As an aside, I find it disingenuous that you seem to think that it's okay to play specifically to deny Ixion an Ascension win but cry foul over participation denial in flares.
There is a bit of difference between Ascension and flares/revolts. But also denying a win and denying someone from participation points is different as well. If I'm just getting org points and not even trying to win the flare/revolt, that's a bit different than trying to stop me from winning.
If I was trying to win the conflict - absolutely I understand them to try and stop me (although I still don't understand why have ground forces when you can use those for faster bombard claiming instead of dragging it out, but that's a personal thought).
If I'm just showing up for the <3mins required to get participation points and then getting out and not coming back or not slowing down the claim? maybe not so much.
I was wondering if it would be possible to expand the recognize command to also cover combat related things, so you could recognize people for things like fighting well and bravely even if they lost, or for stepping up to lead or to fill a role your team needs, or for being sportsmanlike, or for taking risks to save others, or whatnot.
It is my hope that something like this would help to take away from the negative emotions tied up in a loss by helping to provide an avenue for, and hopefully normalizing, positive feedback for people that are out there doing their best.
You already can do this, though I don't think recognizing people for failing in combat is necessarily a good idea. For many people, it can come across as just salt in the wounds. Personally I prefer just chatting with people on the other side after, whether they recognize me or not.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
As an aside, I find it disingenuous that you seem to think that it's okay to play specifically to deny Ixion an Ascension win but cry foul over participation denial in flares.
There is a bit of difference between Ascension and flares/revolts. But also denying a win and denying someone from participation points is different as well. If I'm just getting org points and not even trying to win the flare/revolt, that's a bit different than trying to stop me from winning.
If I was trying to win the conflict - absolutely I understand them to try and stop me (although I still don't understand why have ground forces when you can use those for faster bombard claiming instead of dragging it out, but that's a personal thought).
If I'm just showing up for the <3mins required to get participation points and then getting out and not coming back or not slowing down the claim? maybe not so much.
You don't have the right to get org points or dailycredits or anything else. No one in the game is obligated to indulge you in getting them. If they choose to let you, that's on them. If you can't stop someone or don't want to, that still doesn't necessitate them doing the same in return.
I mean, I'm all for people being nice to each other in the game if they want. I do it all the time, for reasons that are entirely my own and not because I think it's the morally superior choice or w/e. I also frequently don't get treated the same way I treat other people - that's life, even in a game. Refusal to accept this is likely a huge part of why you develop unnecessary ooc grudges against other players.
I would love to recognize the everloving crap out of the other side in fights. Big +1 from me.
A slight mechanical reward, and will help to pervade an atmosphere of sportsmanship rather than the silent shutout I'm sure a lot of people feel when they get shut down by larger numbers.
The side with fewer players will see those individual players more likely to get recognized, and in greater amounts each, so it's even got an anti-snowball effect.
Why are people thinking this isn't allowed? Pk is part of Rp and I'd assume the same rules of "don't abuse it" applies to recognizing pk-related exploits vs any other kind of rp. I wouldn't do it cause it can come across as insulting.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
I was wondering if it would be possible to expand the recognize command to also cover combat related things, so you could recognize people for things like fighting well and bravely even if they lost, or for stepping up to lead or to fill a role your team needs, or for being sportsmanlike, or for taking risks to save others, or whatnot.
It is my hope that something like this would help to take away from the negative emotions tied up in a loss by helping to provide an avenue for, and hopefully normalizing, positive feedback for people that are out there doing their best.
You already can do this, though I don't think recognizing people for failing in combat is necessarily a good idea. For many people, it can come across as just salt in the wounds. Personally I prefer just chatting with people on the other side after, whether they recognize me or not.
I would feel better about doing this if the actual command itself didn't strongly imply it was not appropriate.
recognise RECOGNISE <player> <reason> Note: This should only be used for roleplay recognition. [2020-10-21@14:14:30][12300h][7695m][7800e][10p]mBexb<>-
I was wondering if it would be possible to expand the recognize command to also cover combat related things, so you could recognize people for things like fighting well and bravely even if they lost, or for stepping up to lead or to fill a role your team needs, or for being sportsmanlike, or for taking risks to save others, or whatnot.
It is my hope that something like this would help to take away from the negative emotions tied up in a loss by helping to provide an avenue for, and hopefully normalizing, positive feedback for people that are out there doing their best.
You already can do this, though I don't think recognizing people for failing in combat is necessarily a good idea. For many people, it can come across as just salt in the wounds. Personally I prefer just chatting with people on the other side after, whether they recognize me or not.
I would feel better about doing this if the actual command itself didn't strongly imply it was not appropriate.
recognise RECOGNISE <player> <reason> Note: This should only be used for roleplay recognition. [2020-10-21@14:14:30][12300h][7695m][7800e][10p]mBexb<>-
? PK is roleplay. If you want me to write up an essay of roleplay justification for every single person I've ever attacked or killed, I can. I won't, I mean, I do sort of have a life - but I could. It's the sort of thing I think about obsessively while bashing or influencing for long hours. I don't see the problem.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
You've just challenged assumptions I've held since I started playing nearly 16 years ago. Man, I love moments like that.
Until today, I'd just held this solid conception that roleplay meant... basically... talking, emoting, diplomacy, y'know, narrative stuff specifically between players.
Still, I'm not sure what to think about this. If PK is roleplay, then surely just about everything in Lusternia is roleplay that isn't explicitly OOC? Before today I'd never have considered stocking shops or coming up with designs as "roleplay", but if you can justify PK as roleplay (because you're, y'know, playing a role), those things make sense too.
As an aside, I find it disingenuous that you seem to think that it's okay to play specifically to deny Ixion an Ascension win but cry foul over participation denial in flares.
