Hooray for common sense and responsible roleplay. It's not a competition - it's cooperative storywriting. In regards to combat system troubles - they rely on concrete rules and a solid world structure. In a D&D manual you'll find pages entirely devoted to racial statistics and even world history. Shadowrun? Those books go on for volumes. Even games like Numenera* that break genre norms and story classification have chapters devoted to the stuff. Starbound though? Starbound rebels against having a solid canon. Mechanically speaking, different races have purely cosmetic differences. The pages of lore are tiny and scattered around the IC universe for dedicated players to pick up and for many other players to ignore. One player's completely reasonable assumptions about glitch culture may be violently different from another player's completely reasonable assumptions about the same thing. They're a hivemind of medieval space robots. Sort of. Except not? Maybe. I guess? On a small scale, combat systems in Starbound can work very well. Take the Taranis arena! Most people who fight there enjoy their bouts and they are easy enough to handle. There's a specific location where any who wish to participate in RP are given a structure for their RP there. A job well done. Anything larger though risks alienating players. Tell a group of people in a relatively unstructured storytelling environment that they have to conform to player-created rules that they might not agree with or ever need to use? Hackles will rise. Use 'em when appropriate I say! And otherwise follow rule number one! *If you're upset that dice-rolling systems are entirely too random, play Numenera with 2d10 (as opposed to 1d20). It will change your whole world.
Ya guys wanna stop derailing my thread now? The argument of Rolls Vs Honer is a good one and all but this is not the thread for it. The hell outta here
No, the point is to win. That's why you use the dice roll system, to create a sense of fairness where two people have conflicting end goals. Literally, it's a way to resolve a problem between individuals that disagree with each other. Why favour randomization over compromise? Because they can't compromise? If they were able to actually coordinate their roleplay and make a scene look good, they wouldn't need the dice system, and if they aren't, then why are they roleplaying with each other? It's not that hard of an idea to understand. Consent rules are essentially worse than actual godmoding. "I don't consent to this" can be used for anything the player doesn't like on an OOC level. It's the equivalent of saying "I'm not going to do that specific thing and I am legally allowed to do that within the rules of the game, so pluck you." Address the problem at the source. Enforce that there has to be an understanding beforehand that a character can get into a situation where they could die, and if you can't come to an agreement of how the situation can be resolved, just don't roleplay with each other. There is nothing more unfun than trying to create something with a person you fundamentally disagree with.
What do you mean that behavior is unacceptable? If it makes sense in the context of their surroundings anyone should be able to do what they want. The den dosn't stop people from bringing weapons in, so a nutcase can walk right in and start lobbing grenades into bars if they dam well please. When it comes to rp it dosn't matter if you don't like what someone else does, Heres another one of my rules. "If it makes sense in context, deal with it in character" The IC-IC rule! Get it it?
Seconded. A discussion on realistic/fair/creatively appropriate combat should be saved for another topic. As a summary, I believe the conclusion was: 'Concent needs reworked. Some kind of mutual system that supports fair play and ensures people can be realistically held responsible for violent action.' Layman's terms? Killing is bad, and you should feel bad. And because people are naturally competitive, there needs to be a way to keep them from violently attacking people and then hiding behind consent to get out of it. Addendum: YOU ONLY NEED CONSENT FOR DEATH! Godsakes people, you can hurt whoever you want, but blatantly executing them requires consent. There is literally nothing that says you cannot shoot someone. Only that you can't force death on them.
So make behaviour like that against the rules. It's no different than disrupting roleplay on an OOC level. How is that hard?
Thats to bad! Look, some people are gunna do what they're gunna do. Its up to you to decide how it effects your character.
What do you mean 'against the rule'. Do you mean like have the den start confiscating weapons or what? If you want to tell me there should be a rule telling people they aren't allowed to roll psycopathic gun toting grenade lobbin killfaces then you need to explain the logic there, cause I see none.
The answer: it doesn't. People like that are not any different from griefers. They contribute nothing to RP and just screw it up for everyone else. Having out-of-character rules against disruptive roleplay will prevent roleplay from being disrupted without the necessity of a stupid dice rolling system for a 2d spaceman game or legal godmoding.
