Roleplaying: Dialogue and Being Murdered Are The Same Thing

[Skull132]

Good post.

Further points for consideration. From an antagonist perspective, killing someone is often the only way to actually remain "safe". Or "Safest" out of all of the possible alternatives. A majority of characters tend to taddle the moment they're released, even if under some form of threat. Keeping hostages is incredibly costly and basically removes your freedom as an antag, because you have to monitor the hostage, and hostages aren't mobile. Etc. So really, if you get caught doing something naughty, very quickly, aggressively, and violently nuking whoever saw you is the best way to remain safe. Sure, someone's gonna see a murder, but they won't have a clue as to who did it. At least, not initially. "Violence of action" is a very useful principle to adhere to while playing antagonist in SS13, including on Aurora.

Killing someone in such scenarios obviously will not really "offer" any RP to the unfortunate victim. But the idea is that keeping the antagonist alive and safe will allow them to continue affecting the round. And the more an antagonist can affect the round, the more eventful the round is. Ideally, anyways. Obviously many things can happen. Security can shut them down later, they might fuck up, their plan might end up failing, whatever. But such is life.

With regards to what could be done to amend the situation. Here's a thought. Even if the staff end up ruling in favor of an antag from the player complaints, ahelps, etc. that get generated from legitimate killing of characters, there's a considerable amount of mental stress from simply being involved in such activities, moreso as the "target". So perhaps more decisive dismissal, without even touching the implicated player, would benefit the general situation? It would make the antagonist players feel safer, since they no longer get pinged about everything.

Also, anonymizing antagonists further would possibly help. 🤔

Edited November 17, 2021 by Skull132

[Zulu0009]

12 hours ago, Carver said:

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.

That's also very good advice. I mainly play a G2 IPC so when I did play Security, I tried to get into situations first instead of the human officers, which fit in with the character and was generally a smart idea. I never actually died, frankly (G2 Supremacy), and the first time I died was when I played a Psychologist caught in the crossfire. Part of why I stopped playing Security was that antagonists (rightfully so) mostly target Security and I was tired of being in the crosshair so often. Unfortunately I do see a lot of people unwilling to retreat, and I can understand why: you're in the moment, you're having a duel with a ninja, it's awesome, it's your heroic moment. A lot of people don't get heroic moments in their lives and it's nice to feel powerful sometimes, but I wish teamwork and comradery were more common with Security. This is an entirely different issue that I might actually make a post about, actually.

10 hours 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. 

There is a degree of control you lose over your character, but I don't think the norm should be "you are not in charge." You are in charge of your character because you decide how they react to situations that affect them. You can decide to run away or face danger, to help or stand by. That's why it's cooperative, after all, the antag gives me a challenge and I decide what to do with it.

[Lmwevil]

8 hours ago, Garnascus said:

Me or?

no no no, I agree with you and don't understand why ss13 evokes players into bad views on storytelling

[Decepter]

I can see the point that this thread is trying to make, but I think the D and D comparison is a little off. Let me explain.

If you're in a D and D game where the DM says "And then the bad man teleports behind you while he's invisible and kills you while you're getting changed, unlucky" Chances are you're not going to be in that D and D game for much longer, because no one would want to play in a game where their characters have no agency, and are merely play things to be at the whims of what ever power fantasy the DM is having (which is where all the D and D horror stories on the internet come from). Enabling such things will drive down player population even if we currently enjoy highs. Now I know that this might not be your point, but it is part of the implication from 'they just die and that's that'. Most people who play Aurora do so to have character arcs which they can be invested in; making meaningful connections with other characters, interacting with the world and lore, the list goes on.

Antags are intended to enhance the experience of everyone on the server; adding that little bit of spice into a round so that the chair RPers [like myself] aren't the only people who play. Like in the previously mentioned statement being an antagonist doesn't mean you should just have free reign to engage in a power fantasy, stealing the 'surrendered' player agency and using them as mere tools to tell your story. And that's assuming you're even trying to tell a story in the first place, which I find very lacking all too often.

I do think that every antagonist should have some sort of character motivation at the root of their agenda: What are your goals? I'll do you one better! WHY ARE YOUR GOALS?

