Roleplaying: Dialogue and Being Murdered Are The Same Thing

[Marlon P.]

This is not a vaguepost. While I've held all the positions in this thread for a long time, this OP addresses a philosophy of Roleplay from another thread that I vehemently disagree with. This other philosophy, which is objectively wrong, and also damaging to the community, is that roleplay and death exist on opposite ends on a spectrum.

The foundation of Aurora's entire gameplay and philosophy of gameplay is that you are not in charge of what ultimately happens to your character. By joining a round you agree that forces will act upon this character up to and including death, and that you agree to respond to these circumstances as in-character as you can.

This is the same rule in Dungeons and Dragons and any TTRPG with a game-master or an emphasis on collaborative story-telling. Once you enter into a group project you surrender part of your autonomy in your character to other individuals in the group.

That is why in games like DnD your character can die without you having any control over it. Sometimes people who play TTRPG's have to have it explained to them that they aren't in charge of what happens to their character. Sometimes they die and that's that.

RP is not just dialogue. Roleplaying is only playing a role through the character you're spawned in as. If you died in a way you feel is "without RP", that does not mean that you died without dialogue. Dying without RP removed your ability to play your character's role in the situation. However, if that situation involves your character dying suddenly, and the methods by which you died followed escalation, then you died with roleplay.

The most damaging source of dialogue being considered the ideal of roleplay in which any encroachment is seen as a negative is due to the labels of Heavy vs Low-RP. For almost a decade now the server's own acceptance of the label has allowed the damaging idea of dialogue trumping other elements of RP to proliferate. Pushback from the feds has always been that "Murder tells a story". While true, it does not address the root cause of the issue of people defining roleplay exclusively through dialogue.

Even if from a personal perspective a character dies without any RP or escalation - because we do not have control of our characters - the story takes preeminence over his character. Escalation does not exist as a meter that must individually be filled for every single character. It only requires that the antagonists or protagonists, in the service of the story, have a reason that an outside observer - staff - can consider reasonable.

These build to the argument that combat, murder, and RP do not exist on separate ends of an axis. They are the same thing. Combat, being murdered, being mirked, being suddenly airlocked, messaging a friend about the station's bad smell lately, being strangled 40 minutes after being spawned, sitting in a room talking about plans after work, getting current dialogue interrupted by a bomb, are all equally roleplay.

Edited November 6, 2021 by Marlon P.

[Faye <3]

i think that this is sort of a callous take. people (generally) roleplay to enjoy themselves and have fun, and a lot of people (myself included) are total big babies about character death. my definition of fun is, generally speaking, not character death. sure, it is roleplay. but to me, and probably a few other people, it isn't fun roleplay. people put a lot of love and work and effort into their characters, and having them die goes against that. some people enjoy that, but many others don't.  i think that it's fine to not want your character to die, but in that same vein i think it then becomes your responsibility to moderate what kind of roleplay you involve yourself with. for example, i'm a big bitch about having my characters killed - I really don't like it. Therefore, I do not attend any events that are outright violent. For me, attending the big murdery slasher event arc, that alb repeatedly stated would be very violent, was a no-brainer in regards to not going.

 

if you do not want your characters to die, i think that is respectable and a valid decision. however, it then becomes your responsibility to avoid risking your character. that means not attending violent events, and not doing stupid shit if you do go to an event. if you don't want your character to die, and you attend the event that's been described as gigafuck hellkiller 9000, then that's your fault IMO.

[Boggle08]

I remember in 2019 when the station would regularly escalate into indiscriminate, chaotic fits of violence. Many considered these to be good rounds, and upon completion, they were promptly followed up with voted extended rounds that people actually stuck around for.

I'm very guilty of being attached to my characters. I put so much investment into them that I'm hesitant to bring them into canon events. But extremely chaotic rounds were very common and sought after before they slowly died off, and all of my characters are designed to weather these in some way. Frankly, I agree that we need to bring back bloodsport a little; It's the chaotic rounds where our characters are pressed to interact with people they would normally never fuck with, and have their absolute potential tested. The extended rounds afterwards were a much more valuable reprieve.

