Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
A rant, about ruining Roleplay with OOC goals
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
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
0
Comments
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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."
To me if a bounty hunter is being sloppy they should face the in-game consequences. Just as well a traitor to his/her faction should face the in-game consequences of those choices and make a good show of it in the process be it redemption or burning the bridge. If you bite the hand that feeds you don't expect a free lunch...
Besides, I've never heard of a bounty hunter that hunts their target in a secure location for all to see unless its faction sanctioned and in their territory. Normally there would be some kind of scouting, planning, and interception to prevent intervention or failure. This whole bounty hunter thing just seems out of wack to me honestly as if theirs a fundamental misunderstanding of jurisdiction and agency.