Empress Naoki
Famous
Roleplay posts: 2,238
Physical Description: =========================
Empress Naoki is a curvaceous woman of average height, indeterminate age, and catlike features. Her hair is a dark auburn, often pulled back into a long braid. Her ears are both soft and fluffy, and her tail is never less than perfectly groomed. Amber eyes glisten in the shadows cast by her hair.
Clothes and Equipment: =========================
Naoki's wardrobe is to her as a frame is to a painting. Sometimes embellished with detail to be attractive in its own right, but never the focus. Usually simple but elegant, tightly fitting and highly revealing, used only to frame the beauty within.
Additionally, Naoki is, when clothed, often adorned with a small collection of accessories. She wears an earring, a brilliant cut amethyst, in her right ear. The silver signet ring of Isra is worn on her left pinky, marking her as High Lady of Isra. Directly adjacent, she wears the golden signet ring of The Isran Empire as its Empress. On the inside of her left thigh, there is a tattoo depicting a rose entwined with tentacles.
Allegiances: The Isran Empire
Player's online availability : Excessively often. Timezone: ET (-5)
Registered: Sept 12, 2015 13:02:17 GMT -8
|
Post by Empress Naoki on Jan 10, 2016 17:20:27 GMT -8
Staff members and fellow players, I approach you today on the behalf of a group of like minded individuals, because it is our opinion that some changes need to be made regarding the way this site is run. It has to do with the currently existing conflict between combat in this roleplay environment, and the, well, sandbox nature of the environment. As it stands right now, things are sort of in an uncomfortable spot. There are those among us, such as myself, who want to come to this site and create interesting stories and such in the sandbox area with other characters, and who don’t give a flying feather about combat, save for how it affects the characters. And then there are those who aren’t me, who enjoy fighting, for its own sake. And that’s fine, I don’t mean to imply anyone is incorrect in their preferences or any of that. But the issue crops up when someone like my character, some perfectly standard person, without any relatively substantial combat capability, walks somewhere outside of the walls, away from a platoon of bodyguards. And then some some merciless mercenary, or some angsty assassin with a chip on his shoulder comes along, and whack, I’m dead. All of the stories I’ve done with this character, all the depth, interactions, emotions, of that, gone. And yes, ones such as myself, who have chosen to make characters that can’t really defend themselves, shouldn’t really send those characters walking in the woods alone. I also understand that. But this massive disparity isn’t only present between characters that cannot fight and those that can, it’s also present between characters that can fight, and characters that have godly powers. With the current atmosphere, the current ruleset, the way that things are understood is such that any character that can fight, can just sort of crop up in my backyard or city or what have you, and if the amount of power that their player has assigned to them is higher than the amount of power I’ve assigned my character, they can stab me. Without my permission or consent as a player, without any sort of system that enforces fair combat, and without any reason that adds to anybody’s story but their own. And that’s not really a healthy way for things to exist, in our opinion. There are systems that exist that allow for fair combat to take place within them. Like any table-top game ever - D&D, for example. In D&D, your character has a set amount of power, that you can freely distribute, and choose how you’d like them to be powerful. Important events are decided by dice rolls, which are, by their very nature, fair. You could conceivably do player versus player combat within a D&D ruleset, and it would be fair. Here, by the very nature of the sandbox environment, there aren’t any such systems in place. There are rules that attempt to prevent extreme abuse cases, yes, but none that attempt to create combat scenarios that are inherently fair between the two parties. This is, as it is aptly named, a sandbox. In a sandbox, anyone can come over and knock over your castle. And that’s exactly the sort of thing that isn’t really very fun for the person who built the castle. One might say “Well, why don’t you just stop them from knocking over your castle?” Because there isn’t any skill involved in RP combat. I realize that this might be a controversial statement, but without any systems in place, at all, without any enforced style guide, ruleset, dice rolling, or any of that, there’s zero skill involved in dodging attacks, weaseling your way out of situations, shooting massive magical attacks, or any of that. All anyone needs to do is type that the character does those things. One can exercise writing skill, in making the post well written and enjoyable to read, but in the combat itself, there’s not any skill. It’s a text based roleplay, for goodness’ sake. For this reason, because TFS rests at this midpoint, between formalized combat and story focus, we think that a shove is required, one way or the other, to either be a combat-focused thing, or a story-focused thing. The combat isn’t going away either way; conflict between characters is an integral part of a good story, and violence is one tried-and-true form of conflict. But right now, it’s in such a spot that it’s becoming detrimental to the story experience of all, and we feel that the decision should be made to design a more fair combat system, or more firmly cement combat in the role of a tool for advancing story. I will now offer some possible solutions to this issue, any one of which would solve the problem in one way or another. Keep in mind, these are possible solutions, not advocating for any of them. One quick and dirty way to make combat fair-ish would be to implement Roll to Dodge. Declare an action, roll a six sided die. An impartial GM decides how well your character executes the action, based on the result of your roll. This would mean that all combat would require an impartial judge, yes, but I don’t really see that as a massive problem. This would be the quickest and dirtiest way to make combat somewhat fair. One could also implement a more wide reaching, expansive system, perhaps akin to some sort of tabletop, but I don’t think that anyone thinks that would be the correct solution. The obvious downside to this solution is the hit that the sandbox aspect takes. To go the other way, and focus more on story, you could do things in a couple of different ways. The first of those I’ll touch on would be to categorize characters into sorts of strata. Power brackets, if you will. Put them into power boxes based on how well they can fight. Normal humans, humans+, monsters, minor gods, major gods, or some categorization system like that. The categorizations are of course highly configurable. Then, once all the characters are in a power bracket, say this: “You can only pick fights with people at, or above your bracket.”