What you do has to strongly be backed by why you're doing it. If you're going to murder someone, you better have a bloody good reason for it because news flash, murdering people will get a massive target placed on your head in most societies, something that even the sickest of psychopaths' are aware of, even if it's for their own self preservation they would take such things into account. We have a believable character rule in place, and I don't think this rule should have an exception for antagonist characters. I understand that adds a heavy burden of responsibility to any antagonist player, but to use your own comparison in dungeons and dragons that responsibility falls upon the DMs shoulders. The very very best GMs are normally beating the drum of their players secretly as their biggest fan, hoping and praying they overcome the challenge the DM has set before them and never ever EVER have their player's characters die for no reason; there is always a setup. It's not unreasonable to pin the same expectations on the Antagonist player in exchange for part of our character's agency, yes you can play with our character's lives; but no you're not beyond reproach. 

To summerise; I think having a suitable [believable] goal and motivation for having said goal[s]; which should even extend past the next hour [Yep, part of the immersion is that the universe doesn't just stop after 2 hours 20 minutes] is a good thing for any character [antagonist or otherwise] to have. There is no point in murdering the captain because you didn't like his shoes if it ruins your characters entire existence. If you are willing to ruin your entire existence for something have it be part of the angle! Tell us/ show us why! [Chair Rpers like myself love that kind of thing] As an example the antagonist at the breaking point who's got a deep motivation pushing them forward is an antagonist people will want to engage with through dialog or other means.

 

TLDR:

If you want the statement: 'you are not in charge of what ultimately happens to your character' to be true, you must accept the responsibility that comes with that, if you're taking control of what happens to other peoples characters.

Edited November 17, 2021 by Decepter

[Zyrus]

I have a variety of reasons I stopped playing here regularly, but this was chief among them. After trying my hand at antag a few times, I eventually realized that staff were trying to force me to Edgar Allan Poe at people before I did any violence or did actions, and then when I came back to check on changes months later, I found out that yet more tools for antag were removed and the AI was being shoehorned with lawsets to protect everything on the station.

People who want to play just another day on a space station can vote for extended, and I had no problem with that. I drew the line at making me dialogue at people in secret when you never know of security is gonna validhunt you. RP should come naturally for your gimmick, not at the whims of another (staff, in this case).

There is nothing wrong with a round turning into a chaotic bloodbath if that's what happens, but there was way too much pushback from staff and players, and treading on eggshells is not my idea of a fun roleplay experience, especially when a couple of the mode mechanics literally need you to grind towards your big guns, as it were.

[TrainTN]

People expect too much of antagonists. Do this, do that, don't do this, don't do that, be interesting, be original, create a story, be able to improvise all of these things within 2 hours multiple times a week without hurting anyone too much. It's too much pressure, too many demands, too high expectations, too little tolerance for mistakes. It's why I never tried playing antag. It's why a lot of people don't play antag. It's why a lot of my rounds were spent sitting around quietly with very little happening to react to, and that's why I got bored. Antagonists exist because conflict is interesting. I might get salty over being killed but if I had to choose between 2 hours of nothing or 5 minutes of being made into a murder victim, the latter is infinitely more captivating.

[Faye <3]

Edited January 22, 2022 by Faye <3

[Zyrus]

3 hours ago, Faye &lt;3 said:

What's your point? It's still a relevant topic, and I had something to say. Maybe this will help change things for the better and get me to try the server again.

[Marlon P.]

20 hours ago, Zyrus said:

[Thoughtful post, which was replied to with an off-topic meme]

Having a once regular player write about why they stopped playing isn't something to post a meme about.

This post shows a problem I touched on in my OP.

It's no wonder activity is on a slow downward decline, especially if response to the most inoffensive criticisms of Aurora are met with meme images and zero substance.

Edited January 23, 2022 by Marlon P.

[whitewolftamer]

On 06/11/2021 at 19:47, 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 (totally understandable).

Yeah, definitely ran into this as an antag, even as an off-station one. I tend to shy away from some gimmicks that I think would be interesting because I feel like they might be too violent, which, I feel shouldn't really be the thing that stops a gimmick? Obviously violence for violence's sake is bad, but like. Having something that culminates in someones death shouldn't be off limits

[DeadLantern]

2 hours ago, Marlon P. said:

 

It's no wonder activity is on a slow downward decline, especially if response to the most inoffensive criticisms of Aurora are met with meme images and zero substance.

