Let's talk about conflict?

[Exelous]

This topic branches from the discord. It was suggested that this might be a better place for it.

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:

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.

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.

I like your observation that when realms fight or strongly dislike each other there's a loss of rp opportunities

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

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

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.

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.

What's your opinion?

[Kyre]

I like surprise and conflict and think between towns would encourage more separation and even RP between friends. I would HOPE that some don’t think they know all without making an effort to talk to other parties and not simply bundle together with ooc friends which can spoil the fun for others.

[Clairette]

Conflict in general is created by different opinions/wishes/plans/views... colliding, or people choosing different means to reach the same goal. Conflict can often be solved by finding a middle ground agreement.
In its most basic and harmless form of conflict, that might just be sitting in a tavern discussing something where the chars do not agree with each other. The most aggressive form of conflict would be drawing weapons and start to fight. The most underhanded might be betrayal or intrigue.
All of this can be fun, if is stays in game and does not create ooc conflict. And while many of us wish for some drama and conflict as the spice of rp, we do not enjoy loosing a conflict (some more than others).

With spice of rp, I mean, it creates some impulse to talk about or to make plans and it is enjoyable. Too much of that and it becomes frustrating and un-enjoyable. I guess that's the point when it drives players away, (again some sooner some later) or it goes ooc which isn't fun either.

In my rp-bubble (well, the people my main char sees and meets) there is few conflict, but there are very few people either... which is likely a different topic, but it leads to less conflict with less views colliding.
Yet, then again we are creative to create some trouble on our own: It was lots of fun, when Renar disguise as a pirate and Claire captured him or recently the bartering talk at the wine festival.
I think within the limits of low player count and our char's power, we still can create fun (conflict) for eachother, if we try. Sometimes it's better to ask oocly so there is no bad blood in the end, other times a surprise might work best. Personally, I'd prefer to better ask one time too much, than too less.

As this question about conflict borders to: "What kind of game do we want to play together?", it might also worth to ask yourself do you play to win/loose/struggle/lift others up/... to figure out what kind and how much conflict you like to see ingame.

[Alytys Lamar]

I would like to pick up a few things again.

What if we don't call it an realm conflict/war? PO Amelia pointed out very well on Discord that we are adult enough - all of us - to make up our own stories. WE are roleplayers.

I also agree with PO Clairette here = to talk out a confilct and agree that you not agree can be fun, too
((Aly had this several times ))

But in my experience, unfortunately, it is often the case that you plan and start stories - but your partner suddenly leaves the game and you are left hanging in the air.
I have already deleted two of my young characters because it made no sense to continue playing without the respective partner.

To create drama you don't need war - but fantasy.
Gray was a character that brought both, drama and possibility.
But let's ask ourselves - can't we take the initiative and create a Bad Guy ourselves ?

Letma was the main theme (since I came back). Again, this problem. Players, who were taken care of with main tasks to push Letma, just disappeared. So holding the unsolved Letma against a single person can't be the way.

And then there is the next problem of being disappointed when something doesn't ( or can't ) go as planned.
We should take into account that we are human beings, each one an individual, with different views that are often simply not compatible.
Interpersonal relationships are a difficult field.

One more important thing = being toxic OOC, spreading things behind others back, metagaming or even cheating are absolutely NEVER helpful and destroy the fun and joy for others, the game and the stories.

PEACE

[Amelia Rotholz]

Just for the record , I will repost my two cents here as well:

Generally, I like the idea of conflict, be it driven by GM or player, be it inter-realm or internal or a thread from the outside. All is welcome to me, as long as we play together as PLAYERS. I even think, player-driven things - conflicts and other stuff are highly needed. Slightly does a great job, but we should not rely on him alone, like kids that just want to be entertained I mean come one, we are role players! We should be able to tell a story, too! And besides, that man has a life too.
I appreciate a well thought out and well played conflict. Ami is a harmony addict, but I’m not necessarily. But I confess OOC conflict doesn’t do me any good, to put it mildly

[nathi]

>What kind of conflict, if any, would you like to see in the game?
>Or, if you don't want any conflict in illarion and would prefer for it to be forever peaceful, why?