This system is kind of weird, in that it only really accounts for 1v1 combat. Can a minor god pick a fight with a group of five monster characters? Good question. There would also be a lot of disagreement about what power level a certain character is in, and who’s allowed to fight who based on this system. This solution would be very much a system, and as such, prone to such things as poor design. That brings us to another, simpler idea. Say this: “You can only pick fights that you could conceivably lose”One could call this possible solution ‘ Inherent risk’. Idea being that by only being able to start fights that could go either way, you’re sort of limiting one’s ability to pick on characters that have no chance of beating them. With all of these one lined suggestions, there are a lot of things that would have to be defined to make it a workable rule. For Inherent Risk, the pièce de résistance would be the question “What constitutes a conceivable loss?” Should this question, and any others that may arise, be answered to the satisfaction of all involved, this could work to address the issue. Another possible solution to the problem would be to say something like this: "Any aggressive action against another character requires consent from that character's player."‘ Required consent’ would ensure simply that both sides are agreeable to the fight. This solution is also not without its flaws. You would have to define what an ‘aggressive action’ is, and expand with secondary clauses to prevent characters provoking others, and taking action to the detriment of another character, but that aren’t necessarily ‘aggressive’. It’s sort of a more concrete and binding rule than any of the preceding terms, with the tradeoff that one would have to define a lot of things to make it a legitimate rule that can be read and acted upon without the intervention of a staff member, and contains no loopholes. Another possible solution would be to designate characters as either combatants or noncombatants. All combatants are free to pick fights with other combatants, but noncombatants cannot fight anyone, or be fought. This would prevent characters like my own from being killed, but it wouldn’t do anything to prevent characters of wildly differing power levels from fighting against the will of the weaker character. It could be a ‘you must specify on your character page’ sort of thing, or an opt-out of combat sort of thing. One might notice a bit of trend, with these suggestions. They’re all geared to completely shut down power gaming at the expense of another’s enjoyment. That’s the point, that’s the goal, that’s why we’re working together to do this. Any of these proposed solutions would do that pretty well. However, there are a lot of ways to do it, and we’re not picky. If anyone can think of a more elegant, more effective, or just plain better solution that accomplishes that same goal, it would probably be fine with most. I’d also like to point out that we are not against the idea of powerful characters, large-scale fights, or cinematic duels, but that we desire a change that will confine those activities to those who want to participate in them, or, failing that, to give a fighting chance to those who do not want to participate but are made to against their will. As I said in the beginning of this thread, I speak for a group. The following list of players agree that the current system is not ideal, and that a change ought to be made to prevent power gaming at the expense of the enjoyment of others. It should be noted that all of these listed primary characters are distinct and active players. Not all of these players are alright with all of the possible solutions presented above (no one is in favor of Roll to Dodge), or even any of them, but everyone is in agreement with the concept of this thread, that power gaming at the expense of the enjoyment of others needs to be stopped. Empress Naoki Artemis Grandma Jun of the Celadine @hasdrubal Reese Cresno Skarlet Kate Green Artaxerxes Davous the Black Cyronin the Blue Tick Maelik The Fellblade To reiterate, not all of the listed players necessarily agree with any or all of the solutions proposed above. They merely agree with the principle of this thread, and that some change ought to be made. I would like to encourage everyone, name on the list or not, to engage in civil discussion about this topic. Do you agree with the principle? Do you think a change needs to be made? Are you in favor of any of the solutions proposed above, or do you have your own? Please, post, make your opinion heard. It is through the polite sharing of opinions and civil discussion that we hope to spur positive change.
|
|
Tick
Established
Roleplay posts: 20
Age: N/A
Physical Description: A mix between a Saint Bernard, a werewolf, and OHMAGOSH WHAT IS THAT THING.
Clothes and Equipment: Left ear has a piercing with a small red gem set in it.
Has a saddlebag/backpack for carrying things.
Player's online availability : Weekends
Registered: Sept 12, 2015 11:05:12 GMT -8
|
Post by Tick on Jan 10, 2016 17:50:19 GMT -8
I personally am in favor of an amalgam of the above ideas. I think Roll-to-Dodge might work, at least in major combat scenarios. Maybe it wouldn't be necessary for minor duels.
I also am in favor of a non-combatant/combatant option for character sheets. I'm a little worried about the option to switch back and forth though. Seems like that's something that could be abused if someone wants to escape a fight or enter into one unexpectedly. This could tie in with requiring consent.
Another idea is to have a separate realm where people can go ham and attack anyone that's there with whatever crazy powers they want, a Valhalla or Mount Olympus of sorts.
|
|
|
Post by Labefacto Demigrem Demiarch on Jan 10, 2016 17:59:30 GMT -8
This is a Sandbox. It is a world. It is based in an age when war and combat was prevalent. If you are doing something ICly that makes them want you dead, so long as there is a legitimate reason to do so, then so be it. This site was designed the way it was for a reason. There's not been much that has happened in combat that has done any serious damage to anyone, so I don't see the issue there.
