A rant, about ruining Roleplay with OOC goals

RylekRylek Member Posts: 69 ✭✭✭
To make perfectly clear, I am going to rant. I need to vent, and I wanted to hear some feedback from the community at the same time. The following is based entirely on MY opinion, as well as the information presented to my character. At ZERO point is this an attack on any particular person. I shall do my best to avoid naming names, although I assume it will be clear what I'm discussing. However, I am not in any way attacking the player, as my response would be the same no matter who created this situation. So...rant time.

Recently in Scatterhome (Yup, that drama llama zone), a pillar of the community left. It was pretty out of the blue and left a lot of people confused, my character included. So, my character reached out and asked why. The response was fairly vague, but basically along the lines of "Being a citizen hampered my desired goals in life." This was a touch confusing because up to that point the character had been a pretty solid piece of Scatterhome foundation. Almost solely around for pvp, but there's nothing wrong with that at all.

It turns out, it was a bit vague because the player behind the character decided to give themselves a new reason to play. They wanted to chase the Bounty Rankings. I want to be clear here, I understand and find NOTHING wrong with this. It's a bit jarring IC but it's fine. As long as the roleplay supports it. So basically, the player left to gain access to bounties that they could see but not accept as long as they were a member of the faction, and thus hasten their current game goal. Cool.

The problem arose a few days later when it became apparent they wished to have their cake, and eat it as well. A discussion arose over faction comms (I was not around for this) concerning their return. Apparently, it had become known in some manner that they wished to return after a period of time, after they had "achieved their goals". This, of course, was met with some pretty obvious opposition. If you're actually roleplaying, why would you support someone returning when they left for the sole purpose of gaining the right to kill you?

The /I am assuming/ friends of the player still in the faction openly opposed this point of view. Their argument was, why would you block someone returning who had done so much for the community? They seem to simply ignore the obvious "Because they left for the sole purpose of gaining the ability to kill said community." Which, is mostly fine. Drama, character conversation, it's all good. Engaging even if stressful. Part of why most of us play. However, the entire thing was capped off by one of the people hiring said Bounty Hunter to kill someone on the other side of the conversation.

This left a real foul taste in the mouth of a lot of people because clearly this person had taken a real shallow excuse to give the bounty hunter a reason to kill someone. It was stupidly obvious and very poorly hidden. Additionally, the kill was committed at the faction station. This, as you would imagine, led to an enemy status. It was an extremely simple case of "Outsider killed member in our territory."

And yet.

Being the character who assigned the enemy status, I was approached as to "WHY" by the bounty hunter. I clearly explained the reason. You are not a citizen. You killed a citizen. In our territory. Being unhappy with the conversation, the player decided to issue me. And here is where I get seriously annoyed with what I perceive as metagaming interfering with RP. You can enemy someone for basically any reason you want. If your reason is stupid, you should face RP consequences. But it is never, ever, a reason to issue. Furthermore, being enemied for killing a faction member inside the faction's territory is arguably the single BEST reason to enemy. So what the actual fuck?

The weird little faction of (Again, I'm assuming they're his friends) friends supporting this Bounty Hunter, finally came up with a RP reason why it's okay for him to do what he's doing with zero consequences. "Death means nothing and has no real value." I want to be clear again here, that is a valid, if fairly stupid, roleplay stance to take. You can argue almost any stupid point if you want to. But at the same time, they are harassing the shit out of people who very clearly care about dying violently to other people. And for the sole purpose of trying to justify someone leaving the faction for single goal of killing members of the faction, whom then desires to return afterward. Or at least, it was suggested the wanted to which set the whole entire fire keg off.

So, to wrap it all up. I am extremely irritated that someone badly roleplayed an OOC goal change for their character to the point of others trying to step in and patch it up and make excuse for things that from an IC standpoint, there is no real excuse for. I understand changing a character up to keep it enticing. I believe expecting zero consequence to such action to be stupidly belittling to the faction communities who want to actually roleplay. I'm irritated that I got issued, and feel like it was for having a perfectly viable response to an IC event. And I am extremely irritated at looking at the entire situation and feeling like I have no ability to deal with it because the underlying factor is an entirely OOC choice, with next to zero IC RP to support it.

