My experience killing another player
Tathlyn
Yesterday, I was with my associate heading to Covetous in hopes of killing a
few gazers and harpies. On our way we happened upon someone attacking a
wandering healer with Corp Pors and In Por Ylems. His name eludes me but he
was vile and turned up grey.
My friend promptly attacked and I followed suit. As he tried to
run and Kal Ort Por, we ran him down, killed, and looted him. While we fought
my friend mocked and cussed at him for no reason (you know, the usual "die
bitch!" and "FUC Q" type stuff). While I don't mind profanity it
was unneccessary and rude in this situation, not unlike what pks have done to
me in the past.
After the battle I had a very dirty and unpleasant feeling,
having ruined the night for someone else. He had done nothing to me. He
had'nt attacked me, stolen from me, or offended me yet I found it neccessary
to kill him in cold blood. I logged off in disgust.
Now, I hate pks and pvp style play, it's just not me. It was
distressing to suddenly find myself as a hypocrite. I now solemnly avow to
avoid fighting other people except in self defense. Just don't understand how
people can enjoy doing this full time!
-Tathlyn
oh, and my 7 week old kitten squeaks hello, if anyone cares.
Marc
> After the battle I had a very dirty and unpleasant feeling,
> having ruined the night for someone else. He had done nothing to me.
> He had'nt attacked me, stolen from me, or offended me yet I found it
> neccessary to kill him in cold blood. I logged off in disgust.
That's what I am telling ppl all the time.
Don't attack grey unless you know the reason (ok, he attacked a healer,
so what?) and that reason has an unwanted impact on another player.
For example, the guy you killed might have wanted to kill the healer
because the healer was an 'old' NPC that had no backpack. Just an idea.
Honest Dragon
ro...@becketts.com
In article <sinthetic....@seanet.com>,
sint...@seanet.com (Tathlyn) wrote:
>
> After the battle I had a very dirty and unpleasant feeling,
> having ruined the night for someone else. He had done nothing to me. He
> had'nt attacked me, stolen from me, or offended me yet I found it neccessary
> to kill him in cold blood. I logged off in disgust.
I wish more people would realize the folly of this kind of killing. Killing
greys just because they are grey is PKing and if people would realize this
I think we would have a better game. Now I am not against PvP combat. I do
kill people you attack or rob me, But I have never attacked someone
just for being grey.
On another note if this was Lady Tathlyn from Oasis, good to see you
posting here.
Rob a.k.a ASlon (Sonoma)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Rob Collins
Marc wrote:
> > After the battle I had a very dirty and unpleasant feeling,
> > having ruined the night for someone else. He had done nothing to
> me.
> > He had'nt attacked me, stolen from me, or offended me yet I found
> it
> > neccessary to kill him in cold blood. I logged off in disgust.
>
> That's what I am telling ppl all the time.
> Don't attack grey unless you know the reason (ok, he attacked a
> healer,
> so what?) and that reason has an unwanted impact on another player.
> For example, the guy you killed might have wanted to kill the healer
> because the healer was an 'old' NPC that had no backpack. Just an
> idea.
So? He is attacking a _good_ person, even if said person is a npc, my
character wont care, if you start attacking the healers of the land,
expected to be challanged. (Not attacked outright mind.) If you do not
give a satisfactory answer, (The backpacks thing is NOT good enough.)
then expect my character to ask you to cease and desist or I will kill
you. Afterwards I would not take anything, looting a body of a fellow
human is below my character, unless the person really deserves it.
Now a lot of people say you should make a judgement call over greys,
and I do, but it is from my characters point of view, and justice is one
of the virtues, and he will use that virtue to its full. Maybe im just
lucky in being able to step away from myself and into my character when
I play this game.
--
"Duct tape is much like The Force. It has a light side and a
dark side and holds the Universe together."
Robert Collins.
-Maniac at large.
Dundee
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 02:42:55 GMT, sint...@seanet.com (Tathlyn)
wrote:
>Yesterday, I was with my associate heading to Covetous in hopes of killing a
>few gazers and harpies. On our way we happened upon someone attacking a
>wandering healer with Corp Pors and In Por Ylems. His name eludes me but he
>was vile and turned up grey.
He was probably killing the healers with no packs, so that ones *with*
packs would respawn. That gives the thieves someone to steal from
other than us. It's a good thing. 'Way to ruin it.
> My friend promptly attacked and I followed suit. As he tried to
>run and Kal Ort Por, we ran him down, killed, and looted him. While we fought
>my friend mocked and cussed at him for no reason (you know, the usual "die
>bitch!" and "FUC Q" type stuff).
You need some new friends.
> After the battle I had a very dirty and unpleasant feeling,
I think it's called 'guilt'.
> Now, I hate pks and pvp style play, it's just not me. It was
>distressing to suddenly find myself as a hypocrite. I now solemnly avow to
>avoid fighting other people except in self defense. Just don't understand how
>people can enjoy doing this full time!
I don't understand how you can enjoy doing it part time. You should
have attacked your friend, instead.
Keep in mind, too, that what goes around comes around. Both you and
this fellow play on the same shard. If you have journal logging
turned on you should scroll through and see what his name was, because
I bet he remembers yours. Doing *something* to make ammends might
avert some nasty encounter in the future. Who knows? The fellow you
ran down and murdered for trying to give us all a break from the
thieves might turn out to be a better friend than the kewld00d you
were running with.
--
Dundee of Lake Superior - Skep...@SPAMISantisocial.com
Townstone proposal and Other Stuff:
http://dundee.uong.com
Boesie
You just don't have the killerinstinct, and i do mean this in a good way... i
can't bring myself to 'just' killing greys without any reason either, unless i
see them looting or stuff. Though i know most people wouldn't hesitate to execute
me if i turned grey for a minute...
The Proper Boesiebus, GM Warrior, KMP Guild
Catskills
Dundee
>> For example, the guy you killed might have wanted to kill the healer
>> because the healer was an 'old' NPC that had no backpack. Just an
>> idea.
>
>So? He is attacking a _good_ person, even if said person is a npc, my
>character wont care, if you start attacking the healers of the land,
>expected to be challanged. (Not attacked outright mind.) If you do not
>give a satisfactory answer, (The backpacks thing is NOT good enough.)
This is why I think True Foaming Roleplayers are almost as much a pain
in the ass as kewld00ds.
Give us a break, huh? Slaughter the no-pack NPCs and encourage others
to do the same.
>of the virtues, and he will use that virtue to its full. Maybe im just
>lucky in being able to step away from myself and into my character when
>I play this game.
And that makes the rest of us unlucky.
Darren McDonald
I know how you feel.
The first and only time I've attacked another player was just last Friday. I
witnessed a guy steal from a couple of miners. They began attacking him, but
obviously needed help. He was gray to me since I had witnessed the crime, so
I lent a hand.
We chased him down. He was obviously trying to get to the bank to deposit
his loot. Fortunately for us, the lag that surrounded the Minoc Bank on Baja
all weekend kicked in. We killed him and the miners took their valuables
back.
This situation was obvious and the justice was swift and clear. Still it
hurts to take such drastic measures (yes, I know it's a game) to stop
someone from ruining another's enjoyment.
BTW, my cat only says 'three'
--
The Admirable Darius, Tinker of Minoc, Baja
Circle of Steel http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Labyrinth/5115
=Hobbit Dragon= http://www.dhc.net/~avatar
Tathlyn wrote in message ...
>Yesterday, I was with my associate heading to Covetous in hopes of killing
a
>few gazers and harpies. On our way we happened upon someone attacking a
>wandering healer with Corp Pors and In Por Ylems. His name eludes me but
he
>was vile and turned up grey.
> My friend promptly attacked and I followed suit. As he tried to
>run and Kal Ort Por, we ran him down, killed, and looted him. While we
fought
>my friend mocked and cussed at him for no reason (you know, the usual "die
>bitch!" and "FUC Q" type stuff). While I don't mind profanity it
>was unneccessary and rude in this situation, not unlike what pks have done
to
>me in the past.
> After the battle I had a very dirty and unpleasant feeling,
>having ruined the night for someone else. He had done nothing to me. He
>had'nt attacked me, stolen from me, or offended me yet I found it
neccessary
>to kill him in cold blood. I logged off in disgust.
> Now, I hate pks and pvp style play, it's just not me. It was
>distressing to suddenly find myself as a hypocrite. I now solemnly avow to
>avoid fighting other people except in self defense. Just don't understand
how
>people can enjoy doing this full time!
>
>
Marc
> So? He is attacking a _good_ person, even if said person is a npc, my
> character wont care, if you start attacking the healers of the land,
> expected to be challanged.
They didn't challenge him, they killed him immediately.
> (The backpacks thing is NOT good enough.)
This IS good enough. It's not our fault that OSI was unable to replace
the old NPCs with new ones.
> Afterwards I would not take anything, looting a body of a fellow
> human is below my character, unless the person really deserves it.
Interesting. Killing is ok, but looting not.
Honest Dragon
Rob Collins
Dundee wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 14:59:05 +0100, Rob Collins
> <robert....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >> For example, the guy you killed might have wanted to kill the
> healer
> >> because the healer was an 'old' NPC that had no backpack. Just an
> >> idea.
> >
> >So? He is attacking a _good_ person, even if said person is a npc, my
>
> >character wont care, if you start attacking the healers of the land,
> >expected to be challanged. (Not attacked outright mind.) If you do
> not
> >give a satisfactory answer, (The backpacks thing is NOT good enough.)
>
> This is why I think True Foaming Roleplayers are almost as much a pain
>
> in the ass as kewld00ds.
>
> Give us a break, huh? Slaughter the no-pack NPCs and encourage others
>
> to do the same.
>
Give you a break? Hmmm as a person I would say yes, and so I would
probably let you kill them, after all they will only respawn. I am not a
Foaming Role Player, I know when to set aside my character, and this
occasion would be one.
> >of the virtues, and he will use that virtue to its full. Maybe im
> just
> >lucky in being able to step away from myself and into my character
> when
> >I play this game.
>
> And that makes the rest of us unlucky.
>
Nope, it makes you diffrent, I have never claimed to discriminate
beacuse of my choice of paths within this game. The fact remains that
within britiania there is a good reason to prevent such acts, the
killing of a person for no good reason is _never_ a good act, and "He
doesnt have a backpack" would not cut it. I would give him some slack, I
see no reason why not to. Maybe my last post was badly worded, (Infact
it was.) but IMHO people should leave the Non-Back NPC's do deacy
naturaly, after all, how long till OSI do a NPC wipe?
> --
> Dundee of Lake Superior - Skep...@SPAMISantisocial.com
> Townstone proposal and Other Stuff:
> http://dundee.uong.com
--
"Duct tape is much like The Force. It has a light side and a
dark side and holds the Universe together."
"I am a ranger! We walk in the dark places no others will enter. We
stand on the bridge and no one may pass. We live for the One. We die for
the One!" - Ranger Motto
Rob Collins
Marc wrote:
> > So? He is attacking a _good_ person, even if said person is a npc,
> my
> > character wont care, if you start attacking the healers of the land,
>
> > expected to be challanged.
>
> They didn't challenge him, they killed him immediately.
>
> > (The backpacks thing is NOT good enough.)
>
> This IS good enough. It's not our fault that OSI was unable to replace
>
> the old NPCs with new ones.
>
Nope, In game it is NOT, no Knight or Templar would say "Oh he doesnt
have a backpack thats ok." out of game, and in person I would probably
say "Ok." and give him a lecture (Or a short statement.) on the virtues.
> > Afterwards I would not take anything, looting a body of a fellow
> > human is below my character, unless the person really deserves it.
>
> Interesting. Killing is ok, but looting not.
>
Indeed, the looting of _all_ of someones goods prevents them making
their way in the world, compassion is one of the virtues, taking there
hard earned gold teaches them a lesson they will not forget. Murder and
pay for it (Justice.) Out of character of course _both_ are wrong, and
as I states above I would cut people some slack, after all not all
people want to role-play. I should know, my freind "Lord" Pinny acts
nothing like a lord (Dont tell him I said that.) but I have nothing
against him for this, and neither does my character. There are times
when RL overrules my Role-Playing. If it did not, I would, as Dundee
said, be as bad as the kewld00ds.
> Honest Dragon
--
"Duct tape is much like The Force. It has a light side and a
dark side and holds the Universe together."
Robert Collins.
-Maniac at large.
Dennis Heffernan
Rob Collins wrote in message <359026BD...@virgin.net>...
|Indeed, the looting of _all_ of someones goods prevents them making
|their way in the world, compassion is one of the virtues, taking there
|hard earned gold teaches them a lesson they will not forget. Murder and
|pay for it (Justice.) Out of character of course _both_ are wrong, and
If it should ever come to pass that I had to whack another PC, I
would definitely loot the corpse (because if I don't someone else will).