If it goes anywhere, it needs to go more combative which puts stricter regulations when engaged. Anything besides basic attacks with weapons or hands needs to be prepped. Every character should have the choice of fight or flight, which could be done with a dice roll. Chases would be rolled for also if the character decides to chase. On a governmental scale, such things wouldn't work.
Anywho, I think it's fine. If you don't feel safe or can't defend yourself, learn some teleporting. But the problem with this is that if you want to terrorize the world, you can pick and choose when you have to defend yourself. Which makes it unfair for the ones being terrorized.
On TFS, one has to learn that shit happens. Don't ICly piss people off and they won't want to kill you.
|
|
Artemis
Dedicated
Roleplay posts: 205
Physical Description: Artemis is a sturdily built woman of medium height, with blonde hair tied back in a professional bun. Clad in a sharp black business suit, with black tie, dress shirt, and gloves, her appearance is utterly unremarkable; save for a single, flawless, purple gem, set on a simple black ribbon, worn choker-style around her throat. Her demeanor is such that she blends seamlessly into the background of any situation when her services are not required.
Registered: Sept 13, 2015 6:26:06 GMT -8
|
Post by Artemis on Jan 10, 2016 18:32:09 GMT -8
I am personally in the favor of the required consent approach. I feel that its effects, if properly implemented, will have the least disruption to play. On those who are already wishing to engage in battles or fights for RP purposes - the vast majority - it will have no effect, while the fringe cases of unwanted aggression this rule is targeting will be thwarted by a simple "no". Also, Labefacto Demigrem Demiarch, your statement that if you don't piss people off IC, they won't come after you is false. I'm sure you remember Archangel Erik, to bring up a particularly glaring example of OOC aggression. The required consent rule also covers collateral damage from totally IC reasons, as well. Say I've made a character who hates Katashima with a burning passion for some past offense, and I march off to war with Katashima, pillaging and burning. I'll disrupt many well-established ongoing storylines in the name of a conflict that the players affected are bound by the RP rules to respond to; a conflict which all involved - save myself - had no wish to participate in. This is an obviously undesirable situation, and one that the required consent rule seeks to prevent.
|
|
Grandma
Widely Known
Imperial Vizier of Isra
Roleplay posts: 1,017
Age: 90
Physical Description: ---------------------------------------------------------
An elderly and frail looking woman with white wispy hair. However, despite being old, her back is not bent by age nor are her eyes clouded by it.
Clothes and Equipment: ---------------------------------------------------------
She wears a deep purple robe that has sleeves that extend far beyond her hands. Her hands are covered with fine gloves of black silk and she wears one ring on each, one having a purple stone set in it and the other a piece of onyx. Carrying an ornate cane of orellium, Grandma can use it to increase her magical channeling as well as assist in deflecting others spells with it. The cane itself is black and covered in numerous ornate, but tiny runes. The cap on the cane is a purplish colored gem. On her wrist is a silver bracelet with a ruby in it that Grandma uses for telepathic communication with others in its network.
---------------------------------------------------------
Registered: Sept 12, 2015 8:27:42 GMT -8
|
Post by Grandma on Jan 10, 2016 18:59:08 GMT -8
I think the required consent method would be an upgrade over the current rules. I feel that a decent portion of the combat is already done in this manner, so it wouldn’t even be that big of an adjustment. Ensuring non combat characters that are focused more on interpersonal relationships and their personality can’t be attacked within their settings unless agreed upon is a good thing in my mind.
However, I do think if people want settings where surprise attacks can be done, that should also be allowed. Therefore, I would suggest that threads can be placed into two types. The first type would work the same as they all do now, anyone can attack anyone/damage anything in said thread without consent. The second type would require the thread creators permission to attack/damage property and people in said thread.
There would of course have to be a number of other rules tacked onto this to make it a proper rule, but I feel something on this basis would be good. It would allow those who want to have open/surprise combat to still have that, while characters not wanting that to also get their way.
|
|
Phoenix Imperium
Established
Roleplay posts: 23
Registered: Dec 5, 2015 20:13:23 GMT -8
|
Post by Phoenix Imperium on Jan 10, 2016 19:02:23 GMT -8
That's not how a sandbox works though. If a place comes under attack, it's part of the story. It's a risk you take. And if an IC attack can't be proven logical, then it's against the rules. It has to be plausible.
|
|
Royal Fletcher
Widely Known
Roleplay posts: 1,339
Age: 19
Physical Description: Royal is a pale boy with dark bags under his bluish eyes, an unfortunate result of too many days spent staring at books indoors by candlelight. He's thin, of slightly below average height, and has white hair.
Clothes and Equipment: Roy carries around an enchanted parasol at all times, which floats above him and shields him from the sunlight. He also has a sword, a gift from his cousin Roxanne. His pockets are always filled with an unreasonable amount of chocolate, and he usually has some sort of cake or other baked goods on his person.