There is a bit of difference between Ascension and flares/revolts. But also denying a win and denying someone from participation points is different as well. If I'm just getting org points and not even trying to win the flare/revolt, that's a bit different than trying to stop me from winning.
If I was trying to win the conflict - absolutely I understand them to try and stop me (although I still don't understand why have ground forces when you can use those for faster bombard claiming instead of dragging it out, but that's a personal thought).
If I'm just showing up for the <3mins required to get participation points and then getting out and not coming back or not slowing down the claim? maybe not so much.
I disagree. Keeping people from getting participation points is denying them a win. Said another way, getting participation points can make or break a win. For the better part of the last five game years, Gaudiguch has managed to snatch the orgcredits win over Magnagora and Serenwilde precisely because we made sure to get participation points on top of win points. We've actually been pretty incessant on nudging Mags and Serens to raise colossuses during flares or sending a citizen to sit on a village just for that reason.
With that said, I maintain my position that the entire philosophy - playing to deny others - is a problem for the game as a whole. The players can surely do their part in ensuring that some semblance of equity tempers actions, but the game's conflict systems should also work to discourage it. One way to do it would be to lessen the burden on the 'losing' orgs. Make winning be about winning, not about avoiding losing.
Scarcity should not be the dominant vehicle of conflict in the game. And I know - Lusternia is post-apocalyptic, and the hunger for power (nexus power, astral power, etc.) is a major part of its story. But it's not sustainable, especially not when simple activities (such as crafting) can become so impacted by conflict systems that are so easily gamed.
You've just challenged assumptions I've held since I started playing nearly 16 years ago. Man, I love moments like that.
Until today, I'd just held this solid conception that roleplay meant... basically... talking, emoting, diplomacy, y'know, narrative stuff specifically between players.
Still, I'm not sure what to think about this. If PK is roleplay, then surely just about everything in Lusternia is roleplay that isn't explicitly OOC? Before today I'd never have considered stocking shops or coming up with designs as "roleplay", but if you can justify PK as roleplay (because you're, y'know, playing a role), those things make sense too.
Likely worth getting admin clarification cause yeah my understanding was it was a way to reward people for stuff like doing lectures, rituals, getting into rp discussions. I guess... non-mechanical pursuits because they're hard to reward mechanically. It's something that was requested for years as a way to mechanically reward that sort of thing. Could also be an issue that it seems like part of the vernacular of Lusternia is that "roleplay" on one hand is considered that sort of thing and is separate from designing/pk/conflict/combat/bashing/etc, and on the other is your characters identity and can include the first definition as well as, effectively, any pursuit in game.
Mostly a question of intention, if recognise is for the former you could expand it or replicate it for conflict stuff. Could even create a separate commendation thing like ffxiv has where basically at the end of any conflict thing you get to commend another participant which might be open it up to more daily uses cause it's linked to something that's mechanically tracked?
To repeat what I've said on discord, my understanding has always been that the real point of recognize is to encourage people to keep doing something in the game that other people enjoy them doing. Anything we do in the game is done for character motivations, aka roleplay, and that's how I've always viewed it. And I've known people who roleplay "hardcore pker" really well. Not by doing long emotes or writing books about it, but just being able to justify their actions consistently.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
Sure, differing interpretations are why admin clarification of the intention of the system is really the only way to get a clear answer.
For me, all the conflict objectives give daily credits already and should be functioning as an incentive to show up along with org points. But the stuff I interpret as the "roleplay" intended in this context is really all stuff that doesn't have some other kind of reward unless an admin is watching which doesn't happen for everyone, so potentially being recognised functions as an incentive to participate in those aspects of the game. Particularly given that purely social sort of scenario I associate with it typically also means time away from other activities that would earn you dailies/exp/etc.
Anyway, something for the admin and as mentioned before, you could potentially implement a more broadly usable variation with stuff that is mechanically tracked.
I've been active a little while now, so feel the time is right to submit my two cents.
From the way I see it, yes, numbers are sometimes an issue. It's widely accepted that the alliance is screwed and needs addressing. That said, there are times when IHC is outnumbered. There is a core group from ShadowLight that are very capable and are almost entirely perpetuating combat at the moment.
From my perspective, the issue is less about numbers and more about morale. Granted, people need to do other things from time to time, but it's hard to watch when you guys just seem to... Give up. I have seen it almost daily. Even when the odds are stacked in your favour, very regularly, we see you guys just disappear. It's a very hard thing to watch, if I was honest. We're all here to have fun and when the game in its current state is unable to provide that, yes, it's painful.
It's a very difficult situation to be in and I really feel for everyone involved.
If there is anything I can personally do to help improve the situation, please don't ever hesitate to contact me via whatever method available.
Let's, as a collective, make Lusternia a fun place to hang out.
I've been active a little while now, so feel the time is right to submit my two cents.
From the way I see it, yes, numbers are sometimes an issue. It's widely accepted that the alliance is screwed and needs addressing. That said, there are times when IHC is outnumbered. There is a core group from ShadowLight that are very capable and are almost entirely perpetuating combat at the moment.
From my perspective, the issue is less about numbers and more about morale. Granted, people need to do other things from time to time, but it's hard to watch when you guys just seem to... Give up. I have seen it almost daily. Even when the odds are stacked in your favour, very regularly, we see you guys just disappear. It's a very hard thing to watch, if I was honest. We're all here to have fun and when the game in its current state is unable to provide that, yes, it's painful.
