Response to RP

[Guest Menown]

I've met two situations today, in which this is what occurred.

I responded to Caleb dragging two protohumans of himself through maintenance. After following him for some time, he decides to suddenly walk up to me, flash me with his eyes, and then proceed to strip me of my headsets and cuff me while he feeds on the two protohumans. Then, he makes me his thrall. Basic Ling formula, barring the whole 'death' thing.

 

 

Due to orders from the vamp to get bodies, I got the Warden alone, and emoted everything from pulling my taser off my belt, and turning around to look at him. I aimed at him, and told him to get down on the ground, at which point, he without a word pulls his taser off his belt, and puts several shots in me, taking me straight down.

 

 

My reason for this, is that despite my attempts to RP with these two, I was met with immediate powergaming from both of them. The warden completely ignored the fact that I was pointing a taser at him, and drew on me without a single word or action.

With Caleb, I had attempted to get him to bring the protohumans back to genetics, and while he did RP toward the enthralling, I was met with little at the start.

This might seem like a petty thing to discuss, but what exactly is /so/ hard about RPing with people? It's like people know that, because you'll RP, you won't do what it takes to powergame, due to your willingness to RP.

[Frances]

While punishing these people make sense, I would really like to know why people react that way. What are the IC, OOC, any kind of justifications for acting the way they did.

Would be nice to get a reply from those two.

[Guest Menown]

I don't want punishment. It's getting to where I don't even want to play security or even this game, because I seem to be meeting this constantly with antags. I got forced into an antag position, so I learned /why/ they do it. It's because often security responds like the Warden did.

I got to see both sides in a matter of minutes.

[jackfractal]

Is it really bad to use the mechanics? I mean, the warden was panicked and shooting wildly. That's what you saw happening. The fact that they didn't *me it isn't necessarily bad.

The problem with this kind of situation is that those who act the least honorably win, and winning in SS13 is enormously preferable to losing. Losing gets you dead, for up to three hours, or detained, again for up to three hours. Being dead, or being in jail, is boring.

This isn't quake, where you respawn in five seconds. There are significant consequences to getting dropped by an opponent.

This isn't just a problem on high-rp servers. I kept running into a variant of this on Paradise while playing security, where people would ask me to tell them what they were being arrested for, then, while I was typing, they'd bash my head in with a toolbox.

Those who play the least fair tend to win. Until someone solves that, or finds some way to make losing equally interesting to winning, this is always going to be a problem.

[Contextual]

The answer is plain and simple. It's because they want to win, desperately, more than anything. Winning comes before roleplay, before common sense, before the very lives of their characters. They want to win, and they don't want to deal with the roleplay aspect of combat because there's a chance the other party might make them lose.

[jackfractal]

Precisely. Because losing sucks worse in SS13 then in almost any other game. In fact, I can't really think of any game that it sucks worse to lose in then SS13. It pretty much takes the cake on that.

[Tainavaa]

I think that's a very bad mindset. I've always had the idea that losing can be very fun. And it can be. But not when the only thing that goes through your mind is "I lost." Because the game isnt about winning. It's about roleplaying, through good and bad situations.

I'm okay with using just the game's logs for combat in high intensity situations but something slow paced I think warrants a matching tempo. That would be, at least showing something.

Losing in a competitive game sucks. This game isn't competitive. People are making it competitive but the truth is, nobody's keeping score.

Losing in a non competitive game can be fun, depending on what game. This game is one of those games. Leave the competitive sense and the idea that you HAVE to win out, and you'll find that getting caught with your pants down can be fun.

[jackfractal]

It can be fun, until you get murdered. Then you're out of the game.

My experience as a prisoner has been pretty abysmal as well, but I admit the possibility that I have simply been unlucky in that regard.

I like observing SS13, but I prefer playing, and so I'd consider 'things that stop you from playing' to count as a loss.

And while nobody is keeping score, we do often have goals, and being murdered or detained indefinitely tends to throw a wrench in them, unless your goals are pretty esoteric.

[Tainavaa]

You're taken out of the round but I've been murdered in ways that I thought were pretty hilarious or just plain good. I have had fun with death before. I don't die very often, and I have had no issues with dying in the past unless it was grief. And you're not being treated fairly as a prisoner... That is due to IC reasons Its roleplay. Roleplay that.

Not everyone wants to be nice to you, not everyone wants you to live. All of that is just incorporating the competitive mindset. Roleplay, through good and bad situations. Literally life or death.