Allegiances: The Fletcher Family
Player's online availability : Unreasonably often
Registered: Jun 3, 2015 19:45:42 GMT -8
|
Post by Royal Fletcher on Jan 10, 2016 19:04:32 GMT -8
I support the designated non-combatants idea. I suggest that characters are combatants by default, and must opt out by posting in a thread or some such manner. Non-combatants should be able to be attacked with the consent of both parties. However, I think any of the other proposals would either ruin TFS (roll-to-dodge) or be easily abused (tiered combat).
I have changed my mind, and would prefer no changes at all.
|
|
Deleted
Roleplay posts: 0
Registered: May 18, 2024 15:14:52 GMT -8
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2016 19:09:55 GMT -8
Though I would most prefer tiers, I believe Fletche's combatant/opt-out idea is the easiest to implement while still allowing for sandbox combat.
|
|
Jill
Dedicated
Roleplay posts: 397
Age: 17
Physical Description: Dark brown hair and pigtails, small and faded blue tribal tattoo on her right upper arm.
Clothes and Equipment: Tribal gear of a deep purple hue, with lightly guarded forearms. Her belt hoists a small brown pack, a curled up whip, and two thin, ornate scimitars.
Player's online availability : Some during week days, and most nights 8pm+. Pacific time.
Registered: Apr 1, 2015 20:40:31 GMT -8
|
Post by Jill on Jan 10, 2016 19:33:50 GMT -8
Here's my two bitcoins:
First, I've always approached this game with it in mind that your character can be killed by other characters and settings and not to grow too attached. Plus, I've also found that there is a lot of freedom in the things you can do to avoid actually dying. As much of a storytrap a game like this can be to tabletop players or players who get really tied to their characters or content, there are a number of other games that better suit those desires. In fact, most roleplays are more considerate of player content and less of a free-for-all. To those of us who actually want the lifelike aspects of risk and unpredictability mixed in with a little emotion and a ton of diversity, TFS is our only holy land and we would really hate to see it change. A number of these proposed changes, if not all of them, would infringe upon this experience in some way.
Second, I also think limiting other players' choice to become a thorn in your side flattens the unpredictable, "risky" kind of experience that so readily connects TFS to real life feelings. This, to me, provide a sense of realism and immersion found in no such structured roleplay as D&D.
Third, I think our admin has been more than reasonable in bringing disagreements from fights to a conclusion. I have been here since almost the beginning of this game (like my first RP was Jun's first RP and she's the main protagonist!) and the number of powergaming cases that are actually brought to 'judgement' are very small. A number of powergame issues would be solved cleanly with admin judgment.
Fourth, drawing on my previous comment on how long I've played here, the upsetting events involving powergaming that have occurred throughout TFS' history have all stemmed from a very small subset of players (you know who you are). THAT SAID, I am absolutely willing to endorse a more expansive, definitive power cap beyond "no gods." There are some players who I think need "hard-coded" limits to the "sheer power" (better definition pending) or physical size of something in order to play more fair with others.
Fifth, I think the majority of players, characters, and their associated experiences and roleplays have been positive. I truly think the majority if not all of the defenseless characters on TFS are smartly engaged in places and scenarios that minimize the risk of sudden death.
Sixth, and last but not least, the strength of an godmoder's attack in their words, provided it isn't a melee attack, is usually fairly relative because it's typically something paranormal and undefinable IRL. Because these things can't be measured, there's the turns-to-prep concept. Basically if I take two turns to prep my fireball vs. his one turn defense, he has to take some damage. If they don't, I'd seek a judgment and that judgment would probably be based on prep. I have absolutely no fear about coming into a fight with a known godmoder because I would just report them when they cheated.
Combining all six of these perspectives, I actually kind of like the way things are and that the actual danger to people's content and feelings might become over-embellished if we ruminate on the many possibilities (however rare they may be) of us losing content or characters to another player's whim. I would support some changes (or more preferably, just some limits or definitions), but it's hard to define one that doesn't step on the concept that draws a lot of players like myself to this game over all the other games out there.
|
|
Garo Zelsai
Committed
Roleplay posts: 66
Age: 16
Player's online availability : Random, and usually you can find me in the Free City.
