PlaneShift
Gameplay => Wish list => Topic started by: Merak on November 29, 2005, 10:49:08 am
-
Could there be an explanation about why people appear and disappear in game (when logging in and out) ?
\"PS is a game, and when their eyes are red, players log out and shut their computer down\" is not a good reason for a roleplay oriented MMORPG like PS.
Is there a reason related to the Crystal (easy way to justify anything, as for last fools day ;) )?
Possibly, if it can be done clientside only not to overload the server, could there be an adapted animation (like spell casting ones) when logging in and out, instead of popping up and off?
-
yes i would quite like to see my char \"beam out\" just before logging off, maybe something similiar could be used for death with you disentegrating into the realm of the dead.
-
Originally posted by nattuo
yes i would quite like to see my char \"beam out\" just before logging off, maybe something similiar could be used for death with you disentegrating into the realm of the dead.
A pre-computed animation disintegrating the 3D model of the character, each triangular facet separating, rising, then only three particles at vertices positions soaring with the wind, flying like snow flakes..? :)
-
Why not just go somewhere unpopulated to log out then when you log in again no one will see you :)
-
Originally posted by lanser
Why not just go somewhere unpopulated to log out then when you log in again no one will see you :)
That\'s already what I do for log out.
But what I am asking for above all is an explanation. Xacha scientists and Knowledge Seekers must have asked themselves why before...
Else, people on this forum may have ideas about it...
-
Originally posted by Merak
Could there be an explanation about why people appear and disappear in game (when logging in and out) ?
I have seen several people writing sentences about their reasons to disappear before logging off. Thorin even uses some kind of \"Weakness\" spell effect (probably on his pet) to disappear in a black smoke.
-
I think any sort of try to integrate RL necessities into RP is doomed to fail, because it forces everyone into certain actions, which are more unfitting and restrictive to RP than they benefit special cases.
It would be a lot more distracting to RP to have people just randomly \"beam out\" or \"planeshift\" pseudo-IC-ly instead of just disappearing OOC-ly. With just OOC-ly disappearing you can, for RP purposes, assume / claim whatever seems most logical / convenient at the time, and it would also be identical to all other cases liek crashes, etc..
You are also free to say \"/me walks off\" and immediately /quit.
All other interpretations drag into RP a lot of undesriables:
Where does the char go when it\'s not in PS?
How do they come back?
Do they know about it?
Do they meet whereever they go?
Why doesn\'t this happen to NPCs?
Does it happen to your char before being taken over by a player?
Can you trigger it at will?
Etc., etc..
I think this is exactly like bugs and other deficiencies of PS and online gaming / technology and is best completely left out of RP and completely ignored RP-wise.
Likewise, AFK-ness can\'t be forcibly turned into an RP element, because RL will often force you to go AFK when it is not possible for your char to even look away for a second.
-
maby the could like pull out a pellow and go to sleep i the middle of the floor,.
-
I don\'t know about logging out, but when we die, I think that we should be carried off to the shadows of the Death Realm by a dark light...Just a thought. Maybe a black wealness-spell-looking aura shines around us, and when it disappears, we\'re in the Death Realm.
Don\'t say that disappearing is more IC than OOC, because most of the time, when RPing, you need to try and animate it, as well as /me it. If you say \"/me walks out\" and disappear, people will wonder how you disappeared, not say bye to an invisible body.
My suggestion is, maybe a different animation for each race when they log out. For example: Say a Klyros wants to log out, well, when they hit the quit button, their model will fly into the sky (might take little to a lot of time to figure out how to animate that) and disappear. Then, a Kran wants to leave, maybe they could smash a wall, or the material of their body sinks into the ground? An Enkidukai might climb some place high (a hill) and then disappear, or a Ylian would simply walk a few steps away and disappear.
The same would happen for logging in. A Klyros would fly out of the sky, a Ylian would walk back from wherever he/she went, etc.
-
But that would really limit your log out/log in scenarios. Some people roleplay waking up when they log in - and how silly would it be to log in within the tavern, roleplaying an ill, sleeping Klyros, only to have the model suddenly crash through the roof? ;) And how many walls can Kran realistically destroy? What if you are playing a mild-mannered, pacifistic Kran? Or a limbing Enkidukai?
I think it\'s up to the players to decide how to work around getting in and out of the world, and it seems to be working just fine without any additions. And people tend to be very understanding if you suddenly have to turn off your computer and address an issue in real life - in which case a decent RP exit may not be available.
Perhaps being carried off to the DR somehow (or fading, as was suggested) is a good idea. But otherwise.... I\'d say unnecessary :>
-
How about something as simple as laying down like you were sleeping when you log out! After some amount of time you would fade into the back ground and simply disaprear.
-
Fading into the ground is just as unrealistic as punching a wall. And sleeping... let\'s say I log out in . It is true that there will be beggars and homeless people, but the vast majority of people would sleep in houses, etc. I\'d think.
-
Originally posted by Cha0s
Fading into the ground is just as unrealistic as punching a wall. And sleeping... let\'s say I log out in . It is true that there will be beggars and homeless people, but the vast majority of people would sleep in houses, etc. I\'d think.
Given that most of us are playing wanderers and adventurers and scholars, it would make sense that many of us sleep in the tavern, under some tree, at a school or university, or a guild center / fort / office. Houses might in fact not make up the vast majority.
-
Alright, but you\'ll agree that the vast majority do not sleep in the Plaza? That seems completely unrealistic, especially given that it would probably be illegal...
-
Originally posted by Cha0s
Alright, but you\'ll agree that the vast majority do not sleep in the Plaza? That seems completely unrealistic, especially given that it would probably be illegal...
Illegal, but without open PVP, how do you plan on enforcing it? :)
-
Originally posted by Seytra
you can, for RP purposes, assume / claim whatever seems most logical / convenient at the time, and it would also be identical to all other cases liek crashes, etc..
You are also free to say \"/me walks off\" and immediately /quit.
What I claim for is mostly an explanation from those who imagined PS world, settled why Kran cannot cast magic, etc. Or a very good explanation imagined by players.
Your solution, Seytra, consisting in claiming whatever seems most logical is not always convenient, and do not prevent problems due to the game nature of PS.
Scenario:
Bob is tailing Joe. Within Bob\'s sight, Joe logs off (as he thinks he\'s alone, in a deserted area) ...
What should roleplay Bob?
Should he /tell Joe \"Hey, dude, I want to backstab you, so don\'t log out before please;)\"
Consequences are that you lost the guy, and do not know when he will log in again.
As log in/out is a intrinsic feature of PS (as Death Realm, etc.), there should be an official explanation (or an official hypothesis like the stalagtite shape of the world floating in space).
This explanation could be:
\"The crystal sometimes absorbs some living creatures and releases them randomly after a while that can last a few seconds to several centuries.\"
(please find something more considered and deeper that this)
-
Death is something completely different than logging off, as it\'s fully ingame and thus should be made so that it can be fully IC.
Originally posted by Merak
Originally posted by Seytra
you can, for RP purposes, assume / claim whatever seems most logical / convenient at the time, and it would also be identical to all other cases liek crashes, etc..
You are also free to say \"/me walks off\" and immediately /quit.
What I claim for is mostly an explanation from those who imagined PS world, settled why Kran cannot cast magic, etc. Or a very good explanation imagined by players.
As I said: I think that attempting to force any sort of explanation is doomed to utter failure. Even if it succeeds in covering all the technicalities, it would still leave out lots of the issues I listed, like the \"Why doesn\'t it happen to NPCs\", etc.. To cover these, it would be required to integrate the severe consequences into the setting, and I am more than inclined to think that this is by far more work than it\'s worth.
Seriously, why do you need an explanation at all? Why do you need to force completely OOC things into RP? Why do you insist on making things one certain way while the players themselves, while RPing, are more than capable of either ignoring or making up a logical / likely exit for the goner?
Originally posted by Merak
Your solution, Seytra, consisting in claiming whatever seems most logical is not always convenient, and do not prevent problems due to the game nature of PS.
Scenario:
Bob is tailing Joe. Within Bob\'s sight, Joe logs off (as he thinks he\'s alone, in a deserted area) ...
What should roleplay Bob?
Should he /tell Joe \"Hey, dude, I want to backstab you, so don\'t log out before please;)\"
Consequences are that you lost the guy, and do not know when he will log in again.
Yes, this is the consequence. But what is the overall context of the scenario?
Option 1: RP
Bob and Joe are RPing, and therefore Joe does know that Bob is tailing him, so he will /tell Bob before he logs off (unless it\'s truly urgent) and possibly postpone the remainder or they agree that Joe truly lost track of Bob for whatever reason. Even in case of urgent leaving, Bob will likely be on Joe\'s BL, and vice versa, so it\'ll be easy to set up a continuation or some other agreement when both are logged in another time.
Option 2: PvP
Joe is a PvPer and as such doesn\'t care about Bob specifically, unless he has some other OOC reason to do so. Therefore, it doesn\'t truly matter whether he kills Bob or anyone else. If he has another OOC rerason this means that Bob will log on more or less frequently, so Joe will get his chance some other time. It\'s really the exact same as with MOBs in that case: there is absolutely nothing that any sort of RP \"explanation\" for the logging off will add to the bebefit of the PvP situation, because it\'s OOC already, so it couldn\'t care less for any RP explanation.
Fact is that Bob cannot /tell Joe, because Joe is off already, so whatever will need to be said will have to be said before the logoff, anyway, or will have to wait until both are on again. No amount of RP explanations can change that, so the proposal would not do anything to mitigate the consequences.