Tangentially related, I've also noticed that people are becoming increasingly anti-gameplay in discussions. That adding obligations or additional mechanical features to departments is somehow terrible and detracts from roleplay, When our two most consistently popular departments(medical and security) Feature both fore-mostly. A part of investment in this game is having your actions be meaningful, even if it's only in the immediate sense or within the confines of the round. Even if these things don't remain canon, they remain in story and memory. The interactions your dudes have with others are more often than not eligible to carry over as well.

I know we're all here for characterization and a narrative driven experience, but I don't think part of that is turning our game into a padded second life lobby.

[Butterrobber202]

I think the true test of a character is their death. You can really see how important your character was to other characters in their absence. Though the most impactful form of character death is canon death, and you only get one bullet for that.

2 hours ago, Marlon P. said:

you are not in charge of what ultimately happens to your character.

This is something a lot of players forgot; especially during canon rounds. Rather than thinking, “Man, my character got killed because of an IC threat.” The player is offended that the Staff Member behind the threat is personally responsible and perhaps even out to get them specifically.

Our Setting is not a safe place. Between Corporate putting people into dangerous conditions for the bottom line, ruthless pirates and scum that would gut people for a credit, terrorists fighting against anyone they believe is oppressing them, and more. 

As for the chaos and bloodsport, it’s usually quite cyclical. The more chaotic the first round, the more extended voters you get wanting to cool down. I enjoy being on both sides of the fight. High chaos rounds provide your characters the stress they need to act drastically different than their usual MO. It can be great fun to RP a stressed character, working with people they normally wouldn’t be with. 

That said, chaos all the time would not be fun. These moments of panic and fear mean nothing if there are not times of calm and peace to contrast them.
 

tl:dr

chaos and death good in measured quantities

[KingOfThePing]

4 hours ago, Boggle08 said:

I remember in 2019 when the station would regularly escalate into indiscriminate, chaotic fits of violence. Many considered these to be good rounds, and upon completion, they were promptly followed up with voted extended rounds that people actually stuck around for.

I'm very guilty of being attached to my characters. I put so much investment into them that I'm hesitant to bring them into canon events. But extremely chaotic rounds were very common and sought after before they slowly died off, and all of my characters are designed to weather these in some way. Frankly, I agree that we need to bring back bloodsport a little; It's the chaotic rounds where our characters are pressed to interact with people they would normally never fuck with, and have their absolute potential tested. The extended rounds afterwards were a much more valuable reprieve.

Tangentially related, I've also noticed that people are becoming increasingly anti-gameplay in discussions. That adding obligations or additional mechanical features to departments is somehow terrible and detracts from roleplay, When our two most consistently popular departments(medical and security) Feature both fore-mostly. A part of investment in this game is having your actions be meaningful, even if it's only in the immediate sense or within the confines of the round. Even if these things don't remain canon, they remain in story and memory. The interactions your dudes have with others are more often than not eligible to carry over as well.

I know we're all here for characterization and a narrative driven experience, but I don't think part of that is turning our game into a padded second life lobby.

I cannot stress how much I agree with this.

 

Also, people pretend like dying is a game ender. You have 20 minutes and then you can literally jump back into it. A lot of people are also CLEARLY scared to kill people now, because players get buttblasted about it and no one wants to deal with complaints (totally understandable). I vividly remember a round where my captain got held at gunpoint and the dude KNEW I WILL RAT HIM OUT TO SECURITY THE SECOND HE RUNS AWAY BUT STILL LET ME LIVE. Because he was afraid I get mad when he shoots me. It's stupid. Killing someone can drive a story. Even if you receive maybe only three lines of dialogue, it can drive a round.