I would return any gold, reagents, clothing, tradesman's tools or goods,
etc. and keep the weapons and armor -- which, under the old rules of
chivalry, he would have to ransom back for their fair market value.
Then I'd buy some ice skates for my next trip to Hell.
Dennis F. Heffernan UO: Venture (Catskills) df...@worldnet.att.net
Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
"You bitch about the present and blame it on the past/I'd like to find your
inner child and kick its little ass!" - D. Henley/G. Frey, "Get Over It"
Ron Findling
> He was probably killing the healers with no packs, so that ones *with*
> packs would respawn. That gives the thieves someone to steal from
> other than us. It's a good thing. 'Way to ruin it.
Assuming the healers in question aren't murderers or criminals...
From a "good player" point of view, you're right. However, from a
"good character" point of view, that's horrible thing to do. Most
characters (as far as I know) play "good" characters, if they're
roleplaying them properly, they'll at least not participate in such
murder themselves.
I know that my Anna McCloud Archer/Swordswoman character, who follows
the Ultima virtues, would take a very dim view of such people, she
doesn't see UO as a game, and hates murderers. Pleading "It's only a
game!" wouldn't impress her, that's the same excuse many Pkers and
cheaters use to justify their evil....
Ron Findling
>>So? He is attacking a _good_ person, even if said person is a npc, my
>>character wont care, if you start attacking the healers of the land,
>>give a satisfactory answer, (The backpacks thing is NOT good enough.)
>
>This is why I think True Foaming Roleplayers are almost as much a pain
>in the ass as kewld00ds.
What's "foaming" about such an attitude? Sounds like good roleplaying
to me.
> Give us a break, huh? Slaughter the no-pack NPCs and encourage others
> to do the same.
Why? Because you say so? Yes, I know the reason about getting new
NPC's with backpacks. One can rationalize a lot of evil actions that
way...
"Hey, I had to kill you, dude. With that big flappin cape an all those
big words you was uzin, you was causin lag. But don worry, I'm
actually a nice guy."
>> Maybe im just lucky in being able to step away from myself and into
>> my character when I play this game.
>And that makes the rest of us unlucky.
I submit that if all UO players were willing to stay in character at
the expense of intimate knowledge of game mechanics like this, that
(considering most characters are at least nominally supposedly "good")
that the quality of the playing in UO would improve about 1000000%.
I think you're way, WAY off base on this one Dundee. Too bad.
Dundee
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 05:27:47 GMT, ro...@direct.ca (Ron Findling) wrote:
>>>So? He is attacking a _good_ person, even if said person is a npc, my
>>>character wont care, if you start attacking the healers of the land,
>>>expected to be challanged. (Not attacked outright mind.) If you do not
>>>give a satisfactory answer, (The backpacks thing is NOT good enough.)
>>
>>This is why I think True Foaming Roleplayers are almost as much a pain
>>in the ass as kewld00ds.
>
>What's "foaming" about such an attitude? Sounds like good roleplaying
>to me.
Thieves are a hassle. NPCs had no packs for a long time. Thieves
*had* to steal from other players. That bites. In an offline,
traditional, face-to-face RPG (which is to say, "a real role-playing
game") you don't steal from other players or you don't get invited
back.
Now, here's the deal. Until these NPCs die so that new ones (with
packs) will respawn, the thieves *still* have to feed on us, the real
players. I think they should have every opportunity to steal from
NPCs instead of, for example, me.
In a real RPG, the GM would never have had such a thing as "NPCs have
no packs, there's no one to steal from but the other players".
Anyway - this is something we can fix ourselves, if you True
Roleplayers will just turn a blind eye for about 2 minutes. Can you
go OOC for just that long?
>> Give us a break, huh? Slaughter the no-pack NPCs and encourage others
>> to do the same.
>
>Why? Because you say so?
I was asking. I should have said 'Please'.
>I submit that if all UO players were willing to stay in character at
>the expense of intimate knowledge of game mechanics like this,
We aren't just players, we're players *and* GMs (in the traditional
sense of the word). We have to think-up our own plots and quests and
whatnot. We play NPCs from time to time. We also have to "fix" some
things every now and then that are just very WRONG with the world.
You can page a GM and ask him to delete the NPC. Easier and quicker
just to kill them. If *you* can't go OOC for long enough to deal with
the problem, then at the very least, ignore me when I do.
>that (considering most characters are at least nominally supposedly "good")
>that the quality of the playing in UO would improve about 1000000%.
I'd feel like I was talking to sock-puppets all the time.
Dundee
>Nope, it makes you diffrent, I have never claimed to discriminate
>beacuse of my choice of paths within this game. The fact remains that
>within britiania there is a good reason to prevent such acts, the
>killing of a person for no good reason is _never_ a good act, and "He
>doesnt have a backpack" would not cut it. I would give him some slack, I
>see no reason why not to. Maybe my last post was badly worded, (Infact
>it was.) but
How about this:
Dudeee: This NPC is bugged. Excuse me while I delete him.
(obviously very ooc, but I can put a *OOC* in front of it if you want)
YOU: ___________________ [fill in the blank]
>IMHO people should leave the Non-Back NPC's do deacy
>naturaly, after all, how long till OSI do a NPC wipe?
By definition, an NPC wipe isn't "natural" decay. ;-)
Dundee
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 02:52:30 GMT, ro...@direct.ca (Ron Findling) wrote:
>> He was probably killing the healers with no packs, so that ones *with*
>> packs would respawn. That gives the thieves someone to steal from
>> other than us. It's a good thing. 'Way to ruin it.
>
>Assuming the healers in question aren't murderers or criminals...
>
>From a "good player" point of view, you're right. However, from a
>"good character" point of view, that's horrible thing to do.
Killing an NPC "because he has no pack" is, by definition, an OOC
thing. Would youre *character* respond if I said:
Dundee: *OOC* brb - doorbell
So, whether killing a no-pack healer is "good" or "bad" from a
character point of view is irrelevant. They aren't being killed "in
character", they are being deleted so that they will respawn. It's an
OOC thing. If you react to it IC, then you're just being... well... a
True Foaming Roleplayer.
Dennis Heffernan
Dundee wrote in message ...
|I'd feel like I was talking to sock-puppets all the time.
It's a roleplaying game. If you don't want to roleplay
we don't need you.
Marc
> Nope, In game it is NOT, no Knight or Templar would say "Oh he doesnt
> have a backpack thats ok." out of game, and in person I would probably
> say "Ok." and give him a lecture (Or a short statement.) on the virtues.
I rest my case because arguing with ppl that hammer on their in-character
play when ppl want to correct faults made by OSI is wasted time.
Honest Dragon
Dundee
>Dundee wrote in message ...
>
>|I'd feel like I was talking to sock-puppets all the time.
>
> It's a roleplaying game.
So it says on the box. Final Fantasy also claims to be a roleplaying
game. Final Fantasy Tactics has even been described as a roleplaying
game. CRPGs aren't really RPGs at all. And online multiplayer CRPGs
don't seem to be RPGs either.
I've played a lot of roleplaying games. I've even roleplayed within
the UO environment (essentially, playing NPCs and roleplaying with
other people who were roleplaying their own characters).
But IMO, even that falls a bit short of making UO a roleplaying game.
At best, it's an environment in which you *can* roleplay.
>If you don't want to roleplay we don't need you.
I don't need for you to need me, Dennis. ;-P
But anyway, my point is, if you stay IC with someone who is OOC, then
they are talking to a sock-puppet - and that's silly.
Anyone killing healers "because they have no packs" is very much OOC.
Ron Findling
>> I'd feel like I was talking to sock-puppets all the time.
> It's a roleplaying game. If you don't want to roleplay
>we don't need you.
Let's not be that harsh, Dennis. It's mentioned as a adventure game -
without the word roleplaying listed anywhere - right on the box.
That's an unfortunate omission in my opinion, but it does mean
Dundee's style of play isn't inappropriate.
I just wish he'd lay off those who do want to roleplay. I'd like to
think I'm pretty good at it, and not a "sock-puppet."
Ron Findling
>> What's "foaming" about such an attitude? Sounds like good roleplaying
>> to me.
> ...In a real RPG, the GM would never have had such a thing as "NPCs
> have no packs, there's no one to steal from but the other players".
>
> Anyway - this is something we can fix ourselves, if you True
> Roleplayers will just turn a blind eye for about 2 minutes. Can you
> go OOC for just that long?
I still don't see what's "foaming" about what the roleplayers are
doing when the "virtuous" ones react negatively to *murder* like that.
They're playing their characters properly.
>>> Give us a break, huh? Slaughter the no-pack NPCs and encourage
>>> others to do the same.
>> Why? Because you say so?
> I was asking. I should have said 'Please'.
The reason I'm taking you on this is because of comments like that,
where you seem to have a bug up your butt about such roleplayers
actually (gasp!) *playing their characters properly.* It actually
seems to bother you.
I'll be fair and not even speculate as to why, I honestly have no
idea.
>>I submit that if all UO players were willing to stay in character at
>>the expense of intimate knowledge of game mechanics like this,
>
>We aren't just players, we're players *and* GMs (in the traditional
>sense of the word). We have to think-up our own plots and quests and
>whatnot. We play NPCs from time to time. We also have to "fix" some
>things every now and then that are just very WRONG with the world.
You don't get my point - I'm not so much criticizing you for you
having your otherwise (probably virtuous) characters murdering NPC's,
I'm criticizing you for what is coming off as intimidation attempts
against roleplayers for playing properly. We need *more* roleplaying
in UO, not less. I know you're not one, but we've already got too many
"kool dudez" around who do the same thing in-game.
> You can page a GM and ask him to delete the NPC. Easier and quicker
> just to kill them. If *you* can't go OOC for long enough to deal with
> the problem, then at the very least, ignore me when I do.
That depends. My Anna McCloud character follows the virtues and was a
proper Order Guard for quite a while. She's not so much an advocate of
Law and Order anymore, but she still definitely follows the virtues.
And If she was on your shard and saw your Dundee character murdering
an NPC in the wilderness, she'd size up the situation and quite
possibly attack you in the name of Justice. And this would all be
quite properly in character and in the spirit of good roleplaying
*and* the Ultima background.
Of course, she would quite possibly lose, but if she won and your
character died, I'm wondering what your roleplaying reaction would be?
(Naturally and understandably you *personally* would be upset, nothing
wrong with that)
Note I'm assuming your Dundee character is *not* supposed to be an
evil murdering type of character. If he is, then pretend I'm talking
about another character of yours which is not, since I think you'd be
willing to have them all murder NPC's like this.
>> ...that (considering most characters are at least nominally supposedly
>> "good") that the quality of the playing in UO would improve about
>> 1000000%.
>
>I'd feel like I was talking to sock-puppets all the time.
What is this with "sock-puppets" and similar disparagements? Maybe
you're just running into poor roleplayers all the time? I dunno.
You honestly think the situation we've got now, where so many talk
like "kool dudez" with characters with no distinct personalities or
goals (beyond acquiring loot and power) is better?
The Master
Dundee wrote:
> I'd feel like I was talking to sock-puppets all the time.
That's optimism.
Rob Collins
Dundee wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 23:00:50 +0100, Rob Collins
> <robert....@virgin.net> wrote:
> By definition, an NPC wipe isn't "natural" decay. ;-)
>
> --
Ok, I will put this bluntly, I was wrong, killing NPC's without packs is
a good idea. I created a theif character to test the backpacks out, 200
gold and 2 points of skill within 30 min. and NO deaths. I will now to a
blind eye to people doing this. I still do not agree with your views on
role-playing. I find your views a bit odd, are you saying I shouldnt
Role-play when someone else isnt? Well that seems silly, also it is
funny to watch peoples reactions to me. But anyway, im in the middle of
a theiving manuver :-) so i must dash.
Dundee
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:08:26 GMT, ro...@direct.ca (Ron Findling) wrote:
>> Anyway - this is something we can fix ourselves, if you True
>> Roleplayers will just turn a blind eye for about 2 minutes. Can you
>> go OOC for just that long?
>
>I still don't see what's "foaming" about what the roleplayers are
>doing when the "virtuous" ones react negatively to *murder* like that.
>They're playing their characters properly.
Reacting "in character" to something that is "out of character" is
what I'm talking about.
>The reason I'm taking you on this is because of comments like that,
>where you seem to have a bug up your butt about such roleplayers
>actually (gasp!) *playing their characters properly.* It actually
>seems to bother you.
I don't think you're playing your character properly if your character
is reacting to something that I say or do Out-Of-Character. Just my
opinion, of course.