Originally posted by Merak
As log in/out is a intrinsic feature of PS (as Death Realm, etc.), there should be an official explanation (or an official hypothesis like the stalagtite shape of the world floating in space).
No, the two are completely different. The DR is an intrinsic part of PS, and the game world, so it needs an explanation and everything.
Logoff, however, is there solely out of necessity, due to PS being merely a game and nothing else. It is not needed, nor helpful for RP or the gaming experience.
Therefore it is completely OOC, and does not belong to the game world, just like /tells, /group, /guild, the clumsy GUI or the bugs and limitations. If RL would not dictate that logging off is required, the logoff feature not exist.
Therefore, logging on / off does have no place in RP, and therefore it does not need (deserve) an RP explanation.
Edit: Should someone manage to create an explanation that fits the setting and also adresses all the issues it creates, I likely wouldn\'t mind if it was put into the settings (though I feel that it would hurt RP and immersion more than it would help it). However, putting effort into it seems like a pointless waste of time to me, and I would hate to see any dev working on it.
-
Originally posted by Seytra
Bob and Joe are RPing, and therefore Joe does know that Bob is tailing him,
*sigh* No, not necessarily. RPing doesn\'t mean you know everything that\'s going on. Joe might simply suspect that Bob is tailing him, or Joe might be fearful of being followed yet not realize it is happening, or Joe might be happy-go-lucky and completely unaware of what is happening around him. All are within the boundries of role-playing.
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
Originally posted by Seytra
Bob and Joe are RPing, and therefore Joe does know that Bob is tailing him,
*sigh* No, not necessarily. RPing doesn\'t mean you know everything that\'s going on. Joe might simply suspect that Bob is tailing him, or Joe might be fearful of being followed yet not realize it is happening, or Joe might be happy-go-lucky and completely unaware of what is happening around him. All are within the boundries of role-playing.
No, that is where you are dangerously wrong. If you start tailing somone without their knowledge, that is not roleplaying. Roleplayin in this case needs for their to be OOC knowledge to prevent abuse. RP is about acting out your suprise or horror, not causing people to call the police because you are stalking them online.
-
I find it more fun to not know some certain things, it is, these my char don\'t know. I don\'t like pretending. You may call me poor roleplayer :P, but if i know certain things and have to pretend my char is suprised/put-a-random-reaction-here, i don\'t feel much fun. Not much challange, well maybe challange in pretending as good as possible.
I wonder what do you like.
I think that if some person complain in real world and call police, that person has obviously dont see a line beatwen real and virtual world where she/he was supposed to be IC.
I can\'t take resposibility of anybody madness because of this what has happened to her/him in virtual world by my character actions. And it is our resposibility to see the line when we enter this very different medieval/fantasy world with our characters.
This reminds me of some guy in Japan who killed in real some other guy, because he has stollen his super item ingame and sold it on E-bay :P
It is confusing example and let us think a alot, because a person really died, but i\'m still on my side.
-
Originally posted by stfrn
Originally posted by zanzibar
Originally posted by Seytra
Bob and Joe are RPing, and therefore Joe does know that Bob is tailing him,
*sigh* No, not necessarily. RPing doesn\'t mean you know everything that\'s going on. Joe might simply suspect that Bob is tailing him, or Joe might be fearful of being followed yet not realize it is happening, or Joe might be happy-go-lucky and completely unaware of what is happening around him. All are within the boundries of role-playing.
No, that is where you are dangerously wrong. If you start tailing somone without their knowledge, that is not roleplaying. Roleplayin in this case needs for their to be OOC knowledge to prevent abuse. RP is about acting out your suprise or horror, not causing people to call the police because you are stalking them online.
Abuse? Stalking? Are we even talking about the same thing here????
I\'m talking about following someone to the tavern so that you can talk to them, or following them as they leave so you can see who they talk to or RP fight them.
-
8O ! Many posts this morning !
Not enough room to quote you all !
There is no need to quarrel on RP aspect of Bob shadowing Joe, as all of us have our own way to RP (in PS or others RPG). This also is not to say that tailing anyone to exasperate him or to stab him is a valid way to RP; it is abusing, we all agree.
Taken overall, I agree with Nikodemus & Zanzibar, and will try to explain my point of vue to Seytra & Stfrn...
If I am shadowed by someone, I do not want to know it for a pseudo-RP reason. Either he\'s clumsy and I remark him, or he\'s clever and I won\'t know I am tailed util he shows himself. His reasons for following me can be various, not only backstabbing: as much as it is correctly roleplayed, I don\'t mind. As soon as I discover that I am followed, I will try to resolve the problem myself, by roleplaying.
If the guy is sticky, does not roleplay, and keep bothering me, then (and only then) I will complain about him to GM.
RP does not mean that we have to play a role in a prewritten theater play. We have a character with a background, wishes and fears, and we play him. That\'s why I do not want to hear about any follower, above all to set an appointment if he lost my trail!!
Also PvP must not be mistaken with normal character interaction. Else, we could play single player games: iy would be the same.
For the log in/out problem, Seytra, I think that an OOC feature with such strong consequences on play should be considered IC, with an explanation like the Crystal absorbing lives and dropping them an unpredictable while after (but I would prefer a better explanation).
It won\'t prevent players to RP their exit (\"I\'m tired. Tchuss pals!\" and to log out discretely behind a wall), but it will be an explanation for all other cases.
Again, the Crystal randomly mutating lifeforms was a nice explanation for last fool\'s day :)
-
Originally posted by Nikodemus
I find it more fun to not know some certain things, it is, these my char don\'t know. I don\'t like pretending. You may call me poor roleplayer :P, but if i know certain things and have to pretend my char is suprised/put-a-random-reaction-here, i don\'t feel much fun. Not much challange, well maybe challange in pretending as good as possible.
I wonder what do you like.
Since my RP depends on a lot of factors, and where I am may or may not be IC (I might have died due to a bug and now be running back to where I am IC-ly, for example), it is impossible to treat anyone as being there IC-ly by default.
It is also fact that due to logging out and other such things, RP may have postponed and is now being conducted, while it has already happened from the IC timeline perspective, and thus RP has already been conducted that based on this, so significant changes can\'t always happen.
Also, any sort of PvP is in the vast majority of cases not IC. Just look at the system for stopping duelling spam. If all, or even most PvP was truly IC, then we would have open PvP. But we don\'t only have the PvP invitation system, no, we even have a system that discourages unagreed PvP requests! This system has been introduced after the continous abuse of the PvP for completely OOC reasons couldn\'t be stopped by any other means, so this alone suffices as proof that only a very tiny fraction of all PvP is IC. The very same will, BTW, happen to any sort of thieving system, if / when one gets implemented into PS.
Therefore I do never engage in unagreed PvP, and I also expect all other PvP actions to be stated and agreed upon (that may be done by a simple \"/me hides behind the bush and eavesdrops\" ). This requirement is a bit less for players of whom I know, from extensive previous experience, that they truly RP, and do it well. However, I have to ignore all unagreed PvP from people whom I don\'t know, as chances are 90% that they\'re purely OOC, therfore the risk of my RP being damaged by them is way too high.
Originally posted by Nikodemus
I think that if some person complain in real world and call police, that person has obviously dont see a line beatwen real and virtual world where she/he was supposed to be IC.
I can\'t take resposibility of anybody madness because of this what has happened to her/him in virtual world by my character actions. And it is our resposibility to see the line when we enter this very different medieval/fantasy world with our characters.
This reminds me of some guy in Japan who killed in real some other guy, because he has stollen his super item ingame and sold it on E-bay :P
It is confusing example and let us think a alot, because a person really died, but i\'m still on my side.
There is a very fine line between PvP of any sort and griefing. And this is another reason why any sort of PvP needs to be previously agreed upon by all involved parties.
It is always easy to claim that \"It was just my character\", or \"it was just how the system works\". Nontheless, those people who claim this most loudly tend to have clearly OOC reasons for the actions, so it is clear that the actions are directed towards the player, not the char, so the claim \"it\'s a virtual world\" doesn\'t apply at all.
There have been entire guild wars just because one player had a completely OOC grudge against a few members of another guild. So don\'t tell me \"it\'s RP\", because it\'s not. :tdown:
Also, just look at the fuss people are making about mere names! They did nothing to achieve the name, yet they seem to think that it\'s somehow valuable or important, for whatever strange reasons. Then imagine what happens when someone truly achieves something (say, a reward of an official, GM-led, RP quest), and that getting taken away by some random player who is not even RPing (ignoring the fact that due to the technological limitations players will often have items with them that IC-ly aren\'t in their inventory, or that they don\'t possess IC-ly, and likewise, IC-ly have items that they don\'t have in the inventory, and therefore a thieving system cannot capture the complexity. Such systems are geared towards non RP environments like SP games.).
It already happened that players got truly hurt because one party was IC and the other party was OOC, and that were just words, no PvP!
So it becomes obvious how necessary it is to declare any and all RP intentions, especially when they are not benevolent.
Originally posted by Merak
If I am shadowed by someone, I do not want to know it for a pseudo-RP reason. Either he\'s clumsy and I remark him, or he\'s clever and I won\'t know I am tailed util he shows himself. His reasons for following me can be various, not only backstabbing: as much as it is correctly roleplayed, I don\'t mind. As soon as I discover that I am followed, I will try to resolve the problem myself, by roleplaying.
If the guy is sticky, does not roleplay, and keep bothering me, then (and only then) I will complain about him to GM.