 

Please kill my characters if it helps your round. Please kill my characters if you have no choice. Please kill my characters when it would be stupid to let them live. PLEASE DONT THINK THAT DELIVERING 20 MINUTES OF DIALOGUE IS THE ONLY WAY TO RP.

Edited November 7, 2021 by KingOfThePing

[Colfer]

4 minutes ago, KingOfThePing said:

A lot of people are also CLEARLY scared to kill people now, because players get buttblasted about it and no one wants to deal with complaints

I've stopped playing traitor, raider, burglar and ninja, cult all-together because im worried that because a unathi ran into maintenance and started reporting me, IM the one thats going to get in trouble for killing him because I didn't go edgar allan poe on him. Even if I told him "I'm going to kill you if you report me to the authorities". It does not seem fair that security is not burdened by this same fear 99% of the time.

I agree with KingOfThePing's statement 100%, I am very scared to kill people because I do not want to deal with a player complaint. Especially when my killing is justified.

The only antagonists I play now are cortical borers and changelings and occasionally technomancer because those dont require me to kill people to preform an interesting story.

Please kill my characters if it helps your round. Please kill my characters if you have no choice. Please kill my characters when it would be stupid to let them live. PLEASE DONT THINK THAT DELIVERING 20 MINUTES OF DIALOGUE IS THE ONLY WAY TO RP.

[Alberyk]

Antags don't need to monologue or do some kind of exposition when killing people. However, murders needs a purpose or reason. You can't just go around murdering everyone just because you can.

 

Now about events, I agree somewhat with what Faye said. If you join an event that might be violent, you are taking the risk. Don't want to die, don't go to where you might die. I don't agree on the fun aspect. Fun is subjective, thus we strive for what is interesting/creates roleplay. It is more of a greater good approach than trying to appease everyone's wants.

[Marlon P.]

Related to another recent: Being captured tied down and interrogated is a form of roleplay, not stripping you from having roleplay.

The cultural problem really is a rejection of the idea of having no control over one's character and the circumstances they are in.

How can this be addressed on an individual and systemic level?

[Zulu0009]

On 07/11/2021 at 01:47, KingOfThePing said:

Also, people pretend like dying is a game ender. You have 20 minutes and then you can literally jump back into it.

Heavy disagree with this and OP. I only have one character, and I focus on that character most. While it's entirely acceptable to not want such depth, it's a little insulting to dismiss any concerns about death because of your personal opinions. Plenty of people have deep links with other characters, and dying every other round simply weakens the gravity of actual death. After the tenth time mourning and crying, you don't really feel like mourning and crying anymore. Dying is literally a game ender for some people, people like me who don't have 10 characters to fall back upon and who would like to focus on one at a time. While I don't think death is always bad, I don't agree with such extremism regarding the issue. Simple reason? Some people don't have the ability to play more than one round every day.

Please don't kill my character just because it helps your round. There are other ways beside removing me from the game.
Please don't kill my character if you don't have a choice. There is always a choice.
Please don't kill my character if it is stupid to let them live. There is no situation during which letting someone live is stupid.
Please don't think that death is the only way to deliver an interesting round.

The focus on death and destruction is, personally, boring and unoriginal. Aurora enjoys an expansive lore, frequently updated news, yet the antagonist's goal always ends up being petty theft, some weak political cause ("SCC bad, expose them or die") or plain murder. Frankly speaking, you are a boring and unoriginal antagonist if you have to rely upon murder to further your goals. If you really cannot think of anything but murder, do not play as an antagonist. If you truly believe that there are situations during which "letting someone live is stupid" then do not play as an antagonist.

There are infinite ways to enhance the enjoyment of others without falling upon powerplay self-jerking methods such as the classic, aforementioned "I have a nuke, do this thing you are entirely incapable of doing or die." Antagonists MUST not focus on themselves and their own cool escapades. Their goal is to provide an enemy to the station that they must fight, not use the opportunity to feel powerful and strong. Too many times I have participated in rounds where the entire gimmick was "I am here to steal your money and leave" that left absolutely zero engagement to the crew and only affected Security. As a bartender or surgeon, I simply could not care less whether you drain the station's funds. How have you improved or affected my round? How have you made it more enjoyable? You haven't.