Should I be asking admin to RP as a NPC to make clear certain things matter? The whole 'death means nothing' argument is such a wildly stupid cop-out for people who want to avoid consequences and rp. If death means nothing, why does it have a financial cost? Both in the clone replication and any possible junk lost. If death means nothing, why do bounty hunters exist at all? If death means nothing, why would anyone pay for a bounty to be posted? I can have my character respond with any of these points and many more. I likely have to, but the point remains it won't matter much. Because the issue is more metagaming OOC bullshit than anything else. 


Okay. Rant over. Feel free to roast/comment/discuss.

Bleh

Comments

  • Pink_CandyflossPink_Candyfloss Member Posts: 42 ✭✭
    I have concerns regarding the above type of behaviour and how it has, and continues to, impact the health of the game as a whole.

    Starmourn is a game, first and foremost. It is a game that relies on its playerbase and it is played as a form of entertainment and escapism, aiming to cater to as broad an audience as it can. I have played the game since release and I have seen dozens of people either leave Scatterhome or just quit Starmourn entirely due to the extremely hostile actions they are faced with. Over the top reactions just so bloodthirsty people can get their fix. It isn't even a PvP fix because in all cases, it is an established PvP heavy character killing someone much lower level or someone who doesn't PvP at all. It is a blatant case of griefing and bullying. There is no display of skill, there is no contest, you are not showing off your prowess. If these people wanted to insist they are the best at PvP, they would be at every cosmpiercer and cache fight and would be fighting in the arena against people of similar skill and who share their interests.

    We all have a duty to look out for the health of the game, each and every player contributes to how the game comes across to a pair of fresh eyes. In Scatterhome, there have been many heated arguments over the faction comms, lively debates and such, but these should end there and not roll over into PvP. If you actively discourage communication, faction comms will be silent and the game will look dead to the novice who entered.

    Scatterhome's history stems from a group of people who grew sick and tired of the amount of conflict within its own back yard. They broke the gangs apart and started the faction calls as a way to govern Scatterhome, moving away from all the violence. If people were really into Scatterhome's roleplay, they wouldn't be so quick to break into violence either. At least, not with each other. People may argue that the will of the population promotes all this random aggression all the time, but that is because the only people who stick around in Scatterhome are those who haven't been chased to other factions or have left the game entirely. It is a never ending cycle and unless people wisen up, it'll only damage the game more as time goes on.

    Now, game health reasons aside, I am aware that my interpretation of Scatterhome history is exactly that, my interpretation. I am more than happy to hear from a member of the admin team to settle things once and for all.
    RylekCubeyAzlyn
  • GrekGrek Member Posts: 54 ✭✭✭
    edited May 16
    Would strongly prefer less of this, particularly with regards to forum RP and discussing issues on the forum. Nothing good will come of either of those things.

    E: To clarify, I neither know about nor have formed an opinion about the object level issue here. I just don't think re-litigating it on the forums is a good idea. It'll only make people even angrier.
    eelWoodroSozaRocketCat
  • WoodroWoodro Member Posts: 29 ✭✭
    edited May 16
    I would think an Admin would close this as there is an ISSUE involved and to talk about those outside of the game is illegal and beyond the ISSUE itself. I would also like to point out HELP BOUNTY HUNTER for those that do not understand that a bounty hunter is a tool for the one that placed it. 

    I would also like to point out that this rant comes from an OOC point of view and that IC measures have been made to keep the current narrative going beyond "it is just a death". A bounty hunter wished to hunt a bounty and being part of a faction prevented that. It is only viable that they leave said faction to pick up those bounties. What has happened has happened. 

    I wish in the future things of IC nature would stay in the game. This ruins RP for anyone trying to do it and belittles anyone for doing anything new in the game.
  • SozaSoza Member Posts: 119 ✭✭✭
    Being the player in question I'd like to clear up quite a bit of inconsistencies.
    1.) as has been the rp goal of my character for literally ever. Soza wants to be the best at killing people. Literally as simple as it can be that has always been the goal of soza and if you think it's some sudden change you are wrong. You may speak to anyone who I have told about sozas goals even one particularly not combat inclined player, clover.