I can't speak for the others, but I personally try and give it at least a push or two every time and see if we can't get a hold of it, but then my contribution usually is more of on the small side ( am not a very good combatant, but I try ). What I see happen the most is people just lose faith after a while, there's a few die-hard ones, most notable @azula, which definitely deserves credit for her stubbornness here, which keeps inspiring my own It's a tough boat to ride, to find people to are willing to put up. Even if we're even, I think we're still not there to say we have the same level of organisation then IHC has right now. It's slowly getting better, but you can't balance the loss of years of combat experience in a few weeks. But then, doesn't stop us from trying. I personally don't think we have any choice beside fighting through it, but I get why it frustrates people. Especially things, as I said before, 0 villages is a real morale hit I think. Losing timequakes isn't as big of a bummer, nor is losing flares or wildnodes.
Am hoping that in the whole economic look, that we're maybe also seeing something that dampens the impact of not having enough people to actually hold a village, at least commodity influx wise.
You've just challenged assumptions I've held since I started playing nearly 16 years ago. Man, I love moments like that.
Until today, I'd just held this solid conception that roleplay meant... basically... talking, emoting, diplomacy, y'know, narrative stuff specifically between players.
Still, I'm not sure what to think about this. If PK is roleplay, then surely just about everything in Lusternia is roleplay that isn't explicitly OOC? Before today I'd never have considered stocking shops or coming up with designs as "roleplay", but if you can justify PK as roleplay (because you're, y'know, playing a role), those things make sense too.
This is absolutely all roleplay. I'd argue that any time you do something in game that is IC and justifiably driven by who your character is, you're roleplaying. To focus on the PK thing - conflict and drama are essential parts of RP. YMMV but for me, emotions are a huge part of what makes roleplay interesting. And that necessitates a level of conflict, whether a quarrel with a loved one, arguments over guild philosophy, or putting your life on the line to defend something you care about. But similarly. Your character might be proud of their shop that they're running so they need to keep it well stocked. They are a highly talented tailor, so they spend a lot of time drawing up designs. All these things are aspects of roleplay, because they're all about how you play your character.
You've just challenged assumptions I've held since I started playing nearly 16 years ago. Man, I love moments like that.
Until today, I'd just held this solid conception that roleplay meant... basically... talking, emoting, diplomacy, y'know, narrative stuff specifically between players.
Still, I'm not sure what to think about this. If PK is roleplay, then surely just about everything in Lusternia is roleplay that isn't explicitly OOC? Before today I'd never have considered stocking shops or coming up with designs as "roleplay", but if you can justify PK as roleplay (because you're, y'know, playing a role), those things make sense too.
This is absolutely all roleplay. I'd argue that any time you do something in game that is IC and justifiably driven by who your character is, you're roleplaying. To focus on the PK thing - conflict and drama are essential parts of RP. YMMV but for me, emotions are a huge part of what makes roleplay interesting. And that necessitates a level of conflict, whether a quarrel with a loved one, arguments over guild philosophy, or putting your life on the line to defend something you care about. But similarly. Your character might be proud of their shop that they're running so they need to keep it well stocked. They are a highly talented tailor, so they spend a lot of time drawing up designs. All these things are aspects of roleplay, because they're all about how you play your character.
I think this is a spot where it becomes murky? Because it kinda becomes a question of whether it's your characters' motivations vs you as the player. The example of the tailor, for example, there was a Seren from years ago (like... 2005/2006) who was a MD tailor and absolutely hated skyclad, lots of people had tailoring but this person had worked it into their character's identity so it was kinda always present beyond the fact that they mechanically had and used those skills. You can also see a similar kinda differentiation outside Lusternia in TTRPGs with the Roleplayer(story focused) vs Rollplayer(mechanics focused) differentiation/spectrum which could also be somewhere the split comes from.
idk, makes more sense to me if it was basically any IC actions that you'd use the term IC because then it wouldn't have the murkyness. I'd probably end up checking the previous days logs at the weave and giving out recognitions to guild members for like completing tasks/ranking up/joining/collecting visions and if I didn't hit 3 from that then move to Seren logs. Could do something with bashing too, like if everyone on the crew/squad throws recognises at each other for turning up. Maybe throw one at someone for returning the dominators to Lirangsha.
You can also see a similar kinda differentiation outside Lusternia in TTRPGs with the Roleplayer(story focused) vs Rollplayer(mechanics focused) differentiation/spectrum which could also be somewhere the split comes from.
Maybe that's part of where my conception of the line comes from.
In D&D and similar, combat is near universally not considered roleplay. We consider a "roleplay encounter" completely different from a "combat encounter" and the former usually has few or no actual gameplay mechanics involved, it's just dialogue, description, and emoting/acting. Groups typically distinguish themselves from others by (among a few other things) how RP-heavy vs. how combat-heavy they are (do they get wrapped up in character and narrative development, or do they mostly dungeon crawl for loot?). We typically don't consider shopping to be roleplay either, unless we actually jump in character, act out the scene, maybe haggle a little bit, ask for a quest or rumours, etc etc; sometimes you just ask "can I buy some spell components here? yeah? cheers" - zero roleplay there, at least in TTRPG terms.
This doesn't mean that combat is OOC or not a narrative of its own; it's still important to the story, insofar as your game has one. It's just a functional distinction.
You can also see a similar kinda differentiation outside Lusternia in TTRPGs with the Roleplayer(story focused) vs Rollplayer(mechanics focused) differentiation/spectrum which could also be somewhere the split comes from.
Maybe that's part of where my conception of the line comes from.