I believe my response above applies here, too, except for the resolving part:
It isn\'t feasible to rely on the game mechanics to provide for hiding / detection, because they\'re so crude that it is almost impossible to actually stay hidden. Therefore, assuming that just because you spotted someone tailing you on your screen does by no means mean that your char has even the faintest clue. This may, eventually, get mitigated by better game mechanics, but the basic issues remain: the system can provide for your char\'s flaws / specialities only to a certain degree, the rest must be done by you. Currently, that rest is almost 100%.
Originally posted by Merak
RP does not mean that we have to play a role in a prewritten theater play. We have a character with a background, wishes and fears, and we play him. That\'s why I do not want to hear about any follower, above all to set an appointment if he lost my trail!!
Also PvP must not be mistaken with normal character interaction. Else, we could play single player games: iy would be the same.
We certainly don\'t play anything pre-written. We also don\'t play for the PvP, I couldn\'t agree more.
However, there still are lots of situations where RL interrupts the flow of the RP, and therefore it is required to reschedule the continuation. This has happened too many times to count in my RP. In such situations, I would have hated to have to \"RP\" some weird vanishing thing, because that would effectively have inhibited the continuation of the RP!
For example, I have a part of an IC conversation that I need to send to someone who has been spying on me but who ended up not being online due to server instabilities.
Would I not have known that there was a spy, and that that spy was a true RPer, then I would never even think about sending the conversation.
So this is infinitely more interesting, valuable and RP-forming than \"RP\"ing that the spy merely got vanished by some sort of whatever. That is yet another reason why such things need to be agreed upon. And no, nothing of it had peen pre-arranged or even pre-planned.
Originally posted by Merak
For the log in/out problem, Seytra, I think that an OOC feature with such strong consequences on play should be considered IC, with an explanation like the Crystal absorbing lives and dropping them an unpredictable while after (but I would prefer a better explanation).
It won\'t prevent players to RP their exit (\"I\'m tired. Tchuss pals!\" and to log out discretely behind a wall), but it will be an explanation for all other cases.
Again, the Crystal randomly mutating lifeforms was a nice explanation for last fool\'s day :)
The april fools day was not IC. The explanation obviously was designed to look like part of the setting, to trick people into believing it, nothing more. From an IC perspective, there never has been any sort of \"mutation\" or change.
The logoff \"feature\" is not a feature, it is a necessity, as I explained. It does have consequences, but these are not intended, they are being forced onto PS. Just like having to go AFK, trouble formulating english, slow typing, inadequate computer / connection and bugs this is completely OOC and must never be put IC. Otherwise, RL would be able to influence RP, thereby taking freedom from the player by forcing some pseudo-IC onto them.
If, for example, my computer is crap, then my char will still not necessarily be someone who is clumsy and erratic, even though due to the low FPS it will display that way, which are a lot more severe consequences than logging out! RL must never dictate what I am to RP, because one of the most important and valuable features of RP is that it allows you to bypass the RL limitations.
As for the explanation: yes, it would be an explanation, and players could, in theory, ignore it, but it\'d still be there, and at what cost? As I said, this would have major implications on the entire setting, and the world, and society.
You can, for example, never rely on someone doing something in time, because they may just vanish.
You can never rely on guards, not even on yourself, for the vanishing at any time, for any period.
You must be incredibly careful when demolishing buildings, chopping down trees, making a fire or even locking doors, or doing anything that substantially alters a place, because someone might have vanished there 100 years ago and then comes back and dies because now there\'s no 30 storey tower anymore, or their resting place has now been sealed by a room with a locked door, not accounting for walls or other things placed where the person reappears, melting them to the item.
People could be caught in the nirvana for centuries as well, what happens to their property? Taxes?
Monsters could pop up inside your home at any time, travelling through forests would be extremely dangerous, as you could vanish and there might be a tree when you reappear. What about two or more creatures reappearing at the same place at the same time? Reappearing inside people happens a whole lot ingame.
Such a thing would almost completely destroy the society. In short: dragging that in would require a complete re-write not only of the setting, but also of the entire society. It would require no less than making up a complete new socio-economic model for the ingame society, including altering the general mindset of the inhabitants, the way services, the government and the economy works.
This would create a completely different setting, and while this could be interesting, it would set the already lacking background of PS back to nothingness, and therefore take away all grounds for RP. In fact, it would be sufficient to base an entire world concept solely on this! The more I think about it, the more I dislike having it in PS.
-
All good points, i do realize all this. But as i said, I don\'t like pretending.... pretending that much as you seem to (Maybe not like, but accept understanding its need). More, i learned to treat most of the OOC as IC for my character. I as player know some certain things are OOC, but my char take most of the things as they are. By this i can minimalize the OOC enough to be able roleplaying.
I still have to ignore some people, as they don\'t rp or do it in incorrect way, but i gues we all have to.
Might be it is not possible to you, and thus in order to roleplay, you need to explain more things. Things which for my type of person spoils the very point of having fun in roleplaying :P
P.S. One thing about pretending. How are we going to find out if person A failed or succeded in following person B, in order to find some secret place known only to person B?
If both players controling these chars know about the following, then they should find out.... yes, how? roll a dice? but what was the chances?
I do realize the vast majority of pvp is OOC, but it is not only because of players mentality. Imagine what would happen in real if there wasn\'t police, law and so on. Poeple act really different in such conditions. It is nonexistant in PS and so people do what they do. If pvp was open and mass murdering would happen at plaza, it wouldn\'t be only because of OOC, but also in great part because of lack of law enforcement forces ;)
One reason why we don\'t have police forces is because players don\'t like their chars to be punished. There are numerous other things which make ome poeple react in the way they do. One is superman syndrome ;) We all like to develop out char, don\'t we? Is it really done in realistic way? ;>
Overal, we try to make roleplaying game, but we forget yet too often about making the world realistic ;) But still, PS is closer to this than the other MMORPGs, what i thank for
-
Originally posted by Nikodemus
P.S. One thing about pretending. How are we going to find out if person A failed or succeded in following person B, in order to find some secret place known only to person B?
If both players controling these chars know about the following, then they should find out.... yes, how? roll a dice? but what was the chances?
This requires a mutual agreement, based on common sense and trust in the other player\'s ability to truly RP. Usually, this issue will be discussed via /tells or inside brackets.
This is possible only if both parties know that they are playing with each other, not against each other. It\'s also one of the reasons why the term \"player versus player\", is incorrect and also instills a certain mindset of OOC malice that is opposed to what it is meant to do. It should be \"Character versus Character instead.
Anyway, and maybe unexpectedly, usually the decision if the trailing or other CvC action succeeds is easy to do and also realistically approximates the chances of it working. That is because both parties know that a success will deepen the RP of both, but also that an unrealistic success / failure would lessen the quality of the RP.
Since this depends solely on trust and experience, it is usually a good idea to not enter in more than slightly malicious CvC until both parties have gotten to know and OOC-ly trust each other.
Originally posted by Nikodemus
I do realize the vast majority of pvp is OOC, but it is not only because of players mentality. Imagine what would happen in real if there wasn\'t police, law and so on. Poeple act really different in such conditions. It is nonexistant in PS and so people do what they do. If pvp was open and mass murdering would happen at plaza, it wouldn\'t be only because of OOC, but also in great part because of lack of law enforcement forces ;)
One reason why we don\'t have police forces is because players don\'t like their chars to be punished.
No, no, the game world does have guards, laws and enforcement. After all, from an IC perspective, the world is complete, no bugs, no deficiencies. The fact that it isn\'t implemented is one of the OOC things that don\'t exist IC-ly. It is obvious that this is the only way to treat things, because without that, construction of the highly developed and sophisticated society and architecture would never arise without a stable social framework that is given by laws and proper enforcement. The settings states that there is law enforcement, and the guards ingame prove that there is, too. The fact that the NPC guards don\'t have controlling software that can make them fulfill that duty doesn\'t mean they don\'t IC-ly.
As for people not wanting to get punished: this is the obvious and highly childisch behaviour of \"If you aren\'t someone with the power to force me to behave, I won\'t!\". This happens at all levels, except at the level of true RP. RPing the consequences of one\'s actions requires a great deal of maturity and trust, both things that don\'t come easy, but is one of the pillars of true RP.
Regarding the RP aspect of that, a good exercise is the utter failure of the player-created law enforcement guild. Those who \"RP\" troublemakers simply ignored the authorities, because the players didn\'t have any sort of additional power to actually enforce things. This proves that the self-proclaimed \"RP\"ers of malicious characters were incapable of true RP, and thereby lose all RP justification, making them what they are :purely OOC PvPers. Would they have been truly RPing, then they would have accepted the IC consequences and the OOC-ly powerless but IC-ly capable police. The way it happened is another proof that RP is being abused as justification for completely OOC PvP.
Therefore, none of these are IC, none of them are acceptable, let alone desirable.
Originally posted by Nikodemus
There are numerous other things which make ome poeple react in the way they do. One is superman syndrome ;) We all like to develop out char, don\'t we? Is it really done in realistic way? ;>
Indeed the invincibility issue does exist. However, I have seen several players who did manage to stay realistic.
The term \"realism\" is already skewed towards the high end of things, because having true realism would take a lot of the fun out of the game, reducing it to a tedium most of the time, which is hardly enjoyable.
Still, there is a difference, and even things that are easily possibly in terms of game mechanics, like, with a snap of the fingers, fully healing someone who has only 1 HP left, that aren\'t realistic from an RP POV.
