Ryzom

cloudy97 wrote:Roleplaying against a well-made 'evil' character (D&D-style evilness) can be extremely fun, but few can play evil in a way that is amusing for all parts involved. It takes MORE empathy to play such a character. I know I couldn't handle it.

Do we have fun 'evil' characters in the game, apart from NPCs?

Yes, there you've hit the nail on the head. If you truely want to roleplay an evil character, then you will always have your character hurt other characters... in a way that is fun for the players behind those characters. You'd have to remember that even though your character wants to bring pain and misery to other characters, you as player just want to have fun with those players whose characters you're trying to hurt.

This requires a certain compromise on the IC credibility. You'll sometimes have to withhold your character from doing things that logically your character should do, just to keep things fun OOC. If you know that your actions will hurt other players (players, not characters), but you go ahead with them anyway because 'it's true to your character', then you've crossed the line between playing an evil character and being an evil player.

So if a player/character acts in ways as described by Anissa, I believe you have every right to dislike the player as well as the character. They're not just playing that they're selfish, they really are playing in a selfish way, having fun at the expense of others.

Now that all sounds well in theory, but in practice how would one hurt characters in a way that's fun for the players behind it? You don't even have to play an evil character to come across that dilemma, we've seen plenty of it with the outposts. Having their outpost attacked is something some players would enjoy, and some players would hate the attackers for it.

I did briefly consider playing an evil character, but quickly realised I would have no idea how to properly do that. I don't think any player whose character was insulted by Xalis or killed by the Assasin would hold a grudge against the event organisers behind those characters. It's clear that they're playing evil characters in an effort to make the game more fun for us. But if a normal player creates an evil character and goes around insulting and killing other characters, I'm sure they'd soon be hated by a lot of players... So where's the difference here?

Yes, I'm just thinking out loud. I don't know the answers either. Please think along with me if you believe you do

*Thinking out loud with Sidusar*

I think you wrapped up the complete dilemma in one nice, neat, package....How do you play an evil character to have fun, without your "evil fun" being at the expense of other players? The only answer is: It can only be done if *every* player agrees on "what is fun". Unfortunately, this isn't utopia and we all have our own definitions of "what is fun".

What might be fun for one person (for example, fighting over the Supernodes), might not be fun for another person (who just wants to dig in peace with whoever is there). Or someone that wants to RP the sale of an OP, versus those that just think they should be fought for. No one is really *right* or *wrong* because we all think of our "fun" in different ways.

Unfortunately what happens in mmorpgs is that ....some "incident" takes place between two players or guilds. Someone brings it to the forum and half the community has to chime in with name-calling, finger-pointing, and mob mentalities turn what *could* have been quietly and CALMLY resolved, into a riotous drama-fest.

"CvC" (Character vs. Character) and "PvP" (Player vs. Player) are synonomous. Whether it's your character performing the action or not - it's the player that is commanding the pixels to do it. Blaming your character for the actions YOU do is like my daughter (when she was little) blaming her hand for getting into the cookie jar. If you want to play an evil character, then do so with HONOR. If you want to play a "good" character, then do it with HONOR. If you want to wipe out the Kami's because Jena says you should - DO IT WITH HONOR....not just because YOU want power. If you want to wipe out the Karavan because they are a bunch of radical religious fanatics that are destroying Atys...DO IT WITH HONOR....not just because YOU want power.

I do have to mention though...the last couple OP battles I've been to have been very clean, and honorably fought on BOTH sides. I think folks are finally starting to think of how to keep it fun, without getting personal. It's been good to see, and I hope it continues.

lexi44 wrote: I do have to mention though...the last couple OP battles I've been to have been very clean, and honorably fought on BOTH sides. I think folks are finally starting to think of how to keep it fun, without getting personal. It's been good to see, and I hope it continues.

I agree, and of course this is way better than trashtalking, hard feelings, etc it's fun and that's all it matters ... BUT

I can't help thinking this is meaningless from a background / lore perspective. Nothing wrong playing Ryzom as a Counterstrike or Quake... a few frags, all happy, lots of LOLs in region, and so on (I play like this often). Yes, players are gathered in teams, guilds and factions, but... what about the coherence? what about the fact that it's supposed to be a tension, a conflict, what about actions having an impact in the society? what about everything else? if I was to play differently, well, (linking with the CvC), my *character* should have something to say to those who threaten my land, my race, my resources, I would be wary trading to someone who killed me in the name of a fake god, etc.

Even without going that far.. even simple gameplay additions like "having consequences in towns for killing players in PvP". We don't even have that. !!

