Why Roleplay Servers Will Never Work

[Erk]

I do not understand how having people systematically going around saying "1 million gold or die" is contributing to anyone's fun.

If you claim that then people would form factions to kill those randoming robbers, by the same reasoning no need to have any rules, since faction would emerge to deal with any problem in game.

Spawn killing? A faction will be devoted to prevent it. Randoming? A faction will hunt the randomers?

But wait, how the hell will the faction know who is doing what? Az randomed me! Please kill him. No, Erk randomed Az, kill him!

I am sorry but what you say makes no sense to me.

A rule regarding the amount you may be rob of is necessary to avoid randoming. Admins could in fact deal with unreasonable demands, but that would lead to every player claiming what he was robbed of was unreasonable. Lots of work. Make it a fraction of your wealth. If the lad doesn't know how to reveal the amount of gold he carries, his fault (kill him). And move on.

But please, no naive stories about players self managing the server. Minimal rules are needed, given the amount of trolls and generally unpleasant people running around in warband.

 

[Splintert]

It doesn't happen like that. I don't really know how to explain it, we never had mass anarchy and randoming before, I don't see why it would be any different now. Admins exist to prevent things from getting out of hand. It's not hard to tell when something is out of hand. Everything else can and will be handled by the players themselves.

What we aren't doing is offloading the admins job onto factions, as you seem to think. We're talking about changing the very fabric of gameplay. The end goal is a situation in which if you're a ****, other players label you a **** and you might find it hard to survive when the entire server hates your guts. Is it fun for the guy being hated? Yes, he gets lots of combat. Is it fun for everyone else? Yes, they get to kill him and go on manhunts.

Huge example: "Female_Pilgrim". He would stand at the resource trading points and take peoples stuff, and sell it, and hide behind hired guards. People hated him. Often, large factions would show up to stop him. He would take his defeat, regroup, and start again somewhere else. No admins were necessary. He was having fun, making money. Guards were having fun, protecting him, getting paid, and bullying traders. Factions had fun stopping him.

 

[Erk]

If people hate your guts because you go around saying 1 million gold or die you go and change your name. Feel like messing with people a bit? Log in with the name IEATYOURGUTS, get a horse and a lance and kill as many as you can. Then get on again with a proper name and play.

How can this be avoided? Excessive rules are bad; some minimal rules (no randoming, NRR) are needed. There needs to be a systematic way of getting rid of trolls. Leaving it to admin judgement is a risk. Minimal rules, easy to check them (within reason, we all know it is impossible to know for sure most of the times) and let people play.

I would agree on that. No limits to robbery but randoming being against the rules would mean "1 million or die". Or "100k or die".

I fail to see how a proportional limit on robberies kills the joy of anyone playing, though. Why the opposition?

Pilgrim's example is not applicable to most of the situations going on, IMO. I would never say Pilgrim broke any of my desired rules. More Pilgrim's are needed, I think.

 

[Splintert]

He often stole 100% of that trader's profits for that trip. That could amount to upwards on 28,000 denars. It wasn't even "28k or die" it was just *takes the stuff and runs*. Did he roleplay? Yes.

Enforcing a strict limit on robberies was one of the first rules added to servers after RCC from v3. strangely, that's also when admin interference picked up (although roleplay hadn't deteriorated just yet).

The point of the matter is, someone saying "100k or die" is obviously asking for an excessive amount. Why can't an admin be relied on to stop something like that? All he has to do is teleport in, see the victim and the robber, and say "yes" or "no". Robbers will start to ask for more reasonable amounts. Besides, more often than not, the victim of a robbery will do one of these:

a) ignore him, continuing work
b) run away
c) call an admin over "failrp"

In a and b, he will get killed and complain to an admin. In c, he just complains directly. None of those situations are roleplay at all. If players can't be trusted to roleplay over an amount as minimal as 500 denars, why should they be protected at all?

Edit:
Queen_Vera_Of_Rohan after I killed him for attempting to rob a friend.

Spoiler

Is this what we want?

Spoiler: Hint

Splintert: trying to get us slayed
Splintert: for "fun"
Queen_Vera_Of_Rohan: yes

 

[Korbal]

Same as yesterday. Raging Womble, another player and me were robbing a silver cart. He wanted to rob the horse from another player  to chase them.He asked him stop he didnt. Got attacked and then he said randoming and nlr breaking. The three of us got frozen and our faction lost their castle because we couldnt help them. Best thing was that the 3 admin concluded that we didnt random. I would be rather slain then argueing  20 minutes with a admin.

 

[Erk]

Why should admins supervise robberies?

Define what is reasonable and stick to it, admin or not.  It is way simpler that relying on admins. We know that there isn't always one on, they are busy...