I am of the opinion that a conflict is an essential part of good role-playing. As with most things, however, the dosage should be observed.
In my opinion, a conflict role-play can only maintain the right dose if the participants do not already have OOC conflicts with each other. In addition, the script of a conflict roleplay should not be prescribed, but should allow for the development of the individual characters.
Roleplaying can be very multifaceted. The interests and inclinations of players are just as varied. Personally, I am a dreamer and like a certain amount of lore in the game. Lore is game background and based on the facets of roleplaying, that doesn't mean I appreciate the heal world or the best-friends-ever behavior in Illarion. Conflict is a much more important basis for lore in the game. Therefore, conflict roleplaying gladly, but only with a healthy background, and with the possibility to determine its own role in it.

lg nathi

[Exelous]

One of the more infamous points of conflict in VBU history was the whole Cadomyr vs Freemen of Galmair. Most people, when they hear about the 'Freemen', probably just remember the spin-off group of chars that were expelled from Galmair and ultimately became outlawed in most realms. Actually, the Freemen comprised a majority of Galmairian citizens (ie not currently criminals) that decided to stand up against what they believed was a tyrannical leadership (Ssarney + co (with their much loved-by-all allies = bearers of fire)) in Cadomyr. There was an ongoing tension but the straw that broke the camel's back, as the saying goes, was Ssarney and Xanthe attacking Galmair gate guards (player ones, not npcs) - because said gate-guards were skilling archery at the gates during the quiet hours of Mas. PO Ssarney roleplayed that his char was under the impression that he was being attacked (because they had just wandered through the gate portal and ran in front of us when firing arrows). The result was that Cadomyr officials attacked Galmair guards. The roleplay was totally on point and fine - whilst the player behind the screen obviously knew his char wasn't being targetted, he roleplayed it so). This gives you an idea of how the tension had grown and how players spiced it up to make it more interesting. The conflict had nothing to do with GMs. It was organically produced by players. Anyway, the end result was Cadomyr's leadership challenging Galmair's warriors to a battle outside the gates of the sand kingdom. Can you imagine the audacity lol? Some have said that we're quite capable of making our own conflict roleplay and shouldn't rely on gms so much. Well, we didn't. And civilians who didn't want to take part in the battle didn't have to.

The battle was clearly a setup - it was on Cadomyr territory (home advantage) and the Cadomyrians had already called upon their Runewick allies to stand with them in battle. Perhaps the Galmairian Freemen wouldn't have accepted the challenge, had it not been for the great insult the characters believed they had endured. Through the tense atmosphere, no Galmairian had lifted a finger against the Cadomyr tyrant and his goombas. Now, we're talking about probably 15 Galmairian Freemen players (maybe more) against a similar amount on the other side (although, the Cads and Wickers probably had a couple more). That's a lot of players who wanted to enjoy a conflict - and ultimately, that day, we did. The battle (which was pretty much praised by all) took place and so did the messy fallout afterward - which seemed to determine and shape the future of many characters and player activity. Cadomyr and Runewick won the battle and the Freemen returned to Galmair. Well, some Freemen who were not felled orchestrated an attack on the celebrating victors, which caused some problems for those individuals. My character was even pkd by the Queen herself - not sure many hold that badge of honor.