>You don't get my point - I'm not so much criticizing you for you
>having your otherwise (probably virtuous) characters
No virtuous *character* of mine would ever murder another character.
But *I* will kill a bugged NPC, via my avatar.
>I'm criticizing you for what is coming off as intimidation attempts
>against roleplayers for playing properly.
I don't mean to sound that way. Town guards also always stay
in-character, and they won't let me kill bugged-NPCs either. They
won't even understand if I tell them, "Excuse me, I need to do
something OOC for a second."
But *you* should understand that.
>We need *more* roleplaying
>in UO, not less. I know you're not one, but we've already got too many
>"kool dudez" around who do the same thing in-game.
All kewld00ds have avatars instead of characters, but not everyone
with an avatar is a kewld00d.
I draw the distinction between jerk and non-jerk anyway - which is why
(for example) I never cared whether PKs were roleplaying or not. Too
much PKing and too many PKs meant that even the roleplaying PKs were
part of the problem.
>> You can page a GM and ask him to delete the NPC. Easier and quicker
>> just to kill them. If *you* can't go OOC for long enough to deal with
>> the problem, then at the very least, ignore me when I do.
>
>That depends. My Anna McCloud character follows the virtues and was a
>proper Order Guard for quite a while. She's not so much an advocate of
>Law and Order anymore, but she still definitely follows the virtues.
I'm talking about *you* going OOC for just long enough for me to
delete a bugged NPC.
>And If she was on your shard and saw your Dundee character
Dundee isn't a character. ;-P
>Of course, she would quite possibly lose, but if she won and your
>character died, I'm wondering what your roleplaying reaction would be?
>(Naturally and understandably you *personally* would be upset, nothing
>wrong with that)
Actually, I wouldn't. I understand that there are both characters and
avatars in the world and I take my chances. But I would interact with
you as though you were an NPC. Just not a computer-controlled one.
>Note I'm assuming your Dundee character is *not* supposed to be an
>evil murdering type of character.
Dundee is still not a character. ;-P
>If he is, then pretend I'm talking
>about another character of yours which is not, since I think you'd be
>willing to have them all murder NPC's like this.
Actually I don't have any characters at present. I have a mule that I
quit using a while back and I *had* some characters that I created to
run a quest (now those I *did* roleplay, but they were essentially
NPCs, played by me instead of being computer-controlled, and they
never went OOC).
Even with those characters, I'd just ignore anyone that was doing
something or saying something "out of character" - or if they directed
an OOC question at me I'd hit the "I'm sorry but thy meaning escapes
me"-macro.
>What is this with "sock-puppets" and similar disparagements? Maybe
>you're just running into poor roleplayers all the time? I dunno.
If your character talks to my character (which as I said, I don't
currently have a character) then that's fine and well and good. Fun
stuff. We'd be playing - roleplaying no less!
But if your *character* (a non-real person) is trying to talk to *me*
(a real person) then that's... well... a bit awkward.
>You honestly think the situation we've got now, where so many talk
>like "kool dudez" with characters with no distinct personalities or
>goals (beyond acquiring loot and power) is better?
The problem is that those people are jerks. If they were roleplaying
"jerk characters", we'd still have too many jerks.
Dundee
>role-playing. I find your views a bit odd, are you saying I shouldnt
>Role-play when someone else isnt?
Heck no. Roleplay away! Have fun. If it floats your boat, set sail
and enjoy.
I'm just saying that it makes me feel silly when people's *characters*
try to talk to *me*. It's that sock-puppet thing.
Or if I'm trying to explain to a newbie how to setup an allnames
macro, don't come over "in charcater" and "roleplay" that you are
confused and understand not what weird mystical things I speak of and
blah blah blah.
(and don't attack me when I'm slaughtering no-pack healers, for the
same reason)
Rob Collins
Dundee wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 17:49:10 +0100, Rob Collins
> <robert....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>
> Heck no. Roleplay away! Have fun. If it floats your boat, set sail
> and enjoy.
>
> I'm just saying that it makes me feel silly when people's *characters*
>
> try to talk to *me*. It's that sock-puppet thing.
>
Ahhhhh.... Mr Dundee (Say with a Lando Molari type voice.)
> Or if I'm trying to explain to a newbie how to setup an allnames
> macro, don't come over "in charcater" and "roleplay" that you are
> confused and understand not what weird mystical things I speak of and
> blah blah blah.
>
Oh well, the way I see it there is _no_ way to explain that to people, I
do not use Thee's and Thou's with my character, and im not about to stop
explaining the rules of the world to people. These things are ones that
require you to be OCC. Now personly I dont use Occ, I normaly just
switch from one "mode" to the other normaly without people noticing.
> (and don't attack me when I'm slaughtering no-pack healers, for the
> same reason)
>
Well I wont now, I will simply leave, but purely in the intrestes of
helping fellow players.
> --
> Dundee of Lake Superior - Skep...@SPAMISantisocial.com
> Townstone proposal and Other Stuff:
> http://dundee.uong.com
--
"Duct tape is much like The Force. It has a light side and a
dark side and holds the Universe together."
"I am a ranger! We walk in the dark places no others will enter. We
stand on the bridge and no one may pass. We live for the One. We die for
the One!" - Ranger Motto
Robert Collins.
-Maniac at large.
Rob Collins
Rob Collins wrote:
>
>
> Ahhhhh.... Mr Dundee (Say with a Lando Molari type voice.)
DOH!, Londo Molari even.
--
Rob Collins
Dundee wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:08:26 GMT, ro...@direct.ca (Ron Findling) wrote:
>
>
>
> Reacting "in character" to something that is "out of character" is
> what I'm talking about.
>
Yes this is indeed difficult for both parties, usualy when someone
speaks to me out of character, I simply swap "modes" and become _me_
rather than Genar or Aaron, or Kajia. However this can be dangerious for
people, for one I as a person will kill someone straight off if they say
"Yo Momma" to me. Where as my characters would not :-)
>
>
> I don't think you're playing your character properly if your character
>
> is reacting to something that I say or do Out-Of-Character. Just my
> opinion, of course.
>
No you are not, beacuse you character would not respond to suchs things.
> No virtuous *character* of mine would ever murder another character.
> But *I* will kill a bugged NPC, via my avatar.
>
Hmm, I personly would not do that, but I will now let others do it,
after all, who am i to say what others can and cannot do.
> I don't mean to sound that way. Town guards also always stay
> in-character, and they won't let me kill bugged-NPCs either. They
> won't even understand if I tell them, "Excuse me, I need to do
> something OOC for a second."
>
> But *you* should understand that.
>
Yes we should, but when I come up to someone I start in character unless
a person gives me a reason not to, and if I came upon someone killing a
NPC (just say a healer.) then my first "In character" reaction would be
to lighting bolt them. That is I suppose a flaw, but none the less I
would probably check if they had a pack first before I hit you with
anything.
>
>
> All kewld00ds have avatars instead of characters, but not everyone
> with an avatar is a kewld00d.
>
No, but they _do_ at least IMHO go against the spirit UO was desigined
in, but then again the mere fact that they play UO grants them the right
to act as they like. Unless *I* or *my character* dislike their
behaviour. In which case I do something to correct the situation.
> I draw the distinction between jerk and non-jerk anyway - which is why
>
> (for example) I never cared whether PKs were roleplaying or not. Too
> much PKing and too many PKs meant that even the roleplaying PKs were
> part of the problem.
>
Well that is your descison, I must say I do agree with it. A PK is a PK,
even if the role-plays of course the roleplaying alivates the anger at
the encounter slightly (or increases the elation.) but he is still being
selfish, even if his character is the one being selfish.
>
>
> Dundee isn't a character. ;-P
>
Ah! Thats why I never run into you, even though we inhabit the same
areas on LS. What is your Avatar/Characters name? Or is it Dundee? :-) I
see, he isnt a character he is an Avatar.
> Actually, I wouldn't. I understand that there are both characters and
>
> avatars in the world and I take my chances. But I would interact with
>
> you as though you were an NPC. Just not a computer-controlled one.
>
Hmm, no, Characters are not Player controled NPC's they are PC's I never
use thee's and thou's (Why cause I cant be arsed, My character is just
as good without them.)and that makes me diffrent from an NPC, to react
to me as an NPC is silly, instead I react to avatars/Characters as
people, no matter how they act. (execpt kewld00d's who I merely ignore.)
> Dundee is still not a character. ;-P
>
Yes, ok, I get the impression Dundee is not a character.
> Actually I don't have any characters at present. I have a mule that I
>
> quit using a while back and I *had* some characters that I created to
> run a quest (now those I *did* roleplay, but they were essentially
> NPCs, played by me instead of being computer-controlled, and they
> never went OOC).
>
Fine, whatever you like. I disagree with the "all or nothing" style of
Role play, but then again, if we agreed on everything then this
newsgroup would be pointless.
> Even with those characters, I'd just ignore anyone that was doing
> something or saying something "out of character" - or if they directed
>
> an OOC question at me I'd hit the "I'm sorry but thy meaning escapes
> me"-macro.
>
:-) I have to use that. "Hey d00d u suk""I'm sorry but thy meaning
escapes me"
"Hey d00d speak english."
"But I am speaking english Mi'lord."
"heheh hes an NPC." (Or) "hehehe U suk, I rulz u. Corp por."
>
>
> But if your *character* (a non-real person) is trying to talk to *me*
> (a real person) then that's... well... a bit awkward.
>
I see, so you advocate Role playing and Non Role playing shards then? Oh
and if you call my Genar Non-real, he may have to have a word with you.
I assure you as a collection of neurons inside my brain he _is_ real.
But I do see your point, it is a complex one that has plaged games like
this since they started.
> The problem is that those people are jerks. If they were roleplaying
> "jerk characters", we'd still have too many jerks.
>
Heh. I rulz u suk. Corp por (the lamerz greeting.)
--
"Duct tape is much like The Force. It has a light side and a
dark side and holds the Universe together."
"I am a ranger! We walk in the dark places no others will enter. We
stand on the bridge and no one may pass. We live for the One. We die for
the One!" - Ranger Motto
Robert Collins.
-Roleplayer at small.
Dundee
>Yes this is indeed difficult for both parties, usualy when someone
>speaks to me out of character, I simply swap "modes" and become _me_
>rather than Genar or Aaron, or Kajia. However this can be dangerious for
>people, for one I as a person will kill someone straight off if they say
>"Yo Momma" to me. Where as my characters would not :-)
That's really all I'm talking about. Recognizing when someone is OOC
and then not reacting IC to it.
>No, but they _do_ at least IMHO go against the spirit UO was desigined
>in, but then again the mere fact that they play UO grants them the right
>to act as they like. Unless *I* or *my character* dislike their
>behaviour. In which case I do something to correct the situation.
Well... I'm not sure I can explain it. When I'm playing, I engage in
"willing suspension of disbelief" and pretend, for example, that a dog
isn't just a dog-shaped sprite but is, indeed, a real dog. I pretend
that the NPCs are really people (but stop right quick when I notice
one doesn't have a pack - that's a little 'bug' that I can fix in
2-minutes flat). I don't eat rat meat or target-practice on pets.
Sort of the difference between pretending to be someone else
(character) and pretending that someone else is you (avatar) - if that
makes any sense. Not strictly right according to the principles of
traditional, offline, face-to-face RPGs... but this isn't a
traditional RPG anyway.
Incidentally, kewld00ds don't do either one.
But anyway - other people roleplaying don't bother me in the least.
They, in fact, assist me in pretending that Ultima Online is a real
place, that I'm visiting via my avatar. I appreciate it, and try not
to spoil their game with a bunch of OOC crap.
All I'm asking is for the same leeway - if I am doing some OOC-stuff
and you happen upon me, don't spoil my game with a bunch of IC-stuff.
Whether it's explaining how to turn on noto'query to a newbie or
"deleting" a no-pack healer.
>Ah! Thats why I never run into you, even though we inhabit the same
>areas on LS. What is your Avatar/Characters name? Or is it Dundee? :-) I
>see, he isnt a character he is an Avatar.
Right. And Dundee is a "nice guy" because *I* am a nice guy. If I
were a jerk, Dundee would be a jerk. Dundee is an avatar - a vehicle
that I use to visit the world of Ultima Online. And just as I
"pretend" that a fantasy adventure book is real (or at least, suspend
disbelief long enough to enjoy the book), I pretend that UO is a real
world when I'm playing. It's very fun, I enjoy it a lot. I like
roleplaying every now and again too. But mostly *I* like visiting the
UO world, and the only way I can do it is via an avatar.
>Hmm, no, Characters are not Player controled NPC's they are PC's
In traditional, face-to-face RPG, the NPCs were controlled by the GM.
