So, about "Contributing to Enjoyment"

[Skull132]

The rule I'm about to ponder on:

The primary goal of antangonists is to CONTRIBUTE TO OTHERS' ENJOYMENT.

Be creative when coming up with objectives, and try to do things which will be fun for others, not only yourself.

 

First, the giant elephant in the room, let's just kill it and shove it out the room: I do not like the rule, mostly because of the doublestandard it permits people to hold. While the rule itself is not all that bad, the way it is interpreted can become and issue and I would rather have it removed outright. Hence, in the next rules updates (more info on this next week, not up for discussion in this thread), it will be replaced with something along the lines of, "You must create engagement". But, as said, that's neither here nor now.

We'll start from the top. Why does this rule exist, what is it meant to do? It's meant to make it clear that being an antagonist is not about a selfish power trip through the halls, while killing everyone with a light machine gun. It's meant to guide the antagonists towards focusing on a narrative which may then be enjoyed by both the antagonist themselves, and the other players. And it focuses on the antagonist because, as we believed, they are the ones in power over any given round.

However, one flaw in this is that it does not directly bind others to adhere to the same exact rule. Here's a question for you all: why should the antagonist be forced to work for the enjoyment of others, while non-antagonists have no such binding?

Yes, the antagonists did indeed choose their role, and they are aware of this expectation. I agree, they should focus on it, but it does not mean that others get a free pass on it.

Let's zoom out a little, and figure out what we're actually doing here. What is the point of a roleplay server on SS13? In a sweeping statement, I could summarize it as, "To create an interactive story with a whole load of people involved." With such a goal, in my mind, the requirement for setting aside personal enjoyment so that others get to also enjoy the round should be applied to everyone, to a various degree.

Diving back in, that perspective should help with the issue I've started seeing again. Specifically, there is a certain perceivable belief where the antagonists are reduced to some kind of clowns who are meant to pull fancy tricks, while the players get to pick and choose what scenarios they want to involve themselves in. And the rule I explained at the top gets used as justification for, what is effectively horrible sportsmanship. And there once existed a server where such a thing was permitted to run rampant, as such horrible sportsmanship was actually normal for the administrative staff to indulge in as well. It relegated the antagonists into being nothing but mild amusement, which would then get mopped up whenever they went just a bit too far. They were no longer permitted to create a story with actual gravity, or anything beyond simple slapstick shit that we all cry and wince about.

As it stands, an antagonist is forced to roll with a whole bunch of shit. From sec hunting them down, to players complaining and bitching if something goes awry. Even if their intentions were good. If we add on top of this the pseudo requirement of, "Know who you fuck with, or else the person you're trying to engage in your story simply will not go along with it," then what is there left for an antagonist to do? Literally just kill people and that's it.

Further, keep in mind that a good few rounds actually rely on the players being receptive to manipulation ICly. Cult and revolution are completely and utterly dependent on people going along with the antagonists for the sake of a fun story. While there are issues with them not recruiting, there are also legitimate issues with players just actively noping away from being recruited. I can understand if your character is a diehard NT fan, for whatever ungodly reason, but that is about as fun as the admins actually enforcing the rule of, "You can't do anything that would get you fired, unless antag."

Remember folks, roleplay here is not only about sticking to character, but also about creating and assisting in the creation of a short round narrative. If you just stonewall all options offered, then, well. I've got little else to say about that.

Lengthy, but such are my thoughts. What are yours?

[Felkvir]

I'm not familiar with how it goes most of the time, I haven't been on enough to say ... But you do make a point, and it gives a good perspective. I think it is pretty good that you bring it up, I didn't think too much about that before I read this.

I just want to say though ... I do not want to get punished if I happen to go really hard on antags at some point or if I go hard AS an antag .. I personally think there are moments when the players on either side should not hesitate with something.

inb4, people complain so much about antags going too far that they become slumber parties

[Skull132]

I'm not exactly talking about administrative punishment or any of that.

The two things we punish for in relation to the topic is gank of antags/valid hunting, and complete refusal to go along with antag antics.

The latter is things like ghosting whenever you are tortured to join the cult, or ghost whenever you're forced to RP along with an antag in general, through valid IC means, and for the sake of a decent round. It's on par with ghosting whenever you get arrested by sec, and is taken action against if you turn it into a trend.

Consider this more a discussion on mindset, an elaboration into certain understandings we may take for granted. Some people have run into this issue, others haven't.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

I agree with the OP. B+ post! See me after class.

He's said what I've believed and argued for quite some time. There are a lot of expectations lumped onto antagonists, and the whole burden of the round is placed on their shoulders. This burden is not placed on the Crew. Antagonism is more difficult on Aurora if only because of the burdens that come with it and the levels of rule-backed salt it has to fight or fear retaliation from. More than a handful of vocal players get extremely angry if antagonists even get a vague idea of doing anything in a round that isn't up to their specific expectation.

