Conflict?

[Lanarel]

I voted no. For me there is enough conflict already . I like being able to walk around in a generally peaceful city. There are too many people running around in battle gear already. Many of the roleplays I notice in game or especially the forums, are about conflicts or people under the power of some strange force that should be fought. For other people this may be not enough, but I would not like to be forced into conflict all the time. A raid from labyrinth creatures ones in a while is fine, some bandits battling in the mountains OK, but for me large factions fighting each other on a permanent basis sounds bad.

Also, I just read the article mentioned in this thread, which may have influenced my vote

[Dajoji]

I voted yes but I don't think we need the settings or the mechs to change dramatically or at all for that matter. Instead, I think it's the players who need to be more open to conflict and the possibilities it brings: loss, pain, hate, hunger for revenge, need to find answers for a great injustice... all these things are strong motivations for any character. But many players are content with nothing happening to them and filling their description with a background story that never took place in-game. Many players have this "nothing can or should happen to me" approach because they don't wanna die or lose their stuff or whatever... but that makes it very difficult for evil characters to do anything and if we had more mechs to let them get away with stuff, there would be a whole amount of complaints both with and without grounds.

So, I think players should look for opportunities to be victims just as much as they want to be heroes, be imperfect, show pettiness every now and then, act selfishly, be a coward, show weakness, roleplay someone whole, not holy. And evildoers should focus on making enemies in ordinary situations. Let that feeling of competition with a friend turn into envy and act accordingly so it evolves into hate and murder and then keep going. Megalomaniacs will always have a hard time achieving their plans because they need the goodies to collaborate with them OOC and play along (which doesn't mean their plots are scripted). But if you pick an enemy, someone you really enjoy roleplaying with, and then let things escalate naturally, just by reacting IC, you'll be able to stir things up more than you'd ever thought possible as a hooded figured with a dark aura.

[Lanarel]

I had another though, but maybe that should have yet another poll :

Do you think there are enough things to progress in in game that are NOT only useful in conflict?

Because, what can you do in game, to progress, game mechanics wise?

You can train and get better in the following:
Mining => Metalurgy => Blacksmithing, end in sword/axe/knife making. You use those to fight.
Sword, melee, knife training, make you better in fighting
Training strength, endurance, and that other one (time for sleep ), make you not die when you fall and run longer, but mainly make you stronger and healthier, so you last longer in a fight
Training charisma, will and err that other thing, give you more mana and may influence some spells.
Training magic and using spells, helps you kill things better, or heal characters after someone hurt them.
You can cook carrot soup.

I think the last is a great improvement, but the rest makes me wonder whether the question in this poll is wrong, and mine is better
But I am sure Xillix has this all thought out

Addition, cause I forgot about quests:
Of course you can do questing, which besides fun with npcs (I mean that ) gives you PP that you can use above, and items, such as helmets, armor, glyphs, which you can use above. And a pan flute. Maybe you can use that in melee .

[SovHed]

Just on my 43rd re-read of the noob comic brought me to this panel.. the last block is rather relevant to PS in its current state.
http://thenoobcomic.com/index.php?pos=40

[MustangMR]

So, I think players should look for opportunities to be victims just as much as they want to be heroes, be imperfect, show pettiness every now and then, act selfishly, be a coward, show weakness, roleplay someone whole, not holy. And evildoers should focus on making enemies in ordinary situations. Let that feeling of competition with a friend turn into envy and act accordingly so it evolves into hate and murder and then keep going. Megalomaniacs will always have a hard time achieving their plans because they need the goodies to collaborate with them OOC and play along (which doesn't mean their plots are scripted). But if you pick an enemy, someone you really enjoy roleplaying with, and then let things escalate naturally, just by reacting IC, you'll be able to stir things up more than you'd ever thought possible as a hooded figured with a dark aura.

I go back and forth on this.  I do like the idea of bad things happening, but the problem I see is that why should I play a game to be greifed?  So some ubernaught can feel all giddy about themselves for ganking me because I'm a weaker character?  Forget that.  That's what opens up when you take out the choice of pvp'ing.  If I could count on other players to play evil correctly and not just exploit game mechanics to make life miserable for others, then I think I would be more open to the idea. 

EDIT:  Would you feel the same way about being evil if, when finally cornered and killed by other good players, your character was gone for good?  If it's just the lack of consequences that makes you want to be evil, then really, that's why we have laws in real life, to stop that behavior, and if you want true roleplaying, then you should have penalties both ways.

Btw, I don't know if I understand the poll correctly either.  I assumed "in character" and that the conflict should revolve around our characters and who they are.  That implied to me PVP since the game world is not going to know about who I am, just other players.  But then my yes answer is wrong because I don't want PVP... so I'm confused too.  I want conflict to drive a story that can be played out in many different ways, but not sure if I'm addressing the poll correctly.

[Prolix]

Well nobody answered my question so I vote Huckleberry Hound. If a clearer picture emerges I might change my vote.

[Xillix Queen of Fools]

In Character I meant.

I wanted to get a read if people even thought there was a lack of conflict and hear some discussion before forwarding ideas to alleviate any perceived lack of conflict should that be the answer.

[Dajoji]

MustangMR: I did not mention PvP at all in my post. PvP or RP duels are just ways to handle conflict but not the source nor the only means to deal with it. I meant being victim of someone else's thieving, poisoning, or deceiving skills for instance. In other words, allowing both good and bad things to happen to your character. It's the player who decides that and in doing so makes his or her character more or less interesting to RP with.

