Refined Roleplay Thread

[Tasunke]

Yea ... when you play MP, when one person decides he is going to maximize his chances of winning, you create a security dillemma.

More land per person, and a more emphasized role play ... with victory options perhaps even disabled, would lead to a better game.

 

[Verdian]

Just from the information present in this thread, I tend to agree with Neo as well. You don't need tons of rules written down, just common sense. A roleplaying game's purpose is to have fun through roleplaying, not through winning or clever strategies (those are secondary results). The story should be the goal, not a barrier you need to work around. And I do think it is important to roleplay accurately. Research your civ and know the lore. Yes it is a bit more work, but if you don't want to do it play a FFA.

Also, you guys seems to be going out of your way to pick on Neomega. This makes me think he had a good point that you couldn't argue and were reduced to mud slinging.

 

[Tasunke]

If you have a point to make, start a new thread and organize something. RP is not about banning anyone that does not agree to certain criteria, but having interesting interactions among the balance of power ... with many characters vieying for such power. And occasionally you will have someone whose primary goal is a quest path, or some such.

 

[Silaor]

RP is not about "balance of power" or whatever. RP = Roleplay. Spell it out, people. Role play. Not every character in the FFH lore is "vieying for such power". As other posters, I post only in response to the comments posted in this thread, and I have to agree on Neo's take on roleplay, even if he does seems a bit sore.

If you "play RP" and try to maximise your chance of winning, you're doing it wrong, be it FFH RP MP game, your Champions Online PvP build, your PnP d20 character, or your 534th Baldur's Gate playthrough.

When role playing, the goal is to play your role the best you can. If that makes you win the game, good for you. If that makes you lose ... good for you too ! If you're trying to "find RP justifications" to your actions, then you probably should'nt have acted.

I don't know what happened exactly, but I know that :
- If I play in a RP FFH game and my Elohim neighbour attacks me because I'm weak and close by, that's not a player I want to "roleplay" with anymore.
- Kids whining about who is right or wrong when playing pretend (=role playing) seem too childish to do it right (= tell a fun story for every participant).

It's late and I'm a little drunk, so I'm going to tell a story. Please bear with me (rawr).

Years ago, I played a web based space conquest game. While I was playing, a new server was opened, more "RP-oriented", with 5 official factions at the beginning, a space police, and a secret criminal organization (CoE-like). I liked the faerie-like race, and the challenge of duping my allies, so I was set up. I learned that the Space Police Chief had a list of all the founding members of the criminal org., and I was thrilled. More challenge ! But three days after the laucnh, the police chief posted the list on the server's forum.

My whole plan fell apart, and I could'nt play my role as I wanted. I just left the game.

The thing is, when I think about it today, I regret not trying to roll whith it. Sure, I think the police chief did a mistake publishing the list, because I thought it made things less intersting for the criminals, and for everyone else. Maybe he was more focused on winning against us than having fun playing against us. But I still think there were ways to still play my role and have fun, I just didn't saw them at the time.

I don't know if there's a lesson to learn or if it's just an old RPer's ramblings, and I hope I didn't bore you too much.

I'd just like everyone in this thread to consider the original meaning of "role playing".

 

[Monkeyfinger]

This thread = why I only bothered with cut throat FFAs where there were no illusions about how people would be playing.

 

[Skaevola]

I tend to agree with Silaor, in my mind playing a game and "justifying" actions is the backwards way to do it; you should create a character or culture and respond to situations in the game in the way that the character would.

 

[Tasunke]

well in any event, this thread seems to be slightly more active than the actual roleplay thread so I will announce it here.

Im thinking of starting a round of Rhoanna games. I've seen the power of mercenaries, and Rhoana would be a fine leader for a strictly gold based, mercenary economy.

Not sure how it would work in practice ... but it sounds like a really good idea right now.



(and the best multiplayer games I have had, went along a loosely themed basis (aka non-ffa, or "rp", where there was, at first, a multi-faceted scrambling for power that culminated into two powerful coalitions tearing at each others throats. Quite interesting games. one Dealt with the infernal Legions led by an Orcish Messhaber of Dis fighting off an even bigger army of spectre wielding vampires.

good times, good times. Now you expect me to believe that the story affects things 100%? How easily you can accomplish goals helps to move about your story. If you are weak, chances are someone will kill you before your story is complete. We all hope this does not happen, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore I am very against the hegemonic stability theory ... in this instance at least.