The numbers in the ranks of the Freemen lowered and there were characters in leadership roles within the Freemen that were soon branded criminals and outlaws (Lord Gray origin story, perhaps?) - not just in Cadomyr and Runewick but also Galmair. The game-masters allowed the battle to go ahead but the leadership of Galmair, rightly or wrongly (that's a matter of opinion), was against the battle. I suspect that, because there were so many players involved and such a tense recent-history between the realms, most players just assumed that their realm leader would hop on board and be fully supportive of the endeavor - under the impression that realm leaders were sort of mascots, rather than an iron-fist ruler. Perhaps the Don made the right decision roleplay wise, in order to protect his own interests, but can we say that it was the right decision for the longevity of activity? in Retrospect, perhaps it was the right roleplay decision (if you measure success by the fact that the realms are at peace) but I'm not sure that is necessarily true. Perhaps not the right decision when it came to encouraging activity and ongoing level-playing-field conflict roleplay imho. Of course, I doubt anyone would disagree that those who broke the rules of battle engagement (ie the afterward in-realm ambush) facing repercussions was legitimate. However, Cadomyr never truly faced any repercussions for their actions against Galmair. In the eyes of many chars (and certainly players) this made the Galmairian leadership appear weak and even as though the game was rigged against such a realm-on-realm conflict. One that Galmair didn't even really start - I guess you can say many believed we were the 'victims'. Some would also believe that it was exactly ooc friendships and ties that formed such decisions. You'd be hard pressed, though, to point a singular finger of blame but because the interests of a fragile stability of peace (between realm leaders) was favored over a direction that might have encouraged a lot of organically produced player-activity and conflict, this ultimately removed a veil that showed that the fate of illarion wasn't necessarily in the players' hands. It broke something and, as a result, people left and people fell out with each other. You know how the story goes. I don't think anyone wants all out chaos to rule Illarion. However, it can certainly help to have some. And why not have realm leaders fall out with each other? They are politicians, in the end. Special interests can just bring them back together.

Regardless, the event itself was pretty fun for all involved, which is why it was a shame that it never really occurred again in such an organic way. So, why do I even bring it up? I bring it up because I believe it was the catalyst for a certain divide with the community. Was it just a certain group of players that wanted such conflicts and have most of them left? Do players not try anymore because they think such a thing will get shut down? Is this one of the things that caused a low player count? Legitimate questions, I think. Perhaps I'm a dinosaur around here and remember stuff that isn't seen as applicable today. Or maybe stuff in the past led us to a point of where we are now? Of course these things can be fixed. Why not? The landscape in Illarion isn't the same as it was back then. It's just some opinions of jaded players are perhaps stuck in the past. If someone becomes too much of a problem then report them, ban them or speak to them and find a middle ground. Sometimes the slate needs wiped clean or else things have a habit of going around in circles. Maybe the staff needs some additional new blood, so that Slightly isn't responsible for everything.

Lastly, I don't think there's an endemic of metagaming, cheating and bad behavior in illa. Dare to dream, don't stay jaded, have fun and let players have fun. If it gets crazy, that's life.

[Drathe]

It is refreshing to read some sensible thoughts, opinions and the history on them for a change, from all that have shared on this important subject to the game. All respectful like, Bravo.

I would like to note that we have all spoken about conflict here in its grander forms such as town "war" and larger scale. But conflict can and is an integral part of simpler character relationships (*edit* as also mentioned by Clairette above*), that I also find very difficulty to play in the current climate and low player count.

i.e, conflict of hearts (of lovers), conflict of interests (two respectful parties want to metaphorically walk different paths). There is conflict of characters (too similar). Conflict of morals between people (we kill them tonight. No I cant have that on my conscience) and so on.

As said, I have found even that smaller, more contained and localised play an uphill endeavor. Even characters who live life in the grey, anything other than playing an ally or “good” with the few players that are left (not necessarily their fault/more a cause and effect of low player count) will swiftly have you ending up distanced (again, understandable RP cause and effect). Or turning up to play or be around events totally out of character and/or narrative reason to be there. I have absolutely no answer or offering of solution to this other than a hopeful rise in player count or to be blessed with conducting such RP with a player who can balance it as best as you can.