There is a very annoying trend of antagonists who fail to keep the basics of antagonist play in mind, and only focus on their own enjoyment of the round. Of course it's fun to steal money and escape. Of course it's fun to nuke the station with no way of letting the crew stop it (yes, I am still angry about that round). But what have you accomplished, then? How have you made my round spicier?

[OffRoad99]

On 07/11/2021 at 02:01, Colfer said:

I've stopped playing traitor, raider, burglar and ninja, cult all-together because im worried that because a unathi ran into maintenance and started reporting me, IM the one thats going to get in trouble for killing him because I didn't go edgar allan poe on him. Even if I told him "I'm going to kill you if you report me to the authorities". It does not seem fair that security is not burdened by this same fear 99% of the time.

I agree with KingOfThePing's statement 100%, I am very scared to kill people because I do not want to deal with a player complaint. Especially when my killing is justified.

The only antagonists I play now are cortical borers and changelings and occasionally technomancer because those dont require me to kill people to preform an interesting story.

Please kill my characters if it helps your round. Please kill my characters if you have no choice. Please kill my characters when it would be stupid to let them live. PLEASE DONT THINK THAT DELIVERING 20 MINUTES OF DIALOGUE IS THE ONLY WAY TO RP.

I've played as an Antag 1-3 times and I always regretted it.
Killing or attacking someone for whatever reason, whether you are playing as Sec or antag, is a surefire way to get blasted into dchat or get a player complaint.

That being said, I've often been killed by antags and I never complained about it (what I do is complain that I sucked in a fight). I recognize that I am playing a character in a job where injury or death is more than possible, especially when you're expected to confront armed intruders who often outgun you in every aspect.

Like with many other roleplaying games and communities, violence and death/injuries are part of the roleplay. It can suck, but it happens. Even LOSING can be fun.
 

[Marlon P.]

3 hours ago, Zulu0009 said:

There is a very annoying trend of antagonists who fail to keep the basics of antagonist play in mind, and only focus on their own enjoyment of the round. Of course it's fun to steal money and escape. Of course it's fun to nuke the station with no way of letting the crew stop it (yes, I am still angry about that round). But what have you accomplished, then? How have you made my round spicier?

Of course you're not having fun. Youre rejecting the premise of the game we set up.

If you hate baseball and go to a baseball game of course you're going to hate the entire thing and have a lot to say about what a waste of time it all is. "The pitcher throws the same ball at the same place every single time! The bases NEVER move! The game is the exact same every time. How can people enjoy this?"

Its still roleplay. Its just roleplay you don't like. But its roleplay you agree to participate in by playing.

Most of your control over your character is surrendered to others as soon as you join a round. Same for them to you.

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Marlon P.
Learned how to spell "you're"

[KingOfThePing]

 

I 100% agree with Marlon here again. 

2 hours ago, Zulu0009 said:

Heavy disagree with this and OP. I only have one character, and I focus on that character most. While it's entirely acceptable to not want such depth, it's a little insulting to dismiss any concerns about death because of your personal opinions.

It is also pretty insulting to indirectly imply that people who play more than one character have characters with "not enough depth" or something similar. You choose to play a singular character, this is fine, a lot of players do that, but this does not elevate you over others. If you dont have another character, then play a ghost role, maintenance drone or whatever. What you write is exactly the "problem" that is discussed here in length. Roleplay does not mean you are always 100% in control of what happens with or around your character. Calling other players boring and unoriginal, just because they don't come up with a never before seen gimmick before is also just really rude. The argument about time restraints is also very subjective. During work/uni days and even during some saturdays and sundays I can only play 1 round (sometimes even none, believe it or not) and how much time you can play a video game every day is simply a non-argument on why someone should be allowed to kill you in-game or not. Aurora is also far from being focused death and destruction.