Really odd of you to blame this strange and seemingly irrelevant problem on a meme on this admittedly months old post.

It's a harmless joke at the expense of no one, only saying that this indeed is a resurrected post. No one needs to get offended.

[Zyrus]

2 hours ago, DeadLantern said:

Really odd of you to blame this strange and seemingly irrelevant problem on a meme on this admittedly months old post.

It's a harmless joke at the expense of no one, only saying that this indeed is a resurrected post. No one needs to get offended.

Someone called you out on minimizing me, so now you're backpedaling? Yeah, I don't miss this bullshit.

I might not like the way the 'main' servers are a joke in general, but this servers general ridiculous aversion to a bit of blood is just as bad. At least you can have fun with the mechanics on those 'joke' servers. Meanwhile, if you send a murder golem out into the main hallways to grab people for cult conversion, more than likely you're getting ahelped here.

[DeadLantern]

2 minutes ago, Zyrus said:

Someone called you out on minimizing me, so now you're backpedaling? Yeah, I don't miss the bullshit.

My username is DeadLantern, the person who posted the meme was Faye. We're two different people. Also, I have no idea how you think an image of a necromancer is minimizing you. It was a joke irrelevant to the topic at hand. It was about the necropost, nothing more. 

[Zyrus]

3 minutes ago, DeadLantern said:

My username is DeadLantern, the person who posted the meme was Faye. We're two different people. Also, I have no idea how you think an image of a necromancer is minimizing you. It was a joke irrelevant to the topic at hand. It was about the necropost, nothing more. 

Ah, I thought I hit multiqoute. I agree with the sentiment and stand by what I said though.

[Marlon P.]

5 hours ago, DeadLantern said:

Really odd of you to blame this strange and seemingly irrelevant problem on a meme on this admittedly months old post.

Retention of players is the most relevant problem there is for a server.

Are you saying the OP is wildly inaccurate?

Edited January 23, 2022 by Marlon P.

[Captain Gecko]

Right so, I remember seeing this thread when it first came out, said that I would need to add my bit at some point, then never did. Now that it's somehow back, I shall do so.

 

Alright so, I'll just get some context about me out of the way, so that I can focus on what I have to say first:

- I do not tend to play antag often, the main reason being that I rarely get to play the game, generally one or two rounds a week, during which I'd rather have my main (and probably only) character grow and interact with the crew rather to spend it with an Antag that is basically... A bet as far as good moments go. During holidays and such when I have more time, this tends to change, but generally, yes, I don't play antag often.

- Despite what I'm going to say below, keep in mind that as an antag character, I rarely ever kill, let alone fight... For multiple reasons. Firstly, my character tend to generally be more about discussing than outright fighting, may it be because of his personality, or simply his attachement to the crew despite the reasons that pushed him to be an antag (assuming that I don't play an offstation antag); secondly, I'm just unrobust as fuck. Like I'm really, REALLY bad. I can lose a bare-handed fight playing a Unathi against a Skrell, that's how bad I am.

- As stated earlier, I tend to play a single character, and have little to no interest to play anyone/anything else. This means that if he dies, it's over for me until next round. Couple with what I pointed out just above, the fact that I only play a couple of rounds a week currently, and you can probably get that when my boy dies, it matters to me.

- As an anomalist main, I've learned to take character death... Very lightly. Xenoarcheology is basically offering yourself to RNGeesus' whims, it can be brutal, random, and most importantly, very unfair. You may very well pull an anomaly out and get instantly teleported into oblivion in the FOLLOWING SECOND resulting in an instant death, the "By joining a round you agree that forces will act upon this character up to and including death" couldn't be truer with this job and I've come to accept it very quickly. I've next to never contested a death (with the few exceptions being tied to glitches, such as the statuette originally spawning an invisible mob that could simply not get killed, hurting you, breaking windows and venting areas, and ruining medical as soon as you were taken there, denying you any chances to survive).

Now that this is out of the way...