I’ve also found people to swiftly absorb such RP negatively into the OOC/meta and become stressed out or entrenched in a position off screen that is simply not conducive to the common thrown out phrase of “we all play together, not against each other.” This is a difficult one to overcome without good old ooc chats and at times, “passionate” ones to get that frustration out and then build towards a solution. Trouble is, we are all of such varying levels of maturity, ability and tolerance and we put such time, effort and passion into our characters and stories that this is by nature problematic, and ironically usually ends in petty conflict we find un-fun and draining without a middle ground found.

It this I would surmise that taints every ones view and opinion of “in game conflict”. People use this game as a genuine escape from reality for a multitude of reasons. Mental health, limiting physical health, boredom, daily life stress, the grind of life, social needs, etc. To have to deal with the meta aggravation and stress is not a wanted outcome. Hell even for people who just play games for the fun, who wants to come away feeling stressed! So I fully appreciate the want to withdraw and mitigate any form of risk factor that may induce it. I also understand a reasoning for GM’s to limit the risk and work in this area to.

But here in lies an issues. Illarion is not a single player rpg. We have to play and sometimes work at that play rather than just indulge in the wanting it our way attitude. (We all say we don’t but we do, even me). Without meaningful player driven and lead conflict with some sort of narrative to direct its flow, both in local play between chars and in the grander scale of town Vs town. There is no ying and yang, no black to scale the white to, no cold hate to be warmed by love, no risk to steak for reward, no defeat to fall into for victory to be climbed, no feast to be had for challenges overcome. What brings the towns together and pushed them apart? What truly tests their metal and character of said towns? What adventure or gossip is there to chat around the kitchen cook pot over. True, we have GM led things, Letma in point, but while that helps, the pallet for our characters to paint their pictures is muted, limited and dull. It’s not by our creation, by organic impulse. To me, all towns neutral and letma the comon "bad" is a colour by numbers with a back and white pallet. And thats fine, it's good, but I want us to draw and paint our own pictures in multi colour as well.

Are we fulfilling the games potential by having it keep to the safety of what it has become? Keeping the towns all but neutral and stagnant. No true player driven narratives or direction truly supported by staff? - A small tangent, but the only town that had a drive to make some narrative and with an availabilty of change via leadership was/is Wick. I think it is a fair statment to say that did not work out due to a lack of forth coming, open and honest comunication and a willingness of players and GM to meet in the middle and support player drive and narrative. ?An over effect of keeping the game statusquo as mentioned in an above post?

Something I noted over the past month. The game server has been pretty much empty for the majority of the time save for the usual few at the usual select few hours. Except for a notable spike recently. An event centred all be it around Letma, an event who’s whole premiss was conflict and fighting? That brought in players. Very much food for thought in this topic.

There will hopefully come a time when player housing and/or magic sytem will be introuduced. That will indeed entice some players back and hopefully have some new ones stay. But one thing I feel sure of is, if we do not make some genuine changes in attitude in how we play and enjoy a balance of conflict by making use of the towns. We will be back here again and have wasted another oppotunity. The game is and always has been about the diverse player stories, narratives and the -=+ conflicts +=-. You might fear it but it needs a measured dose of the chaos.

[Drathe]

No staff input, opinion or thoughts here?

[Amelia Rotholz]

No staff input, opinion or thoughts here?

Well, understandable in a way.
Whatever they would answer, someone would nail them on their words, sadly.
The curse of being a staff member is, that you have to pick every word like dancing on egg shells.
You know, we have some people who would probably turn it against them, no matter what they say.

But I'm sure, the initiative of this discussion is very appreciated.

[Drathe]

Shying away from meaningful discussion only entrenches opinions and furthers resolutions or coming together of new apporaches. In a game where the active player base is becoming sparce and continuing to do so, you would have thought there would be a more active voice from some staff on topics like this? And from other town leader players one of which is the GM so has two perspectives on this subject.

[Achae Eanstray]

Would making a proposal be beneficial?

[Amelia Rotholz]

Would making a proposal be beneficial?

If it is about the original topc of "conflicts within the game", why not?