[Under the moon]

A very subjective question with very subjective answers.

I suppose it all comes down to... What is conflict to me? Since I asked the question, I'll answer first.

First point:
Do not confuse conflict with combat!
Combat is only one form of conflict.

As a writer, I see conflict as any obstacle that blocks or pushes my characters back from achieving their goals, and the struggle to overcome that obstacle. It can be simple to epic, but always must be meaningful to the character. 'Conflict' does not mean random meaningless fighting in the streets that achieve no IC goal.

So, does PlaneShift seem to lack IC conflict to me?

No... and yes. If you are talking about minor social (player created roleplay) conflict, then no. There are plenty of grudges and dramas going around. Where there are players, there will be conflict.

If you mean violent conflict (remember, it has to be meaningful to count to me), then yes, it is completely lacking. Mobs are used for training, farming, and nothing else. PvP has little or no meaning for the most part unless mixed with player created social conflict. What a player does has no impact on the world, so any 'conflict' they take part in is not real.

Political? Strike out. Support one side or the other. No point to it yet.

Law verses Crime? Non-existent outside of social conflict, since you can't really do anything outside of the law.

Faction verses Faction? This can be guilds to religions. Supporting your religion or guild does not have any impact on the world either. No one is going to gain or lose real power. There is nothing to strive for.

Epic conflict? None. It would not matter if every player in the game rushed out to drive back the darkness... or had a tea party. The cities are not going to burn if everyone leaves the creatures alone. In fact, remove the loot and EXP from killing them, and that is pretty much what would happen. Part of 'epic' is do or die.

So, outside of player-to-player interactions, conflict is not lacking. It is completely missing. In time, I am sure we will address all of these issues. It is part of my jorb.

[Prolix]

Well I changed my vote to no (from "no vote".) My character is almost as conflicted as I am: full of lofty goals and no gumption to achieve them. Hardly any to even appear in game! My other character continually wants to thump various npcs who do not show him the respect he feels is owed to him so he would like it if he actually could. Instead he takes it out on various mobs. As far as conflict with other players, I try to avoid that and usually succeed pretty well.

[neko kyouran]

I feel left out in this poll. 

Wheres the option for those that can't say yes or no becuase they don't go in game on a regular enough basis to be able to see if there is conflict going on in game IC'ly?

[Taniquetil]

Yes. I think there is no large struggle between good vs evil, order vs chaos, government vs anarchy, guild vs guild, etc. the Rps that do try to create a struggle are immediately shot down because they are against settings or something. It seems to me the devs are on the side of order and peace. I would like for it to not be so, but perhaps it is. Prove me wrong.

[MustangMR]

MustangMR: I did not mention PvP at all in my post. PvP or RP duels are just ways to handle conflict but not the source nor the only means to deal with it. I meant being victim of someone else's thieving, poisoning, or deceiving skills for instance. In other words, allowing both good and bad things to happen to your character. It's the player who decides that and in doing so makes his or her character more or less interesting to RP with.

Okay, I can see your point, and that is the part that I debate with myself if it's a good idea, but isn't that just a subtle form of PVP?  It's still player vs. player, even if the conflict doesn't end in death.  My skills of perception against your skills of subterfuge. 

My concerns may not apply to PS as it exists today, but it will grow.  Precedents set now may not have the same intended effects years down the road.

[Earl_Listbard]

Just on my 43rd re-read of the noob comic brought me to this panel.. the last block is rather relevant to PS in its current state.
http://thenoobcomic.com/index.php?pos=40

Lul

[Waoknie]

It's curious how the last trap made me think twice and I'm still unsure if I'll fall this time..
I would rather have more than 2 choices for this poll.
My answer was yes but it's conditional, so it's kinda depending on the point of view.

A couple of days ago, I was chattn with a friend that is also a PS fan and I told him something like "...they're making Barbies (tm) out of us." a reference close to the Hello Kitty (tm) one that I've read here. I also wrote a post with a similar reference.

There IS conflict IG. That's undeniable!. The exercise of RolePlaying is very well related with an interaction of distinct characters on which one will either surrender to the other or both agreed on who's leading at the beginning. For having a healthy human relationship, we rely on leadership and surrender, even if the powers switch depending on the situation between the same individuals. Sometimes you lead, others you surrender. Either you live with that, or face oblivion.

But here is where we have to face the truth: We don't like surrender.. it is degrading, irritating, makes you angry and hungry for revenge, payback or whatever you call it.

PlaneShift gave us a world which recently achieved an unnatural way to deal with conflict because it was thought that by avoiding the bitterness of surrender, the IG world would be a happy, inviting and welcoming one. And in some ways, it is. But it lacks intrigue. It lacks vertigo.

And I find that the reason remains on the fact that nothing happens to our characters. Nothing that is not agreed, explained, scripted, etc.. The element of surprise is almost erradicated. Our characters are embeded in an impervious bubble for other players.
Players are the only elements in the game that cannot inflict direct actions to players and that's IMO, totally out of context.

The feel of surrender exists for natural reasons.. the 'survival of the fitest' is not an argument. It's a law! and this one is not to be considered for decision to obey or not. It's the way it is, period. The feel of surrender is the fuel for the brave. It exists as an incentive for improvement, not as an excuse for sloth.

The fairytopia world had it's chance and failed.. we don't need more conflict. We need to let those conflicts to be solved in a natural way.. the way of the conqueror and the defeated. Which is something that ... well, sorry but simple RolePlaying does not provide very effectively.