This is because they think antagonists should make them personally enjoy the round. ~40 people are expecting to personally enjoy the round with an antagonist tailored to them specifically.

I always argued in favor of being judged in how they advanced a 'greater narrative' for the station instead.

[Guest Menown]

I find never enjoying any round sets you up for no surprise whenever you don't enjoy the round. Expect shit and you're never disappointed.

This has made my dealings with antags much better.

[Guest]

Time to put the White Man's Burden on literally everyone instead of just stripping the responsibility from the antag? I can get onboard with that.

Rather than force just the antag to contribute to everyone's enjoyment, everyone has to do their part instead in contributing to the round in meaningful, reasonable and acceptable ways. It's great and I've no idea why nobody's brought it up before. Probably because everyone disagreed with it the one time I thought about perhaps bringing up the disparity between responsibility of antag and non-antag, but, I will digress.

Make everyone abide by the same standards and nothing can possibly go wrong, we will finally be able to hold everyone accountable, no? I'm dead serious about this, I am not shitposting.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Delta I would have provided a thoughtful response to your post but you opened it with comparing Skull's stance to White Man's Burden and the rest of your post just sort of fell away into a haze.

I don't even remember what else you said and I don't want to open a new tab to check, but I assume I disagree with it.

Edit:

I was right!

[Guest]

Delta I would have provided a thoughtful response to your post but you opened it with comparing Skull's stance to White Man's Burden and the rest of your post just sort of fell away into a haze.

I don't even remember what else you said and I don't want to open a new tab to check, but I assume I disagree with it.

Edit:

I was right!

 

it was a joke you dummy

[Zundy]

Delta I would have provided a thoughtful response to your post but you opened it with comparing Skull's stance to White Man's Burden and the rest of your post just sort of fell away into a haze.

I don't even remember what else you said and I don't want to open a new tab to check, but I assume I disagree with it.

Edit:

I was right!

 

Nah delta was being super coolies.

I agree skull, not sure how you're gonna word dat rule though!

[Skull132]

Well, the rules are going to be up for public debate later end of next week. So we get to bash this one out.

If it's necessary as a direct rule. I would much rather turn around the rule-enforced focused on the antagonists onto making an engaging story, and leaving this as a mindset type deal.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

I'll repeat my stance on this rule.

The rule should focus around providing and advancing a "narrative" for the station, one that includes being a good sport by all sides. This can be with the entire station in a drama about bombings, or a smaller scale operation of blackmail, betrayal, or a string of murders. I call this the "station narrative" or "greater narrative" in my conversations.

[Nanako]

This is why i don't like the cult. It's all murder and horror and blood and demons, i really don't want to be involved with that. My Main character is a pacifist medic, the whole cult thing feels wrong. I don't like cult for a ton of other reasons too though, and a lot of people call them OP. I wouldn't mind seeing that gone.

Vampire is far better as far as antag conversion goes. Your first order as a thrall is usually "return to your job and pretend nothing happened", so it doesn't interrupt other things too much until later. And at least vampire has a victory outcome that doesn't involve murdering everyone. I can totally get on board with being a vampire slave on a station full of thralls

As far as being fair to antags goes, i don't know much about that. Personally i do my best not to metagame. But Nanako is paranoid, scared of unusual things, and prone to nervous breakdowns. I'm wary of any noise or anything out of place, and extremely quick to report things to security. It has resulted in lots of antags being caught in the act. Fizzling sounds from maintenance/ Wierd runes on the floor? Strange syndicate devices? I don't know what they are, but i know they shouldn't be there, and i can't feel comfortable if i don't get someone to check it out.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Guest

[Carver]

The last time I saw a station full of thralls, they were being sent on suicide runs against literally any opposition. I say suicide runs because I had to kill one Thrall, and light up the vampire proper with a few shots as Detective before they'd stop chasing me.

[Guest]

And there once existed a server where such a thing was permitted to run rampant, as such horrible sportsmanship was actually normal for the administrative staff to indulge in as well. It relegated the antagonists into being nothing but mild amusement, which would then get mopped up whenever they went just a bit too far. They were no longer permitted to create a story with actual gravity, or anything beyond simple slapstick shit that we all cry and wince about.

It was probably intentional, but just in case top management has a blind eye, I think this sums up Aurora pretty well. With some exceptions.

With that aside, yes, I agree with this. Git good is not a real justification for anything. I have no time to git fucking good just so I could be allowed to RP an antagonist.

[Dreviore]

I think the general old rule was kinda irritating because I've seen antagonists try to make the round interesting, but some robust person in security bust in and just immediately take them out, and perma bringing them (assuming they weren't killed)

Contributing to enjoyment needs to be a two way street, I think this change is welcomed by me.