Registered: Dec 27, 2014 22:10:44 GMT -8
|
Post by Garo Zelsai on Jan 10, 2016 19:44:38 GMT -8
Here's my two bitcoins: First, I've always approached this game with it in mind that your character can be killed by other characters and settings and not to grow too attached. Plus, I've also found that there is a lot of freedom in the things you can do to avoid actually dying. As much of a storytrap a game like this can be to tabletop players or players who get really tied to their characters or content, there are a number of other games that better suit those desires. In fact, most roleplays are more considerate of player content and less of a free-for-all. To those of us who actually want the lifelike aspects of risk and unpredictability mixed in with a little emotion and a ton of diversity, TFS is our only holy land and we would really hate to see it change. A number of these proposed changes, if not all of them, would infringe upon this experience in some way. Second, I also think limiting other players' choice to become a thorn in your side flattens the unpredictable, "risky" kind of experience that so readily connects TFS to real life feelings. This, to me, provide a sense of realism and immersion found in no such structured roleplay as D&D. Third, I think our admin has been more than reasonable in bringing disagreements from fights to a conclusion. I have been here since almost the beginning of this game (like my first RP was Jun's first RP and she's the main protagonist!) and the number of powergaming cases that are actually brought to 'judgement' are very small. A number of powergame issues would be solved cleanly with admin judgment. Fourth, drawing on my previous comment on how long I've played here, the upsetting events involving powergaming that have occurred throughout TFS' history have all stemmed from a very small subset of players ( you know who you are). THAT SAID, I am absolutely willing to endorse a more expansive, definitive power cap beyond "no gods." There are some players who I think need "hard-coded" limits to the "sheer power" (better definition pending) or physical size of something in order to play more fair with others. Fifth, I think the majority of players, characters, and their associated experiences and roleplays have been positive. I truly think the majority if not all of the defenseless characters on TFS are smartly engaged in places and scenarios that minimize the risk of sudden death. Sixth, and last but not least, the strength of an godmoder's attack in their words, provided it isn't a melee attack, is usually fairly relative because it's typically something paranormal and undefinable IRL. Because these things can't be measured, there's the turns-to-prep concept. Basically if I take two turns to prep my fireball vs. his one turn defense, he has to take some damage. If they don't, I'd seek a judgment and that judgment would probably be based on prep. I have absolutely no fear about coming into a fight with a known godmoder because I would just report them when they cheated. Combining all six of these perspectives, I actually kind of like the way things are and that the actual danger to people's content and feelings might become over-embellished if we ruminate on the many possibilities (however rare they may be) of us losing content or characters to another player's whim. I would support some changes (or more preferably, just some limits or definitions), but it's hard to define one that doesn't step on the concept that draws a lot of players like myself to this game over all the other games out there. This I havent played in awhile but the first time, I helped fight goblins. Then, I was randomly robbed without my permission by another character who was faster than me in Isra Then after that, I wound up in a scenario in which I was somewhat lucky I did not end up in a setting that is a known character-killer. And all of it was awesome because I didn't plan or agree to any of it In fact, if everyone's character were completely anonymous and detatched from their OOC persona and nobody knew any power-details about each other's characters (only visible descriptions), so I couldnt tell who was who or predict who would act like what, or what character had what powers until I was with them IC... oh man, that would just be...and Ill use a word Jill used, Immersion x10. By immersion I mean the game would "feel" so real to the mind, like reading a good novel. Very different scope of realism than say, the classic tabletop roleplay where you're sitting around giggling over mountain dew and poptarts and talking about your significant others while entertaining laughably ridiculous scenarios with dice rolls.
|
|
Royal Fletcher
Widely Known
Roleplay posts: 1,339
Age: 19
Physical Description: Royal is a pale boy with dark bags under his bluish eyes, an unfortunate result of too many days spent staring at books indoors by candlelight. He's thin, of slightly below average height, and has white hair.
Clothes and Equipment: Roy carries around an enchanted parasol at all times, which floats above him and shields him from the sunlight. He also has a sword, a gift from his cousin Roxanne. His pockets are always filled with an unreasonable amount of chocolate, and he usually has some sort of cake or other baked goods on his person.
Allegiances: The Fletcher Family
Player's online availability : Unreasonably often
Registered: Jun 3, 2015 19:45:42 GMT -8
|
Post by Royal Fletcher on Jan 10, 2016 19:46:31 GMT -8
Here's my two bitcoins: First, I've always approached this game with it in mind that your character can be killed by other characters and settings and not to grow too attached. Plus, I've also found that there is a lot of freedom in the things you can do to avoid actually dying. As much of a storytrap a game like this can be to tabletop players or players who get really tied to their characters or content, there are a number of other games that better suit those desires. In fact, most roleplays are more considerate of player content and less of a free-for-all. To those of us who actually want the lifelike aspects of risk and unpredictability mixed in with a little emotion and a ton of diversity, TFS is our only holy land and we would really hate to see it change. A number of these proposed changes, if not all of them, would infringe upon this experience in some way. Second, I also think limiting other players' choice to become a thorn in your side flattens the unpredictable, "risky" kind of experience that so readily connects TFS to real life feelings. This, to me, provide a sense of realism and immersion found in no such structured roleplay as D&D. Third, I think our admin has been more than reasonable in bringing disagreements from fights to a conclusion. I have been here since almost the beginning of this game (like my first RP was Jun's first RP and she's the main protagonist!) and the number of powergaming cases that are actually brought to 'judgement' are very small. A number of powergame issues would be solved cleanly with admin judgment. Fourth, drawing on my previous comment on how long I've played here, the upsetting events involving powergaming that have occurred throughout TFS' history have all stemmed from a very small subset of players ( you know who you are). THAT SAID, I am absolutely willing to endorse a more expansive, definitive power cap beyond "no gods." There are some players who I think need "hard-coded" limits to the "sheer power" (better definition pending) or physical size of something in order to play more fair with others. Fifth, I think the majority of players, characters, and their associated experiences and roleplays have been positive. I truly think the majority if not all of the defenseless characters on TFS are smartly engaged in places and scenarios that minimize the risk of sudden death. Sixth, and last but not least, the strength of an godmoder's attack in their words, provided it isn't a melee attack, is usually fairly relative because it's typically something paranormal and undefinable IRL. Because these things can't be measured, there's the turns-to-prep concept. Basically if I take two turns to prep my fireball vs. his one turn defense, he has to take some damage. If they don't, I'd seek a judgment and that judgment would probably be based on prep. I have absolutely no fear about coming into a fight with a known godmoder because I would just report them when they cheated. Combining all six of these perspectives, I actually kind of like the way things are and that the actual danger to people's content and feelings might become over-embellished if we ruminate on the many possibilities (however rare they may be) of us losing content or characters to another player's whim. I would support some changes (or more preferably, just some limits or definitions), but it's hard to define one that doesn't step on the concept that draws a lot of players like myself to this game over all the other games out there. You're right. You've changed my mind, I no longer think we need changes. However, if a change is to be implemented, I think the designated non-combatants would be the least terrible.