Notice that I have nothing against people robbing you of everything you carry. Your fault not to plan ahead.

I am talking about a reasonable limit on how much of the gold you carry. Strictly to avoid people using robberies as an excuse to kill.

Which they pretty much do, as you can tell from the example you gave us (even with limits, imagine without).

Regarding the example brought by Korbal, I got kicked of a server (only time in my entire history in PW) for killing a lad who wouldn't dismount his horse so that I could chase a randomer that slashed me from behind.

They said I had not RPed it enough, even though it was clear what I wanted and the rider decided to run in circles around me...(to get caught! ).

So, to sum it up, freedom and no rules, mostly yes (I hate the long discussions about rules in game...) but still some to keep trolling under control.

 

[Splintert]

Admins don't have to supervise every robbery. They just respond when someone complains about exorbitant amounts.

"Define what is reasonable and stick to it, admin or not."

Rules don't really apply when an admin is not present. Not that it's how it should be, but its how it is. A robbery limit won't help when admins aren't online, and when admins are online, they can determine if it is valid on a case-by-case basis, as necessary. If the admins aren't picked randomly off the streets of PW, they will be fully capable of doing this at least 6 times a minute.

 

[Erk]

You can always go back to the logs and ban someone for asking an excessive amount.


Why should the amount allowed one can rob depend on the judgement of a particular admin?


Isn't it simpler to decide what is reasonable UNIVERSALLY and then simply stick to it? Otherwise you create uncertainty and stop the game too much.

"Give me 30k. It is not fair. Yes it is. Wait I report you and you will get banned. Admin admin excessive amount!

That is indeed too much since he has 50k. You should ask for less. Ok, how much should I ask for? I think 25k is fair. No it isn't. 5k is fair. Why, he has a lot! This is just bull****! **** it"

This stops the game a lot more than: You can rob 20% (x%) of the players wealth and everything else he owns.

Seems reasonable to me, right?

 

[Serann]

I am going to have to agree with Erk, if you seriously don't see players complain
about every single robbery, when it's kept ambigious, you really haven't played in
a while.

Not to mention that soon this would happen:

"Admin X said it was ok to steal half his money! Ask him!"

And sooner or later, admins would have to agree on, in the very least, vague
rules on how much you should be allowed to steal.

 

[Splintert]

You can always go back to the logs and ban someone for asking an excessive amount.


Why should the amount allowed one can rob depend on the judgement of a particular admin?


Isn't it simpler to decide what is reasonable UNIVERSALLY and then simply stick to it? Otherwise you create uncertainty and stop the game too much.

"Give me 30k. It is not fair. Yes it is. Wait I report you and you will get banned. Admin admin excessive amount!

That is indeed too much since he has 50k. You should ask for less. Ok, how much should I ask for? I think 25k is fair. No it isn't. 5k is fair. Why, he has a lot! This is just bull****! **** it"

This stops the game a lot more than: You can rob 20% (x%) of the players wealth and everything else he owns.

Seems reasonable to me, right?

There is nothing in PW which is universal. Every situation calls for differences. Besides, without all sorts of rules protecting serfs, serfs will learn how to not get robbed in the first place (that is, faction protection). Robberies will decrease due to the difficulty of the task, and factions will become the dominant force in a serf's life.

I don't like cop-versus-robber gameplay that grows out of large commoner towns and lack of proper factions. It leads to a lot of standing around, doing nothing.

 

[Korbal]

Many people keep screaming rdm for many unnesscary reasons:

getting killed in a crossfire during a war  , bonus points if the faction has a similiar color like the enemy faction
people stealing loot from fights  without any permission and getting killed
searching crates in castles  which are not theirs
entering the throne room
closing or opening  our gates during a war or just trolling with it

 

[Rasorath]

Why should the amount allowed one can rob depend on the judgement of a particular admin?


Isn't it simpler to decide what is reasonable UNIVERSALLY and then simply stick to it? Otherwise you create uncertainty and stop the game too much.

"Give me 30k. It is not fair. Yes it is. Wait I report you and you will get banned. Admin admin excessive amount!

That is indeed too much since he has 50k. You should ask for less. Ok, how much should I ask for? I think 25k is fair. No it isn't. 5k is fair. Why, he has a lot! This is just bull****! **** it"

This stops the game a lot more than: You can rob 20% (x%) of the players wealth and everything else he owns.

Seems reasonable to me, right?

As I said a few posts back, since you can show other players how much money you have, without dropping it, the "UNIVERSAL" amount should be everything they have.
If someone says "1 million or die", the other player will just have to show him that he does not have 1 million. There is no need for admins to decide individually which amount is too high when you have this feature.