The "NPCs" in Ultima Online are certainly silly, but they aren't NPCs
in the traditional use of the term - because they aren't played by a
real person. But anyway, in that scenerio you'd be, to me, a
character, just as I pretend that the NPCs are 'characters' - and
seers are 'characters' and Lord British is a 'character'.
I'm assuming that if you are roleplaying and in-character then you
want me to react to you as though you are a character...
>as good without them.)and that makes me diffrent from an NPC, to react
>to me as an NPC is silly, instead I react to avatars/Characters as
>people, no matter how they act. (execpt kewld00d's who I merely ignore.)
What I mean is that I'd try to not to speak to you about OOC stuff if
it were clear that you were a Character and not an Avatar.
>Fine, whatever you like. I disagree with the "all or nothing" style of
>Role play, but then again, if we agreed on everything then this
>newsgroup would be pointless.
Not all or nothing - as I hope you understand now - I've just done a
poor job explaining My Play Style, I think. I pretend that the world
is real and I'll even pretend that your character is a real person,
but I don't pretend that *I* am *someone else*, which I think is what
roleplaying is.
>I see, so you advocate Role playing and Non Role playing shards then?
Goodness no. I'm saying that when you're trying to roleplay, I should
shut-up with any sort of OOC chatter, so as not to ruin your fun.
>But I do see your point, it is a complex one that has plaged games like
>this since they started.
It's a brave new world, with old things and terms dragged willy-nilly
into it from offline games and small, non-commercial MUDs... not all
of which I think apply. Certainly if we were sitting around the
dining room table playing D&D we wouldn't stay in character ALL the
time... the NPCs would be played by a real human being, just like the
players... and Joe Jerkwad over there would be tossed right out of the
house.
Ron Findling
>> I still don't see what's "foaming" about what the roleplayers are
>> doing when the "virtuous" ones react negatively to *murder* like that.
>> They're playing their characters properly.
> Reacting "in character" to something that is "out of character" is
> what I'm talking about.
But killing a healer just because they have the temerity to not be
(able to be) carrying anything, is not something obviously out of
character (as seen by someone just walking by), nor is a negative
reaction to it by a "virtuous" roleplayer a bad thing.
It in fact makes complete sense to roleplay such a reaction that way,
IF your character is at least nominally "good" or "virtuous."
>>The reason I'm taking you on this is because of comments like that,
>>where you seem to have a bug up your butt about such roleplayers
>>actually (gasp!) *playing their characters properly.* It actually
>>seems to bother you.
> I don't think you're playing your character properly if your character
> is reacting to something that I say or do Out-Of-Character. Just my
> opinion, of course.
I realize it's your opinion, but specifically *why* are they not
playing their characters properly in such a case?
I've often done what you're criticizing, in order to give a not so
subtle hint that the other side isn't roleplaying but should be. UO is
not set on Earth, it's set in Britannia, and it's part of the Ultima
universe.
This has often worked, and I've made in-game several friends who were
NOT particularly good roleplayers who then turned out to be because I
inspired them.
You see, I've been told more than once that they wanted to roleplay
like I do, but were intimidated by people like you that don't (as
much), because they react negatively to those that try to.
I *won't* be intimidated by such people, so I can't be.
>> You don't get my point - I'm not so much criticizing you for you
>> having your otherwise (probably virtuous) characters...
> No virtuous *character* of mine would ever murder another character.
An NPC *is* another character. Just not another player character. And
theoretically your character in the game would not be able to tell the
difference.
It's hard enough to maintain the illusion Britannia isn't just a
retarded version of Earth, considering the abysmal AI of the NPCs in
the game. Your (however unintended) implied intimidation and criticism
of roleplayers who *are* trying to maintain this illusion doesn't
help.
> But *I* will kill a bugged NPC, via my avatar.
Unless that NPC is also evil or a criminal - then your character can
quite rightly be seen as a murderer. And they'll also have cause to
think you're willing to murder PC's, too. In your case they (from what
I can tell) will be wrong, but they'll be justified in thinking that.
>> I'm criticizing you for what is coming off as intimidation attempts
>> against roleplayers for playing properly.
> I don't mean to sound that way.
I honestly believe you. I'm sure I myself am coming off as more
strident than I would like here, but this is a pet peeve of mine. I'll
(try to) raise the roleplaying competency of players in UO all by
myself, if I have to.
> Town guards also always stay in-character, and they won't let me
> kill bugged-NPCs either. They won't even understand if I tell them,
> "Excuse me, I need to do something OOC for a second."
That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me. Their duty is to protect
everyone, not just PC's.
> But *you* should understand that.
Not sure what you mean by that comment....
>> We need *more* roleplaying in UO, not less. I know you're not one,
>> but we've already got too many "kool dudez" around who do the same
>> thing in-game.
> All kewld00ds have avatars instead of characters, but not everyone
> with an avatar is a kewld00d.
I agree. And I'll bet regarding other players you're generally
extremely honorable, fair and all that other good stuff. And in real
life you could be a saint for all I know. I'm NOT one of those usenet
posters who thinks someone is scum just because they dare to disagree
with me.
My criticism here is only limited to what you're doing in UO in this
one specific area, not you or even your UO playing in general.
> I draw the distinction between jerk and non-jerk anyway - which is why
> (for example) I never cared whether PKs were roleplaying or not. Too
> much PKing and too many PKs meant that even the roleplaying PKs were
> part of the problem.
No, they weren't. Assuming they were in character and not using
exploits and/or cheats, they were adding to UO. And I'm saying this
even though I've *never* played an evil character of any sort in UO,
hell, not even a neutral one.
I remember an early encounter my Anna McCloud character had once when
she was only mid-level, with a lone Dread Lord on a road in the
wilderness. He wasn't an attack-on-sight type though (at least not
that time), and a very dramatic roleplaying encounter ensued, with
both us extremely wary but willing to engage the other in dialogue,
and in character. No, we didn't get along *well,* it was a genuine
argument as Anna tried to convince him to change his ways.
No actual fight occurred though, and we parted ways. And despite being
very tense for me, the encounter was very enjoyable. He *did* add to
my UO experience, so much so that I haven't forgotten him despite
having run into tons of idiot cheating/exploiting kool dude PKers
afterwards.
(Journal log of that encounter available on request - though I think I
already posted it here once months ago)
>>> You can page a GM and ask him to delete the NPC. Easier and quicker
>>> just to kill them. If *you* can't go OOC for long enough to deal with
>>> the problem, then at the very least, ignore me when I do.
>>
>> That depends. My Anna McCloud character follows the virtues and was a
>> proper Order Guard for quite a while. She's not so much an advocate of
>> Law and Order anymore, but she still definitely follows the virtues.
>
>I'm talking about *you* going OOC for just long enough for me to
>delete a bugged NPC.
Anna has integrity. Probably more than I personally do. She'd make a
good candidate for The Avatar. If someone walked on-screen -
especially someone Anna knew and liked - and saw her standing doing
nothing while a murder was taking place - they'd have good reason to
think less of her, and she'd have no integrity. The mere thought of
that would infuriate her, and I have a "real" in-game example (details
on request) that proves this.
I won't let you or anyone else ruin that integrity - if she sees you
murdering someone for no good reason (good reason to *her*) expect to
possibly pay the consequences.
And neither I or Anna is a "sock-puppet" for doing so.
>> And If she was on your shard and saw your Dundee character
> Dundee isn't a character. ;-P
Is funny. :-)
>>Of course, she would quite possibly lose, but if she won and your
>>character died, I'm wondering what your roleplaying reaction would be?
>>(Naturally and understandably you *personally* would be upset, nothing
>>wrong with that)
>
>Actually, I wouldn't. I understand that there are both characters and
>avatars in the world and I take my chances. But I would interact with
>you as though you were an NPC. Just not a computer-controlled one.
Heh, then I'm glad Anna always carries her backpack with her.... :-)
> Even with those characters, I'd just ignore anyone that was doing
> something or saying something "out of character" - or if they directed
> an OOC question at me I'd hit the "I'm sorry but thy meaning escapes
> me"-macro.
That latter is the best sort of approach, though you could have made
it more fun, by playing along (in a way) while letting them know you
don't appreciate their comments:
"Where am I from in 'real life?' As opposed to what? I'm from Yew,
where in Britannia are *you* from? The Orc Fort?"
"What is my 'magery score?' Sorcery isn't a game, lad, ask Mondain and
he can confirm it."
A simple "Are you drunk? What are you talking about?" is good as a
generic answer.
>> What is this with "sock-puppets" and similar disparagements? Maybe
>> you're just running into poor roleplayers all the time? I dunno.
> If your character talks to my character (which as I said, I don't
> currently have a character) then that's fine and well and good. Fun
> stuff. We'd be playing - roleplaying no less!
> But if your *character* (a non-real person) is trying to talk to *me*
> (a real person) then that's... well... a bit awkward.
The characters of good roleplayers theoretically wouldn't know there
is a "real person" behind your character, they'd *always* be talking
to the character. If you're using your character to funnel what you
personally are saying, that's your problem. That is, from a proper
roleplaying point of view.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally anal-retentive about this. If a
friend of mine is lagging badly in a dungeon and says "laglaglaglag" I
don't have Anna act like the person has become drunk and criticize
them... in such cases where it can't be helped, I try to pretend Anna
translates what is being said/done into something that makes sense in
the context of Sosaria:
"You look a little dizzy, here, rest a bit and I'll stay with you
until you feel better."
But that can't really be done when someone is apparently murdering an
innocent person (like an innocent NPC healer with no backpack) for no
good reason.... :-(
>> You honestly think the situation we've got now, where so many talk
>> like "kool dudez" with characters with no distinct personalities or
>> goals (beyond acquiring loot and power) is better?
> The problem is that those people are jerks. If they were roleplaying
> "jerk characters", we'd still have too many jerks.
They're not all irredeemable, though maybe that's just wishful
thinking on my part.
If, when Anna had run into that Dread mentioned above, she'd just said
nothing and attacked him, how much reason would one have had to expect
that Dread would have been willing to do any "proper" evil roleplaying
afterwards?
Ultimately, UO is made up of a community of players and we all
contribute or detract from the quality of it by our actions in it. I
realize there are drawbacks to what I'm calling "proper roleplaying,"
but I'd like to think that it contributes more than the alternatives.
Including the particular way you play....
(Sorry to end the message on such a disagreeable note, but it's how I
honestly feel)
Dundee
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 20:05:10 GMT, ro...@direct.ca (Ron Findling) wrote:
>But killing a healer just because they have the temerity to not be
>(able to be) carrying anything, is not something obviously out of
>character (as seen by someone just walking by), nor is a negative
>reaction to it by a "virtuous" roleplayer a bad thing.
Perhaps you are correct. I should stick with my original plan - to
make a healer-killer mule. That would be, perhaps, a bit more
palatable to other people playing the game, and they could "save the
healer" if they wanted to without anyone losing any gear over it.
>I've often done what you're criticizing, in order to give a not so
>subtle hint that the other side isn't roleplaying but should be. UO is
>not set on Earth, it's set in Britannia, and it's part of the Ultima
>universe.
Thing is, I spend *most* of my time training newbies. There's no
In-Character way to help them.
>You see, I've been told more than once that they wanted to roleplay
>like I do, but were intimidated by people like you that don't (as
>much), because they react negatively to those that try to.
I never react negatively to people who roleplay. In fact I keep my
OOC comments to a bare minimum when they are around. I don't want to
spoil their fun any more than I want them to spoil mine.
>>> You don't get my point - I'm not so much criticizing you for you
>>> having your otherwise (probably virtuous) characters...
>
>> No virtuous *character* of mine would ever murder another character.
>
>An NPC *is* another character. Just not another player character.
My point was, if I were roleplaying a virtuous character then I
wouldn't use him/her to kill a wandering healer. "Dundee" is an
"avatar", not a character.
>It's hard enough to maintain the illusion Britannia isn't just a
>retarded version of Earth, considering the abysmal AI of the NPCs in
>the game. Your (however unintended) implied intimidation and criticism
>of roleplayers who *are* trying to maintain this illusion doesn't
>help.
You'd have no complaints if you saw me in-game. I wouldn't impose on
your roleplaying in the least.
Unless I was with a newbie at the time, in which you'd hear all sorts
of OOC talk.
>> But *I* will kill a bugged NPC, via my avatar.
>
>Unless that NPC is also evil or a criminal - then your character can
>quite rightly be seen as a murderer.
This would be the difference between a character and an avatar.
>I honestly believe you. I'm sure I myself am coming off as more
>strident than I would like here, but this is a pet peeve of mine. I'll
>(try to) raise the roleplaying competency of players in UO all by
>myself, if I have to.