I really do not see the issue with dying. People need to die, and I'll happily oblige and make a very engaging death with my murderer if it isn't gank or grief. But maybe that's just because I play to roleplay, through good and bad situations. Not to win.

[Rechkalov]

Like Tainavaa says. They have the right attitude.

One more thing, though -

The problem with this kind of situation is that those who act the least honorably win, and winning in SS13 is enormously preferable to losing. Losing gets you dead, for up to three hours, or detained, again for up to three hours. Being dead, or being in jail, is boring.

 

Not true.

You get thirty minutes of "penalty" after which you can join in with another character.

So no. You cannot use those three damn hours as an argument against narrating an intriguing story instead of trying to come out on top of every situation.

From there, a connection can be made to another argument, but that is essentially already expressed in what Taina said; that if you acknowledge what is happening to your character and can bring yourself to see yourself as responsible for delivering appropriate feedback*, dying can be a lot of fun. And at that point, everybody wins.

*I mean, your role as a player of SS13 -on Aurora, anyway- is strangely dual. One should be able to recognize and act in accordance with their character and their aims and wishes (such as, not to die) while at the same time being responsive to whatever stimuli your character is receiving.

We ought to narrate both our actions and our reactions.

 

To throw a mild example out there - it doesn't always have to be about dying.

Imagine people running towards the arrivals as the station slowly vanishes to lord Singulo.

Nothing particularly interesting here.

Now throw in there a character that has had a leg injury earlier that round, and although game-mechanics wise they are perfectly alright, they choose to switch to walk speed and narrate stumbling along the walls.

At that point, you spice up the drama, and provide a little bit of fun for other players, as some with certainly try to help you, while others will urge them to leave you behind and hurry up.

Escaping singularity - fun.

Escaping singularity while saving a helpless coworker from certain death - MORE FUN.

Weak characters usually mark strong players, #deep.

[Guest Menown]

Okay. People are missing the point. Yes, creating story, blah blah.

The point was when /you're/ trying to keep a story going on it, but other people shoot you down, because it's not about the story for them. It's about winning.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

My early SS13 history was one just like that warden. So much that I'd pre-type "HELP SUSPICIOUS MCANTAG IS KILLING ME IN THE MAINTENENCE TUNNELS ABOVE THE CHAPEL" as soon as I entered a secluded area with someone, ready to hit enter the second they flashed me.

But recently, about halfway through my Aurora career, I stopped caring. I mean, my characters all obviously very deeply care about being alive, but OOC'ly, outside the adrenaline of combat or stressful situations, I don't mind it. I like losing as much as I like winning, if it's satisfying.

And it's obvious people won't change by themselves as reliably as other people are able to sometimes, Soooo let's try to take the initiative, and instead of arguing about it, take it upon ourselves to "get over losing" and put the other players in line. Play HoS and be a tight-ass about respecting privacy rights and warrants on green alert, for example. Or, if you're playing security and see someone legitimately putting in an effort, OOC'ly intentionally fumble your investigation. I dunno. Just stop investing in winning so much.

[jackfractal]

The problem with this kind of situation is that those who act the least honorably win, and winning in SS13 is enormously preferable to losing. Losing gets you dead, for up to three hours, or detained, again for up to three hours. Being dead, or being in jail, is boring.

 

Not true.

You get thirty minutes of "penalty" after which you can join in with another character.

So no. You cannot use those three damn hours as an argument against narrating an intriguing story instead of trying to come out on top of every situation.

 

You get thirty minutes of "penalty" after which you can join in with another character..

 

another character

 

What if I don't have another character I want to play? (I do, this is a hypothetical)

What if I play mostly synthetics (this is not hypothetical), who are only available at round-start as an option?

Even if I didn't, thirty minutes of downtime, in a videogame? For something that can happen as quickly as being shot with a taser? That's harsh.

Can you imagine getting shot in Call of Duty and having to take a thirty minute timeout? Or losing a StarCraft game and not being able to re-up with the same race until three hours had passed? Or dying in World of Warcraft and being unable to respawn as that character until you'd spent three hours as a ghost?

SS13 has nasty failure penalties. They're part of what makes it an interesting game, but they exist, and pretending that they don't doesn't really help anything. Of course, admitting them doesn't really help anything either. I have no solution to this problem that doesn't involve fundamentally redesigning the game, and doing that would involve sacrificing a lot of what makes it unique and interesting.

And while I get that some people have a sort of enlightened attitude towards play, it's pretty clear as the warden in the example demonstrated, and as all the examples in the Valid-gaming thread have further emphasized, that most people don't.

Most people like to not die or get caught.