    2.) you stated  "It was an extremely simple case of "Outsider killed member in our territory.""

    This is extremely false as Noone has ever been enemied in scatterhome for taking a bounty or killing someone within scatterhome territory, not when nykara left faction to do it. Not when necerursh did it, but you did rush to enemy nece the moment I pointed it out to you. 

    In conclusion you were issued as you used this instance of me being a bounty hunter and accepting a contract, specifically to target me when multiple instances of the same thing have happened in the past, and also scatterhome has never had any laws let alone one that said if someone completed a bounty inside territory they were enemyable. Also the help bounty file clearly states that the hunter is just a tool of the bountier. You don't ban a gun because a killer used it to kill. You throw the killer in jail.
    Woodro
  • RylekRylek Member Posts: 69 ✭✭✭
    You're finding things that don't exist. Others have been, there still are people that have been for ages. It's clearly in the logs.

    But let's talk about the bounty system. 

    It never let's you know who took the bounty out on you ad far as I can find out. It never says why there's a bounty on you. Someone can just take them out free of responsibility and that's an issue.


    Also, I'm mostly sure the clause saying bounty hunters are just the tools, is in relation to clearing them from being the target of wrongful killing issues. It seems wild to assume that it game wide with zero input from the factions makes you immune to consequences. Especially if the mark has zero way to find out why they're being killed.

    Maybe I'm wrong about that. But I doubt it
  • SozaSoza Member Posts: 119 ✭✭✭
    There are in fact people who have attacked players in our factional zones enemied still, there aren't however nor have the ever been any bounty hunter eneming over it as the bounty hunter is just a tool. If this had been an issue in the past then nykara would have been enemied, and so would necerursh, they however weren't, but you made sure to enemy necerursh after I made the issue and pointed out that it was only specifically targeting me.
  • SozaSoza Member Posts: 119 ✭✭✭
    Also I was under the assumption that bounty show <id> showed the bounty who filed against them, but it shows as n/a to the hunter.
  • CubeyCubey Member Posts: 320 ✭✭✭

    Soza said:
    This is extremely false as Noone has ever been enemied in scatterhome for taking a bounty or killing someone within scatterhome territory, not when nykara left faction to do it. Not when necerursh did it, but you did rush to enemy nece the moment I pointed it out to you.
    This is an absolutely hilarious statement. I don't know what narrative are you trying to spin here, but SH had a long history of enemying people for absolutely frivolous reasons, including participation in cosmpiercers and just "I don't like your face so you should be enemied".

    Hell, I experienced it firsthand, having been enemied AND issued for the terrible crime of attacking and killing Woodro when he refused to leave the CA station despite being a CA enemy.
    Rylek
  • SozaSoza Member Posts: 119 ✭✭✭
    edited May 17
    I'll reiterate the statement again, but never for completing a bounty, maybe people are inferring that the statment "for taking a bounty or killing someone within scatterhome territory" is implying for just simply killing them. but I am intending it as "never for completing a bounty, inside or outside of scatterhome territory."
  • IndiIndi Member Posts: 199 ✭✭✭
    If a bounty hunter attacks my character, I will hunt them down. Not saying I'm good enough to win the fight (pretty sure it'd end badly for my character) but there's no way my character would ever accept the "oh, it was a bounty hunter so it's okay they killed me because they're just a tool" argument.

    Flynn would 100% decide to try and make an example of the bounty hunter in question so they don't take bounties on him again in the future.

    Is it not okay for a faction to do the same thing?

    That's a genuine question, not an argument for or against a particular side in this discussion. I've always been a bit confused by the statement that the bounty hunter has nothing to do with the conflict because it's just a bounty and they're a tool. My "kill the messenger" approach to this has been acceptable in other IRE games, but we're not other IRE games so I'm unsure.
  • SozaSoza Member Posts: 119 ✭✭✭
    edited May 18
    Indi said:
    If a bounty hunter attacks my character, I will hunt them down. Not saying I'm good enough to win the fight (pretty sure it'd end badly for my character) but there's no way my character would ever accept the "oh, it was a bounty hunter so it's okay they killed me because they're just a tool" argument.