They exist for gaming convenience, but for RP purposes, the power is usually toned down several notches. After all, without danger and consequences, there is no adventure. Still the toned-down power is higher than RL realism would dictate, so that it won\'t spoil the fun and also be in-line with the overall world. Same for the DR.
Originally posted by Nikodemus
Overal, we try to make roleplaying game, but we forget yet too often about making the world realistic ;) But still, PS is closer to this than the other MMORPGs, what i thank for
Absolutely. There are some things where realism needs to be disregarded to some extent in order to not hurt the gaming experience, while in other cases realism can be perfect. Realism should always be used to the maximum extent that doesn\'t hamper enjoyment.
Edit: Enjoyment narrowly defined as that of a true RPer. Obviously grinders and OOC PvPers will not agree with that definition, but aren\'t PS\'s target audience and thus must not be considered. /Edit
The purpose of PS is experiencing an adventure, not staying alive. Thus staying alive should be comparatively easy, which isn\'t the case for survival games or things like The Sims.
This is, however, why some things that the game mechanics provide for need to be disregarded for RP, like ease of healing, ease of acquiring ridiculous amounts of Tria, that an NPC would have to work for years to get, and so on. There is quite a breach between the IC reality as RPd and as present in the settings, and the OOC game mechanics.
Still, the game mechanics can very well serve as a way to estimate the realism of one\'s RP: if one\'s char is more powerful than the average \"must not be disturbed\" player, then it\'s likely that there is something wrong with one\'s RP.
If there is no other judgement or experience, then one should try to stick to what one\'s stats and skills are in the char\'s datasheet, and work from there gaining experience to base further judgement on. In many cases the stats and such will still be way higher than would be realistic. Same for items like weapons, etc., which must also be used with extreme caution for RP. The game makes it very easy to become extremely powerful and wealthy within only tiny amounts of time, not taking into account the randomness of the loot generation. All of these can in most cases not be directly transposed to RP.
-
I think you are idealizing things. Same did people projecting the communism.
They have forgotten huge amount of people can\'t work like one organism, because everybody are different and not everybody like this what like others ;) Human is mix of different thoughts, both these which we define as good and these which we define as bad. More, it depends from the situation and point of viev, which are which.
You say that people can still rp their chars if they know the secrets of opposite character. I have seen that. One of the sides won, because the other got tired. Otherwise none char would win
The way how you want the ps world to be, how much OOC and how much IC in it, is good only for you and small group of people who think similiar, yet still different.
Huge post as usually, only i find much of it wrong with this what i wrote in my posts above thus i could quote it with this what i have already said :( . It is like i write one thing, and you write somethink opposite. What i wan\'t to say, we can\'t agree with each other because we value different things. Looks like this what you think is universal for you and all the people around (including me) isn\'t for me and most likely for many others. And this what i think is universal for me is vice versa yours.
Of course I still think that way how i get things, may work for everyone^^
Oh well, discussion dead end?
The world, what is the world...
It\'s this what really is, not this what we think about or write in stories. We can\'t say the guards are so the work as guard is supoosed to work and they enforce law. If they stay only in one place, they just do only that. It is the world, too much uncompleted world for our chars so that we can act IC all the time.
All this what is written and told in different stories, is this what could be. It is this what may be a world for a small group of people.
Fin for me
I will stay a little aside and do my best, looking what will cme out of this discussion.
-
Originally posted by Nikodemus
You say that people can still rp their chars if they know the secrets of opposite character.
While this should be true, and is true with good RPers, I wasn\'t going so far as to say that OOC-ly knowing all, or even a lot, of the other\'s char is required, or desirable.
I must have expressed myself totally wrong if that came accross like that! :(
I have used the word \"trust\" because I mean it: with some experience with the other player, you get some idea of their char, and OOC personality. This then will allow you to judge the player, and if you trust them due to this, then you won\'t need to know any additional OOC thing about their char, because when they say \"(My char can track very well)\", then you can take that as fact, because you trust in the other players ability and willingness to be truthful and realistic WRT their char\'s abilities.
Obviously, due to the sensitive nature of malicious actions, even if IC, the level of trust that is required will have to be a lot greater than for neutral RP. It also is much more difficult to apply than neutral RP, because it\'s implications and consequences are usually much greater and thus cannot be shuffled around in time a lot. These are what I tried to emphasize.
In fact, I usually prefer to not know details about other chars that my char doesn\'t know, and likewise I prefer to not OOC-ly tell things about my chars that the other player\'s chars don\'t know. It is much more enjoyable that way most of the time. But if someone is going to backstab / spy on / steal from my char, then I do want to know that the person is truly and fully RPing, and also capable of doing it right, is trustworthy and fair, instead of some person who thinks \"I\'m gonna kill some people, because I\'m the best\" or someone with a completely baseless and unrealistic god-like supercharacter. I also need to know what is going on so that I can inform them if that is doable just now, and to cooperate with them.
Elaborating on the last point, it is necessary to know what another char is doing, so that you can react appropriately.
If you, for example, see someone running after you ingame, there can be loads of reasons, and most of them don\'t relate to your char at all. Fact is that unless I have reason to assume that the other char is truly RPing with me at that time, I won\'t be moving in an RP manner, simply because it wouldn\'t serve any purpose.
So I will just keep on running regardless of their stamina and whatnot, or I\'ll log off, etc..
If I, however, know that that person os following me, thereby RPing, then I will do everything to make the chase as reaslistic as possible, by waiting when their stamina runs out, by walking instead of running, by doign a lot of /me-ing to express what my char is doing at that time, etc../tell me-ing is a good tool for doing that, as they will likely be outside /say range but still easily be able to see the actions.
Originally posted by Nikodemus
Huge post as usually, only i find much of it wrong with this what i wrote in my posts above thus i could quote it with this what i have already said :( . It is like i write one thing, and you write somethink opposite. What i wan\'t to say, we can\'t agree with each other because we value different things. Looks like this what you think is universal for you and all the people around (including me) isn\'t for me and most likely for many others. And this what i think is universal for me is vice versa yours.
Of course I still think that way how i get things, may work for everyone^^
If I weren\'t assuming the same thing for my views, I wouldn\'t try explaining them in such detail. :)
All in all it seems like there is more of a misunderstanding on what the reasoning actually is than a major difference in reasoning, though I may be wrong.
Originally posted by Nikodemus
Oh well, discussion dead end?
If your view is that one should never be informed of what another player RPs, and that one is to take as IC random duelling requests, for examplen, then our views indeed are so opposed that we won\'t ever reach an agreement.
Originally posted by Nikodemus
The world, what is the world...
It\'s this what really is, not this what we think about or write in stories. We can\'t say the guards are so the work as guard is supoosed to work and they enforce law. If they stay only in one place, they just do only that. It is the world, too much uncompleted world for our chars so that we can act IC all the time.
All this what is written and told in different stories, is this what could be. It is this what may be a world for a small group of people.
Fin for me
It looks like our views are diametrally opposed, then.
You seem to say that we are to RP the game world almost exactly as it\'s implemented, with only a tiny fraction of Hydlaa and Ojaveda, inane population (NPCs) and nothing to do besides fighting and mining.
I try to express that we are to RP the world exactly as it is supposed, envisioned to be, with everything fully functional, all places existing and everything working as it would be expected IRL.
Things that aren\'t clear or defined in the settings must obviously not be touched. So while it is possible to journey to the 6th level, it is for example not possible to venture through the two magic portals, or to preach about the Black Flame, as both have no definition at all.
In finishing I must say that I wouldn\'t be able to enjoy RPing such a limited environment you seem to be proposing, especially since I know that that is only a technical, OOC matter, with even the NPCs talking about places that don\'t yet exist. And for all I can see it\'s not just me: almost all RPers I have met have used places and skills outside the confines of the implemented game world in their RP.
If I understood you correctly, then indeed there won\'t be use in further arguing on these subjects.
-
Ick, I\'m not going to read all that. :|
-
Originally posted by Seytra
It looks like our views are diametrally opposed, then.
You seem to say that we are to RP the game world almost exactly as it\'s implemented, with only a tiny fraction of Hydlaa and Ojaveda, inane population (NPCs) and nothing to do besides fighting and mining.
I try to express that we are to RP the world exactly as it is supposed, envisioned to be, with everything fully functional, all places existing and everything working as it would be expected IRL.
Things that aren\'t clear or defined in the settings must obviously not be touched. So while it is possible to journey to the 6th level, it is for example not possible to venture through the two magic portals, or to preach about the Black Flame, as both have no definition at all.
In finishing I must say that I wouldn\'t be able to enjoy RPing such a limited environment you seem to be proposing, especially since I know that that is only a technical, OOC matter, with even the NPCs talking about places that don\'t yet exist. And for all I can see it\'s not just me: almost all RPers I have met have used places and skills outside the confines of the implemented game world in their RP.
If I understood you correctly, then indeed there won\'t be use in further arguing on these subjects.
I have to answer this little bit. It is not exactly this way. When rp, i try to take the world as much as it is supposed to be. Most often problems appear when the world is supposed to decide someone else fate and for examle guards don\'t do that because this feature isn\'t implemented yet. It is like world and game mehanics are supposed to be GM and we only in small part ( this is when there is no person GM to lead the chars) (pen&paper def. of GM)
I still don\'t know if i have described this right...
Why i write this? I don\'t want people to stop rp with me because they think i have extremaly weird definition of it ;)
And sorry Zanzibar, it has appeared just like that x)
-
Hello. I\'ve tried to quote you, Seytra, but it would have been too long and unreadable. I hope this form will be clearer.
