. The necessity for death enabled threads to exist only arises from the overabundance of death disabled ones that, as Bac has said, is a recent phenomenon. For the first five years I was a member of swrp the only threads that existed were death enabled and there was no need to state as much.

Like Nexus and Boli said, the site has become vastly more cliquey and it hasn't really been conducive to the growth of the site as a whole . I think the changes thus far suggested are a good strike against that mentality