    Flynn would 100% decide to try and make an example of the bounty hunter in question so they don't take bounties on him again in the future.

    Is it not okay for a faction to do the same thing?

    That's a genuine question, not an argument for or against a particular side in this discussion. I've always been a bit confused by the statement that the bounty hunter has nothing to do with the conflict because it's just a bounty and they're a tool. My "kill the messenger" approach to this has been acceptable in other IRE games, but we're not other IRE games so I'm unsure.

    My gripe is less along the lines of it not being okay, and more along the lines of Its never been a thing for any other bounty hunter except for me. Seemed a little targeted at the moment. Also the moment I pointed out that its never happened to any other hunter and provided proof, instead of saying something like "Well its a new law in effect that i'm enforcing."  He completely stopped replying to me until I issued him for harassment. at which point he attempted to cover his ass by enemying the person I used as a proof and then attempting to twist it as "we would enemy anyone who killed someone within factional territory". Which in my opinion is not the same thing as someone completing a bounty in territory.

    What I want to point out, There would have been no problems if there had been a history of Scatterhome marshals interfering with bounty hunters in the past. but there wasnt. Multiple diffrent bounty hunters have done the same and never been enemied for it. Even going so far as to leaving Scatterhome temporarily just to complete a bounty on scatterhome members, Nykara did before and was never enemied.

    On another note, There is no upsides to being enemied so im starting to think it would make sense that if you are an enemy to a place. Then that place is an enemy to you, therefor any governing people of said place are open game to kill until your enemy status is revoked.

    Also the whole "Kill the messenger is allowed" so long as the bounty isn't completed. Rules would say otherwise though after completion. Not that you need a reason to start attacking a openly lawless/bountyhunter player in the first place though.
  • SozaSoza Member Posts: 119 ✭✭✭
    This is also all not to mention that after said enemying, a referendum was made in scatterhome asking if bounty hunters should be allowed to operate meaning that he knows he enemied me specifically after so long of bounty hunters not being enemied for such actions. The referendum came back in favor of bounty hunters anyway.
  • IndiIndi Member Posts: 199 ✭✭✭
    Well, yeah. The part about BH being open pk regardless, definitely is what 'allows' my preferred response to bounties being collected.

    This particular incident is, scuse the pun, incidental to my question/point. This thread just reminded me that I have heard many times this concept that bounty hunters are in some manner above any reprisals. They're definitely not (in fact, if I felt like killing every bounty hunter every time I saw any of them, just to make sure they never considered taking a bounty on me in the future, even that is acceptable).

    This kind of situation has happened too many times in too many IRE games over the years though. In too many different orgs as well. Some orgs allow it, some don't. Some enemy, some don't. Some whine, some don't. Some agree on a stance, and others are split down the middle.

    Sometimes Most of the time being in Scatterhome is exhausting, even when not taking an active part in anything.
  • RocketCatRocketCat Member Posts: 177 ✭✭✭
    Just want to say that I hate that this thread exists. I know way more about any of this than I ever would have wanted. Doesn't Scatterhome have a Discord where you can take this? There's absolutely nothing here that needs to be on the forums. Please close this thread.
    Hi, I'm Ata. Oh and maybe some other people, too. o:) Check out my various packages for Nexus: Vuu combat system, Global Pathfinder, Slicer Tools, Ship compass, JS from command line, Vitals Tracker, and Equipment Manager.
    Grek
  • NykaraNykara Member Posts: 109 ✭✭✭
    I just want to say: when you get killed by a bounty hunter, you get a message letting you know why they killed you and who did it, because the BH system is explicitly for conflict resolution by people who are unable to do it through combat themselves. Hi, bye. 
  • IlyosIlyos Administrator, Moderator Posts: 96 Starmourn staff
    The part in the HELP file where bounty hunters are to considered tools comes into play when determining if the bounty hunter needs to have cause to kill their target and whether the target has cause to them track down the bounty hunter and kill them. (So no, the bounty hunter doesn't need cause and no, the target can't seek retribution on the bounty hunter after the contract is completed/failed).