Quickly, for PvP, I regret that abuses have made that open PvP is prevented. Even if most of it has neither RP nor IC motivation, I do not condemn all PvP from the start: natural PvP would have been a great thing without abuses.
I understand you way to play. Especially, if an explanation is found, I do not want it to be applied for all the cases (player must be able play that they are tired and go back home, or anything else). It is just to have an ingame justification for this very frequent phenomenon. To be obliged to think that the player is out for lunch, has a fragile modem or has not pay is Internet provider this month is cumbersome for me. It reminds me that PS is not a world, but a mere game. It breaks my investment in my character.
For your spy-behind-a-bush anecdote, I wouldn\'t have told him something (that\'s his problem, as he\'s the follower), except if this has been mandatory to the RP.
About the fool\'s day, how can you say that there haven\'t been a mutation? This justification was fun and realistic; \"devs hanged a fish on your back, and inverted 3D-models\" wouldn\'t have been.
About the \"realistic\" adjective I use, I mean \"plausible in PS world\". In this age of wizardry, how can you know what happened to you on that day, and the Crystal radiation eruption hypothesis breaks your RP?
As roleplayed disparitions are roleplayed, thay are justified. The Explanation would be for all other cases, so it would not hinder players\' RP.
Also, the /tell command is for me a certain kind of telepathy that people in Yliakum can use (with moderation) when they have met someone before, some kind of persistent link between you and your relaives.
For disparition/apparition explanation, your analysis of consequences is wise, but you sound yoo much catastrophic for consequences on the society. Yliakum is already submitted to players (and monsters) appearing randomly anywhere (yesterday, I appeared suddenly on a groffel, in the middle of a ring of people ;) ). I do not consider PC and NPC differently (except that I cannot discuss with a NPC without being bored quickly), so if PC disappear, NPC surely do also (but I won\'t tail Harnquist to check it!).
So, as this phenomenon exist, and neither Knowledge Seekers nor Xachas explained it yet. Society already copes with it. For people dying poppin up in the wrong place (the former platform of demolished tower), they have a little chance to appear in Death Realm ... (\"Little chance\" because fanatics never go there, it seems ... )
At last, I would like to quote you, because I do like your sentence:
RL must never dictate what I am to RP, because one of the most important and valuable features of RP is that it allows you to bypass the RL limitations.
I fully agree, without ulterior motive.
-
Originally posted by Merak
Quickly, for PvP, I regret that abuses have made that open PvP is prevented. Even if most of it has neither RP nor IC motivation, I do not condemn all PvP from the start: natural PvP would have been a great thing without abuses.
Without abusers, it would be fine, obviously. However, There likely is a difference in the definition of \"abuse\". I, for one, define non-RP backed PvP as abuse (except in comparatively rare circumstances like tournaments, etc.), while you obviously don\'t. Reason: when I RP, I don\'t want some OOC PvPer to attack me, even if it weren\'t for griefing per say.
Originally posted by Merak
I understand you way to play. Especially, if an explanation is found, I do not want it to be applied for all the cases (player must be able play that they are tired and go back home, or anything else). It is just to have an ingame justification for this very frequent phenomenon. To be obliged to think that the player is out for lunch, has a fragile modem or has not pay is Internet provider this month is cumbersome for me. It reminds me that PS is not a world, but a mere game. It breaks my investment in my character.
I see your reasoning. However, I still think that declaring the vanishing as part of the world would damage RP more than it would help immersion.
Originally posted by Merak
For your spy-behind-a-bush anecdote, I wouldn\'t have told him something (that\'s his problem, as he\'s the follower), except if this has been mandatory to the RP.
We seem to have dramatically different views on RP. I definitely don\'t count technical difficulties as \"their problem\", because that would mean that RL would influence their, and thereby my, RP. Therefore the effect of any sort of RL needs to be reduced to the absolute minimum extent possible. It is quite common, for example, that the /say range doesn\'t suffice for an otherwise realistic RP. Say you\'re sitting in an empty pub, while at the bar two people are talking. Due to /say range, you wouldn\'t hear them, while IRL you easily could. So it is common to just walk there and state that IC-ly you\'re still at your table but you need to hear. Same for spies. It\'s countering the technological limitations of PS to make RP more independant from RL. My take on RP is that we play with each other, even when our chars are enemies, and therefore difficulties of RL are everyone\'s problem, not that of a single player.
Originally posted by Merak
About the fool\'s day, how can you say that there haven\'t been a mutation? This justification was fun and realistic; \"devs hanged a fish on your back, and inverted 3D-models\" wouldn\'t have been.
About the \"realistic\" adjective I use, I mean \"plausible in PS world\". In this age of wizardry, how can you know what happened to you on that day, and the Crystal radiation eruption hypothesis breaks your RP?
Yes, it would be possible to have this in PS, I don\'t deny that. After all, it was formulated to look plausible, because otherwise noone would have fallen for it. There is no contradiction from within the setting that could serve to rule out the possibility.
However, that is not the point. The real point is that it quite clearly was not meant as being IC, nor part of the setting. I am perfectly sure of that, because if it were, then
1) the effect would indeed have lasted for a month, and then swap to yet another species, etc., as the news item also declared
2) it would have been put into the setting, instead of being left only on the news page
Therefore it cannot have been meant to be part of the setting, and thus not IC.
Therefore, by trying to RP something that is not inside the setting, the validity of the RP is voided, and thus it does break my RP, especially because if I were to RP that with you, I would implicitely accept that this did happen IC-ly, and therefore be subsequently forced to RP that same thing, because it would be a global effect, meaning that my own RP would also be invalidated beyond RPing with someone whose RP isn\'t valid.
Originally posted by Merak
Also, the /tell command is for me a certain kind of telepathy that people in Yliakum can use (with moderation) when they have met someone before, some kind of persistent link between you and your relaives.
I have had a discussion about /tell in RP on another thread already, and I am 100%-ly against it. A brief summary is that if it indeed were that way, then it would, due to the extreme consequences on society and life in general, necessarily be mentioned in the setting. However, the setting doesn\'t talk about any such thing, so it can\'t be part of the world, and thus must not be used in RP, because RP that doesn\'t adhere to the boundaries of the setting ceases to be RP.
Another hint is that magic works quite differently, so there can\'t be such a completely different thing as universal, unlimited and instant telepathy.
Originally posted by Merak
For disparition/apparition explanation, your analysis of consequences is wise, but you sound yoo much catastrophic for consequences on the society. Yliakum is already submitted to players (and monsters) appearing randomly anywhere (yesterday, I appeared suddenly on a groffel, in the middle of a ring of people ;) ).
Yes, it is, but why? Only because it is forced upon it by RL. In fact, that is more a reason why it cannot be IC: there are absolutely none of the consequences I listed, not even slightly, to be found. The economy and social model works exactly like the RL one, which would be impossible if it was IC.
Also, has there been any effect on your char? No, there hasn\'t, you didn\'t melt to the Groffel, none of you lost even a single HP. So quite obviously there never was any sort of two things in one place, not IC-ly, neither by the game mechanics.
Therefore the disapparation effect can only be OOC, and not meant to be taken as IC.
IOW: the catastrophic consequences didn\'t happen because the cause for them doesn\'t exist.
Originally posted by Merak
So, as this phenomenon exist, and neither Knowledge Seekers nor Xachas explained it yet. Society already copes with it.
On the contrary: society doesn\'t cope with it at all, because the effect doesn\'t exist in the game world. In order to cope with the effect, society would have to sport at least some specialities that differ quite obviously from RL societies, even if one assumes that the implications aren\'t nearly as severe as I think they would be.
Originally posted by Merak
For people dying poppin up in the wrong place (the former platform of demolished tower), they have a little chance to appear in Death Realm ... (\"Little chance\" because fanatics never go there, it seems ... )
There would be no point of putting NPCs into the DR when they die. The character wouldn\'t know if they did, anyway, and since it is, from an RP POV extremely hard and rare to actually get back out of the DR, noone can just check on it. Maybe a few highly powerful mages of the Dark Way, and from an RP POV, they would see no difference between NPCs and PCs.
Originally posted by Merak
At last, I would like to quote you, because I do like your sentence:
RL must never dictate what I am to RP, because one of the most important and valuable features of RP is that it allows you to bypass the RL limitations.
I fully agree, without ulterior motive.
Glad you agree, but wouldn\'t dragging RL into RP by trying to explain logoffs within RP represent RL changing what everyone RPs?
(I do realise that there is at least one point in PS that is already doing that, but it\'s comparatively minor in it\'s effect and consequences, while the reason for it is similarly hard to remove as logoffs.)
Yes, you can RP something different if you wish, but it would nontheless apply only to very few incidents: those that you witness within /say range. It would also mean that you would need to adopt that for crashes, even if that player always RPs some other reason for leaving, so it would force itself onto that player.
-
Originally posted by Seytra
We seem to have dramatically different views on RP...
:)) Indeed. I think I\'m closer of Nikodemus\'s way of thinking. A fine thing with PS is that everyone has his own perception of the world, and its own way to complete lacuna of implementation ... :)
My RP attitude consists in forgetting real world, and considering Yliakum as the only reality while I am ingame. I consider the world is as I perceive it, and to interpret and understand ICly all what I see and feel. Popping up and off, telepathy, mutation-week, why the gates of Akkio stay closed and why we cannot get to other levels (I\'ve heard rumours of epidemy... Haven\'t you ;) ).
My only inventions are about
- my background,
- my clothes, appearance and moves,
- to justify a log in/off by a normal attitude (I\'m tired, bye-bye!)
