Name Changes & Role-playing Implications

[Aramara Meibi]

The GM team has been discussing this proposal. The idea of simply changing the character name and leaving everything else the same doesn't have a lot of support. There are already many complaints that death is taken to casually and this proposal would make it so the idea of permadeath could be taken to lightly as well. The idea that does seem to have some support would be to allow a one time name change with a reduction of skills and stats by 1/2. This would put a price on a permadeath, much like the price for a regular death in game, but would also leave things like winch access and mounts in tact so that the new character does have a significant head start over a brand new character.

isn't permadeath taken lightly because, mechanically speaking, there is no permadeath?

[derula]

The idea that does seem to have some support would be to allow a one time name change with a reduction of skills and stats by 1/2. This would put a price on a permadeath, much like the price for a regular death in game, but would also leave things like winch access and mounts in tact so that the new character does have a significant head start over a brand new character.

Well... this could in theory mean that some stats are lower than those of the char right after creation. If the original char creation stats are saved (well... char creation desc is saved, but not sure how much that helps) I'd more recommend to average them and the trained stats. That way, half of the stats that have actually been gained are halved rather than all stats. Sounds fairer to me.

[Rigwyn]

With all due respect, the character in this case, would experience permadeath. In doing so, the player is reinforcing the finality of permanent death, not lessening it or sidestepping it as everyone else does.

Bear in mind, that when a well developed character is permakilled, they loose not only their stats, but their hard earned history and the inter-character relationships that thay have formed over time. With the exception of crappy players, this too serves to limit the frequency of permanent death.

How many people actually play out permanent death?
-- Aside from those who are leaving the game, very few. Permanent death is something people talk about but thats about it.

So for role players who are not afraid to play characters who are succeptible to permanent death, they are forced to play untrained characters if they are to play efficiently.  This isn't a very good solution either as it prevents people from playing strong evil characters. Some players do expect others to play their stats.

Permanent death is not supposed to inhibit the PLAYER from playing an evil character, rather it should inhibit the character from being reckless.

The idea of a compromise with 1/2 stats or some similar penalty does sound a lot better than nothing at all.

Whisper Bless,
Rigwyn

[Jacula]

The offered compromise, or more so, it's general concept is something I'd percieve as resonable.

Something I would point to however, is how true death should be heavily considered in the sense of what it entails.
Thereafter, adding a more appropriate debuff to counteract players taking it "lightly", as well as obliging those not sidestepping the finality of their character.

Practically, true death implies a character having reached it's final rest, thus being unable to traverse Dakkru's realm and return to that of the living.

As we all know however, this does not occur mechanically. Unless say, a player is banned, thus impeeding access to an account and the characters within.

Should it occur from a role play perspective however, the player chooses to terminate his or her character within reason, motivated by either a departure from the game, or the sheer realism in doing so. This in light of what has transpired along It's development, and what should be an inevitable limit of the same.

In terminating one's character, as Rigwyn mentioned, much is lost beyond It's stats and skills.
In my case, years of character development in form of massive collaborative events, writing and sheer sentiment is lost to hopefully make way for a fresh start.
Rather than take it lightly, I both understand and accept the concept of true death.

The fear of players such as myself taking death lightly in It's conventional sense seems both illogical and unjustified however, seeing as it is in no way enforced. Beyond that of mechanics. As well as that of what is realistic. Then again, that is a subjective term defined through the eyes of an individual.

If an aim of interest is to minimize an increase in GM workload however, why not make use of the same pattern when providing a function for players acctually accepting the loss and recreation true death brings?

If there has to be a negative in numbers to deter players for making a request for the wrong reasons, Simply cut the stats of the character in question in half upon having provided the name change. much as Dakkru's curse, although a permanent loss, leaving the tediously earned skills intact.

Let that be a helping hand to roleplayers wishing to start anew, and a detering of others looking to abuse said function for OOC reasons.

In my mind, that is a price great enough, and an efficient one to benefit the variables of both player relations as well as the effort and discretion needed to put the function into practice.

[bilbous]

If you were to embrace the stat halving method I would suggest a floor of 50 below which no stat is reduced.

[Aramara Meibi]

If you were to embrace the stat halving method I would suggest a floor of 50 below which no stat is reduced.

or, if the stats produced at character creation are saved, they should be set as the floor, so that, if no leveling was done, you wouldn't end up with half of an already low set of stats.

[bilbous]

if you have no leveling done why would you need to rename the character you could just delete it and start a new one.

[Aramara Meibi]

if you play on a mac, you can't delete characters.

[weltall]

why not?

[Jacula]

If the aim is for the player to pay a price, I'd think the sole cut of half one's stats to be reasonable, or simply returning to the amount given past creation. Should logs like that exist.