|
|
Deleted
Roleplay posts: 0
Registered: May 18, 2024 15:14:52 GMT -8
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2016 20:00:58 GMT -8
Then, I was randomly robbed without my permission by another character who was faster than me in Isra Then after that, I wound up in a scenario in which I was somewhat lucky I did not end up in a setting that is a known character-killer.
And all of it was awesome because I didn't plan or agree to any of itNot everyone likes that bolded bit. I love realism. Believe me, I like it more than most. There are necessary boundaries when some jerk crosses the line, though.
|
|
Jill
Dedicated
Roleplay posts: 397
Age: 17
Physical Description: Dark brown hair and pigtails, small and faded blue tribal tattoo on her right upper arm.
Clothes and Equipment: Tribal gear of a deep purple hue, with lightly guarded forearms. Her belt hoists a small brown pack, a curled up whip, and two thin, ornate scimitars.
Player's online availability : Some during week days, and most nights 8pm+. Pacific time.
Registered: Apr 1, 2015 20:40:31 GMT -8
|
Post by Jill on Jan 10, 2016 20:09:31 GMT -8
The sandbox environment is for people who do like that.
For people who don't, pretty much -every- other roleplay environment is still available to them. For those of us who like that unpredictability and want to play in an open world in which it's applied to everybody, this is the place to play. It's like..our only place to play. Where "emergence" and the forces of push and pull, loss and creation, gallantry and assholery, form an unpredictable miasma of stories and possibilities, and risks.
I think the sandbox should stay true to its original vision (and what I describe was its original vision).
|
|
Jun of the Celadine
Widely Known
Roleplay posts: 1,410
Age: 28
Physical Description: Jun is a human adult, standing 5’4”. She is wiry and fit at approximately 120 lbs. She has olive skin, dark brown hair ending just above her shoulders, and slight epicanthic folds over her dark almond eyes. Her face is squarish with a small chin. Her skin is dotted with battle scars, and her left arm is heavily bandaged due to an unknown affliction.
Clothes and Equipment: Jun possesses a vast collection of seeds, herbs, insects, and scrolls hidden in various pouches in her armor. These serve as reagents for her multitude of spells. Her armor consists of a customized, long-coat style gambeson that is stuffed with a matrix of seeds and plant fibers. Fitted on top is a set of brass-like, enchanted half armor (chest piece, pauldrons, and tassets) which gives off a warm aura. She has an open-faced, burgonet style helmet and coif of the same materials.
Her most notable "weapons" are Blackbean and Resonance. Blackbean is an elephant-sized demon crow which has served with Jun for many years as a mount and as a bodyguard. A minor enchantment allows him to disguise himself as a regular crow. Resonance is an azure blue longsword with a mind of his own. He can intercept minor attacks and can teleport to his owner. He can also use a personal reserve of magic to aid in the casting of a single spell.
Allegiances: Isra
Player's online availability : Frequently
Registered: Mar 27, 2015 22:57:52 GMT -8
|
Post by Jun of the Celadine on Jan 10, 2016 20:10:14 GMT -8
Look, honestly, I just want people to start getting along and stop trying to make haters of each other. Sometimes I feel like the only one who remembers that we're all basically a part of a relatively small group of people, who care enough about writing and the stories in their head to actually want to put them on paper (or text) and share them with the world. We're all in the same boat. We can't afford to alienate each other. There are very few, if any, other RP sites out there quite like this one, where collectively a few dozen have managed to create several novels' worth of material.
Anyone who joins this site has a vision for a character or story they want to happen, and I think people should respect that.
The change I advocate is more a change in people's attitudes.
I do like the fact that a lot of the camaraderie on the Sandbox comes from the fact that people ARE allowed to attack each other, but CHOOSE not too. That's what makes us friends. Having rules that say you can't attack someone does seem to cheapen it.
I'm also willing to accept the consequences of my actions. If Ukufa attacks Gauldin, I accept the fact that he makes a lot of enemies. I'm ok with that. He's a goddamn villain. But I also like the fact that I can actually work with the Black Tower to come up with a mutual solution that makes everyone happy.
Part of Jun's friendship with Fundor, and thus part of my friendship with that character's player, is based on the fact that he could eat me in a second but chooses not to, but instead teaches my character new things.
Hostile actions have consequences, and that's something we need to accept in both real life and in game. You can't just be an asshole to people and expect your character to be loved. If you do or say something nasty, people won't like you, and they won't RP with you. Simple.