    However, if a bounty hunter engages someone, target or not, in factional territory, then they fall subject to faction laws and may be enemied for the fact. Whether or not they are indeed enemied is at the discretion of the governing body of the faction. As always, if anyone feels that their government isn't doing their job and using their powers discretionary they can remove them from power or replace them. This is not something that the administration will usually step in to resolve as these powers are given to the players to use and dispense as they see fit. We did rescind someone's enemy status that one time because it was an automated action caused by something we deemed a bug, but that's not something we will do very often.
  • Bob_KimmelBob_Kimmel Member Posts: 14
    edited May 26
    From a RP angle I would like to speak up and say that, as one of the most vocal participants of the debate and a catalyst in recent events, there certainly was a lot more roleplay involved than has been given credit for. I dont really want to spill my guts and turn this into some sort of debate but to instead clear up a misconception.

    My character Vohl has a personality that I have to stick to (for better or for worse) that I have based on a mixture of racial attributes and background design. Defense of said actions and argument that was quoted was certainly never shallow nor dictated by OOC. I have never spoken to anyone to plot the course of things and I don't speak to anyone on outside channels to plot rp in this particular theme or arc.

    The reasoning behind Vohl and his actions was rooted in the kind of person, the kind of background Vohl comes from, the culture of that background (not racial but societal - in this case criminal), and personal interest. It is an arc that started in the character tutorial and continues to this day. He has made frequent references to why he had to leave Krell etc. 

    I understand it may seem shallow at a glance, but there is a lot more under the surface that you don't perhaps see or get privy to and I would presume that the same is true for Soza. Apart from odd conversations, there is no friendship or deep link between Vohl and Soza, however, Vohl has many times inferred he represents the criminal society (in not so many words) of which the bounty hunters are invaluable to as tools, much like real world organised crime who use hitman and go between.

    Please don't discredit myself or others just because you perceive our motivations to be OOC led. 


    Additionally, people are quick to quote Scatterhome as being founded on anti-gang principles but Scatterhome was actually founded a long time before that notorious event as a refuge for displaced humans. Due to its relaxed nature it became popular for shady types and those shady types got out of hand once upon a time caused a genocide in their attempts to murder eachother.

    At no point did Scatterhome become the white knight faction of pure hearts and shining swords of justice and nor do the players represent even a 10th of the population of scatterhome. Like in a soap opera, the players are the visible 'faces', the main drivers of story.

    However, in the background there are potentially hundreds of millions of people of all kinds of creeds. Many of those are gangsters, pirates, fugitives and people like Vohl who are there because of its relaxed atmosphere towards criminal pursuits.

    Now as I say, I am not looking for a debate and my particular part in Scatterhome is come to a close, but please recognise the legitimacy of rp outside of the popular spectrum or you will kill off a lot of interesting narrative and chase players away.

    Regrettably Vohl's character was treated as a clown and I can see now its because OOC was seen as the driver rather than narrative. But I hope my contribution makes you understand that he is a creation and like Soza, is intended to represent a different part of the society, whether it fits with your preferences for content or not.







  • Pink_CandyflossPink_Candyfloss Member Posts: 42 ✭✭
    I didn't say Scatterhome was founded on anti-gang principles. Scatterhome was formed over time as more and more people drifted to the same area of space, settling down and building a life for themselves away from the corporations of Celestine and the authority of the Dominion. People didn't want to be taxed and ruled, they didn't want bureaucracy shoved down their throats, didn't want rules and regulations interfering with good business. It is a haven to keep away from all those principles.

    Sure, that also made it a haven for criminal activities. A whole manner of crime happens within Scatterhome and people look the other way, unless they get something out of stepping in. The only time recorded in Scatterhome history where the people rose up and demanded change, was when things got violent. The vast majority of Scatterhome's residents opposed all the violence, the gang wars, and they either evicted or killed off the perpetrators. Afterwards, they adopted the Call system so majority rule was always in effect.

    Vohl got the boot because he was excessively violent. Being violent isn't a bad thing, so long as it is directed the right way, but Vohl was messing with the people he lives with. People looked the other way at all the other shady things mentioned in his roleplay and hinted at in his news posts, those were never the issues. 