That is presuming skills which would have RP implications remain, should one like to play a mage, warrior, cook, craftsman or what have you anew.

The idea of the stats themselves dropping below the average players might indeed present a problem in turn, and a heavy cost at that. I would rather have it as such however, than have to repeat the insufferable grinding needed for the skills benefiting the immersion of one's new role.

We've come a long way from nothing, and the GMs discussing the matter is good to hear.
Surely, more discussion will follow to balance the price one should pay so that it would deter only those seeking to abuse it.

[novacadian]

Surely, more discussion will follow to balance the price one should pay so that it would deter only those seeking to abuse it.

Could someone explain the potential abuse of this request/feature?

Due to the fact that possible abuse is not clear to me, my suggestion would be to take it even further. That is allow a morphing of a character option. It would require that a new name be chosen and once it was then the total amount of added skill points would be available to re-assign to the new morphed character in whichever skills they wish to use in the present incarnation of the character.

- Nova

[Aramara Meibi]

why not?

look into it weltall and tell me. i've been told it's a known issue.

[Mariana Xiechai]

Well, this is an interesting topic. One that's been discussed, I believe, multiple times. My insight would be this: Typically people more dedicated to role playing rather than grinding do not care if you role play a character, especially a villain, with more stats than they truly have. Why? Because as a villain, that character is understood to be considerably more at risk of being mobbed to death. Why spend countless hours of grinding (in my case and as I can see, in yours) pointlessly when you can simply indicate, say, in the out of character tab, how powerful your villainous persona actually is? I have yet to have a complaint on doing this with any of my characters, though some have asked for clarification. So long as you are realistic about it and not attempting to role play some sort of mythological adonis who is invulnerable to spell and blade alike, you'd be surprised that the majority of folks truly do not mind, in exchange for a good and entertaining role play. I know that I have participated in battles with many many villains who had not so much as touched a training NPC since their creation, but because of the enjoyment I got from the role play, I was perfectly happy cooperating with however powerful they had implied their character actually was. Alternatively, on the only character of mine that actually has stats, I tend to tone them down considerably as most of the people I participate in role plays with are not quite as powerful, mechanically speaking, and it's really quite boring to depict an invincible character.

Besides, battle scars are in, right? 

Also, at the risk of sounding exclusive, if an individual for some reason does end up having issue with it, there is a simple solution: They are not forced to participate in the role play that you are endeavoring to begin. Since this would be the player's decision, and not an outright attempt to keep them from active participation, I see no problem with it, and it is an easy way to come to an agreement.

Again, I've not run into this problem yet, which attests to the relative level of cooperativeness most people have demonstrated on the subject. In simple words, Jacula:

Just give it a try.

Now, to move on to other possibly obnoxious rambling, I'd also add that I see absolutely no issue in having a character renamed after permanent death. People complain about the favoratism. I'd suggest simply having some cap number limit on the name changing, to put an end to that, which would be a simple solution. I see no reason why you can't simply take the minute or two (I know it only takes this length of time because I know of many people who've had their name switched for their out of character natures) to change the name, and then allow the person to begin to role play again, if they're so bent upon keeping the stats. It's a simple solution for a greater role playing goal achieved, and Jacula is hardly the first person to request such a change. Not that my opinion really matters in the long run, but personally, if they are as good at general inclusiveness as it has been indicated, I'd love to see them back in game and starting new, interesting threads of role play. It is my understanding that role play is what this game is centered around, no?

So why not do whatever you can to initiate it?

[Sarva]

I just deleted one of my characters using a mac. That was a bug that was fixed a long time ago.

[Jacula]

Could someone explain the potential abuse of this request/feature?

In turn, the arguments I applied where taking only an obfuscated concept of abuse into account. It might be prudent to clarify that I do not have a clear understanding of what type of abuse is acctually to be expected.

More so, how can one expect abuse to occur if GMs providing the function deems and considers the intent of a player before acctually providing it?
Planeshift is afterall what one might consider a small community, where the sheer familiarity of those within might be enough to gauge their motivations of seeking a name change in the first place.

But I digress, as the definition of abuse within this context in best explained by those counteracting it actively.

As far as a change of models, redistributing skills and the like, I see the incentive and possibilities that follow.
However, considering the initial hardline position on the matter, I'd find a simple change of name with a fair "price" to it. If one is needed at all that is, to be resonable.

If there is a fear of acctually deeming which player is viable for a name change however, where as others might not be, then the authority that comes with being a GM is disregarded. I'd see why this might be a threatening concept within a democratic structure, but seeing as it has been pointed out that PS is not, why not simply decide within reason?

Surely, reason dictates where hesitance arises.