In D&D and similar, combat is near universally not considered roleplay. We consider a "roleplay encounter" completely different from a "combat encounter" and the former usually has few or no actual gameplay mechanics involved, it's just dialogue, description, and emoting/acting. Groups typically distinguish themselves from others by (among a few other things) how RP-heavy vs. how combat-heavy they are (do they get wrapped up in character and narrative development, or do they mostly dungeon crawl for loot?). We typically don't consider shopping to be roleplay either, unless we actually jump in character, act out the scene, maybe haggle a little bit, ask for a quest or rumours, etc etc; sometimes you just ask "can I buy some spell components here? yeah? cheers" - zero roleplay there, at least in TTRPG terms.
This doesn't mean that combat is OOC or not a narrative of its own; it's still important to the story, insofar as your game has one. It's just a functional distinction.
Yeah, I think it's where you kinda come to the issue of semantics/vernacular?
The differentiation is also present in MMOs, you have people who RP in WoW and FFXIV and it holds effectively the same meaning as it does in TTRPGs, there are even people who roleplay combat stuff in them heh. Same with the Discworld MUD because it doesn't have the "be IC at all times" rule. The likely overlaps between all those different types of gaming and Lusternian players is pretty high.
Also ... because it's how you refer to that type of gameplay within a game across so many games, I'm now trying to think of how you'd describe that type of gameplay without calling it roleplay lol.
You can also see a similar kinda differentiation outside Lusternia in TTRPGs with the Roleplayer(story focused) vs Rollplayer(mechanics focused) differentiation/spectrum which could also be somewhere the split comes from.
Maybe that's part of where my conception of the line comes from.
In D&D and similar, combat is near universally not considered roleplay. We consider a "roleplay encounter" completely different from a "combat encounter" and the former usually has few or no actual gameplay mechanics involved, it's just dialogue, description, and emoting/acting. Groups typically distinguish themselves from others by (among a few other things) how RP-heavy vs. how combat-heavy they are (do they get wrapped up in character and narrative development, or do they mostly dungeon crawl for loot?). We typically don't consider shopping to be roleplay either, unless we actually jump in character, act out the scene, maybe haggle a little bit, ask for a quest or rumours, etc etc; sometimes you just ask "can I buy some spell components here? yeah? cheers" - zero roleplay there, at least in TTRPG terms.
This doesn't mean that combat is OOC or not a narrative of its own; it's still important to the story, insofar as your game has one. It's just a functional distinction.
Hmm... I've never thought of D&D that way myself. When I've played it with friends(and similar games) any kind of encounter could be roleplay. Yeah, those orcs probably won't care what we have to say, but talking to them was always still an option. And typically there was some expectation to describe what your character was doing in-battle, regardless of what it was. Then you'd roll to see the mechanics of it. But to me, those activities were one and the same.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
You can also see a similar kinda differentiation outside Lusternia in TTRPGs with the Roleplayer(story focused) vs Rollplayer(mechanics focused) differentiation/spectrum which could also be somewhere the split comes from.
Maybe that's part of where my conception of the line comes from.
In D&D and similar, combat is near universally not considered roleplay. We consider a "roleplay encounter" completely different from a "combat encounter" and the former usually has few or no actual gameplay mechanics involved, it's just dialogue, description, and emoting/acting. Groups typically distinguish themselves from others by (among a few other things) how RP-heavy vs. how combat-heavy they are (do they get wrapped up in character and narrative development, or do they mostly dungeon crawl for loot?). We typically don't consider shopping to be roleplay either, unless we actually jump in character, act out the scene, maybe haggle a little bit, ask for a quest or rumours, etc etc; sometimes you just ask "can I buy some spell components here? yeah? cheers" - zero roleplay there, at least in TTRPG terms.
This doesn't mean that combat is OOC or not a narrative of its own; it's still important to the story, insofar as your game has one. It's just a functional distinction.
Hmm... I've never thought of D&D that way myself. When I've played it with friends(and similar games) any kind of encounter could be roleplay. Yeah, those orcs probably won't care what we have to say, but talking to them was always still an option. And typically there was some expectation to describe what your character was doing in-battle, regardless of what it was. Then you'd roll to see the mechanics of it. But to me, those activities were one and the same.
Just on this description as an example, using diplomancy to get out of encounters can still be "rollplay" in the end because it's kinda how you approach the game rather than the game itself?
For a "rollplayer" you can build a character with the skills/abilities/etc so mechanically you can reliably talk your way out of encounters, maybe even diplomancy enemies into allies temporarily. Your character uses that tactic because that's the build. "Roleplay" would be something like... you're a half-orc and don't want to kill orcs so you want to stop the fight. Or maybe you're a good character who wants to try to rehabilitate evil. You could also be violently enraged by orcs because they destroyed your home town and you immediately try to slaughter all of them on sight.
The playstyles can co-exist, but they can also clash and become unfun so the terminology helps. And again, roleplaying as a reference to a specific playstyle separate from just "playing the game" it's super common and holds a relatively consistent meaning across various gaming genres.
You can also see a similar kinda differentiation outside Lusternia in TTRPGs with the Roleplayer(story focused) vs Rollplayer(mechanics focused) differentiation/spectrum which could also be somewhere the split comes from.
Maybe that's part of where my conception of the line comes from.
In D&D and similar, combat is near universally not considered roleplay. We consider a "roleplay encounter" completely different from a "combat encounter" and the former usually has few or no actual gameplay mechanics involved, it's just dialogue, description, and emoting/acting. Groups typically distinguish themselves from others by (among a few other things) how RP-heavy vs. how combat-heavy they are (do they get wrapped up in character and narrative development, or do they mostly dungeon crawl for loot?). We typically don't consider shopping to be roleplay either, unless we actually jump in character, act out the scene, maybe haggle a little bit, ask for a quest or rumours, etc etc; sometimes you just ask "can I buy some spell components here? yeah? cheers" - zero roleplay there, at least in TTRPG terms.