- to invent a more complex interaction with NPC ...
- to RP a capacity once I\'ve learnt it from a NPC (ex: find traps, melee and climb).
You RP-way seems fine to me, and I belive mine won\'t hinder you if we mee ingame.
About the setting as it is explained in manual, I don\'t consider it as a complete reference about all PS world, but outlines of the world required by the player to understand the world and play correctly. A manual is heavy to keep updated, and will not explain everything (else there wouldn\'t be much fun to play in a world without surprise and discoveries). Two samples are the message of the day which has been a \"big wipe warning\" long after the big wipe occured, and the groffels that I haven\'t found in manual whereas many are scampering around ...
Also, I haven\'t meet any historian in Hyplaa, and very rare phenomenon as mutation week (or comets in our world) are certainly unexpectable and ununderstandable without History to remember them.
The economy and social model works exactly like the RL one, which would be impossible if it was IC.[...]
IOW: the catastrophic consequences didn\'t happen because the cause for them doesn\'t exist.
You looks like a friend of mine who had argued for half an hour that the consequences of a specific spell could not be those, because this was against laws of physics. What he had forgotten was that magic defines things that (among other things) do not obey to physics.
If something is impossible in RL, it does not mean that it has to be impossible in PS too (and vice-versa).
I don\'t know why catastrophic consequences didn\'t occured when I appeared. perhaps someone will explain this someday. I\'m glad of it for the groffel and me, that\'s all.
I think it is more interesting to see how things will evolve with special features of PS (and that do not exist in RL, as magic, telepathy, groffels, etc.).
Efforts to coerce economy (for example) to look realistic according to our RL-experience is in my opinion a perverted way to create economy in PS world. I do not know how it will evolve, but it will be very interesting.
But wouldn\'t dragging RL into RP by trying to explain logoffs within RP represent RL changing what everyone RPs?... Yes, you can RP something different if you wish, but it would nontheless apply only to very few incidents: those that you witness within /say range. It would also mean that you would need to adopt that for crashes, even if that player always RPs some other reason for leaving, so it would force itself onto that player.
I don\'t think that an explanation would modify the way people RP their vanishing. And I don\'t want to force player to use this explanation. Again, it will be used only for unexplainable cases, so when you are too far for the /say and you don\'t know the character.
But let\'s forget this \"official explanation request\". Let\'s anyone have his own explanation, and perhaps rumours transmitted by word of mouth will create an onofficial one :) (natural dynamics of PS !)
-
Originally posted by Merak
Originally posted by Seytra
We seem to have dramatically different views on RP...
A fine thing with PS is that everyone has his own perception of the world, and its own way to complete lacuna of implementation ... :)
Within limits, yes.
Originally posted by Merak
My RP attitude consists in forgetting real world, and considering Yliakum as the only reality while I am ingame. I consider the world is as I perceive it, and to interpret and understand ICly all what I see and feel. Popping up and off, telepathy, mutation-week, why the gates of Akkio stay closed and why we cannot get to other levels (I\'ve heard rumours of epidemy... Haven\'t you ;) ).
Well, mine is to create an in-depth understanding of how the PS world is supposed to be, thereby creating a mental model of the world and it\'s workings, based on the official documents only, filling in the gaps and removing ambigueties / contradictions by using the unambigous parts as reference, interpolating from there, using RL as sanity check, and to use RL as-is when there is nothing to be interpolated from. Then I compare the current implementation to that and see what of it matches up with the official documents, what can be reasonably assumed to not need to be mentioned in them (due to it either being exactly like IRL or having only very minor, localised consequences), adding it to the model, and what would have to be mentioned in order to exist but isn\'t, leaving it out of the model (like the contents of the char creation).
Thus, I take everything that cannot exist within the model as being completely OOC, and completely disregard it for RP purposes.
Example: people popping up, running through the tavern and then vanishing. These people simply don\'t exist IC-ly.
People, actions, etc. only start being IC when the player clearly entered an RP session, usually by /me-ing, or acting / talking in an RP fashion for an extended time. However, the RP still is subject to continous sanity checking, and when it runs out of the setting, I stop treating it as RP and retroactively purge it from my char\'s experiences.
Example: someone talking about angels and other things that don\'t exist in PS.
Originally posted by Merak
About the setting as it is explained in manual, I don\'t consider it as a complete reference about all PS world, but outlines of the world required by the player to understand the world and play correctly. A manual is heavy to keep updated, and will not explain everything (else there wouldn\'t be much fun to play in a world without surprise and discoveries). Two samples are the message of the day which has been a \"big wipe warning\" long after the big wipe occured, and the groffels that I haven\'t found in manual whereas many are scampering around ...
I consider the website the only reference. All major things that were intended to exist in PS will have found their way there, because it\'s the project\'s description and vision. It is hard to maintain, and minor changes and everyday things that are more or less common sense don\'t need to be in it.
Things that are ingame are not part of the setting unless there is good reason to assume otherwise, like the books in the library and the NPC talk. The latter doesn\'t usually have major consequences on the overall world, anyway, like Ojaveda being sealed off for the \"quarantine\" (Though I would much prefer to RP that it\'s not closed off, because that\'s just there to explain the lack of implementation, which I think isn\'t only not necessary, but bad).
Originally posted by Merak
Also, I haven\'t meet any historian in Hyplaa, and very rare phenomenon as mutation week (or comets in our world) are certainly unexpectable and ununderstandable without History to remember them.
This is mixing IC with OOC here AFAICS. The fact that you have not met a historian in PS definitely does not mean that there are none. In fact, it is absolutely certain that there are several, because it is completely natural, unless the setting states that for some reason people don\'t like talking about the past, which it doesn\'t.
Originally posted by Merak
You looks like a friend of mine who had argued for half an hour that the consequences of a specific spell could not be those, because this was against laws of physics. What he had forgotten was that magic defines things that (among other things) do not obey to physics.
If something is impossible in RL, it does not mean that it has to be impossible in PS too (and vice-versa).
This holds true only for magic, and even there not completely. The fact that there is magic does not mean that \"anything goes\". Likewise, the fantasy genre of PS can\'t be used to explain that.
Once the setting, including magic, has been defined, then that becomes natural laws, which are just as fundamental as the ones IRL.
So a spell can defy laws of physics, but it\'s effects cannot.
Example: a fireball can be cast (making a burning substance appear out of nowhere, not burning the caster and then fly in a controlled fashion towards a target). However, after it has impacted, it sets normal things on fire, and this fire then obeys the normal, quite RL, laws of physics just like fire created any other way.
IOW RL laws of physics are in charge unless the settings explicietly defines that they are not. When there is lack of definition by the settings, and also there is no hard circumstancial evidence to force implication of it, then it must be assumed that RL physics apply. It\'s the only way it can work, since otherwise the setting would need to state that there is gravity, light, cells, etc, pp.. And because that is completely impossible and highly redundant, only differences must be stated, and where none is stated, there is none.
Example of explicitely stated difference:
Spell \"freeze\". IRL, it isn\'t possible to create cold. By magic it is.
Example of implied difference:
Clackers being able to live. IRL, an insect of that size can\'t live because the insects\' respiration system and exoskeleton don\'t scale.
Example of invalid difference:
Rogues being incapable of doing their \"job\" and instead standing in one place all day.
Originally posted by Merak
I think it is more interesting to see how things will evolve with special features of PS (and that do not exist in RL, as magic, telepathy, groffels, etc.).
Yes, but nontheless these cannot be made up by players, and instead must come from the official dev team, simply because otherwise hundreds of conflicting versions would float around, of which, at best, one will end up being valid, and most likely none.
Players can use the wishlist to give options to the devs, but anything that has major or global effects cannot be RPd unless it has been officially adopted.
Originally posted by Merak
Efforts to coerce economy (for example) to look realistic according to our RL-experience is in my opinion a perverted way to create economy in PS world. I do not know how it will evolve, but it will be very interesting.
It has to, in fact, because the mindset of the ingame population is the exact same as IRL. There is money, there are merchants, there are guards, there is fighting, etc., pp.. This means that the outcome of the economy can only be highly similar if not identical to the RL economy. IRL, economies in every part of the world, and be it completely separated from the rest, did evolve into exactly the same system. Even the idea of communism has, once implemented, devolved into the same basic system: the official definition and model had no resemblance of the actual workings. Therefore changes in the basis of the system will necessarily result in the exact same changes of the system both IRL and ingame.
Originally posted by Merak
I don\'t think that an explanation would modify the way people RP their vanishing. And I don\'t want to force player to use this explanation. Again, it will be used only for unexplainable cases, so when you are too far for the /say and you don\'t know the character.
OK, but these cases would still likely not fit the intent. Example:
You see me log off in the distance. You assume that I have been vanished by the crystal or something to that effect.
However, I have not RP\'d my exit, but instead OOC-ly agreed with all involved factions to postpone the remaining RP, so IC-ly, I did not even move, let alone vanish.
Now, the next day, our chars get to know each other, and your char mentions having seen me vanish. This may also go via several others, by you telling someone that you\'ve seen me before I vanished and wish to know where I got that sword or whatnot.
Now the differences of RP clash.
Originally posted by Merak
But let\'s forget this \"official explanation request\". Let\'s anyone have his own explanation, and perhaps rumours transmitted by word of mouth will create an onofficial one :) (natural dynamics of PS !)
Aye, that would at least make it possible to ignore differences in the interpretation when they clash.
My take on these things is to simply never mention it IC-ly. That way RP can more easily remain valid because differences don\'t show up.