And I'd like to get more people to engage in "willing suspension of
disbelief", even if I am telling them, very OOC, how to setup an
AllNames macro... or telling them what to double-click... or whatever.
>> Town guards also always stay in-character, and they won't let me
>> kill bugged-NPCs either. They won't even understand if I tell them,
>> "Excuse me, I need to do something OOC for a second."
>
>That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me. Their duty is to protect
>everyone, not just PC's.
>
>> But *you* should understand that.
>
>Not sure what you mean by that comment....
I mean that if I tell you and a town guard "brb - doorbell" then YOU
will understand me and the guard will not. If I say, "this npc is
bugged, but if we kill him then a non-bugged one will respawn. It's
terribly OOC, but we can take care of it PDQ." You would understand
me and the guard would not.
>My criticism here is only limited to what you're doing in UO in this
>one specific area, not you or even your UO playing in general.
?? Killing healers with no packs or discouraging characters in favor
of avatars?
(just curious which I'm being accused of here)
>> I draw the distinction between jerk and non-jerk anyway - which is why
>> (for example) I never cared whether PKs were roleplaying or not. Too
>> much PKing and too many PKs meant that even the roleplaying PKs were
>> part of the problem.
>
>No, they weren't. Assuming they were in character and not using
>exploits and/or cheats, they were adding to UO.
We will *never* agree on that point. As I see it, PKing was *way* too
rampant and there were *way* too many PKs. If [Insert the most
talented actor you can think of here] joined UO to "roleplay a
murderer" my reaction would be the same - there's just one more of too
many.
And I know - a *lot* of people don't agree with me there.
>>I'm talking about *you* going OOC for just long enough for me to
>>delete a bugged NPC.
>
>Anna has integrity. Probably more than I personally do. She'd make a
>good candidate for The Avatar. If someone walked on-screen -
>especially someone Anna knew and liked - and saw her standing doing
>nothing while a murder was taking place - they'd have good reason to
>think less of her, and she'd have no integrity. The mere thought of
>that would infuriate her, and I have a "real" in-game example (details
>on request) that proves this.
Alrighty. I can understand that. I'll go with the healer-killer
character idea instead.
>> Even with those characters, I'd just ignore anyone that was doing
>> something or saying something "out of character" - or if they directed
>> an OOC question at me I'd hit the "I'm sorry but thy meaning escapes
>> me"-macro.
>
>That latter is the best sort of approach, though you could have made
>it more fun, by playing along (in a way) while letting them know you
>don't appreciate their comments:
Speaking figuratively, there. The only NPC response that I ever had
assigned to a macro is "I am already being led!" ... and that was just
for grins.
>The characters of good roleplayers theoretically wouldn't know there
>is a "real person" behind your character, they'd *always* be talking
>to the character.
Sometimes, it is necessary to go out-of-character. Especially with my
particular "hobby". You'd come up while I was explaining how to turn
on noto' query and start talking at me 'in-character'?
Or you'd say something to let me know that I'm not roleplaying, but
should be?
Now I feel like you're trying to impose your Playstyle on me.
> If you're using your character to funnel what you
>personally are saying, that's your problem. That is, from a proper
>roleplaying point of view.
It's simply unavoidable. Give me an in-character way to explain how
to setup an AllNames macro. Or how to chop wood. Or how to buy
lessons from a shopkeeper.
>Ultimately, UO is made up of a community of players and we all
>contribute or detract from the quality of it by our actions in it. I
>realize there are drawbacks to what I'm calling "proper roleplaying,"
>but I'd like to think that it contributes more than the alternatives.
>Including the particular way you play....
Well, I think the particular way that I play is better and more proper
for this environment than the way you play... so nya!
;-P
Just kiddin. Although I do enjoy my style of play more than I'd enjoy
staying in character ALL the time.
>(Sorry to end the message on such a disagreeable note, but it's how I
>honestly feel)
No worries, mate.
Ron Findling
>>But killing a healer just because they have the temerity to not be
>>(able to be) carrying anything, is not something obviously out of
>>character (as seen by someone just walking by), nor is a negative
>>reaction to it by a "virtuous" roleplayer a bad thing.
>Perhaps you are correct. I should stick with my original plan - to
>make a healer-killer mule. That would be, perhaps, a bit more
>palatable to other people playing the game, and they could "save the
>healer" if they wanted to without anyone losing any gear over it.
That could be a bit awkward, "Excuse me while I mark this place,
recall to an inn, pass this rune off to my healer-killer, then recall
using it back here with him to kill this healer." :-)
Maybe you should just pretend Dundee has a split personality.... :-)
>> I've often done what you're criticizing, in order to give a not so
>> subtle hint that the other side isn't roleplaying but should be. UO is
>> not set on Earth, it's set in Britannia, and it's part of the Ultima
>> universe.
> Thing is, I spend *most* of my time training newbies. There's no
> In-Character way to help them.
Then go out of character if you really feel this is necessary. Again,
my main criticism of you had to do with the attitude you were showing
against other roleplayers for roleplaying. Though it's still
interesting to discuss what you're talking about.
>> You see, I've been told more than once that they wanted to roleplay
>> like I do, but were intimidated by people like you that don't (as
>> much), because they react negatively to those that try to.
>
> I never react negatively to people who roleplay. In fact I keep my
> OOC comments to a bare minimum when they are around. I don't want to
> spoil their fun any more than I want them to spoil mine.
Of course having not seen you play in-game, I could only go by your
comments here. I out and out apologize for any incorrect criticisms I
have made or will make about you or your playing style.
>>> No virtuous *character* of mine would ever murder another character.
>> An NPC *is* another character. Just not another player character.
> My point was, if I were roleplaying a virtuous character then I
> wouldn't use him/her to kill a wandering healer. "Dundee" is an
> "avatar", not a character.
There's nothing in the Ultima universe background that allows for
"avatars" of the sort you're describing. For the purposes of judging
Dundee in UO, he *is* a character, like it or not, he just (from what
I understand) happens to think and act like you personally do.
It's like someone making a character in UO and then saying and acting
like it's a dinosaur and not a human. He can insist that character is
a dinosaur all he wants, but lets face it - there are (AFAIK) no
"real" dinosaurs or any way of making them in UO. And thus he has
little to no chance of convincing anyone that he is a dinosaur.
Of course, doing such a thing is not actually illegal, he can try to
act like a dinosaur all he wants. But he can't expect UO players - or
at least UO roleplayers - to look upon his efforts too favorably. It
just doesn't fit in the Ultima universe.
Of course, the closer you get to human, the more chance you have of at
least convincing some people. The Shadowclan Orcs are a good example
of "orcs" that have had a lot of success at this - but that's in large
part because there *are* orcs in UO, and by dressing and acting like
orcs they fit the Ultima background.
An "avatar" like you describe, who is apparently "sort of" from
Britannia, and "sort of" from Earth, doesn't fit. The actual Avatar
was from Earth, but this distinction was made sharp and clear.
> You'd have no complaints if you saw me in-game. I wouldn't impose on
> your roleplaying in the least.
I believe you, I can't state it more plainly than that.
>Unless I was with a newbie at the time, in which you'd hear all sorts
>of OOC talk.
Yup, I have little problem with this, it would be extremely hard to
"twist" this as being some sort of truly negative thing. It is more
"proper" (from a roleplaying point of view) to do that some other way
though.
>>> But *I* will kill a bugged NPC, via my avatar.
>> Unless that NPC is also evil or a criminal - then your character can
>> quite rightly be seen as a murderer.
> This would be the difference between a character and an avatar.
Like I implied earlier, because someone just entering the scene
couldn't tell, that makes such an action make your character/avatar
look contradictory in nature ("I thought you were a virtuous person,
Dundee!"), and could actually be dangerous ("Die, foul murderer!").
That's why I can't condone it.
>> I honestly believe you. I'm sure I myself am coming off as more
>> strident than I would like here, but this is a pet peeve of mine. I'll
>> (try to) raise the roleplaying competency of players in UO all by
>> myself, if I have to.
> And I'd like to get more people to engage in "willing suspension of
> disbelief", even if I am telling them, very OOC, how to setup an
> AllNames macro... or telling them what to double-click... or whatever.
One good thing to do that I've done is to put all OOC comments in
square parentheses, [like this.] It's a little visual cue so that
people can tell the difference between when I'm in character and when
I'm not. Doing it using your emote color (as well) is another good
idea.
Or use ICQ if possible. Then nobody else in the game has to hear the
OOC comments.
> I mean that if I tell you and a town guard "brb - doorbell" then YOU
> will understand me and the guard will not. If I say, "this npc is
> bugged, but if we kill him then a non-bugged one will respawn. It's
> terribly OOC, but we can take care of it PDQ." You would understand
> me and the guard would not.
The thing is, I can easily translate the first comment into something
that makes sense and is fine "in-game" - thus not violating the
integrity of a "virtuous" character like my Anna. With the second
situation, I can't do that.
>> My criticism here is only limited to what you're doing in UO in this
>> one specific area, not you or even your UO playing in general.
> ?? Killing healers with no packs or discouraging characters in favor
> of avatars?
Okay, so there's really TWO things.... (grin). It was first mainly the
second point above, but I've obviously ended up doing the first as
well, as the thread has continued. I didn't *intend* the latter to
happen, since I don't consider it as important.
Again, to not come off as too strident - of course you can and should
play the game like you want. Which method is "best" or even "better"
is (also of course) subjective.
>>> Too much PKing and too many PKs meant that even the roleplaying
>>> PKs were part of the problem.
>> No, they weren't. Assuming they were in character and not using
>> exploits and/or cheats, they were adding to UO.
> We will *never* agree on that point. As I see it, PKing was *way* too
> rampant and there were *way* too many PKs. If [Insert the most
> talented actor you can think of here] joined UO to "roleplay a
> murderer" my reaction would be the same - there's just one more of too
> many.
From the point of view of *who to blame,* the real problem wasn't that
there was "too much" PKing, because that's a legitimate way to play
the game - the real problem was that there were too many "improper"
PKers - those who used cheats and/or exploits, and those who didn't
roleplay at all (or at all well), either killing their victims in
total silence, or acting like "kool dudez" and gloating like juvenile
idiots.
I take it you *never* ran into a "proper" PKer in-game, who either
roleplayed well or at least gave you a fair and fun fight - but I
have, several times. I remember once posting a while back when Anna
was *killed* taking on two PKers, who while quiet and thus not
roleplaying much, at least used no cheats, no exploits, and who didn't
gloat "kool dude" fashion after Anna had died. They didn't even really
outnumber Anna, since she was with a friend (who did try to help) at
the time.
She died, but I had *fun,* even though Anna lost everything and had a
long walk back out of the dungeon. I'm not saying *you* have to have
fun even in such a similarly "properly-done" circumstance, but I think
it goes to far to call such PKers "part of the problem," then.
Blaming all PKers for the "improper" ones is like blaming ALL Virtue
Guards (under the old system) for being Blue PKing exploiters when in
fact not all were. And that's not fair. Nevermind Anna as an Order
Guard, she met plenty of *other* Virtue Guards who actually roleplayed
with their shields properly, and did honor to their side of things.
> And I know - a *lot* of people don't agree with me there.
Yeah, but a lot of people don't agree with me here either.... :-)
>> Anna has integrity. Probably more than I personally do. She'd make a
>> good candidate for The Avatar. If someone walked on-screen -
>> especially someone Anna knew and liked - and saw her standing doing
>> nothing while a murder was taking place - they'd have good reason to
>> think less of her, and she'd have no integrity. The mere thought of
>> that would infuriate her, and I have a "real" in-game example (details
>> on request) that proves this.
> Alrighty. I can understand that. I'll go with the healer-killer
> character idea instead.
No! Don't you know anything about Usenet? You're supposed to argue
endlessly with me, contradicting everything I say and *never* giving
in. Man, you suck at this. :-)
>> The characters of good roleplayers theoretically wouldn't know there
>> is a "real person" behind your character, they'd *always* be talking
>> to the character.
> Sometimes, it is necessary to go out-of-character. Especially with my
> particular "hobby". You'd come up while I was explaining how to turn
> on noto' query and start talking at me 'in-character'?
Okay, amend that to "*If* they'd be talking to you, they'd *always* be
talking to the character, in character." :-)
> Or you'd say something to let me know that I'm not roleplaying, but
> should be?
No, because so many people talk OOC all the time, that's all I'd
*ever* be doing, then.... :-)
> Now I feel like you're trying to impose your Playstyle on me.
Sorry I wasn't more clear.
>> If you're using your character to funnel what you personally are
>> saying, that's your problem. That is, from a proper
>> roleplaying point of view.
