What kind of conflict, if any, would you like to see in the game?
Do you prefer it to be orchestrated only by a GM or do you prefer when it is a player orientated thing? Do you see yourself enjoying realm on realm conflict? Or do you prefer such things to be limited to outsider factions or beings that are created solely for this purpose (monster bosses, pirate gangs, Letma)?
Or, if you don't want any conflict in illarion and would prefer for it to be forever peaceful, why?
Obviously there has been approaches to conflict from players that have not been well received - but if we can put that aside and instead distinguish how we'd like to see some form of it come about, it could be useful moving forward. This, from the viewpoint that we're all playing together and if something like a conflict is to happen in game, better to get a feel for what people find some entertainment value in (is big scale or small scale better etc...)
Fun for some people turns out to be not fun for others. There are those of us who enjoy conflict role play and those of us who do not (for several reasons e.g. too stressful). So... shall we have a discussion about it?
Some quotes from the conversation, to get us started:
Aleytys wrote:My character Aleytys always stood for conflict. And I love drama and fun. As long as it stays in the framework and does not end in OOC and meta-gaming. I think conflict situations from characters should be left to players to a certain extent - but as I said only within the limits of the rules. However, due to the narrow player base, it is difficult to set up and carry out such situations/stories. Also - I fear there could always be a player who is not happy.
S'rrt wrote:I don't think there's a flavor of conflict that I wouldn't like to see IG. I like everything Slightly plays a part in and some of the player-driven conflicts are more interesting/relevant to a specific character than others, but I won't deny that it would be nicer to see players more active in that regard.
Realm-on-realm conflict, in my opinion, drives a huge wedge in-between players, effectively lessening RP. If entire realms are turning their backs on each other, imagine how much RP that cuts out... and subsequently active players. Conflict within a single realm is fine but the game doesn't live on just that alone; with groups of people in their own little corners doing their own little thing.
I'd much more prefer to have the realms be neutral at worst, or maybe even a bit contemptuous, but mainly dealing with conflicts that stem from within each realm, or outside realms, together.
Clairette wrote:I like your observation that when realms fight or strongly dislike each other there's a loss of rp opportunities
Drathe wrote:See, I'm of the opposite opinion. I feel the whole point of a tri faction game is to at least at some points/time frames, have unbalance, some friction between one of them. I am not saying all out war, click and ghost, banning people at the gates or general grieving which is the default setting people jump to when this is said.
But political discord and a measured doses of a little physical altercation or sabotage. Players can still traverse the realms and trade etc, like I said its not about all out war and banning at the gates. But the people of a town have a feeling of being part of something about the town or that there is an over arching feel about it and their affiliation with it that means more than just a portal point and 2 colored gems.
If all the towns are all allied and everyone of them are always best of friends, then well, its more like a single spread out town with 3 districts. No inherent need of multiple town leaders in the classic sense per say because there is no or limited political endeavors that need working for or against. All towns share the same goals all the time with maybe a pinch of flavor of their lore.
I don't see how that idea is "bring it back to the old bane days" or "limiting players RP?" In fact I see it making it more interesting for town leaders, and giving more opportunity for players through them.
The caveat to all of the above though, is the maturity (not players age) of the mind set of "we play together not against each other" (but not just when its going our way and not when its something we don't like just because it doesn't benefit) and etiquette of ooc communication, to not give away all the surprises, but ask or explain an idea or concept and work on its execution in game, not just refuse what doesn't benefit or suit because its a loss. I.E Wick has a wagon with goods being delivered from the distant port, it's been heard there is a chalice in it that was a recovered relic from cad. Knights are sent out on their honored duty to collect it. and so on. Town leaders would I'd like to think, help each other ooc achieve it but stay true in game to the chars nature. With open and full support from the GM. Who of course would have npc leader oversight to call into check any abuse, but not quash or manipulate the goings on through them. Of course things like Letma in the back ground give opportunity for coming together and feasts of peace at joint victories or defeats
Mirai wrote:I agree there. Somehow i really like the ebb and flow of the relations of the realms and there is not a single character of mine that doesn't have a more or less well reasoned dislike for the other cities. well said
S'rrt wrote:You make a good point, the only argument I have against it is that prolonged conflicts between realms is very taxing on the players of leader characters, whether it be GM or non-GM. For this reason the more "colorful" conflicts should remain short-lived, while the overall relationship of the towns remains, as I mentioned earlier, neutral/tolerant.
As a side note; following the rule about playing together and not against each other in terms of IC conflicts is sometimes not as easy as it should be because some players are stressed out by the IC conflicts.
What's your opinion?Exelous wrote:So, I agree that a 'whole realms conflict' certainly has the potential to limit the rp of chars in opposing realms but would that not be dependent on the actions of the players behind the screen? Conflict is usually a two way street and it's only fun when both sides partake in the necessary back and forth. In a scenario where whole realms are not dealing with each other, isn't that just really poorly orchestrated conflict? Perhaps such a thing isn't suitable to illarion and the size of its current player base, regarding all-out-war... that enough seems quite logical. It's also been said, a factor could be that it's because some players don't want to tap into a part of their mind that plays the role of conflict (too stressful). The idea of conflict stressing players out is something I tried to touch on and really just wanted more insight into. I just wondered whether or not we could look for a sort of 'greater goal' of storytelling. It isn't easy, doing conflict rp and can take a toll, sure. And there can be bad actors, community outcasts or whatever. Ultimately, a quick glance would suggest that the terms of a successful conflict (of any magnitude) in illarion is something that needs to have its basic terms be agreed on ooc and with the necessary consent and etiquette from corresponding parties. The proposed philosophy of illa.
Anyway, I think Drathe touched on a nice point. So maybe we don't do 'whole' realm conflicts. But there certainly seems to be room for some form of it. I don't reckon it'll ever be successful, though, if the only ones prompting a conflict are generally players who have become disillusioned in some way or generally deemed by the rest of community to be 'bad actors'. I think there needs to be some compromise found when it comes to those who find themselves somehow outcast from the community, though. Because ultimately these people want to play the game, which is good. That compromise will need to come from both sides, though.