This doesn't mean that combat is OOC or not a narrative of its own; it's still important to the story, insofar as your game has one. It's just a functional distinction.
Hmm... I've never thought of D&D that way myself. When I've played it with friends(and similar games) any kind of encounter could be roleplay. Yeah, those orcs probably won't care what we have to say, but talking to them was always still an option. And typically there was some expectation to describe what your character was doing in-battle, regardless of what it was. Then you'd roll to see the mechanics of it. But to me, those activities were one and the same.
Just on this description as an example, using diplomancy to get out of encounters can still be "rollplay" in the end because it's kinda how you approach the game rather than the game itself?
For a "rollplayer" you can build a character with the skills/abilities/etc so mechanically you can reliably talk your way out of encounters, maybe even diplomancy enemies into allies temporarily. Your character uses that tactic because that's the build. "Roleplay" would be something like... you're a half-orc and don't want to kill orcs so you want to stop the fight. Or maybe you're a good character who wants to try to rehabilitate evil. You could also be violently enraged by orcs because they destroyed your home town and you immediately try to slaughter all of them on sight.
The playstyles can co-exist, but they can also clash and become unfun so the terminology helps. And again, roleplaying as a reference to a specific playstyle separate from just "playing the game" it's super common and holds a relatively consistent meaning across various gaming genres.
I disagree with your post in general, mainly because it works on the theory that there is a right and wrong way to do these things.
For myself, looking at my favourite medium for roleplay - LARP, I can give examples of how my own tastes differ. In combat heavy events, I've put my characters in situations where they're really unlikely to survive because they are a career soldier and had signed up for that risk. I've had characters die because they're maddened by grief at the death of a loved one and throwing themselves at enemy lines until they eventually get their throat slit by the event because their lack of self preservation was really good for putting holes in shield walls.
In my current tabletop games - last week, two of the squishier characters survived what would have been a tpk because the Paladin, fighter and Barbarian held off the enemy and let them run while they fought to the death. Our shopping trips have dissolved into chaos because my tiefling bard and his changeling friend caused enough chaos that the shop keeper gave them what they wanted to make them shut up and stop driving away other customers.
The long and short of it is, any encounter in an RPG that has mechanics and rules, whether it's MUD, TTRPG, LARP, or anything else, can be broken down into a purely numbers exchange, but also any numbers situation can be fleshed out into a part of the story. Some people prefer one way, some way prefer the other. I prefer to build rp elements into everything - it's where my fun is. Some people just want to get impressive numbers. It's where their fun is. But ultimately, if you want to roleplay through it, it's roleplaying. Doesn't mean it has to be, but it can be if you want it to.
I disagree with your post in general, mainly because it works on the theory that there is a right and wrong way to do these things.
For myself, looking at my favourite medium for roleplay - LARP, I can give examples of how my own tastes differ. In combat heavy events, I've put my characters in situations where they're really unlikely to survive because they are a career soldier and had signed up for that risk. I've had characters die because they're maddened by grief at the death of a loved one and throwing themselves at enemy lines until they eventually get their throat slit by the event because their lack of self preservation was really good for putting holes in shield walls.
In my current tabletop games - last week, two of the squishier characters survived what would have been a tpk because the Paladin, fighter and Barbarian held off the enemy and let them run while they fought to the death. Our shopping trips have dissolved into chaos because my tiefling bard and his changeling friend caused enough chaos that the shop keeper gave them what they wanted to make them shut up and stop driving away other customers.
The long and short of it is, any encounter in an RPG that has mechanics and rules, whether it's MUD, TTRPG, LARP, or anything else, can be broken down into a purely numbers exchange, but also any numbers situation can be fleshed out into a part of the story. Some people prefer one way, some way prefer the other. I prefer to build rp elements into everything - it's where my fun is. Some people just want to get impressive numbers. It's where their fun is. But ultimately, if you want to roleplay through it, it's roleplaying. Doesn't mean it has to be, but it can be if you want it to.
Er, if you see any theory on a right or wrong way that's entirely on you heh. I haven't seen the terms being used negatively IRL, they're just a way to reference different gameplay styles/preferences/focuses so that the people participating are on the same page about the sort of game they're signing up for. The use of the term spectrum was also intentional because people are often not one end or the other but somewhere between the extremes.
To note though, the second and third paragraphs here are... all examples of roleplay which isn't an argument being made? Where your last paragraph is... basically the same point I'm making, particularly the bolded. You also seem to be making the same broader point because you're differentiating between roleplaying and just playing the game.
You're also... seemingly doubling down on agreeing with me with this because you appear to be emphasising the point that you can play an RPG without actually having your characters actions be roleplay which... is my point lol.
Anyway, it's drifting really off-topic. The relevant thing to the recognise command is that there's a really common definition of roleplay being a specific kind of activity within gaming where others have broader definition that seems to be "playing the game".
It's something only the admin can actually confirm (because ultimately, it's a question of what did they intend as it is apparently unclear) but again if it's meant to be for basically any action in game then it doesn't make sense to me to use language in the help file and command that implies a more narrow range of reasons to use it, which... given just comments from players seems to have been a relatively commonly shared interpretation.
Anyway, it's drifting really off-topic. The relevant thing to the recognise command is that there's a really common definition of roleplay being a specific kind of activity within gaming where others have broader definition that seems to be "playing the game".
It's something only the admin can actually confirm (because ultimately, it's a question of what did they intend as it is apparently unclear) but again if it's meant to be for basically any action in game then it doesn't make sense to me to use language in the help file and command that implies a more narrow range of reasons to use it, which... given just comments from players seems to have been a relatively commonly shared interpretation.