> It's simply unavoidable. Give me an in-character way to explain how
> to setup an AllNames macro. Or how to chop wood. Or how to buy
> lessons from a shopkeeper.
The thing is, although again while I can't really complain too much,
it really doesn't belong in the game, and I'm saying that even though
I've been guilty of doing what you're talking about.
There are plenty of web sites that newbies should read thoroughly
before expecting to do well anyways - maybe in one quick OOC line it's
best to point (with a pre setup macro) to a site like that. It would
certainly save a lot of one's time at least.
This, BTW, is one reason I'm glad to be having this discussion, I'm
not perfect, and it's forcing me to look at ways I can improve my
*own* roleplaying.
>> Ultimately, UO is made up of a community of players and we all
>> contribute or detract from the quality of it by our actions in it. I
>> realize there are drawbacks to what I'm calling "proper roleplaying,"
>> but I'd like to think that it contributes more than the alternatives.
>> Including the particular way you play....
> Well, I think the particular way that I play is better and more proper
> for this environment than the way you play... so nya! ;-P
Where's that bow? Good for you Anna's favorite virtue is Compassion...
:-)
> Just kiddin. Although I do enjoy my style of play more than I'd enjoy
> staying in character ALL the time.
No, you don't! (Now *that's* the way to argue, usenet style...) :-)
>> (Sorry to end the message on such a disagreeable note, but it's how I
>> honestly feel)
> No worries, mate.
It's too bad that pirate voyage with Anna as the hostage never came
off.... I had all kinds of fun, in-character lines for her to say all
scripted up - not being able to get her into more events like that is
one reason why I quit UO for now.... :-(
Sanctus
In article
<6C2D62E381310F2F.57A8CABF...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
Dun...@LakeSuperior.Shard (Dundee) wrote:
> Perhaps you are correct. I should stick with my original plan - to
> make a healer-killer mule.
Actually, you won't be the first. On Catskills the other day, I
encountered an odd-looking individual named Chopper who was running around
Britain with a meat cleaver killing greys and new rezzes. When I stopped
to chat with him (I love talking to odd characters) he told me that the
town killing was a new thing for him, and that his primary occupation was
serial-killing NPCs in the wilderness. He got a tribal mask from
somewhere, and wears it slasher-movie style while running around in the
woods stalking and murdering healers, gypsies, shepherds and the like.
I pointed out that it probably wasn't a good idea to admit this to a total
stranger. Chopper agreed, and asked me if I wanted to accompany him out
of town for a little while. I declined. ;-) That's one PKing I wouldn't
have minded, though. At least he's having fun RPing, even if it's in a
very dark place.
Dundee
On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 06:49:04 GMT, ro...@direct.ca (Ron Findling) wrote:
First off, we're tripping over the word "avatar" and "character" and
"The Avatar" (as in Ultima IV)...
Terrible thing.
A "character" is something you have in a roleplaying game. A
character is a different person than you are. You pretend to be that
character and you're roleplaying. Well, you know what a character is.
An avatar is what you have in a virtual world. This has nothing to do
with "The Avatar" from the Ultima series. This has to do with online
communities, virtual worlds, muds, or whatever you want to call them.
Now, you can roleplay a character in a virtual world. Lots of people
do.
But to suggest that there's no place for an avatar in Ultima Online is
to toss out some .... what? Twenty years or so? Of standard practice
for online communities.
I submit to you that Ultima Online has more in common with a virtual
world than it has with a role-playing game.
To me, it makes *perfect sense* that my "main character" be an avatar
instead of roleplayed character. It makes more sense than trying to
roleplay in what is very much *not* a roleplaying game.
As I said, at best, it's an environment in which you *can* roleplay.
But that's not the same thing.
>Maybe you should just pretend Dundee has a split personality.... :-)
See, here's the difference between a character and and avatar. I *am*
Dundee. "He" doesn't have a personality different from "my"
personality because "we" are one person.
>There's nothing in the Ultima universe background that allows for
>"avatars" of the sort you're describing.
I'm not *pretending* that Dundee is an avatar. It is a simple fact -
Dundee *is* an avatar, by definition of the word. Just like the
avatars that 95% of the players have.
You're thinking that Dundee is a character with this weird sort of
background fantasy story made-up to excuse my lack of roleplaying. My
point is there is a word for "the virtual Bodies" that people use in
order to visit virtual worlds and that word isn't "character", it is
"avatar". Why is that? Because "avatars" are extremely more
appropriate for this environment than characters.
If you don't believe me, just walk into any town in Britannia and look
around. 95% of the people playing are doing so with avatars, not with
characters (although some of them have no clue what the difference is
and would refer - mistakenly - to their avatars as characters).
To me, Ultima Online is a community. The friends I've made in the
game are real friends - not "those characters are my character's
friends", but "those people are *my* friends". When people talk to
Dundee, they are talking to me, and vice versa.
I know you *want* this to be a roleplaying game. But saying it is
doesn't make it so. Personally I don't even want it to be - I much
prefer it as it is. You can still roleplay in this environment. I've
done it myself. But calling a pig a duck won't make it quack.
>For the purposes of judging
>Dundee in UO, he *is* a character, like it or not, he just (from what
>I understand) happens to think and act like you personally do.
Then you don't understand the difference between an avatar and a
character (and nevermind "The Avatar" from the ultima series - that
has nothing to do with this discussion).
>It's like someone making a character in UO and then saying and acting
>like it's a dinosaur and not a human.
No its like someone going into a virtual world and shouting "This is a
roleplaying game! Everyone roleplay!" even though it isn't a
roleplaying game and the vast majority of players don't even want to
roleplay.
>Of course, doing such a thing is not actually illegal, he can try to
>act like a dinosaur all he wants. But he can't expect UO players - or
>at least UO roleplayers - to look upon his efforts too favorably. It
>just doesn't fit in the Ultima universe.
I maintain, this is a virtual world based on the Ultima series of
computer games. You *can* roleplay in this environment, but you will
always be in the minority when you do.
And since this place - online rpg or virtual world - is what *we* make
of it, then if we don't roleplay, it isn't an RPG. Look around. How
much roleplaying is going on?
Some. Here and there. Which is why I won't deny that it is an
environment in which you can roleplay. But to *leap* from that
observation to the conclusion that UO is an RPG?! Puh-leeze.
>Or use ICQ if possible. Then nobody else in the game has to hear the
>OOC comments.
ICQ is cheating.
>> Alrighty. I can understand that. I'll go with the healer-killer
>> character idea instead.
>
>No! Don't you know anything about Usenet? You're supposed to argue
>endlessly with me, contradicting everything I say and *never* giving
>in. Man, you suck at this. :-)
I think I did much better with this reply, since now we can argue
about what UO is and what it should be.
>The thing is, although again while I can't really complain too much,
>it really doesn't belong in the game, and I'm saying that even though
>I've been guilty of doing what you're talking about.
So would you like to talk about what we *wish* UO were, or to talk
about what it really is - and speculate as to where it is going?
Do you *really* think that this is a roleplaying game? Or do you
think it is a virtual world - an environment in which one *can*
roleplay (much like my dining room, for example, is an environment in
which one can roleplay)?
>There are plenty of web sites that newbies should read thoroughly
Now that *is* wishful thinking.
>This, BTW, is one reason I'm glad to be having this discussion, I'm
>not perfect, and it's forcing me to look at ways I can improve my
>*own* roleplaying.
I'm not terribly concerned with it. I'd rather talk to real people
than sock-puppets.
Ron Findling
->First off, we're tripping over the word "avatar" and "character" and
>"The Avatar" (as in Ultima IV)...
You mean, regarding the definition of the words? I don't think either
of us I was, I was commenting on the "appropriateness" of playing an
avatar (small "a") in what is "supposed" to be a roleplaying game and
which does in fact have roleplayers - in it.
Again, gotta make clear this is all subjective, you play the way you
want, of course.
> Terrible thing.
I agree, that's why I'm pushing that "world hunger" thing to the
backburner until we get this sorted out... (I learned this "get your
priorities straight" method from OSI, grin)
> A "character" is something you have in a roleplaying game. A
> character is a different person than you are. You pretend to be that
> character and you're roleplaying. Well, you know what a character is.
> An avatar is what you have in a virtual world. This has nothing to do
> with "The Avatar" from the Ultima series. This has to do with online
> communities, virtual worlds, muds, or whatever you want to call them.
Right. But someone can't always tell that you're "only" playing an
"avatar" as opposed to a "character." That's why, in a way, even when
playing an avatar, one will often come off as playing a character to
those on the outside.
> Now, you can roleplay a character in a virtual world. Lots of people
> do.
>
> But to suggest that there's no place for an avatar in Ultima Online is
> to toss out some .... what? Twenty years or so? Of standard practice
> for online communities.
I'm not so much saying that there's "no place" for that sort of style
of play as... that it doesn't "fit" as well (as roleplaying). The
Ultima background is (theoretically) made for roleplayers, not
avatars. Avatars don't make sense *in the context of the game.*
And again, what happens when you run into a roleplayed character who
sees you doing something OOC - like killing a healer - and can't
reasonably tell that this is not the way your avatar - but a character
to this observer - is doing? The potential for misunderstanding and
even violence, as I've pointed out more than once already - is
horrendous.
That's why the avatar style of playing isn't (as) "proper" to me.
> I submit to you that Ultima Online has more in common with a virtual
> world than it has with a role-playing game.
If you mean that this is how the majority of UO players play the game
- well then I'd have to say that UO has yet even more in common with
an overhead combat game than a virtual world. To most, it's basically
Diablo with a larger map.
I don't consider this to be a good thing though, so I don't consider
it to be much of a defense for anything.
> To me, it makes *perfect sense* that my "main character" be an avatar
> instead of roleplayed character. It makes more sense than trying to
> roleplay in what is very much *not* a roleplaying game.
Again, you play how you want, but one can use that sort of logic to
justify why exploiters use bugs to get ahead. After all, a whole lot
of UO players in use such bugs to get ahead, and one could easily
rationalize that since *they* use bugs, that it makes "perfect sense"
to use bugs too, in order to "keep up."
"Hey, everyone else is doing it!"
The reason it makes "perfect sense" to me *to* roleplay despite what
the majority are like, is that doing so fits what I think UO should be
like, fits what I think the UO designers would prefer it to be like,
and because I have more *fun* when I play that way. But I can't get
intimidated by those who don't roleplay, so I may have an advantage
over most (if not you) in this regard.
> As I said, at best, it's an environment in which you *can* roleplay.
> But that's not the same thing.
I prefer to think of it as an environment in which you (the generic
"you") *should* roleplay. That's why I'm having this discussion. Note
I do not expect to convince you, I'm just having this discussion
because I think it's interesting and may be of use/interest to other
people.
>> Maybe you should just pretend Dundee has a split personality.... :-)
> See, here's the difference between a character and and avatar. I *am*
> Dundee. "He" doesn't have a personality different from "my"
> personality because "we" are one person.
Yeah, but how do I know *you* don't have a split personality, for
real? Heck, you might be schizophrenic and not even know it. :-)
>> There's nothing in the Ultima universe background that allows for
>> "avatars" of the sort you're describing.
> I'm not *pretending* that Dundee is an avatar. It is a simple fact -
> Dundee *is* an avatar, by definition of the word. Just like the
> avatars that 95% of the players have.
There's still nothing in the background that allows for that sort of
playing.
If 95% of the players out there all of a sudden started playing kool
dude type PKers, would that make it right?
"avataring" isn't nearly as bad, or even bad, but it isn't as good as
roleplaying, again, IMHO.
> You're thinking that Dundee is a character with this weird sort of
> background fantasy story made-up to excuse my lack of roleplaying.
Nope, the "split personality" suggestion was just in jest. If only for
consistency's sake, it would be a bad idea to all of a sudden change
him like that. I did put a smiley by it...
> My point is there is a word for "the virtual Bodies" that people use in
> order to visit virtual worlds and that word isn't "character", it is
> "avatar". Why is that? Because "avatars" are extremely more
> appropriate for this environment than characters.
What do you mean by "appropriate" in this context, and why do you say
that? Why are they "extremely more appropriate?"
> If you don't believe me, just walk into any town in Britannia and look
> around. 95% of the people playing are doing so with avatars, not with
> characters (although some of them have no clue what the difference is
> and would refer - mistakenly - to their avatars as characters).
"What the majority are doing" is not necessarily equal to
"appropriate." Is that what you meant? I find it strange you would
think it is.
> To me, Ultima Online is a community. The friends I've made in the
> game are real friends - not "those characters are my character's
> friends", but "those people are *my* friends". When people talk to
> Dundee, they are talking to me, and vice versa.
It's possible to roleplay like I'm promoting and still make "real"
friends like you're describing, so *if* you wrote the above to
indicate a way avataring is superior, I can't see it.