I abstain from quoting your post apart because Marlon already said everything nessecary, but still, some things you wrote really make me scratch my head and make it look like you have a very narrow-minded view on how a good antagonist play should look like. This is by no means an insult, this is just how your post makes it appear to be.

[Zulu0009]

3 hours ago, Marlon P. said:

Most of your control over your character is surrendered to others as soon as you join a round. Same for them to you.

There is such a thing as respectful manipulation of my characters and disrespectful manipulation. I don't join a D&D campaign only to have the DM or the other characters throw mine around like a volleyball. In the same way, I am surrendering some freedom, and if you abuse it, it's on you.

2 hours ago, KingOfThePing said:

 

It is also pretty insulting to indirectly imply that people who play more than one character have characters with "not enough depth" or something similar.

If you dont have another character, then play a ghost role, maintenance drone or whatever.

The moment that you dismiss the fact that someone might not have many characters with "just play a maintenance drone" is when, maybe, you should revisit your point. What I essentially gathered from this entire thread is that people are warranted to kill my character and I have no say in it, if they're "justified." And afterwards, I either make a new character or play a maintenance drone. Is this really all there is to "RP" now?

2 hours ago, KingOfThePing said:

 

Calling other players boring and unoriginal, just because they don't come up with a never before seen gimmick before is also just really rude.

Is it that much to ask, not to see the umpteenth "Spare ID gets stolen, funds get drained, thief leaves" gimmick? I have seen a few antagonists do things that were not even outstandingly different, but different enough. I never said that the gimmick needs to be "never before seen" but with how many tools traitors get, you'd think that I could list more than two or three typical antagonist rounds.

[Marlon P.]

3 minutes ago, Zulu0009 said:

Is it that much to ask, not to see the umpteenth "Spare ID gets stolen, funds get drained, thief leaves" gimmick? I have seen a few antagonists do things that were not even outstandingly different, but different enough. I never said that the gimmick needs to be "never before seen" but with how many tools traitors get, you'd think that I could list more than two or three typical antagonist rounds.

What can antagonists do, that can be repeated round to round, do to both create roleplay and also fulfill your criteria for what makes the correct kind of rp?

[KingOfThePing]

11 minutes ago, Zulu0009 said:

There is such a thing as respectful manipulation of my characters and disrespectful manipulation. I don't join a D&D campaign only to have the DM or the other characters throw mine around like a volleyball. In the same way, I am surrendering some freedom, and if you abuse it, it's on you.

Comparing 2 hour rounds with week long Pen and Paper campaigns is more than lacking. Compare it with an one shot if you really must and even there I had more than one character die or let die. It's really not a good comparison you are drawing.

 

11 minutes ago, Zulu0009 said:

people are warranted to kill my character and I have no say in it, if they're "justified."

Yes. If it makes sense and there is a reason behind it someone can kill your character. 

 

11 minutes ago, Zulu0009 said:

Is it that much to ask, not to see the umpteenth "Spare ID gets stolen, funds get drained, thief leaves" gimmick? I have seen a few antagonists do things that were not even outstandingly different, but different enough. I never said that the gimmick needs to be "never before seen" but with how many tools traitors get, you'd think that I could list more than two or three typical antagonist rounds.

What gimmicks have you brought to Aurora so far? I'd like to hear examples made by you during the time you played here, since your standards to "good antag play" seem to be quite high.

Edited November 16, 2021 by KingOfThePing

[Alberyk]

You don't have a say in what happens to your character in-game, this is not a book or some totally controlled environment, it is collaborative storytelling. As long it is not breaking the rules, it is fair game.

[Butterrobber202]

5 hours ago, Zulu0009 said:

Please don't kill my character just because it helps your round. There are other ways beside removing me from the game.
Please don't kill my character if you don't have a choice. There is always a choice.
Please don't kill my character if it is stupid to let them live. There is no situation during which letting someone live is stupid.
Please don't think that death is the only way to deliver an interesting round.