There is no impact. The fame changes they were put live.. what's the point of being a citizen, a kultist, etc.? none. Wait and see, things will come.

Another point: I wanted to give some meaning to my character background. I decided to be a Karavan follower, in order to become, if enabled, something similar to a Jena priestess, proud, noble and somewhat arrogant Matisian lady... This is one of the reasons I have declined offers to join guilds, etc.

For what we've seen, I could as well have switched my fame up and down at will, join a Kami guild so I can be in a guild with friends currently in game, play on both sides, attack or defend an outpost according to the moon phase, etc., play Ryzom forgetting completely about the RP/lore aspect. And I may as well, every day having less and less reasons to keep it synced with the background. I can praise Jena today, kill a few guards, be Kami, show my Karavan title, join themac, Kye's guild... and forget more and more about the setting.... Counterstrike!

A bit of a pity, imho. That said, the lore / background is stalled, full or weird things, shaked by things like the last treaty, and so on.

lexi44 wrote:How do you play an evil character to have fun, without your "evil fun" being at the expense of other players? The only answer is: It can only be done if *every* player agrees on "what is fun". Unfortunately, this isn't utopia and we all have our own definitions of "what is fun".

Indeed, that's the problem with bringing the theory to the real world. If you play with a small group of people, it's still possible to get some kind of consensus on what every member of he group finds fun. In a MMO with so many players, that's just not possible, and ideas on what's fun are bound to clash.

The main example of this, that we see repeated again and again, first in the Roots, then in the Old Lands and now with the outposts, is the conflict between the competitive and the cooperative players (or the PvPers and the anti-PvPers, if you prefer). The cooperative players say the competitive ones are ruining their fun by forcing them to PvP, and the competitive players say the cooperative ones are ruining their fun by forcing them not to PvP. There's no right or wrong, just different opinions on what's fun and what isn't.

It's impossible to always know whether your ingame actions might add to the fun for other players, or spoil it. And even if it was possible, the ideas on what's fun would still clash, making it impossible to please everyone. Other players might really like it if you harvest mats 24/7 to give to them freely, but I doubt you would be having fun that way. Other players may hate it if you empty the supreme zun before they can, but you have just as much right to it as they do.

I think the best a player can do, under these circumstances, is just to do their best to show that they care about whether the other players are also having fun. You can't always play the way other players want you to, but make it clear you're not intend on getting your way no matter who gets hurt.

I noticed the effect of this on myself back in the temple wars. Sometimes I liked participating in the fighting, but sometimes I just wanted to dig in peace. Ofcourse, the enemy characters would still often kill my character even if I didn't want to fight. Some of the players who did this I ended up disliking, but others I did not. The difference between those groups was that the later players gave me the impression, through their actions or words, that even though they were killing my character, what they wanted was to play and have fun with me. The players I disliked where the ones who gave me the impression that they didn't care whether I was having fun, they just wanted to have their own fun at my expense.

iphdrunk wrote:A bit of a pity, imho.

I agree with that completely.

Though one little point to make, IC tension and conflict between characters inevitable spoils over into OOC tension and conflict between players. I would rather play a game that lacks a bit in IC coherence but where the players are having fun together, than one that has a flawless coherent RP world in which all the players could drink eachother's blood.

I already answered on that topic in another thread here.

**** wrote:The more you play your character close to your own feelings, the more difficulties you will have to stand back when your character is aggressed. But we are not kids, Ryzom is not designed as Carebears world. Nice players may play evil characters. That's called RP and nobody should take offense when my Matis agrees with a Zoraï to say Trykers should be slaves. I don't want to enslave any player. Just my character wants. If you /tell me, I'll laugh with you, help you, etc. And it works exactly the same with Outposts. My character buys all the craps the Karavan says and thinks Kamis are demons, but don't worry for me, I could play the other side without problem. And I think most players know that. Even if some neutral characters players think we are second-rank RPers because the two factions are a too simple vision... but whatever, the Kami/Karavan conflict is far from manicheism. It's not Black and White but rather Black and Black.

I must add that the problem of evil characters that are only a pseudo RP justification to be a pain for other players doesn't come from Roleplay. On the contrary, it is not RP to use characters to justify bad behaviour. There's an easy thing to do to play Evil and have fun with everybody : again do not take your character seriously, keep distance, and then add flaws to your characters. That's what make them interresting.
Nobody cares about the adventures of bob the evil matis who is invinsible and always win. It rather angers people. Now if he has a flaw (but not "being deranged" to justify stupid player behaviour), like crying like a baby when someone criticizes his clothes... everybody will like to play with him. The more stupid it is, the more fun the other players will have.