> I know you *want* this to be a roleplaying game. But saying it is
> doesn't make it so.
Right. Roleplaying makes it so. That's why I'm trying to promote it.
> Personally I don't even want it to be - I much prefer it as it is.
> You can still roleplay in this environment. I've done it myself.
> But calling a pig a duck won't make it quack.
Let me put it another way - if all the *non* "kool dude" type players
- like yourself - all roleplayed, it would make those "kool dude"
players stick out so much more, that I'm sure we could intimidate (or
even inspire) at least *some* of them into changing the way they play,
or maybe even quit.
As it is, they can often get along quite well, because many "avatar"
type players, as a byproduct of "just relax, it's only a game,"
*tolerate* the kool dude types more than they probably should. And
then it often spreads like an infection, and the kool dude types get
more "recruits." :-(
It's a slippery slope kind of thing, it's easy to keep going down and
down until there's no roleplaying at all, just wanton PKing for no
point ("hey, nobody else is roleplaying, so why should I? I wanna
roleplay, but nobody else is - I gotta have fun somehow, might as well
kill you, take your stuff").
>> For the purposes of judging Dundee in UO, he *is* a character, like
>> it or not, he just (from what I understand) happens to think and act
>> like you personally do.
>
> Then you don't understand the difference between an avatar and a
> character (and nevermind "The Avatar" from the ultima series - that
> has nothing to do with this discussion).
I do understand the difference - when I said "by the purposes," etc, I
meant for other players in the game who happen to just run into
Dundee. There's no "avatar" title floating above his head. *They can't
tell.*
To you, Dundee in UO is an avatar. To someone who just sees him in UO
(for the first time at least), he's *character.*
He started out in a Britannian town, not an Earth town, right?
He's dressed in Britannian clothes, not Earth clothes, right?
He's using Britannian weapons, not a gun, right?
He's travelling around in Britannia, and not Earth, right?
He *has* to do all those "Britannia" things because he "is" in
Britannia. That's because that's how UO is set up. For characters. Not
avatars.
>> It's like someone making a character in UO and then saying and acting
>> like it's a dinosaur and not a human.
>No its like someone going into a virtual world and shouting "This is a
>roleplaying game! Everyone roleplay!" even though it isn't a
>roleplaying game and the vast majority of players don't even want to
>roleplay.
Not sure about any connection with my comment. I was talking about the
sort of thing you're trying to do (play in a style the game isn't set
up for), you seem to be switching it around and talking about the sort
of thing I'm trying to do. (Except I'm not trying to do it that way)
>> Of course, doing such a thing is not actually illegal, he can try to
>> act like a dinosaur all he wants. But he can't expect UO players - or
>> at least UO roleplayers - to look upon his efforts too favorably. It
>> just doesn't fit in the Ultima universe.
> I maintain, this is a virtual world based on the Ultima series of
> computer games. You *can* roleplay in this environment, but you will
> always be in the minority when you do.
Another "majority rules" comment, eh?
Well, when UO was horribly laggy and bug-ridden, I wanted and expected
to play in a UO that wasn't that way. But *that's the way it was.*
(And to many, still is) Did that make the fact it was bug-ridden
right? Or at least, the best way it could be?
> And since this place - online rpg or virtual world - is what *we* make
> of it, then if we don't roleplay, it isn't an RPG. Look around. How
> much roleplaying is going on?
I personally ran into tons of it. You know why? Because *I*
roleplayed, and stuck with it. As a result, I had many new people I
was conversing with switch mid-stream, going from non-roleplaying *to*
roleplaying. They were inspired (or if you prefer, intimidated) by my
style and decided to adopt it.
Again, a lot of players out there *want* to roleplay, but I guess
everyone expects everyone else to start first. Otherwise they think
they'll look dumb. I already know I look dumb. So what do I care? I
start first.
> Some. Here and there. Which is why I won't deny that it is an
> environment in which you can roleplay. But to *leap* from that
> observation to the conclusion that UO is an RPG?! Puh-leeze.
I agree it is not an RPG. But I think it *should* be an RPG. I *think*
it was *designed* as an RPG. I have mainly tried to play it the way it
was designed.
>> Or use ICQ if possible. Then nobody else in the game has to hear the
>> OOC comments.
> ICQ is cheating.
Oh. How about AOL's Instant Messenger? :-)
>> No! Don't you know anything about Usenet? You're supposed to argue
>> endlessly with me, contradicting everything I say and *never* giving
>> in. Man, you suck at this. :-)
>
> I think I did much better with this reply, since now we can argue
> about what UO is and what it should be.
I don't think you did better at all. You haven't written "u suk" even
ONCE to me so far.
>> The thing is, although again while I can't really complain too much,
>> it really doesn't belong in the game, and I'm saying that even though
>> I've been guilty of doing what you're talking about.
>
> So would you like to talk about what we *wish* UO were, or to talk
> about what it really is - and speculate as to where it is going?
In UO I do roleplay properly *most* of the time. Sometimes I have
lapsed. This thread is making me regret the times I lapsed even more
than I already did. Hopefully I'll become an even better roleplayer as
a result. I know I'll have more fun if I do.
I already basically agree with you about what UO is really like.
> Do you *really* think that this is a roleplaying game? Or do you
> think it is a virtual world - an environment in which one *can*
> roleplay (much like my dining room, for example, is an environment in
> which one can roleplay)?
I think it's a big Diablo. Not even a virtual world. I don't like
that.
>> There are plenty of web sites that newbies should read thoroughly
> Now that *is* wishful thinking.
I'll let you in on a little secret - haven't you noticed how
arrogantly righteous I've been? That's because I in fact am the actual
Avatar! Don't listen to the forces of evil, Dundee, join us! Don't be
afraid.... :-)
(Do I define Humility, or WHAT?!)
In Ultima 7, even Lord British thought the Fellowship was a good idea.
And only one guy managed to change everyone's mind about it. Maybe I
can too about this, who knows? :-)
(You see, THAT'S really wishful thinking)
>> This, BTW, is one reason I'm glad to be having this discussion, I'm
>> not perfect, and it's forcing me to look at ways I can improve my
>> *own* roleplaying.
> I'm not terribly concerned with it. I'd rather talk to real people
> than sock-puppets.
Your loss. In my case, Anna McCloud is *much* more interesting than
me. But then, judging from how I'm coming off here, that's not saying
much, is it? :-)
Dundee
On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 21:14:29 GMT, ro...@direct.ca (Ron Findling) wrote:
>You mean, regarding the definition of the words? I don't think either
>of us I was, I was commenting on the "appropriateness" of playing an
>avatar (small "a") in what is "supposed" to be a roleplaying game and
>which does in fact have roleplayers - in it.
Well, I am a bit confused about that. None of the other ultimas are
role playing games - they are "computer roleplaying games". Something
can either be one or the other, as I see it. So Ultima Online is
based on a serious of non-RPG games. And it's a MUD. And sometimes
people roleplay on MUDs, but for the most part, unless they are
smallish/exclusive sorts of MUDs, people use avatars.
That's what I meant by "this aint an RPG" and "avatars are more
appropriate for this environment than characters".
I will say, you ADD to the game by staying in-character. And thank
you. ;-)
>I agree, that's why I'm pushing that "world hunger" thing to the
>backburner until we get this sorted out...
What UO player has time to eat, anyway?
>avatars. Avatars don't make sense *in the context of the game.*
But it's not just a game for me, it's a virtual community. That why I
think that avatars make more sense than characters.
>If you mean that this is how the majority of UO players play the game
>- well then I'd have to say that UO has yet even more in common with
>an overhead combat game than a virtual world. To most, it's basically
>Diablo with a larger map.
Gack. Not what I meant at all. Virtual community versus Game -
that's what I'm saying.
>I don't consider this to be a good thing though, so I don't consider
>it to be much of a defense for anything.
I don't blame you.
>The reason it makes "perfect sense" to me *to* roleplay despite what
>the majority are like, is that doing so fits what I think UO should be
>like, fits what I think the UO designers would prefer it to be like,
>and because I have more *fun* when I play that way. But I can't get
>intimidated by those who don't roleplay, so I may have an advantage
>over most (if not you) in this regard.
And again, kudo's to you. You add to my ability to enjoy the world,
particularly since the other characters in the game - the NPCs - are
such brainless twits.
>That's why I'm having this discussion. Note
>I do not expect to convince you, I'm just having this discussion
>because I think it's interesting and may be of use/interest to other
>people.
I agree. It's a very interesting discussion. I think the "game or
online-community?" debate will go on long after we've bored one
another to tears.
>There's still nothing in the background that allows for that sort of
>playing.
The very fact that it is a virtual community allows for that sort of
playing. It isn't "the background", it's the environment.
>If 95% of the players out there all of a sudden started playing kool
>dude type PKers, would that make it right?
*if*? :-P
Seriously, we define the world. What we do defines that this "thing"
is. My opinion is that it is a online-community, because that is what
we, the players, have made it.
Of course, we do need characters to flesh-out the world and monsters
and animals too. If you enjoy playing one of them, more power to ya.
It's more fun for you and it increases the enjoyment of the game for
the rest of us, too.
>> To me, Ultima Online is a community. The friends I've made in the
>> game are real friends - not "those characters are my character's
>> friends", but "those people are *my* friends". When people talk to
>> Dundee, they are talking to me, and vice versa.
>
>It's possible to roleplay like I'm promoting and still make "real"
>friends like you're describing, so *if* you wrote the above to
>indicate a way avataring is superior, I can't see it.
Interesting that you put "real" in quotes.
>> I know you *want* this to be a roleplaying game. But saying it is
>> doesn't make it so.
>
>Right. Roleplaying makes it so. That's why I'm trying to promote it.
Ah. Well I don't have to promote avataring, because that's what
people are doing already. If roleplaying would make it an RPG, then
what does avataring make it? An online-community, IMO.
You trying to turn our community into a roleplaying game? Whatever
for?
>Let me put it another way - if all the *non* "kool dude" type players
>- like yourself - all roleplayed, it would make those "kool dude"
>players stick out so much more, that I'm sure we could intimidate (or
>even inspire) at least *some* of them into changing the way they play,
>or maybe even quit.
I do not think that anything you or I do will change anything at all.
UO will evolve based on what the players make of it. My prediction is
that it will evolve more and more towards being a community, and that
it has already moved farther on the community-side of the fence than
it ever was on the game side of the fense.
>As it is, they can often get along quite well, because many "avatar"
>type players, as a byproduct of "just relax, it's only a game,"
>*tolerate* the kool dude types more than they probably should.
I tolerate them less than you might imagine and don't accept "I'm not
an obnoxious jerk really, I'm just roleplaying an obnoxious jerk!" as
an excuse for poor behavior.
>It's a slippery slope kind of thing, it's easy to keep going down and
>down until there's no roleplaying at all, just wanton PKing for no
>point ("hey, nobody else is roleplaying, so why should I? I wanna
>roleplay, but nobody else is - I gotta have fun somehow, might as well
>kill you, take your stuff").
I see roleplaying as an excuse for antisocial behavior as often as
not.
>Dundee. There's no "avatar" title floating above his head. *They can't
>tell.*
I will fix that this evening. Maybe I'll make our guild abbreviation
[OOC].
>He started out in a Britannian town, not an Earth town, right?
>He's dressed in Britannian clothes, not Earth clothes, right?
>He's using Britannian weapons, not a gun, right?
>He's travelling around in Britannia, and not Earth, right?
>
>He *has* to do all those "Britannia" things because he "is" in
>Britannia. That's because that's how UO is set up. For characters. Not
>avatars.
All of the above applies to avatars as well. I can't visit britannia
"in person" - I have to use an avatar.
>Your loss. In my case, Anna McCloud is *much* more interesting than
>me. But then, judging from how I'm coming off here, that's not saying
>much, is it? :-)
I don't dispute that characters (NPCs included) are necessary to
support the background of the world in which our online-community
exists. And if you have an interesting character, so much the better!
But real communities - online or otherwise - don't *just* need
background - they need real people.
Fortunately, there are a lot of folks. Some fill-in the background as
characters and some prefer, as I do, to exist in the world via
avatars.
Ron Findling
>> I was commenting on the "appropriateness" of playing an avatar
>> (small "a") in what is "supposed" to be a roleplaying game and
>> which does in fact have roleplayers - in it.
> Well, I am a bit confused about that. None of the other ultimas are
> role playing games - they are "computer roleplaying games". Something
> can either be one or the other, as I see it.
In terms of gameplay, that you pretend you're really someone else,
there is no difference. And it's this sort of gameplay that I believe
we were talking about.
> So Ultima Online is based on a serious of non-RPG games.