    As I stated in my previous post, overly aggressive people have chased away far more people from the faction and the game. People who just straight up quit because of the hostile environment, getting killed for simply speaking on faction and offering suggestions or their opinion.
  • Bob_KimmelBob_Kimmel Member Posts: 14

    The only time recorded in Scatterhome history where the people rose up and demanded change, was when things got violent. 

    Vohl got the boot because he was excessively violent. Being violent isn't a bad thing, so long as it is directed the right way, but Vohl was messing with the people he lives with. People looked the other way at all the other shady things mentioned in his roleplay and hinted at in his news posts, those were never the issues. 

    As I stated in my previous post, overly aggressive people have chased away far more people from the faction and the game. People who just straight up quit because of the hostile environment, getting killed for simply speaking on faction and offering suggestions or their opinion.

    Its the first I've ever used the quote function in a forum so I've just quoted the bits that I'm referring to.

    No, the people rose up because one gang tried to gas another gang and killed lots and lots of innocent people by mistake which was enough to stir them into acting against groups they previously feared and eliminating the tyranny of gang rule. We are talking thousands of people of all ages, possibly more.

    There is and was never any hint or risk of gang rule, criminal tyranny, or a whiff of a power grab in comparison. I think it's terribly melodramatic to even compare the two things.

    I think that you'll find Vohl was scrutinised for every single aspect of his business on a regular basis and treated as a novelty or an anomaly for being crooked, not to mention he has never actually fleeced, tricked, robbed, deceived, or swindled a single player as I've been quite respectful of the small playerbase and so everything is inferred and hinted at. It would be like starting a pyramid scheme in a small village otherwise. Not that he wouldn't have done those things (to VNPCS amongst the millions of residents making their home on the asteroids of Scatterhome) but he also would be one of many and not at all special for doing so. Same applies to having people killed, killing people, or being violent.

    That there was a flurry of bounties was a little more special but then it was intended that way, a set piece by design that was entirely fitting his character and what'd been built up to. It was however not the genocide that led Scatterhome to rise up as you describe.

    Nor was the notorious catalytic bounty that you're referring to, the Vohlgate incident, a remarkable event in a place that is home to so many sketchy people. 

    I have put up with a lot of abuse towards my character and I can promise you that it is certainly a lot harder to deal with than being killed one time as a consequence of rp, something I know a thing or two about!

    And if one bounty per person for those involved would be enough to tip a person to leave the game? To quote Dave Chapelle, "That is a brittle spirit."

  • CubeyCubey Member Posts: 320 ✭✭✭
    RP doesn't make you immune to ingame consequences. You play someone who puts bounties on fellow faction members? Don't be surprised if they don't like it. "It makes sense for my character to act this way" is such an old excuse.
    RylekIkchorSazabi
  • ThePlaintiffReturnsThePlaintiffReturns Member Posts: 43 ✭✭✭
    I'm just gonna leave this here and then go back to quietly watching this very entertaining exchange...

    7.14 PK

           7.13 < Aliases and Targeting                    Bounties > 7.15

    PK stands for Player Killing, another name for PvP (Player vs. Player combat).

    We're operating on what we call "roleplay pk" or "roleplay pvp", where if you
    have a valid and justifiable reason to attack someone, you can.
     
    This does not mean you can attack other players repeatedly just for being a
    member of an opposing organization. Neither can you justify your behavior by 
    claiming something like "my character is a psycho killer!" A player must have 
    done something serious to you to warrant an attack, and they must be aware of 
    the conflict before you attack them.

    Below is a FAQ-style list of questions and answers that commonly come up:
    Q: How many times can I attack someone for <my valid reason>
    A: Once, if you kill them, or they defend and kill you, the matter is considered
    resolved.

    Q: Can I go and raid <some other faction> and kill anyone I see?
    A: No. You're welcome to engage with anyone actively defending, but killing
    people who are uninvolved is never ok.

    Q: Can I attack someone for attacking me back after I attacked them (...and so
    on)?
    A: No, circular PK isn't a thing.

    Q: Is it ever ok to camp a cloning location?
    A: No.
Sign In or Register to comment.