I don't agree with that. There's not a common definition of roleplay, or we wouldn't be talking about what it means. And the argument is not that recognize should be used for "any action taken in the game." Something another player is doing, IC. that leads to a greater enjoyment of the game for someone else... is not "any action." No, I can't say for certain what the intended use for it was, but using the statement "for roleplay" - well, my common definition of roleplay includes pk. Always has.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
act out or perform the part of a person or character, for example as a technique in training or psychotherapy.
"study participants role-played as applicants for community college"
participate in a role-playing game.
"one to six players can role-play as any of over 100 characters"
By stating that roleplay is only the form in which you subscribe to comes across elitist. PK is roleplaying if that is what the character I am playing would do. Shopkeeping is RP if your character runs a shop. Herbing is RP if your character has the Herbalism skill. Now, if you want to take that up a notch and really flush out your character's development then maybe that is a higher form of RP, but just like hardcore PKers shouldn't shut general-PKers out of PK. Hardcore RPers shouldn't shut out general-RPers out of RP. Everyone is entitled to their feelings, but no one should feel superior because of those feelings.
Anything IC is RP. OOC is the only thing that isn't RP. This is why game mechanics are not normally discussed in the open. People avoid saying the word level because of this. As someone who loves theory crafting, my characters try to never talk about seconds when discussing balances. However, most of my characters do have a quality in which they hone their combat skills, so theory crafting becomes RP for them.
And the argument is not that recognize should be used for "any action taken in the game." Something another player is doing, IC. that leads to a greater enjoyment of the game for someone else... is not "any action." No, I can't say for certain what the intended use for it was, but using the statement "for roleplay" - well, my common definition of roleplay includes pk. Always has.
Anything IC is RP. OOC is the only thing that isn't RP.
The qualifiers are “skilled and valuable role player” in the help, other people’s enjoyment can be valuable, though in low pop times simply being here can also be considered valuable.
I wouldn’t consider me swapping trades because someone needs something rp, for example, because really I’m utilising my ooc investments in the game to minimise the negative impact the economic situation has on other players who can’t do so. With your comments I’m being a “skilled roleplayer” because I did something without it being overtly ooc in-game which is a basic requirement for playing the game heh.
And the argument is not that recognize should be used for "any action taken in the game." Something another player is doing, IC. that leads to a greater enjoyment of the game for someone else... is not "any action." No, I can't say for certain what the intended use for it was, but using the statement "for roleplay" - well, my common definition of roleplay includes pk. Always has.
Anything IC is RP. OOC is the only thing that isn't RP.
The qualifiers are “skilled and valuable role player” in the help, other people’s enjoyment can be valuable, though in low pop times simply being here can also be considered valuable.
I wouldn’t consider me swapping trades because someone needs something rp, for example, because really I’m utilising my ooc investments in the game to minimise the negative impact the economic situation has on other players who can’t do so. With your comments I’m being a “skilled roleplayer” because I did something without it being overtly ooc in-game which is a basic requirement for playing the game heh.
There is no contradiction here. Anything done in-game is presumably part of your character's rp. That doesn't mean someone should be recognized for swapping trades, EVEN THOUGH it is also an in-character action. The argument is only that if someone WANTS to recognize someone for something pk-related, there is nothing in the helpfile that prohibits it. You are looking for justifications that no one is making.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
There is no contradiction here. Anything done in-game is presumably part of your character's rp. That doesn't mean someone should be recognized for swapping trades, EVEN THOUGH it is also an in-character action. The argument is only that if someone WANTS to recognize someone for something pk-related, there is nothing in the helpfile that prohibits it. You are looking for justifications that no one is making.
You've also noted you can't actually say for certain that your interpretation is what was intended while now insisting that your interpretation is correct heh. The argument you specify also doesn't incorporate the helpfile, which specifies that they are a "skilled and valuable roleplayer" which makes it more generic. So your argument is open enough that it covers pk-related stuff that demonstrates such or could be considered a sign of "poor rp" under the help dictionary definition if they're "doing anything your character wouldn't do by virtue of his or her personality".
For concrete examples, a zealous (1st gen) Hoaracean defending nil would be betraying the teachings of their god, a pacifist aggressively organising and leading raids. You could also find out if you interact with them that maybe they've extrapolated on that, so maybe the pacifist has decided to "kill them before they kill us". But given the initial suggestion involved recognising people on the enemy team who you might never have interacted with and have no idea about their rp it all seems rather messy when you have a qualifier on who you can recognise which is being interpreted differently.
Hence why I suggest/support reviewing the language or implementing a separate system. Remove the question of whether it's intended completely if it is and if it's not, implement something.
Personally, I think a specific system would be way better, for example... you could make it that PK thing ends, everyone that participated gets to acknowledge/recognise/award/whatever someone else who also participated. That way every event everyone will be able to recognise, rather than maybe people give out all of them in the first one of the day and can't give them out later on. Because they're connected to the event, that's the limiter rather than a static 3 per day, so if you participate more you get to give out more.
XIV has something similar and it's pretty great, you also get bonuses and the like for giving out a certain number every week (which also rewards you for participating enough in content that week to give out that many) as well as achievements and the like.
And the argument is not that recognize should be used for "any action taken in the game." Something another player is doing, IC. that leads to a greater enjoyment of the game for someone else... is not "any action." No, I can't say for certain what the intended use for it was, but using the statement "for roleplay" - well, my common definition of roleplay includes pk. Always has.
Anything IC is RP. OOC is the only thing that isn't RP.
The qualifiers are “skilled and valuable role player” in the help, other people’s enjoyment can be valuable, though in low pop times simply being here can also be considered valuable.