 

[mimic]

I tend to agree with Silaor, in my mind playing a game and "justifying" actions is the backwards way to do it; you should create a character or culture and respond to situations in the game in the way that the character would.

Well the "justifying" actions was an attempt to make players use the chat more and talk about what their doing, once players see actual rp going on they are less inclined to build 50 swordsmen or cultists and take over the world which seems to be the only way some people can play anyway. In that regard I'm all for banning people who take no effort to rp and just ruin the game for everyone else, I've always advocated another thread for Free for All games but no one has ever made one.

 

[Diamondeye]

I would be interested in joining for proper roleplaying games, when I have the time.

 

[Ekolite]

I might be interested in joining an RP game as well if someone could tell me how to play multiplayer. (I've only ever played single player in the past)

 

[Onionsoilder]

I might be interested in joining an RP game as well if someone could tell me how to play multiplayer. (I've only ever played single player in the past)

1) Download the Hamachi client(I think there is a link in the normal roleplaying thread)
2) Install & Launch Hamachi. After you get your account set up, join the FFHRP channel.
3) Everything is done in Hamachi from that point on. If you need help, just ask in there. Games are usually on Saturday.

As far as the RP/non-RP debate:

I agree that we need much more RP in our games than we have had in them, however I don't think the rules should be too strict. We're playing a game, not watching a movie; even the AI has the freedom to invent and change things. For example, I would be against any evil or neutral civilizations founding Order, but if it spreads to them later I wouldn't mind them converting. This is especially true if the game is diverging into two major alliances, as those games are a lot of fun and it doesn't make sense to say "No you can't convert and join our side". This does not mean Calabim players can ask a Bannor player to found Order for them, and then spread it to their lands so they can get Vampiric Paladins.

In regards to the Infernal/Mercurian issue, I think that after one thematically enters the game(Sheaim/Calabim/Keelyn/Clan summong Hyborem, or Bannor/Elohim/Malakim summoning Basium), any civilization not allied with the Mercruians or Infernal can summon the other one. We might strech this a bit, and say that any Good can start building the gate after AV is founded/adopted, because it's obvious that Hyborem is on the way.

As far as religions go, I think founders should probably be restricted to this:

Order: Bannor, Kuriotates, Luchuirp
Empyrean: Malakim, Elohim, Kuriotates, Amurites
Runes of Kilmorph: Khazad, Luchuirp, Hippus
Fellowship of Leaves: Kuriotates, Elohim, Ljosalfar, Svartfalfar
Council of Esus: Sidar, Svartalfar, Khazad, Calabim
Octopus Overlords: Lanun, Balserphs(Perpentach), Calabim(Flauros)
Ashen Veil: Sheaim, Balserphs(Keelyn), Clan of Embers, Calabim(Alexis)

Once again, I think any religon can be adopted by anyone after it is founded, assuming there is a good reason for it(lots of other civs following it, lots of your cities have it, etc.)

 

[Diamondeye]

I wouldn't be that strict with religion founding. What is most important is war delceration between players. Unless it's the Svartalfar (or a very sneaky CoE Calabim or something like that), it should be, if not expectable, then at least a logical consequence of past events.

And obviously, once you've founded a religion, you stick with it for a good while. Getting a second religion just for bonuses won't work, and you'll need serious RP reasons for this to happen.

 

[mimic]

Well as already stated everyone has different views on how rp is done, the rules we currently use allow a lot of freedom but I do agree that it is slightly more ffa than rp but thats the nature of the game, invariably there will be war and someone is going to lose. I dont play to win and I always give other players a chance to come back, still I honestly dont think that any amount of new rules or changes will make much of a difference it's all down to the players and well common sense

 

[Tasunke]

amen to that

 

[FireBlaze]

To Tas- The one where I was slaughtered early game, and you tried to keep me alive to farm me

 

[Tasunke]

Trust me fireblaze, they are not all like that. this was before I knew the power of the Kurios, and I was kinda intimidated by having to face off against two. I did not know that my counterpart was also killingz you. Later I killed him though.