Why do real RPers play evil, stupid and flawed characters? Of course that's not to take all the mats, xp or trashtalk. Only powergamers do that. RPers don't want to win. They don't care at all. They just play their characters and see what happens. And that's why generally RPers don't like to xp : it gets you closer to your character. So why do they play such characters rather than nice guys? Because it's incredibly boring and flat to play nicely. It's too easy, you just have to copy yourself. Yeah great we're all friend, we have the same feelings than IRL and we all want our world to be better... alright then it's not a roleplaying game but a virtual world. What's the use of having Zoraïs, Matis, Trykers, Fyros, Kamis, Karavan, etc if finally everyone plays a human. Even worse if we play self. Nobody likes obstacles IRL, so ingame you will whine when you'll have one (omg he said no!). But what's interresting in a roleplaying game is to have obstacles. That's where the character will take life. At last you will be able to write an arc that respects the rules of dramaturgy, and the other players instead of reading a book in a library or see it in a theater/on a stage, they will see it in a game where they can take part to the story. Imagine your favorite author that writes his books with you. That's very gratifying. And that's the goal of Roleplay : telling stories. Not justifying dodgy powergaming tactics.


Ok I'm tired, I'll see tomorrow if I can be more clear.

Oh and of course I don't have anything against powergamers... as long as they don't do pseudo-RP to hide dodgy tactics. And an advice for insults : do not use them if you can avoid to use them. All players do not take them well. If you really have to, make them funny (by adding lots of reference of Ryzom's universe and making them childish) and/or tell in private the player why you do that, and give him/her hints on how to interact if s/he's not used to.
"You're father was a yubo and... and... your mother has a moustache too!"
rather than "You *******, I will kill you everytime I see you!"

Ah and don't RP on omniscient chats, that's totally weirdo. Use them to joke and show you player aren't as your character. Use it to help people. You also can help them with your character if you precise "ok your new I'm gonna show you the basis, but next time we'll be rival ". Remember, humour helps a lot to take distance from your character.

katriell wrote:Perhaps the problem with PvP, or rather how people act and react regarding PvP, is that some people take it much too personally. Someone mentioned in another thread that it tears apart friendships. If you can duel a friend in good fun, why can't you fight on the opposite side from them in an outpost or faction battle? Why does it even matter?

Because this should not be player vs. player. It should not be that personal. It should be character vs. character, with no hard feelings felt on the part of the people playing the characters. Maybe this separation isn't distinct enough in the minds of people who don't roleplay, or even in the minds of some who do.

During an outpost battle, I can get mildly annoyed if I keep getting nuked by the same person over and over again or something (*pokes Lexius* ). But after the battle is over, I leave the battle on the battlefield, so to speak. I'll be just as nice and helpful to those I fought against, as I would if we were always on the same side. The only exception to this is if I see an individual or guild consistently using dirty tactics in battles.

Just a thought I've been turning over in my head today...

P.S. Do not turn this thread into another PvP-discussion flamefest. It's not that hard to avoid flaming - just respect the other people posting and above all, be kind.

Well, I think it is a good idea. However, does the name matter that much? It is more of the meaning behind the name. When I think of PvP, I think of a good time nuking my friends or beating them over the head with an axe! If people want to take pvp the wrong way, can we really stop them by changing the name?

One of the better texts on the matter I read in a long time, ****!

**** wrote:Why do real RPers play evil, stupid and flawed characters? Of course that's not to take all the mats, xp or trashtalk. Only powergamers do that. RPers don't want to win. They don't care at all. They just play their characters and see what happens. And that's why generally RPers don't like to xp : it gets you closer to your character. So why do they play such characters rather than nice guys? Because it's incredibly boring and flat to play nicely. It's too easy, you just have to copy yourself. Yeah great we're all friend, we have the same feelings than IRL and we all want our world to be better... alright then it's not a roleplaying game but a virtual world. What's the use of having Zoraïs, Matis, Trykers, Fyros, Kamis, Karavan, etc if finally everyone plays a human. Even worse if we play self. Nobody likes obstacles IRL, so ingame you will whine when you'll have one (omg he said no!). But what's interresting in a roleplaying game is to have obstacles. That's where the character will take life. At last you will be able to write an arc that respects the rules of dramaturgy, and the other players instead of reading a book in a library or see it in a theater/on a stage, they will see it in a game where they can take part to the story. Imagine your favorite author that writes his books with you. That's very gratifying. And that's the goal of Roleplay : telling stories. Not justifying dodgy powergaming tactics.

It seems perfectly clear to me ****, and it hits the nail on the head. Well, a couple of nails...what RP is, and why RP != "justifying powergaming tactics."