I wouldn’t consider me swapping trades because someone needs something rp, for example, because really I’m utilising my ooc investments in the game to minimise the negative impact the economic situation has on other players who can’t do so. With your comments I’m being a “skilled roleplayer” because I did something without it being overtly ooc in-game which is a basic requirement for playing the game heh.
Your character cares enough about their friends to swap trades and craft them something. Depending how this is done depends on how much RP to OOC there is. For example, there is a cool down period for swapping trades, and Lusty time is not equal to real time. Therefore, your character has locked themselves into remembering and practicing how to use that trade during that time. This isn't something even possible to OOC. OOC clans and discords are not RP, so if I ask on an OOC clans then it is a little grey.
My question is would you do the same if asked by an enemy of your commune? If the answer is no then this is an IC decision. However, I have had to have characters accept/obtain trade work enemies which is an OOC mechanic issue. This is a failure of mechanics to correct game/Org population.
My initial post's tone came across much harsher than intended. My apologies for that.
Comments
I mean, I'm all for people being nice to each other in the game if they want. I do it all the time, for reasons that are entirely my own and not because I think it's the morally superior choice or w/e. I also frequently don't get treated the same way I treat other people - that's life, even in a game. Refusal to accept this is likely a huge part of why you develop unnecessary ooc grudges against other players.
RECOGNISE <player> <reason>
Note: This should only be used for roleplay recognition.
[2020-10-21@14:14:30][12300h][7695m][7800e][10p]mBexb<>-
With that said, I maintain my position that the entire philosophy - playing to deny others - is a problem for the game as a whole. The players can surely do their part in ensuring that some semblance of equity tempers actions, but the game's conflict systems should also work to discourage it. One way to do it would be to lessen the burden on the 'losing' orgs. Make winning be about winning, not about avoiding losing.
Scarcity should not be the dominant vehicle of conflict in the game. And I know - Lusternia is post-apocalyptic, and the hunger for power (nexus power, astral power, etc.) is a major part of its story. But it's not sustainable, especially not when simple activities (such as crafting) can become so impacted by conflict systems that are so easily gamed.
Explorer (80%), Achiever (53%), Socializer (53%), Killer (13%)
Bartle Taxonomy
(test yourself)
Could also be an issue that it seems like part of the vernacular of Lusternia is that "roleplay" on one hand is considered that sort of thing and is separate from designing/pk/conflict/combat/bashing/etc, and on the other is your characters identity and can include the first definition as well as, effectively, any pursuit in game.
Mostly a question of intention, if recognise is for the former you could expand it or replicate it for conflict stuff. Could even create a separate commendation thing like ffxiv has where basically at the end of any conflict thing you get to commend another participant which might be open it up to more daily uses cause it's linked to something that's mechanically tracked?
For me, all the conflict objectives give daily credits already and should be functioning as an incentive to show up along with org points.
But the stuff I interpret as the "roleplay" intended in this context is really all stuff that doesn't have some other kind of reward unless an admin is watching which doesn't happen for everyone, so potentially being recognised functions as an incentive to participate in those aspects of the game.
Particularly given that purely social sort of scenario I associate with it typically also means time away from other activities that would earn you dailies/exp/etc.
Anyway, something for the admin and as mentioned before, you could potentially implement a more broadly usable variation with stuff that is mechanically tracked.
From the way I see it, yes, numbers are sometimes an issue. It's widely accepted that the alliance is screwed and needs addressing. That said, there are times when IHC is outnumbered.
There is a core group from ShadowLight that are very capable and are almost entirely perpetuating combat at the moment.
From my perspective, the issue is less about numbers and more about morale. Granted, people need to do other things from time to time, but it's hard to watch when you guys just seem to... Give up. I have seen it almost daily. Even when the odds are stacked in your favour, very regularly, we see you guys just disappear. It's a very hard thing to watch, if I was honest. We're all here to have fun and when the game in its current state is unable to provide that, yes, it's painful.
It's a very difficult situation to be in and I really feel for everyone involved.
If there is anything I can personally do to help improve the situation, please don't ever hesitate to contact me via whatever method available.
Let's, as a collective, make Lusternia a fun place to hang out.
The example of the tailor, for example, there was a Seren from years ago (like... 2005/2006) who was a MD tailor and absolutely hated skyclad, lots of people had tailoring but this person had worked it into their character's identity so it was kinda always present beyond the fact that they mechanically had and used those skills.
You can also see a similar kinda differentiation outside Lusternia in TTRPGs with the Roleplayer(story focused) vs Rollplayer(mechanics focused) differentiation/spectrum which could also be somewhere the split comes from.
idk, makes more sense to me if it was basically any IC actions that you'd use the term IC because then it wouldn't have the murkyness.
I'd probably end up checking the previous days logs at the weave and giving out recognitions to guild members for like completing tasks/ranking up/joining/collecting visions and if I didn't hit 3 from that then move to Seren logs. Could do something with bashing too, like if everyone on the crew/squad throws recognises at each other for turning up. Maybe throw one at someone for returning the dominators to Lirangsha.
The differentiation is also present in MMOs, you have people who RP in WoW and FFXIV and it holds effectively the same meaning as it does in TTRPGs, there are even people who roleplay combat stuff in them heh. Same with the Discworld MUD because it doesn't have the "be IC at all times" rule. The likely overlaps between all those different types of gaming and Lusternian players is pretty high.
Also ... because it's how you refer to that type of gameplay within a game across so many games, I'm now trying to think of how you'd describe that type of gameplay without calling it roleplay lol.
For a "rollplayer" you can build a character with the skills/abilities/etc so mechanically you can reliably talk your way out of encounters, maybe even diplomancy enemies into allies temporarily. Your character uses that tactic because that's the build.