I agree with a conditional non-combatant status that people can opt into, to protect their story line. However, we should come up with a way for that status to be revoked. A non-combatant cannot just, say, invade an enemy stronghold and not expect to be unharmed.
|
|
Karath Durson
Dedicated
Roleplay posts: 168
Age: 27
Registered: Oct 27, 2015 20:59:28 GMT -8
|
Post by Karath Durson on Jan 10, 2016 20:41:47 GMT -8
I think non-combatant tags are a form of segregation, pandering to non-sandbox motivations, and will reduce the quality of the sandbox experience overall. It adds an arcade-ish, MMO-like aspect to the game that all new players will need to understand, and I guarantee it WILL change the dynamic of how stories play out, because it will influence what characters interact with who, and why. This, in my opinion, is a big no-no if I were running a "sandbox" that had to stay true to its original vision.
|
|
Cyronin the Blue
Committed
Roleplay posts: 61
Age: 28
Physical Description: Trying.
Clothes and Equipment: https://imgur.com/a/sIpRe
Player's online availability : Often?
Registered: Nov 9, 2015 2:04:16 GMT -8
|
Post by Cyronin the Blue on Jan 10, 2016 20:43:17 GMT -8
Firstly, a note to everyone - this has had many well-thought out, sensible responses. Everyone has had some very pertinent thoughts. I agreed to sign this, but somewhat begrudgingly - I feel that none of the proposed alternatives would benefit the site any more than the status quo. Where we are now is... good. Sure, we may have so OoC conflicts, but this is to be expected in such a free style of gameplay. After all, every king and queen of the kindergarten sandbox would have had disputes whit their neighbours over who's castle is bigger. In fact, I feel that while there needs to be changes to afford control, those proposed in the first statement would be actively damaging to the Sandbox aspect of this site we all share. Roll-of-the-dice most obviously so, but the others to different degrees. They put restrictions, and yellow tape around the freedom we have as members of a Sandbox. To return to the sandbox analogy, sand flows. It moves. It pours. It moves freely when unrestricted. My proposed alternative would be, and this is the only way I have been able to see to change the status quo without harming the sandbox is; - Have reasonable power caps - characters designed to kill others are just pointless. A reasonable power cap should be relatively high, to keep that freedom intact, but not so we have characters that can kill others with, say, one hit.
- Require OoC agreements to kill/maim characters - this promotes communication and collaborations between members. It also means that people can agree to have their characters killed if that is part of their story, or the combatants may have to work out a way to end the situation without a character dying OOC.
- General courtesy - be nice. It's a good rule to live by. There's no need to be mecha-Hitler or the bane of all mankind. Take it easy, and relax. There's no need to get steamed up over something that happens on the Internet, and nobody likes a character who is Hitler reincarnated. This will be more likely to screw you over than anyone else.
So, there's my thoughts on the subject. At any rate, change is important - but not merely for the sake of change, and not if it will be detrimental to the Sandbox.
|
|
King Hylon Eremae
Committed
King of Medan.
Roleplay posts: 53
Registered: Dec 18, 2014 16:47:33 GMT -8
|
Post by King Hylon Eremae on Jan 10, 2016 21:07:20 GMT -8
If we had to agree to be attacked by random assholes, giant dragons, and now apparently pirates, the nation of Medan would not be struggling on the brink of collapse like it is today.
Such an absence of struggle and unpredictability, of risk that all of Medan might be gone one day, would be boring. A lot of work has been put into Medan throughout the lifetime of this game; some will disagree with me, but I find the necessity to defend it quite fulfilling.
|
|
Empress Naoki
Famous
Roleplay posts: 2,238
Physical Description: =========================
Empress Naoki is a curvaceous woman of average height, indeterminate age, and catlike features. Her hair is a dark auburn, often pulled back into a long braid. Her ears are both soft and fluffy, and her tail is never less than perfectly groomed. Amber eyes glisten in the shadows cast by her hair.
Clothes and Equipment: =========================
Naoki's wardrobe is to her as a frame is to a painting. Sometimes embellished with detail to be attractive in its own right, but never the focus. Usually simple but elegant, tightly fitting and highly revealing, used only to frame the beauty within.
Additionally, Naoki is, when clothed, often adorned with a small collection of accessories. She wears an earring, a brilliant cut amethyst, in her right ear. The silver signet ring of Isra is worn on her left pinky, marking her as High Lady of Isra. Directly adjacent, she wears the golden signet ring of The Isran Empire as its Empress. On the inside of her left thigh, there is a tattoo depicting a rose entwined with tentacles.
