Originally posted by Ivniciix
First and foremost, an online game is entertainment. Just as I stated in the thread \"Earning the Right to PvP\", this puts it in a different category than a single person game. You can go to a movie, read a book in a library, got to a sports event-whatever-but in none of those entertainment venues do you ever have the right to interfere with someone elses enjoyment. If you do, you will get your rights curtailed.
First and foremost, a
single-player game is entertainment. A \"massively multiplayer online role playing game\" is roleplaying with massive numbers of other players, and
that is the entertainment. If one does not find that entertaining, one can simply play an ordinary RPG. The the idea that the structure of the game should eliminate perfectly reasonable possibilities to protect players\' right to use a public server without roleplaying with other players is childish, naive, and entirely unreasonable. If my character became a victim because the system allowed for it (provided that the game was more complete, and the progression system more well-refined to set realistic limits, which I find to be a higher priority than advancing the game environment), I would not consider myself a victim, and would not give grief for it.
YOU might enjoy it but it certainly isn\'t neccessary. I\'d like to see quests, AI and game mechanics so \"organic\" and branched that they create a level of RP-ability as yet unacheived by any game. But clearly none of that is essential to market an MMORPG either.
It may not be \"necessary,\" in the literal sense, but it is certainly essential (food for thought: that comes from \"essence,\" and does not mean what most people seem to take it to mean, i.e. \"necessary\"). What you cite here is also essential to the concept, and I heartily approve. In response, however, I will say that \"what it takes to market\" a product is rarely what is best for the product or the consumer.
\"Historical\" is a two-edged and unacheivable goal for an MMORPG however, even in Medieval times, the percentage of \"succesful\" murderers or thieves (free lance ones I mean, not offically sanctioned ones) was extremely low. Most vile and evil things were not done by individuals but by institutions who coveted and protected that \"privelege\".
Granted, though this is hardly because the practitioners were somehow protected by the institutions of which they were a part. No, they were professionals, and simply did not get caught. There were plenty of mysterious deaths that most likely were unsolved murders. If one is not so skilled, however, one is unlikely to last long, due to the likelihood of being killed on sight by not only the town guard, but the more zealous townspeople. If getting caught means death and confiscation of all possessions, it is unlikely to become a widespread problem within the game. Only the most deadly and feared of the known criminals would survive for long, and they are unlikely to be bothered with going on a random and unprovoked killing spree. Considering that silencing ones victims would be impossible, there would be no unknown criminals. Here, I\'m afraid, dead men
do tell tales (when they return from the Death Realm, that is).
So, when I hear people say they MUST have non-consentual PvP, I wonder why they never ask for robust and relentless law-enforcement authorities as well. ...I also never see anyone asking for random, hugely high level monsters, which was a part of PnP RP, and is just as \"valid\" as non-consentual PvP in creating \"realism\".
Read my post. I just did.
Yes, there were some long-lived theives or murders. They usually spent long stretches in prison, in the stocks or in exile. Dueling is another matter, one of honor not impetuousness, conducted under strict rules. That\'s why there is an arena.
That is RP-centric, and belongs in breakable in-game laws with consequences for breaking them, not in the structure of the game itself.
The only justification for non-consentual PvP I can accept, is outlined in \"Earning the Right to PvP\". I wouldn\'t mind being killed by someone so committed that they earned the privelege in a manner such as I outlined. It would be extremely refreshing and useful, particulary for a game that has 99.99% ruled it out already, if the next time anyone posted about the \"essential-ness\" of non-consentual PvP that they also outlined the risks and punishments they would be willing to accept to have it.
This is the only sort that would survive for long, if what I propose were to be implimented. However, making it otherwise literally impossible is ridiculous.
Otherwise, just start politicing for a PvP server because I think that\'s the only way you will possibly get what you want out of PS.
Who is this aimed at? Certainly not me, as I mostly agree with you, some slight deviations notwithstanding. Other posters here? *shrugs*