"Its disruptive to my rollplay so I want it removed, screw the idea that anyone but myself not be engaged in anything and may benefit from an instance being dropped on me or my general area." Look if you don't want something effecting your character then fine, you can rp your character out of the situation, but saying it should a server wide ooc ban is asinine for a multitude of reasons.
Worse. It's like saying that you don't want any conflict to happen around you because it might effect your character just by being in the same area. This is bad. Such a 'void or die' mentality stops progression in its tracks. That's like having a gunfight break out, and then telling everyone to void it because you were in the middle of a conversation.
You're victim blaming. Don't do that. It is entirely better to enforce that people cannot do things than it is to enforce that people not be affected by it.
Again, you keep operating with the assumption that there's a disagreement in the first place. The dice system isn't an end to a means, it's simply a means; some people don't have the ability to gauge when the faults within their characters in terms of combat show up. Others find it funner just to leave it to chance instead of thinking it through and working around that situation. The conflict that you're talking about can arise in a dice-roll system, but it can also arise in every single other system; you talk about allocating the problem to it's source, but you keep treating the system as the problem instead of the roleplayer itself. As I've said before, I like the dice system; but I've already stated it's flaws in it's practicality. I'm not going to discuss this aspect of the topic anymore, out of respect for the person who made this thread that wants to keep it on-topic. Ah, yes, so a roleplayer who has had absolutely no problem with their roleplay style that acts in a fair way should be lumped as part of the problem with another roleplayer who honestly does not care about other people's opinions the moment they interact with each other and have a disagreement. Yep, totally everyone's fault there. Consent /is/ a system. It's an extremely simple system that can deal with a situation in seconds, but it is a system none-the-less. There is a cause, and an effect. Most of the time, the cause is dumb. Sometimes, the effect is dumb. But without it, the people that you say you can ignore can't be ignored anymore, since you can't tell them that you don't want to roleplay, and without that rule keeping it in check, they'll happily just incorporated whatever dumb thing they did into their canon and walk away scot-free, unless what they did is so egregious that it was either god-modding, power-gaming, or whatever else it is. In fact, you keep refuting the concept of consent, with consent! Just because the concept is extended to a group doesn't make it any different, especially when it involves rule-breaking. Apathy is the worst kind of tolerance, and removing the only thing that lets you ignore them while relying on the "good faith and spirit of the people", especially when a good amount of them don't bother showing screenshots or logs of incidents, despite how much faith we have in a community, never, ever ends well. As I and many others said before, the rules in LM involving consent with drawing a weapon is the most effective way to combat this.
Its less 'You shouldn't have been there' and more 'its a shame you were there when it happened'. If you don't want the rp to effect you, then find some way to deal with it in character, you hide till its over, beat feet, fight, whatever, if this ban were to be instated then a whole slew of ig events would have never happened. You're proposing an extreme that wouldn't even partially fix whats wrong with the consent system. Often times its not even some gun toting dick being a dick about the consent thing, its a guy who walks in, starts crap and then dosn't wanna get tazed and tossed like the pud he is.
+ How hard is it to actually understand that randomization is a method of solving a problem and that if there was no problem, there would be no need for a system to solve it? The most effective way to create a favorable outcome for all persons involved in a problem is compromise. Through compromise, all persons involved in this problem receive a resolution that is favorable. Randomization instead creates a clear winner and loser; one person has a favorable outcome and the other person has a negative outcome. Negative outcomes are unwanted and this is where consent causes more problems by refusing to accept the negative outcome. Remove the possibility of a negative outcome. All problems must be resolved through compromise to produce favorable outcomes for persons involved. If a person is incapable of compromise, then they should not be present in the system.
I would respond, but like I said: If you're seriously going to be die-hard about this (harhar), then make your own thread and call me over so we can discuss it in a more fitting location.
You seriously must have issues if you'd much rather interpret what I just said as a buffer for your own argument over respecting the wishes of someone who said not to go off on a tangent on a thread about something else entirely. It ends now. I am not responding to anything else you say here from this post on.