 

 

 

I absolutely agree with OP. In fact, strangely enough, I agree with most of the people around here, no matter what side of the discussion they are on. Yes, we shouldn't have to have a 20-minute-long discussion before dying, but yes, being teleported into oblivion out of nowhere isn't right. Yes, it's annoying to be murdered 10 minutes into the round and lost your only character for the next two hours, and yes, it is something that we should expect, as we CHOSE to play a single character in the first place and know what we're risking.

Aurora is aimed at roleplay first and foremost, but that doesn't mean that action is to be discarded. I think the problem is that, like with the discussions we've had about how agressive security should be without breaking the roleplay, we can't even agree on what roleplay, or proper roleplay is... And I think we won't all ever truly agree, because it's not just about the basics of not randomly shooting people, but also about how we like to play.

I don't think we'll properly all agree on what is roleplay or how we should do it anytime soon, but hey, still, here's how I see things...

 

First and foremost, THIS GAME TELLS A STORY, THE STORY OF THE STATION/SHIP'S CREW. YOUR CHARACTER IS NOT THE PROTAGONIST OF AURORA'S STORY, THE CREW IS. You are part of the crew, but you are not the sole character in it (unless you're playing on deadhours lmao). Whatever Aurora's story may be about; just another day at work, the tale of a dark cult taking over the area, or of a small crew of pirates attacking, you are only a contribution to this story. Read books involving crews and bands as a whole, watch movies and shows... Character may inevitably die to contribute to the story. Your character contributes to the story both in life and death.

Now I assume that this story I'm speaking of is at least decent (I'll explain what I see as not decent later). By engaging in a collaborative/multiplayer roleplaying game, you're here to be part of a story, but you are not the story. You are much an actor as you are a spectator. I'll personally feel as satisfied of a good round of extended, as I'll be with a round where my character's death in the first 30 minutes contributed to people uncovering who was the antag and their motives, just as said antag begins the final steps of his masterplan. As much as I love my character and having him interact with the crew, no matter how chaotic or not the situation be, I love to have him be part of a good story, even if this means that he has to die in the first 30 minutes (do note that I am not speaking of canon deaths here, though).

 

We have some problems, of course, the first one is that the story has to be good in the first place. In this case, this mostly comes from the antag. I do not care so much about what their goals are, but rather why they are and how this antag reaches them. A simple murder attempt can be fantastic if the antag is, say, leaving clues for the crew to pick up, guiding them in various spots, perhaps as part as their master plan to trap their target too; while a conspiracy to have a bunch of antags unite to take over the station in the name of their own company for various interesting lore reasons might feel incredibly underwhelming if it ends up being played as just a group of guys sneaking around and backstabbing people around leaving them dead instantly, not giving the crew a chance to follow what's going on before being innevitably murdered as well. Obviously there are also many gimmicks that won't lead to deaths that are as interesting and that must not be ignored as possibilities, but this is not the point of this thread. We might also talk about Security and other obstacles to the Antag playing a huge part in this story, but that's another discussion, and we already have a (multiple actually) thread for that.

The second problem is enforcement. We can't agree on what is the acceptable level of violence allowed in this or that situation, if yes or no an antag should kill this guy right now or deliver a 20-page manifesto before pressing the trigger; it is the same for admins and such. You may judge that the story was good enough to warrant venting the room to escape into space while security pounces on you, the sec players may even agree, but the admin that's going to boink you may or may not. This is more of a "how should things should be enforced" discussion, and deserves its own thread as well, but I'm just putting it here as well.

 

In the end, I think the main point remains this however, at least to me: This is a game where you create a story, and the story may include death, your character's death, but what matters is the story first and foremost. Just do your best and make sure that if you die, it matters and only makes the story greater... It may turn a supposedly frustrating moment into an unforgivable one.

[DeadLantern]

3 hours ago, Marlon P. said:

Retention of players is the most relevant problem there is for a server.

Are you saying the OP is wildly inaccurate?

Literally the original post has nothing to do with retention of players or lack of activity or anything related to that.

[Marlon P.]

9 hours ago, DeadLantern said:

Literally the original post has nothing to do with retention of players or lack of activity or anything related to that.

The original OP doesn't talk about that, but a player pointed out how the problem discussed in the OP has made them stop playing here. The conversation shifted a bit to talking about how the server's domineering attitude towards antagonists can drive people to other servers.

It's on-topic imo.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Marlon P.