-
For me, you have a too strong belief in the ability of your real life knowledge to fill the gaps of PS. Even if things will probably run as you say for economy, it is not valid for every thing.
Especially, for magic, you cannot resume any spell to an impossible phenomenon with RL physics consequences. Even if this definition may work with Flames Burst, it is hard to apply it to Rock Armor (rocks covering your body, but that don\'t weight anything and that don\'t hinder you).
For the case where I see you disappearing when you postpone your RP, when I will speak with you, I will understand that I misunderstood, I may have seen your double, and we both are able to readjust and to forget previous words ...
Nonetheless these cannot be made up by players, and instead must come from the official dev team, simply because otherwise hundreds of conflicting versions would float around, of which, at best, one will end up being valid, and most likely none.
That\'s already like that in RL, for everything we do not understand (god, war, men/women relationship, the best way to raise a child, etc). If PS is a living world, I don\'t expect it to be different on this point, not because it is like that in RL, but because we are behind the keyboard. You do not have to fear versions of others and they do not fear yours: you may be convinced by their interpretation, and they by yours.
As long as actions, RP and interpretations remain close to ingame objective facts, there shouldn\'t very bad clashes.
-
What does this thread show?
That even roleplayers are not playing the same game.
@Seytra: You are playing a text based RPG based on the settings as they are written in the website.
You ignore every implementation of it since it is only a tecnical solution (therefore OOC). and I agree with Nikodemus when he talks about \"pretending\" when you talk about RPing.
Pretending that people don\'t disapear in the middle of a conversation or a fight is negating that the conversation ever occured. And continuing this conversation as if the disconnection never occured when the other relogs is negating every event that occured inbetween, just because the crash was OOC. You char only exists when you are online. But PS is a persistent world. Pretending nothing happened while you where offline yourself in denying all the actions of other players made in your offline time.
If you play PS like a Pen&paper there is no need for devs to add any line of code. All you need is a DM and a group of friends meeting together to RP actions in the settings. You can RP according to the settings and ignore its implentations since they are OOC. Or you can simply wait for a return of /rollstat do use the stats of your char to RP according to the settings using your char stats.
Nothing is the settings states that you can not shop down a tree with an axe. and you can roleplay it. But you will be forced to deny to the others the fact that they see the tree still at the same place just because the way trees are implemented is OOC. Blow all the candles at Kada\'s and deny the OOC fact that others are not in the darkness. I am not saying that it would not be roleplaying. But PS is not pen and paper. There is no DM to deal with your RL emergencies and adapt the world to reflect your actions. The world still exists for others. In the way it was defined in the settings, right. But also as it is implemented.
You play the PS settings, we talk about playing the computer RPG.
The question about disapearing people is valid in this context. You say that it is a workaround to preserve immersion from interferences. This is true. But ignoring what is implemented in the name of not realism but consistency with the background is a constant use of workarounds. when the settings don\'t provide an answer you ignore what happened and \"pretent\" nothing happened. DR is part of the settings, so it is fine. login in/off is not mentioned, therefore you pretend it does not exist. It is roleplaying, but not in a persistant world that you share with other people.
And there is a risk in your way to RP. You not only deny the mecanics of the implementations but also the IC lives of other players. You play among them but not always with them. You decide who is part of you galme and who is not.
It is roleplaying to use a candle to set the whole wooden structure of the tavern on fire. You will then have to ignore everyone roleplaying that they have a drink until someone roleplayed rebuilding it. Or you will have to search for a workaround...a guard came in to stop you...then you will have to deny that someone was training with that same guard.
PS is not only an imaginary world based on the settings designed for small groups of players to RP on their own when they meet. The world exist while you are offline and exists for others as they see it.
-
While this thread started with a suggestion of implementing an animation for logging of, it turned in a nice exchanging of how roleplaying is viewed. Perhaps its place should be General Discussion, then (I haven\'t spotted it earlier since I hardly visit the wishlist section, and I\'ve to say it advance that I haven\'t read it all thoroughfully)
That roleplayers have, each own, a different vision about certain things, it\'s a fact. Still, there should be no problem at all, since, as human beings, we all are minded beings, that allows us to see, analize, and decide, under our own criteria, what fits mosts with our believings, and when roleplaying with another person, that has a different vision about a certain topic, we should be mature enough to deal with that subject with enough care as to not destroy the other (and ours) fun. Even reached a point, I\'d agree that, if that proves to not work, even avoid any reference to the topic.
So, in certain conditions, what here is called pretending that something never happened, isn\'t so, since that never happened. When someone dissapears in the middle of a conversation without having warned previously oocly?
I can think of several answers:
a) That person entered in a place, then crashed, but his 3d model went on running, so there was the chance that another person, when seeing him, could have greeted him.
b) That person was roleplaying with another/s, and had a crash.
c) That person was roleplaying with another/s, and left without warn.
d) You enter a room, and precisely at that moment, that other player logs off, and you see his char \"dissapearing\".
As for a) then indeed, that person never entered the place, so your greet, eventually didn\'t ever took place. (You call it pretending, while it\'s simply avoiding a game flaw to affect your roleplay. Most likely that person will relog again, and reenter the same place again, so things can be, then, roleplayed normally, if no crashes happen again. Just imagine the situation of him arriving at the place, and you, obviously amazed, asking him how he did dissapear previously. Most likely, that players intention wasn\'t making his char dissapear, he simply experienced a crash, and you\'re forcing him to roleplay something that he has never done, simply because you state that you\'ve \"seen\" it.)
As for b) in that case, normally the common agreement is wait for that person, it\'s a matter of decency. One day you\'ll crash too, and you\'d like others involved in the rp to have wait for you. If the person doesn\'t relog, then it\'s on the rest of the rp group to decide how to react, and again, they most commonly decide for the most neutral and unaffecting thing that harms the less possible their own going roleplay. Knowing the other\'s char personality, or even the one that the player behind has, can help to decide the group for a \"natural\" action, that doesn\'t break completely the atmosphere. Simply some time will be lost, commenting, and agreeing with the rest of partners, how to act.
As for c) then that person lacked on politeness. There has to be a warn when someone\'s going to log off. I, personally, try to always state it in an ooc sentence that I will log of, and, even more, to avoid this confusion, that certain players seem to want to have, with dissapearing characters, after having stated oocly that I\'ll log off, I try to find a reason for my char to walk away (it\'s late, things to do, or embarassing situation...) and then log off. Although it can be a bit tricky to have to find always an explanation of why the char\'s leaving, and even sometimes I\'d like him to stay there, I prefer doing that, and avoid any further complications dealing with dissapearances or things like those.
As for d) most commonly that person didn\'t see you. It has no sense to roleplay that you\'re seeing people dissapearing simply because people is logging off. In that case, I think the more reflexive way of acting, is simply ignoring that \"dissapearance\". Please, observe that, the alternative to make the char dissapear when someone logs off, would be letting the 3d model stucked there (to avoid those \"dissapearings\") and that would even lead to more twisted tries of roleplaying what should not be ever roleplayed. Again, common sense is always the best ally to know how to act, what to take, in one\'s rp.
As for a char only existing when the players online. Ahhhh timing. Timing\'s indeed very (imo) hard to play with, I myself let people decide about it. Implementing timing officially would be, imo, an error. Simply because it would lead to that problem you\'re pointing out. While time should be passing unstoppably, no matter if you log on or not in the game, fact is, that characters have a limited expected life time, each one depending on the race, and a player has not to be harassed with that, when he either can\'t or simply doesn\'t want to play the game, as his/her char will become elder without being able to be played due to RL issues or decisions. IOW, a player should be able to live his/her own char as long as he/she considers it. The other alternative could be an individual time counter that stops and continues when you log off/in, but that would lead to timing incongruences (some characters becoming elder at very higher ratios than others of the same race) and even could lead to a very restrictive use of the game (since I don\'t want to waste char living time, I\'d find other ways, to agree with my most known ones to enter the game at certain remarked dates, so I\'m sure that, whenever I log in, I\'d find, surely, something pleasant to do) so, once again, the best choice is to rely in each one\'s mind to sort out this kind of problems.
About chopping the tree and things like that. When you\'re in a group, and someone says that he chops a tree, and there\'s roleplay behind that, then, for the rest of the group, the tree is automatically chopped. For the same reason that, if you\'re roleplaying, and, important part, I know that you\'re (that isn\'t always easy) and you say that you have a sword in your hand, I don\'t need to see a sword, to assume that you indeed have one. For the same reason that I won\'t claim someone that says he/she\'s a tailor to show me the (\"real\") tools that\'s using. You\'ve the power to decide what your char is, despite the game limitations (that is, if a job isn\'t implemented, that doesn\'t mean that you can\'t be someone that practices it) same applies for the candles, if someone blows the candle, and again, it\'s accepted as the group as a roleplayed action, then that candle isn\'t lighting anymore.
I see your point, still, in the fact that, when that group leaves the tavern, and another reenters it, they\'ll see the candle lighting (as there\'s no feature to denote that someone blew it) so, they, not having the information will assume that the candle is lighted on. However, the fact that they don\'t have that information, doesn\'t deny the fact that, when the roleplaying action took place (with the previous, now gone, group) that candle was indeed not lighting; if this second group assumes the candle lighted, it isn\'t to deny or depreciate the former group actions, but a merely lack of information, due to game mechanics.
About the example of the guard, while the fact of someone firing Kada Els is a bit extreme imo, I seem to spot what you try to mean. Indeed someone can say that a guard came, and helped to extinguish the fire. However, your flaw is in assuming that the fire that came in, has to be one of the \"official\" NPC guards, which is, by all means, uncertain. There are more guards than the official ones.