Allegiances: The Isran Empire
Player's online availability : Excessively often. Timezone: ET (-5)
Registered: Sept 12, 2015 13:02:17 GMT -8
|
Post by Empress Naoki on Jan 10, 2016 21:15:58 GMT -8
I find most of the solutions proposed in the topic post to be acceptable on some level. There are some I think are better than others, but the only one I’m opposed to, as most are, is to Roll to Dodge. Such a system has no place here. If any of the solutions were implemented in a well thought out manner, all loopholes were closed, and everyone was pleased with the results, so too would I be pleased. I don’t mean to suggest outlawing all that is unpredictable. Please don't interpret this as that. Things that are unexpected, but also consensual and fun for people to do, are excellent! I mean only to discriminate against the malevolent. The unexpected that isn’t fun to play, those who do things out of spite, and those absurdly powerful characters that nobody enjoys interacting with. I really enjoy things that are unexpected, but not at the complete destruction of everything I enjoy doing. For example, recently my character was going to have dinner with Kate Green. The relevant posts are on page 41 of The Midnight Sun. @hasdrubal came in, and lopped his own head off. I had no idea he was going to do that, and in character, Naoki was very much displeased. However, his action, though to the detriment of the in character situation, brought around a bunch more enjoyable RP, generated emotions, and the like. I'm sure a lot of you can relate. That isn't the sort of thing I'm trying to get rid of, even though my example is imperfect in that Hasdrubal didn't actually attack anyone. I'll adapt, I'll change my plans, I'll react to most anything that crosses my path, but I'm not alright with someone who has a grudge against me randomly interjecting themselves and gibbing my character out of spite. Additionally, I think that more intervention on the part of the staff members would also do well to address some of these arguments. However, let me say this. The reason that I championed this discussion, this post, was to deal with one very particular problem, and to deal with it permanently. It is my nature to go to the root of things, and implement a fix that solves the issue, and all like it, now and forever. I also don’t like to make things personal, so I figured that going and creating a civil discussion, not about a person, but rather about systems, would be a more polite way to accomplish our goal. Perhaps the changes that TFS as a body decides to implement would be an improvement, and prevent similar issues in the future, not only dealing with the problem of the now, but also preemptively fixing all future instances of the same sort of issue. However, if TFS as a whole isn’t comfortable instituting such a wide reaching change, a much smaller scope... change could be made that addresses the current issue, and I would also be fine with that.
|
|
Karath Durson
Dedicated
Roleplay posts: 168
Age: 27
Registered: Oct 27, 2015 20:59:28 GMT -8
|
Post by Karath Durson on Jan 10, 2016 21:52:13 GMT -8
I just don't think any of the proposed changes would result in a greater overall net happiness in the community than we already have, because for as many players that would become more satisfied, others would feel the sandbox concept infringed upon. The sandbox concept is one that doesn't structure itself to the benefit of the "PKers" or the "non-combatants." Instead, as a neutral framework, its scope is to accommodate both groups. Because PKers cannot exist with sandbox freedom in a system designed to protect non-combatants, but non-combatants can live in a world with PKers, the vision that allows the potential for both is where the system defaults. The proposed changes pry against this very concept and so it would be hard to convince admin to make such existential changes to a game that was built on a strongly envisioned philosophy.
I believe the staff can and would become more involved but we too must play our part in that process, and understand that as a sandbox the staff will only get involved in what breaks the rules. No more should anyone tolerate powergaming that breaks the rules without reporting it, and I think we need to be more proactive in collecting/sending evidence and starting a "paper-trail" on repeat offenders, so we can actually get them reprimanded or removed on a "legal" basis so as not to make the admin feel like a babysitter (which is not the stated role of the admin or staff in this particular game). This would increase net happiness, in my opinion.
|
|
Queen Arianne
Dedicated
The Queen of Gauldin
Roleplay posts: 217
Age: Twenty
Physical Description: Arianne is plump in her bosom, with a little waist and a flare of hips. Because she is active, she is well toned with sleek musculature in her stomach and arms, and her long legs are finely made. She has flowing red hair and thick-lashed blue eyes. She has smooth strawberries-and-creme skin dappled with freckles. Her face is always active with some emotion or another. | JUST HAD A BABY!
Clothes and Equipment: Arianne wears finely made adventuring clothing. Although she has grown up considerably since her marriage, she still enjoys the finer things, so her leathers are always tailored to her gorgeous frame and feminine to boot. She has a sabre, a shortsword, and a dagger usually upon her.
Registered: Dec 6, 2015 14:59:45 GMT -8
|
Post by Queen Arianne on Jan 10, 2016 22:25:50 GMT -8
I'm pretty new to the site. In fact, I think I might be its newest? Not entirely sure, but I haven't been here all that long. Alden and I joined at around the same time, but even so, I've managed to make way too many characters because the storylines are all so engaging.
I've already had a character die, another character has broken her leg and will limp for the rest of her life, another was banished from her home country, and another still hasn't received the news that her brother was killed in a duel. I have never built a character thinking that my character was going to survive until the end, and when I know that I will be making a character in a sandbox where anything else can stomp around, I do it with the knowledge that if I make a completely defenseless Disney Princess damsel (which will happen soon), that I am at the mercy of the other players.
In my short couple of months here, I've found a community of people that seem mature and willing to discuss if they have issues with storylines, battles, or character development, and almost every single one of them have come to a conclusion that each of the players involved have been content with.
Basically, all of us seem to play just fine in the sandbox, and any discussions about needing character caps are only on the table because of a very, very, very, very select few people that are quite obviously abusing the system. In my opinion, nothing needs to change.
It's almost as if most everyone here roleplays with a sense of a Gentleman's Code. Those that don't abide, are clearly not a gentleman, and it'll be my choice to avoid roleplay with those that are clearly and unashamedly taking advantage of the freedoms of the sandbox.
|
|