 

[Serann]

Then it's just going to turn into an excuse to kill people again, by asking for everything they own.

After all, that's the reason most people rob: to get an excuse to kill people.

It's weird, people come to PW to get a break from Native and then seem to spend their entire time
trying to get as close to it as possible.

 

[Armie_knock]

How is asking for everything someone have looking for an excuse to kill? Either you give it, or kill him.

 

[Splintert]

Then it's just going to turn into an excuse to kill people again, by asking for everything they own.

After all, that's the reason most people rob: to get an excuse to kill people.

It's weird, people come to PW to get a break from Native and then seem to spend their entire time
trying to get as close to it as possible.

Because the rules prevent them from doing anything else. Want to go to war? Nope, admins will come up with a reason to protect other factions. Want to collect resources? Nope, you get robbed. Want to guard serfs from being robbed? Nope, serfs are taking advantage of free and invulnerable admin protection.

The rules and the admins that enforce them do nothing but stop everything from happening.

 

[Serann]

Yes, people have to fight like in Native, because they can't go to war
which is fighting like in Native.

Wait....

Either way, that doesn't really answer the question about if there
should be a robbing limit.

 

[Erk]

No one will give all the gold they own. Let's entertain the idea a bit.

Suppose I am in a situation where my cargo / gear / other objects are worth more than my pocket (only case where I might one to give all my gold). In principle I could find a deal with the robbers according to which I give them my pocket money in exchange for keeping the rest. But the robbers will renege the deal and take the rest once I have handed in the gold. It has happened to me often. (Sometimes robbers ask for 1k, then when you pay ask for 1k more).

There is absolutely no situation in which handing in all the gold is not a dominated strategy. Hence, people will never do it. Therefor, by backwards induction, any robber who asks for all the gold knows he will kill. Ergo, any robber who asks for all the gold is looking for a reason to kill.

And just like this, my dear fellow forum dwellers, one uses game theory to prove a point in PW.

Now, finding a rule based reason to kill someone just for the sake of it is a new phenomenon that occurs in PW. One has to be prepared to deal with it. I cannot find a single advantage for not accepting a universal limit. Why are cases individually different here? What is exactly the difference? Could you please give me an example in which one limit should be applied and explain me how this limit would be wrong in another situation? Please keep in mind that I talk about a proportional limit (a fraction of your wealth).


PS - IMO (and I do not want you guys to get distracted with this, let's settle limits first) some people behave like in native because this is the only think they know how to do. Some people join PW because they are good fighters and want to "own" the "little *****es" that care about their gear, their RP or their gold. It is more fun to kill people who give a damn, isn't it?

 

[Armie_knock]

It's still your choice to give or not. If you can't be sure that your gold is safe, don't walk around with it.

It is more fun to kill people who give a damn, isn't it?

You got that right.

 

[Splintert]

Now, finding a rule based reason to kill someone just for the sake of it is a new phenomenon that occurs in PW. One has to be prepared to deal with it. I cannot find a single advantage for not accepting a universal limit. Why are cases individually different here? What is exactly the difference? Could you please give me an example in which one limit should be applied and explain me how this limit would be wrong in another situation? Please keep in mind that I talk about a proportional limit (a fraction of your wealth).


PS - IMO (and I do not want you guys to get distracted with this, let's settle limits first) some people behave like in native because this is the only think they know how to do. Some people join PW because they are good fighters and want to "own" the "little *****es" that care about their gear, their RP or their gold. It is more fun to kill people who give a damn, isn't it?

Players already try to rob or tax at the limit just to get kills. If they are allowed to rob any amount they want, say, all of your gold, serfs will have to be considerably more intelligent than they are now. The end goal of not having a limit is to stop the robber culture that exists in PW. If serfs know that they can lose everything, they won't take the risk as often. They'll bring guards. It's harder to rob a guarded serf. So robbery goes down.

We can do two things at once.

PW players, in general, suck at combat. Wearing plate armour is a large billboard that says "kill me". More often than not (and I'm speaking directly from experience here, as the guy who goes around killing plate knights), the knight will attack me first. He thinks he's indestructable because of his armour. When I kick his ass and prove him wrong, he whines to admins.

For example, the other day on FG I was standing guard on a horse while a friend of mine broke a door so we could get the money chest. Suddenly, a plated knight with two of his faction mates comes at me with his lance couched. I raise my lance, and hit him before his couch hits me. He dies. My friend was an admin. The guy who tried to kill me complained that I randomed. He deserves every bit of lance that he rode into.

 

[Raging Womble]

What I do, is I go and guard the silver mine, sometimes with my guys, sometimes by myself waiting to help any random miners, just for the fun of killing robbers, I dont ask for money.