I'm arguing that this is because of the steep penalty for failure. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but unlike most other people in this thread, I'm not saying it's a bad thing or an inferior thing.

Everyone has to make a choice where they fall on the spectrum. Do you take purposefully non-optimal actions because you find them more entertaining? Awesome. More power too you. But if you truly do not care about dying or losing, then you should not care that there are people for whom staying active in the game is more important then being interesting.

[Rechkalov]

What if I don't have another character I want to play?

Allow me to answer you with a question - are you saying other players shouldn't be allowed to hurt your characters because you like them and don't want them to get hurt?

To use your own Call of Duty parallel; imagine! A server where you can't shoot at players who don't want to die!

 

What if I play mostly synthetics (this is not hypothetical), who are only available at round-start as an option?

I don't see how that's different from let's say the career pick. Some positions are high in demand and hard to get into. I'd really like to play chaplain, but other players always get chosen before me.

Too bad. Nothing to be done about it, though.

 

Even if I didn't, thirty minutes of downtime, in a videogame? For something that can happen as quickly as being shot with a taser? That's harsh.

Dying is part of the game. Penalties are part of the game.

Not getting your dream job, dream race - yes, even your much desired approval and recognition, these are all part of the game.

If you don't like it, don't play. It's as simple as that.

 

I'm arguing that this is because of the steep penalty for failure. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but unlike most other people in this thread, I'm not saying it's a bad thing or an inferior thing.

I may be forcing this in a certain way right now, and if so, I apologize - but what I'm hearing is "I want to play whom I want to play and I want the story to unfold as I have planned it and for my character to end up like I wanted them to end up" and so on.

Or, in different terms - the word failure keeps coming up.

To me it sounds as if you defined failure as "things going differently than I imagined/planned".

How would you define failure?

And what would success be, in your terms?

[jackfractal]

I'm not disagreeing with any of what you're saying. I'm really not arguing that people shouldn't be able to hurt other players. I have no particular 'story' planned out for my character, and I don't think that the Warden in the example did either. Your perception of what I have been saying is inaccurate.

I'm disappointed that my metaphor's failed so dramatically to convey my point. The example of the thirty minute downtime in Call of Duty is to highlight that the punishment for failure is unusually high in SS13. Call of Duty balances the lethality of it's combat by it's fast respawn times. SS13, as a rule, does not. It is possible to die or be captured in arguable less time then it takes to die in Call of Duty, and with less responsibility for the person dying (atmos deaths anyone?), but the punishments are much higher.

Asking what Call of Duty would be like if nobody could shoot anyone else is a non-sequitur. It's not at all related to the point I was trying to make. That would be bad game design. Nobody would argue that.

But Call of Duty with a 30 minute respawn timer would also be bad game design.

You're generally arguing with a stances and opinions that I'm not taking. I don't think that the penalties for failure should be removed. I said as much in my previous post. You'd lose a great deal of what makes SS13 interesting if you modified the penalties for failure too significantly.

And, as I mentioned, the examples are mostly hypothetical. This is not my personal mode of play. Everyone has to choose where they fall on the axis of 'taking non-optimal actions in favor of interesting actions' scale, and I try to head more toward the 'interesting' end myself out of personal preference, but I understand where the people who choose the opposite end of the spectrum are coming from.

I believe that most people who choose optimal play over 'interesting' play, know that failure is always an option and that they should have no expectations of success. Those are, after all, the rules of the game. The choice that players on the optimal end of the spectrum take is to attempt to avoid fail states by using all the mechanics that they have available. They prioritize the avoidance of fail states, over other things.

That seems pretty reasonable to me.

How am I defining failure here? That's a good question.

'Failure' in this case, specifically regarding the prioritization of 'interesting' actions over optimal actions, involves the loss of the ability to engage with the game as an active participant.

This can usually be summarized as the ability to act towards ones goals. If your goal as an antag is to steal everyone's shoes, then something that results in that goal becoming impossible is 'failure'. If your goal is to have a good pint down at the bar, and swap some salty space stories with the other rough fellows who gather there, then something that prevents you from doing that would be considered 'failure'.

Thus, death is usually 'failure' and imprisonment, especially indefinite imprisonment, is also often 'failure'.

The combination of the primacy of stuns in combat, and the fact that downed players are extremely vulnerable to players who have not been downed, means that SS13 rewards blitz style attacks, that give the opposition no opportunity to react. That's why you don't see people talk in combat, because everyone knows that getting downed, even once, will often mean a complete loss of agency for an extended period of time.