While for instance, now there\'s only one library in the \"implemented\" Yliakum, I roleplay that there are more, and I don\'t think I\'m taking any risk in it, as I think that chances are that, even in Hydlaa alone, there is more than one simple library; don\'t let that things that aren\'t yet implemented (or perhaps never will) encorset your sight.
As for the statement about PS being designed for a small group, I\'d like to think not, everyone should be welcomed to roleplay, I think the more roleplayers we have, and the more diverse they\'re in their conceptions, the more we\'re enriching this universe.
PS: I personally don\'t think that characters cease to exist when they log off for some period of time, simply I haven\'t met them. And as for the Death Realm, well, even if it forms part of the setting, there\'s, I think, a nice diversity of opinions and choices on how it should be roleplayed. That for another time ;)
-
Originally posted by Nilrem
...
About chopping the tree and things like that. When you\'re in a group, and someone says that he chops a tree, and there\'s roleplay behind that, then, for the rest of the group, the tree is automatically chopped.
...
same applies for the candles, if someone blows the candle, and again, it\'s accepted as the group as a roleplayed action, then that candle isn\'t lighting anymore.
I see your point, still, in the fact that, when that group leaves the tavern, and another reenters it, they\'ll see the candle lighting (as there\'s no feature to denote that someone blew it) so, they, not having the information will assume that the candle is lighted on. However, the fact that they don\'t have that information, doesn\'t deny the fact that, when the roleplaying action took place (with the previous, now gone, group) that candle was indeed not lighting; if this second group assumes the candle lighted, it isn\'t to deny or depreciate the former group actions, but a merely lack of information, due to game mechanics.
...
As for the statement about PS being designed for a small group, I\'d like to think not, everyone should be welcomed to roleplay, I think the more roleplayers we have, and the more diverse they\'re in their conceptions, the more we\'re enriching this universe.
...
I hope that you see the contradiction between your exemples and your conclusion.
You speak of separate groups of roleplayers not sharing the world but splitting it. Each group playing his own game according to its imagination. This is possible in pen&Paper where all the people who played with the background and rules of D&D were able to play the same game. But they did not play together. Only small separated groups.
This is the risk I was talking about. Separate groups of RPers, living in separate instances of the world and denying or ignoring the others.
-
@ Golmir: This is, indeed, the common and normal way things happen. However, albeit counterintuitive, it does in reality not pose problems, for the reason Nilrem has mentioned: people can think and they, knowing they are RPing together and not against each other, will find a way to make their RP fit together when they decide that it is a good idea to RP together.
The one thing that needs constant adjustment is, as Nilrem stated, time linearity. Due to all the issues listed, it is commonplace that insertions and even reorderings of events are performed within individual char\'s or even groups of char\'s experiences. Every player then rearranges the timeline the own char experienced so that the new element fits in.
Also an observation is that due to the fact that PS allows interaction with a limited number of people at one time only (because otherwise the chat will scroll way too fast, etc.), it is always small groups RPing, or, at most a few, smaller, RPing groups in one place. If a place is \"full\", then the new group tends to move to another place, because of the chat clutter.
However, if the RP that is going on would benefit from or even demand a synchronisation of some sort, then this is still being done. Furthermore, it almost never happens that someone can\'t join the ongoing RP because their timelines / whatever mismatch. I have done that only seldomly, when I was expecting a postponed session to be resumed shortly (and thus my char wasn\'t IC-ly there for some time), and the outcome of the session decided whether my char was dead or not, but in general it is always possible. If need be, you can utilise the timeline rearranging by taking part in the past or future of your char. It therefore is still very possible and in fact normal that the world evolves for all chars, and it also adds the benefit that other\'s action can affect your own reality and vice-versa. Obviously there are limits, like cities being destroyed, or houses, i.e., anything that cannot be recovered from within comparatively short time but would be important for lots of chars. A tree being chopped down wouldn\'t be easily recovered from, but it\'s not truly important for chars so it doesn\'t need to be made consistent accross players. A fire destroying the tavern is a bordercase and thus should happen realistically seldomly, and cities destroyed almost never.
The fundamental nature of RP that players usually RP only a comparatively small part of their char\'s lives (leaving out everything repetitive and non-exciting like bathroom breaks, etc., unless it is relevant for the ongoing RP) allows for a great deal of \"unseen\" time, in which one can stuff all the events that one missed or that need to be reordered in time. This time can come into existance at will of the player. If you log off for a day, and then relog, then you can RP that you were away for the day, but if noone else was online during that time, or noone did aything that affects your char, then it\'s not required. Likewise, when someone burns down the tavern and your RP can\'t ATM work with that, then you can stuff it into the future or the past unseen time.
A char does continue to live when you aren\'t online. They therefore can do things, or nothing, as would be realistic for the char. The only thing that happens is that noone sees them during that time, or at least not consciously notices the char. And this is just like things happen IRL. If you have a regular job, then you can usually claim that you were doing it just like every day. If something happened that would have affected you, then you can easily come up with something like having been sick, or out of town, or whatever.
Even with a lot of unseen time being used, your char\'s seen time won\'t deviate much from what you actually RP. Weeks pass quite readily in PS, and a day offline can mean weeks or only minutes, providing you with plenty of time insertion points to conjure up seen time from unseen time.
Your way to use PS, which is what you call \"RP\", however, limits the char\'s actions to exactly what is possible by game mechanics. It also means that everything that the game does (crashes, bugs, missing implementations, etc.) actually does happen, regardless of the setting. If the game does not allow for sitting, then noone can ever sit. If the game doesn\'t support extinguishing candles, then they can never be extinguished. You would have to take everything exactly as it is, without your chars ever being able to reason about it. IOW, you\'d be forced to respond to almost everything with \"I don\'t know, it\'s just how it is\". Doing that would take away almost all possibilities, because, let\'s face it, PS allows almost nothing yet.
This creates a far greater breach of the immersion and consistency than the splitting up (which happens in your scenario as well due to the chat issue). It would remove the requirement of joining the individual storylines, but at the cost of almost everything one can do.
It also is a fact that at any given time, almost all players in PS are not interacting with each other. They do that because
- they\'re spacially separated from each other
- they\'re RPing things that are of interest to a few players only
- they\'re avoiding the chat issue
Their RP only seldomly joins, and this would not happen any more or less when every player would RP PS exactly as implemented. Like IRL, most of the time you live alongside others, possibly hundreds or thousands of people, but the number of people you meaningfully interact with still is very very low. 99% of the people that anyone lives alongside could not exist or be someone completely different without it making any difference for the life of that person. The same thing happens IC-ly, and the separate groups RPing alongside each other reflect that. Whenever something does affect the life of another char, then things can and are being joined easily.
Example of all of the above:
Someone burned down the tavern in a RP session with a group of RPers, and another group of RPers enters the tavern while it\'s burning down:
Several options:
- The burning group tells the other group about the fire, and they RP along.
This is common, especially if the other group doesn\'t have something exciting to RP, but not required.
- The burning group tells about the fire, but the other group chooses to ignore the fire and continue their RP.
This is also common, though a bit limited by the chat issue, so the events usually are RP\'d at separate locations of the tavern.
The realities are, from a player\'s POV, disjoint, but IC-ly, if the two groups interact with each other afterwards, and the event is being mentioned, then it is easily possible to make the event have happened at some other time, and the other group\'s RP, which IRL went on simultaneously, had IC-ly taken place before or after that.
- The burning group doesn\'t tell about the goings-on, so the event happened at some point in the other group\'s time where it did not affect them. Not the most polite way, but tends to happen when the groups don\'t know each other, which also means that their timelines don\'t need matching. Should they RP more with each other after that, then things can easily be matched up.
Also, the groups can always decide that it was some other tavern that burned down.
Also, please don\'t think that I ignore everything and play a text-based game: this is not so. I do make use of PS. It is true that I could do without almost all functions, but those that I rely heavily on are movement and visuals. They are why I play PS instead of chatroom RP, because they take away a huge deal of abstraction and typing while adding a natural feeling of real-time.
I don\'t like typing, and I also don\'t like reading more than a bunch of lines, it\'s slow, limited in expresiveness and prone to misunderstanding.
Visuals and movement serve to provide all the basics that would otherwise fill pages of text. They also automatically repeat themselves for anyone who comes along. One therefore only needs to state the differences between the graphics and the actual situation, which most of the time are only a few lines, thereby freeing the player to what they actually are in PS: to RP. That\'s the beauty of a graphical game.
All additional functions, especially those that are comparatively crude in their current implementation, are being used whenever they can be used. If you have a mug, then, when you RP that you drink from one, you equip it. If you have no mug, then you still RP that you drink from one. Never, however, you RP the flaws of the system, like that some races hold their mugs so that the contents would immediately spill. IOW, the implementation is used to aid the RP, not to dictate it. Where a usable implementation is missing, then text takes over.
Summary: when you RP not the implementation, but the settings, then you automatically have to bend the time your char experiences, to account for logoffs, etc.. This is, however, the only thing that requires changing and, if used properly, is all you need to join your RP with that of every other player in PS. It\'s reward is a huge deal of flexibility and options. PS as implemented is like a flower bed, while you can, by only bending time, make it into the universe that the settings describe.
This, BTW, makes it possible to RP with or join events with players who view PS differently, because there seldomly is need for the differences to actually show. There still are some views that tend to be incompatible, but they\'re comparatively few.