The last statement is probably the only one I would consider always true.

If I, an antagonist, have a gaggle of hostages for example, and Security violates terms I've set, it is in my best interests to follow through with my threat and execute a hostage. If I do not do this, Security will continue acting pelvis first without any regard for potential consequences. 

5 hours ago, Zulu0009 said:

I only have one character, and I focus on that character most

What does this have to do with the antagonist that kills you? That was your choice. The Antagonist is not obligated to accommodate you for this choice, in the same way they are obligated not to kill you without a good reason.

5 hours ago, Zulu0009 said:

There are infinite ways to enhance the enjoyment of others without falling upon powerplay self-jerking...

Please name a few, you do a lot of complaining about what is being done without providing any examples of what could be seen as "better."

32 minutes ago, Zulu0009 said:

Is it that much to ask, not to see the umpteenth "Spare ID gets stolen, funds get drained, thief leaves" gimmick?

Being an antagonist is difficult on multiple levels, especially if you are trying to actually please people. Many Antagonist players are in the "new to mid" tier of experience many cases, sometimes, this is all they can do at their current skill level. This goes doubly so when they are pitted against extremely experienced Security players.

[Marlon P.]

As an aside, i appreciate you posting and engaging in the conversation, @Zulu0009. I do not want you to feel dogpiled. My goal is an engagement of the problem. 

Hopefully there are reinforcements for you soon; I know a lot of people agree with your positions and working through them is great.

[Zulu0009]

31 minutes ago, KingOfThePing said:

What gimmicks have you brought to Aurora so far? I'd like to hear examples made by you during the time you played here, since your standards to "good antag play" seem to be quite high.

None, because I do not play antagonist, because I don't have any ideas. However, I have seen plenty of gimmicks that relied on a character's backstory and their connection to others, or based on political issues in Tau Ceti, religion, history.

I must apologize, though, I let myself get a little too heated. I understand where you come from, @Marlon P., and I respect your opinion and the way you proposed it.

[KingOfThePing]

I respect that, it's one of the reasons I don't play antags myself anymore. We should make things easier for the few that do, though. At worst, give them the benefit of the doubt that they dont want to ruin your round on purpose.

Edited November 16, 2021 by KingOfThePing

[Carver]

8 hours ago, Zulu0009 said:

Dying is literally a game ender for some people, people like me who don't have 10 characters to fall back upon and who would like to focus on one at a time.

I'm going to give advice as someone else who is anti-death, but instead of expecting that people appeal to my preference, I take another angle: Try harder to not die.

My objective above all when playing is to try and survive. Death is, a vast majority of the time, entirely avoidable if you're willing to do all manners of things from fleeing at any reasonable risk to avoiding dangerous situations in the first place. You can survive near every round, even playing Security, if you're willing to actively do your best to stay alive - and no one can really stop you from doing it, given it's something most every character ought to do.

My advice to all is that if you don't want to die, then focus more on survival instead of leaving your fate in the hands of others. Above all: be cowardly, use those legs.

[Garnascus]

This is the truest post I have ever seen. Anyone who has ever played DnD intuitively understands cooperative storytelling. You are NOT in charge of what happens to your character. It is just so exhausting seeing the ahelps come in when someone gets killed. 

[Lmwevil]

1 hour ago, Garnascus said:

This is the truest post I have ever seen. Anyone who has ever played DnD intuitively understands cooperative storytelling. You are NOT in charge of what happens to your character. It is just so exhausting seeing the ahelps come in when someone gets killed. 

it's baffling that ss13 draws out such a wrong view on storytelling 

[Garnascus]

1 hour ago, Lmwevil said:

it's baffling that ss13 draws out such a wrong view on storytelling 

Me or?

[Mofo1995]

@Marlon P. I harumph at you good sir! Harumph!