Seperate the po from the character when dealing with death.
Moderator: Gamemasters
-
Tanistian_Kanea
- Posts: 646
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:22 am
Some chars I am willing to delete with death/ghosting like this one, and some not. IMO this should be up to the PO.
The question though is the expected RP of "fear" and the outcome of RPing injury in the RP guidelines? Most other online games are QUITE different from Illa. I have played some games where this ghosting is not considered an injury... where your char is given a second chance even a third chance. This could be the problem with at least some of the newer chars
Possibly an addition to the RP guide would help?
Even though your char goes to the cross to improve it's condition, this does NOT mean he/she is totally healed, there are still injuries that need others to help heal. Good RP for your char is similar to RL in that they should fear getting hurt/injured.
The question though is the expected RP of "fear" and the outcome of RPing injury in the RP guidelines? Most other online games are QUITE different from Illa. I have played some games where this ghosting is not considered an injury... where your char is given a second chance even a third chance. This could be the problem with at least some of the newer chars
Possibly an addition to the RP guide would help?
Even though your char goes to the cross to improve it's condition, this does NOT mean he/she is totally healed, there are still injuries that need others to help heal. Good RP for your char is similar to RL in that they should fear getting hurt/injured.
-
Achae Eanstray
- Posts: 4300
- Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:03 am
- Location: A field of dandelions
- Contact:
If that is the case, then why fear? Rather, why RP fear knowing the gods will bring you back?Vern Kron wrote:Actually, from what Estralis said, being clouded does not mean being injured. When you go to the cross you were healed by the gods, but you are just a bit weak/tired from the experience. Atleast that was what was -last- said.. it may have changed.
Last I checked the explanation is "whatever will stop pointless arguments"Vern Kron wrote:Actually, from what Estralis said, being clouded does not mean being injured. When you go to the cross you were healed by the gods, but you are just a bit weak/tired from the experience. Atleast that was what was -last- said.. it may have changed.
I don't believe you checked anything last time, liar....Aegohl wrote:Last I checked the explanation is "whatever will stop pointless arguments"Vern Kron wrote:Actually, from what Estralis said, being clouded does not mean being injured. When you go to the cross you were healed by the gods, but you are just a bit weak/tired from the experience. Atleast that was what was -last- said.. it may have changed.
-
Kevin Lightdot
- Posts: 2849
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:17 pm
- Location: Green again
-
Moirear Sian
- Posts: 1214
- Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:12 am
Looking at adventure fiction, most characters survive by the skin of their teeth if they have a drive to live or survive; they are oftenly left mistakenly for dead.
The break occurs when people envision their own character as the protagonist of a collaborative adventure fiction, which is not an entirely false way of looking at it---but forget that getting the snot beaten out of you hurts like hell and is actually humiliating. (That is, in my perception of "realism", which may differ from yours, and yes, yours too.) Incongruencies can arise because perception of everybody's roleplaying is highly subjective and game mechanics like "getting clouded" are oftentimes the only measurement of the game's environment in relation to the roleplaying.
Questions would need to be answered too: is an attack that lowers a health bar by a chunk (but doesn't empty it) really a threatening wound, or merely a nick or scratch or something that will leave a blue spot? Or is every attack which lowers the health display a dangerous wound? Or is only the attack which empties the health display a truly lethal wound with chances of flat-out killing someone?
In the case of "serious wounds only occur when the health bar is emptied", roleplaying the scenario of holding someone at blade's point is at odds with the game mechanics. Basically, if you want it to be "realistic", the people held at blade's point would have to roleplay a critical wound and play out incapacitation if they get their throat slashed, because the game mechanics won't support it. In the case of "serious wounds occur always when the health bar is reduced by any amount", people would have to be more fearful of every attack the character suffers---but how would you "realistically" model a scratch or a harmless bug bite? That, too, would need roleplaying and a social contract in place for it because the game mechanics don't support it.
Before such questions are answered concisely and clearly for an online RPG, you can't expect "realism" or "good roleplaying" from it, because there will be different views. For example, if the game mechanics don't support a one-hit kill, there's no reason to be afraid of being held at blade's point; or from another view-point, if there is no social contract among the playerbase and GMs and what-not concerning what is "realistic" and what isn't, then there's no reason to complain about people acting "realistically" or "unrealistically", or tell people to seperate the player from the character when in actuality they feel that they haven't fully played out their character concept to their own liking and got "cheated" by the game or by fellow players.
The break occurs when people envision their own character as the protagonist of a collaborative adventure fiction, which is not an entirely false way of looking at it---but forget that getting the snot beaten out of you hurts like hell and is actually humiliating. (That is, in my perception of "realism", which may differ from yours, and yes, yours too.) Incongruencies can arise because perception of everybody's roleplaying is highly subjective and game mechanics like "getting clouded" are oftentimes the only measurement of the game's environment in relation to the roleplaying.
Questions would need to be answered too: is an attack that lowers a health bar by a chunk (but doesn't empty it) really a threatening wound, or merely a nick or scratch or something that will leave a blue spot? Or is every attack which lowers the health display a dangerous wound? Or is only the attack which empties the health display a truly lethal wound with chances of flat-out killing someone?
In the case of "serious wounds only occur when the health bar is emptied", roleplaying the scenario of holding someone at blade's point is at odds with the game mechanics. Basically, if you want it to be "realistic", the people held at blade's point would have to roleplay a critical wound and play out incapacitation if they get their throat slashed, because the game mechanics won't support it. In the case of "serious wounds occur always when the health bar is reduced by any amount", people would have to be more fearful of every attack the character suffers---but how would you "realistically" model a scratch or a harmless bug bite? That, too, would need roleplaying and a social contract in place for it because the game mechanics don't support it.
Before such questions are answered concisely and clearly for an online RPG, you can't expect "realism" or "good roleplaying" from it, because there will be different views. For example, if the game mechanics don't support a one-hit kill, there's no reason to be afraid of being held at blade's point; or from another view-point, if there is no social contract among the playerbase and GMs and what-not concerning what is "realistic" and what isn't, then there's no reason to complain about people acting "realistically" or "unrealistically", or tell people to seperate the player from the character when in actuality they feel that they haven't fully played out their character concept to their own liking and got "cheated" by the game or by fellow players.