"Roleplay" would be something like... you're a half-orc and don't want to kill orcs so you want to stop the fight. Or maybe you're a good character who wants to try to rehabilitate evil. You could also be violently enraged by orcs because they destroyed your home town and you immediately try to slaughter all of them on sight.
The playstyles can co-exist, but they can also clash and become unfun so the terminology helps. And again, roleplaying as a reference to a specific playstyle separate from just "playing the game" it's super common and holds a relatively consistent meaning across various gaming genres.
For myself, looking at my favourite medium for roleplay - LARP, I can give examples of how my own tastes differ. In combat heavy events, I've put my characters in situations where they're really unlikely to survive because they are a career soldier and had signed up for that risk. I've had characters die because they're maddened by grief at the death of a loved one and throwing themselves at enemy lines until they eventually get their throat slit by the event because their lack of self preservation was really good for putting holes in shield walls.
In my current tabletop games - last week, two of the squishier characters survived what would have been a tpk because the Paladin, fighter and Barbarian held off the enemy and let them run while they fought to the death. Our shopping trips have dissolved into chaos because my tiefling bard and his changeling friend caused enough chaos that the shop keeper gave them what they wanted to make them shut up and stop driving away other customers.
The long and short of it is, any encounter in an RPG that has mechanics and rules, whether it's MUD, TTRPG, LARP, or anything else, can be broken down into a purely numbers exchange, but also any numbers situation can be fleshed out into a part of the story. Some people prefer one way, some way prefer the other. I prefer to build rp elements into everything - it's where my fun is. Some people just want to get impressive numbers. It's where their fun is. But ultimately, if you want to roleplay through it, it's roleplaying. Doesn't mean it has to be, but it can be if you want it to.
I haven't seen the terms being used negatively IRL, they're just a way to reference different gameplay styles/preferences/focuses so that the people participating are on the same page about the sort of game they're signing up for. The use of the term spectrum was also intentional because people are often not one end or the other but somewhere between the extremes.
To note though, the second and third paragraphs here are... all examples of roleplay which isn't an argument being made? Where your last paragraph is... basically the same point I'm making, particularly the bolded. You also seem to be making the same broader point because you're differentiating between roleplaying and just playing the game.
You're also... seemingly doubling down on agreeing with me with this because you appear to be emphasising the point that you can play an RPG without actually having your characters actions be roleplay which... is my point lol.
It's something only the admin can actually confirm (because ultimately, it's a question of what did they intend as it is apparently unclear) but again if it's meant to be for basically any action in game then it doesn't make sense to me to use language in the help file and command that implies a more narrow range of reasons to use it, which... given just comments from players seems to have been a relatively commonly shared interpretation.
act out or perform the part of a person or character, for example as a technique in training or psychotherapy. "study participants role-played as applicants for community college" participate in a role-playing game. "one to six players can role-play as any of over 100 characters"
By stating that roleplay is only the form in which you subscribe to comes across elitist. PK is roleplaying if that is what the character I am playing would do. Shopkeeping is RP if your character runs a shop. Herbing is RP if your character has the Herbalism skill. Now, if you want to take that up a notch and really flush out your character's development then maybe that is a higher form of RP, but just like hardcore PKers shouldn't shut general-PKers out of PK. Hardcore RPers shouldn't shut out general-RPers out of RP. Everyone is entitled to their feelings, but no one should feel superior because of those feelings.Anything IC is RP. OOC is the only thing that isn't RP. This is why game mechanics are not normally discussed in the open. People avoid saying the word level because of this. As someone who loves theory crafting, my characters try to never talk about seconds when discussing balances. However, most of my characters do have a quality in which they hone their combat skills, so theory crafting becomes RP for them.
The qualifiers are “skilled and valuable role player” in the help, other people’s enjoyment can be valuable, though in low pop times simply being here can also be considered valuable.
With your comments I’m being a “skilled roleplayer” because I did something without it being overtly ooc in-game which is a basic requirement for playing the game heh.
The argument you specify also doesn't incorporate the helpfile, which specifies that they are a "skilled and valuable roleplayer" which makes it more generic. So your argument is open enough that it covers pk-related stuff that demonstrates such or could be considered a sign of "poor rp" under the help dictionary definition if they're "doing anything your character wouldn't do by virtue of his or her personality".
For concrete examples, a zealous (1st gen) Hoaracean defending nil would be betraying the teachings of their god, a pacifist aggressively organising and leading raids. You could also find out if you interact with them that maybe they've extrapolated on that, so maybe the pacifist has decided to "kill them before they kill us". But given the initial suggestion involved recognising people on the enemy team who you might never have interacted with and have no idea about their rp it all seems rather messy when you have a qualifier on who you can recognise which is being interpreted differently.
Hence why I suggest/support reviewing the language or implementing a separate system. Remove the question of whether it's intended completely if it is and if it's not, implement something.
Personally, I think a specific system would be way better, for example... you could make it that PK thing ends, everyone that participated gets to acknowledge/recognise/award/whatever someone else who also participated. That way every event everyone will be able to recognise, rather than maybe people give out all of them in the first one of the day and can't give them out later on. Because they're connected to the event, that's the limiter rather than a static 3 per day, so if you participate more you get to give out more.
XIV has something similar and it's pretty great, you also get bonuses and the like for giving out a certain number every week (which also rewards you for participating enough in content that week to give out that many) as well as achievements and the like.
My question is would you do the same if asked by an enemy of your commune? If the answer is no then this is an IC decision. However, I have had to have characters accept/obtain trade work enemies which is an OOC mechanic issue. This is a failure of mechanics to correct game/Org population.
My initial post's tone came across much harsher than intended. My apologies for that.