Sorry, as implied just above, I disagree.
> And it's a MUD. And sometimes people roleplay on MUDs, but for the
> most part, unless they are smallish/exclusive sorts of MUDs, people
> use avatars.
IMHO, that doesn't mean roleplaying isn't better....
> That's what I meant by "this aint an RPG" and "avatars are more
> appropriate for this environment than characters".
Why didn't you use the word "common" instead of "appropriate?" The
former seems more... appropriate... in this context.
> I will say, you ADD to the game by staying in-character. And thank
> you. ;-)
No, thank YOU.... :-)
Isn't this debate just *sickeningly* civil? Terry Wilcox must wonder
who I am and what I did with the real Ron Findling....
>> I agree, that's why I'm pushing that "world hunger" thing to the
>> backburner until we get this sorted out...
> What UO player has time to eat, anyway?
I really feel bad for the hungry after playing Ultima 7. In the
Avatar's party, everyone is constantly getting hungry and bitching
about it. "When do we eat? I must have food now!"
I'm sure that if I could solve world hunger, I could carry it over to
Britannia, and everyone would live happily ever after.
>> ...Avatars don't make sense *in the context of the game.*
> But it's not just a game for me, it's a virtual community. That why I
> think that avatars make more sense than characters.
If it were made up of 99% roleplayers, it could (and would) also be a
virtual community. So I don't see why it follows that because it's
supposedly a virtual community, that avatars "make more sense than
characters."
And if you're saying that avatars "make more sense" because *they're*
possibly that 99%, is circular reasoning. "They're better because
there are more of them. There are more of them because they're
better." That's only allowed in religious debates, not here. :-)
>> If you mean that this is how the majority of UO players play the game
>> - well then I'd have to say that UO has yet even more in common with
>> an overhead combat game than a virtual world. To most, it's basically
>> Diablo with a larger map.
> Gack. Not what I meant at all. Virtual community versus Game -
> that's what I'm saying.
I wish it was. I'm more than willing to *pretend* it is when I'm
trying to push for better (role)playing, but now that I really think
about it, it isn't - except in spots.
> And again, kudo's to you. You add to my ability to enjoy the world,
> particularly since the other characters in the game - the NPCs - are
> such brainless twits.
What astonishes me is how much *worse* they are than in earlier
Ultimas. Ultima 7 and Serpent Isle being great examples. The vast
majority of those NPC's were unique individuals. Their AI was
admittedly limited to keywords, but at least most of them had several
*unique* keywords.
Origin has failed abysmally on UO NPC AI IMHO (code translation
available on request), because they haven't even matched those earlier
games. :-(
>> There's still nothing in the background that allows for that sort of
>> playing.
> The very fact that it is a virtual community allows for that sort of
> playing. It isn't "the background", it's the environment.
That's why I specifically mentioned the background. Again though, just
like the UO environment allows someone to run around and (try to)
pretend they're playing a dinosaur, doesn't make it (as) appropriate
as roleplaying a "proper" Britannian character.
>> If 95% of the players out there all of a sudden started playing kool
>> dude type PKers, would that make it right?
> *if*? :-P
WTF? It was only 94% when I left... what happened? :-)
> Seriously, we define the world. What we do defines that this "thing"
> is. My opinion is that it is a online-community, because that is what
> we, the players, have made it.
Regarding that most play avatars, again, you're right, that is the
most common approach. But I will continue to insist that does not
necessarily make it the *best* approach.
> Of course, we do need characters to flesh-out the world and monsters
> and animals too. If you enjoy playing one of them, more power to ya.
> It's more fun for you and it increases the enjoyment of the game for
> the rest of us, too.
I dunno if you would have said that if Anna had killed and then
criticized your Dundee avatar for killing a backpack-less healer...
Anna McCloud: "At last, you foul murderer, you have paid for your
crime. Justice is done! I feel no Compassion for the likes of thee.
That poor, innocent healer.... who do you think you are? You have no
place in Britannia! Yadayadayadablahblahblah...."
Dundee: "OoOoooO OOOooOoo"
Anna McCloud: "What! I will *not* 'shaddup already!'"
>> It's possible to roleplay like I'm promoting and still make "real"
>> friends like you're describing, so *if* you wrote the above to
>> indicate a way avataring is superior, I can't see it.
> Interesting that you put "real" in quotes.
I put them in quotes because my best friends are those that I've
actually met in real life. I don't know if I could make friends to
such a deep level among people I've *only* met and talked to online.
Too much possibility for deceit with people you only know online: "You
never *told* me you were actually a martian!" :-)
>>> I know you *want* this to be a roleplaying game. But saying it is
>>> doesn't make it so.
>> Right. Roleplaying makes it so. That's why I'm trying to promote it.
> Ah. Well I don't have to promote avataring, because that's what
> people are doing already. If roleplaying would make it an RPG, then
> what does avataring make it? An online-community, IMO.
RPGer's can make online communities too - why can't they? In fact,
because of a greater chance of "commonality," I think they have a
better chance than avatars, of making such a community.
> You trying to turn our community into a roleplaying game? Whatever
> for?
I want it both. I want it all! Including your wallet. Hand it over!
>> Let me put it another way - if all the *non* "kool dude" type players
>> - like yourself - all roleplayed, it would make those "kool dude"
>> players stick out so much more, that I'm sure we could intimidate (or
>> even inspire) at least *some* of them into changing the way they play,
>> or maybe even quit.
> I do not think that anything you or I do will change anything at all.
Hey, I've already changed some things. I know in-game I turned some
players towards roleplaying. And I got you to say you would stop
murdering healers with your Dundee avatar. And I wouldn't be surprised
if lurkers are mailing letter-bombs to me right now. Who knows what
else I can continue to accomplish, in the short time now left to me?
> UO will evolve based on what the players make of it. My prediction is
> that it will evolve more and more towards being a community, and that
> it has already moved farther on the community-side of the fence than
> it ever was on the game side of the fense.
And when it reaches that perfect balance, OSI will discontinue it "due
to the player base not being large enough to justify the continued
expense of maintaining the one remaining shard."
No, I'm not a pessimist. Why do you ask?
>> As it is, they can often get along quite well, because many "avatar"
>> type players, as a byproduct of "just relax, it's only a game,"
>> *tolerate* the kool dude types more than they probably should.
>
> I tolerate them less than you might imagine....
I believe you. I'm mainly talking about many of the *other* avatar
type players in UO. Heck, Anna's best-friend in the game ended up
being one of them - so tolerant that Anna felt she had to dump her.
And she did. So I've run into this first-hand, and big-time.
> ...and don't accept "I'm not an obnoxious jerk really, I'm just
> roleplaying an obnoxious jerk!" as an excuse for poor behavior.
I can tolerate (not like) them if they do it in style. That is, if
they're obnoxious in an entertaining way. Few things worse than a
*boring* obnoxious jerk.... :-)
>> It's a slippery slope kind of thing, it's easy to keep going down and
>> down until there's no roleplaying at all, just wanton PKing for no
>> point ("hey, nobody else is roleplaying, so why should I? I wanna
>> roleplay, but nobody else is - I gotta have fun somehow, might as well
>> kill you, take your stuff").
> I see roleplaying as an excuse for antisocial behavior as often as
> not.
No, I think you're really talking about "stated pretend roleplaying."
Those who give such excuses are usually just giving excuses,
pretending they're roleplayers when in fact they're not.
>> There's no "avatar" title floating above his head. *They can't
>> tell.*
> I will fix that this evening. Maybe I'll make our guild abbreviation
> [OOC].
Just make sure your Guildmaster is an actual Guildmaster in real life.
Don't want him roleplaying, just *pretending* he's a Guildmaster. That
would be wrong! :-)
>> He started out in a Britannian town, not an Earth town, right?
>> He's dressed in Britannian clothes, not Earth clothes, right?
>> He's using Britannian weapons, not a gun, right?
>> He's travelling around in Britannia, and not Earth, right?
>> He *has* to do all those "Britannia" things because he "is" in
>> Britannia. That's because that's how UO is set up. For characters. Not
>> avatars.
> All of the above applies to avatars as well. I can't visit britannia
> "in person" - I have to use an avatar.
Not fully, not in my definition of avatar - "real" avatars could come
over and dress and act and look how they really were in their home
world. That is, if you were really playing an avatar, we'd be able to
see your avatar in UO as you *really* are dressed, for example. But we
can't - unless you really dress in (this is just an example) plate
armor?
A good example in fiction of "real" avatars by my definition is in
Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion series, the various Lords of Chaos
(who were gods) could and often did create avatars to "journey" from
their home/base plane to other dimensions. But though they were
lessened in power on those other planes, it's not like there was any
confusion over who they were due to any limitations in how they
appeared to people.
You are *forced* to play your sort of avatar in UO in a way that
compromises the "translation" - you say it's really just you there,
but it doesn't look like you, Dundee... it looks like a character, to
me....
IMHO, Whenever there's *any* sort of "possibly-confusing" difference
between who we see/hear in UO and who you really are, that compromises
the integrity of your asserting you're playing an avatar. Because
otherwise there wouldn't be any difference.
> I don't dispute that characters (NPCs included) are necessary to
> support the background of the world in which our online-community
> exists. And if you have an interesting character, so much the better!
> But real communities - online or otherwise - don't *just* need
> background - they need real people.
I'm arguing what I think is the best style - and what I think is best,
are real people roleplaying characters with good backgrounds, creating
a virtual community in doing so. I think the designers of UO would
agree. I also feel I must stress again that I understand and don't
really mind that you don't agree with this.
> Fortunately, there are a lot of folks. Some fill-in the background as
> characters and some prefer, as I do, to exist in the world via
> avatars.
And some, like *me,* prefer to wait a while and let both types pay to
beta-test the new patch before rejoining UO.... :-P
Dundee
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998 02:29:39 GMT, ro...@direct.ca (Ron Findling) wrote:
>> Well, I am a bit confused about that. None of the other ultimas are
>> role playing games - they are "computer roleplaying games". Something
>> can either be one or the other, as I see it.
>
>In terms of gameplay, that you pretend you're really someone else,
>there is no difference. And it's this sort of gameplay that I believe
>we were talking about.
Totally disagree. If you aren't roleplaying, then it isn't a
roleplaying game. CRPGs (or for that matter, any game you play by
yourself) don't involve roleplaying, so they aren't roleplaying games,
no matter *what* the publisher prints on the box.
>> And it's a MUD. And sometimes people roleplay on MUDs, but for the
>> most part, unless they are smallish/exclusive sorts of MUDs, people
>> use avatars.
>
>IMHO, that doesn't mean roleplaying isn't better....
There is a reason why people use avatars instead of characters in
online communities. The reason they do it, is because avatars are
what those little guys are called. Some of them are characters and
most of them aren't.
But, as you point out, it's only my opinion that
"non-character"-avatars are more appropriate for this environment than
character-avatars. I can't *prove* it and I'm not trying to. No
circular logic here. It just seems to me that the reason more people
use avatars instead of characters is because they, like me, feel that
it's more appropriate.
Not that all that many people ever really take the time to think about
it anyway. This thread, for example, consists of you and me. I
wonder if any lurkers are even following it, or if we've bored the
thread into killfiles everywhere...
>> That's what I meant by "this aint an RPG" and "avatars are more
>> appropriate for this environment than characters".
>
>Why didn't you use the word "common" instead of "appropriate?" The
>former seems more... appropriate... in this context.
IMO, they are more appropriate. They are more common, too, but that's
because they are more appropriate.
>>> ...Avatars don't make sense *in the context of the game.*
>
>> But it's not just a game for me, it's a virtual community. That why I
>> think that avatars make more sense than characters.
>
>If it were made up of 99% roleplayers, it could (and would) also be a
>virtual community. So I don't see why it follows that because it's
>supposedly a virtual community, that avatars "make more sense than
>characters."
I shouldn't say "virtual community", I should say "online community".
There's nothing virtual about it, unless it is composed entirely of
characters instead of real people.
Avatars are just the vehicles that real people use to access the
world.
So yes, 99% characters could make a virtual community.
But 99% avatars could make a real community.
I just don't think you can have a real community with fake people, no
matter how convincing and "realistic" those fake people are - they are
still fake.
>And if you're saying that avatars "make more sense" because *they're*
>possibly that 99%, is circular reasoning. "They're better because
>there are more of them. There are more of them because they're
>better." That's only allowed in religious debates, not here. :-)
I'm not saying they are better because there are more of them. "They
are better" is my personal opinion. They are better because an
online-community is a more desireable goal, IMO, than "an online game
environment". And real people are required for a real community -
online or otherwise.
Characters are nice - but they are background. They're like the
animals and trees and flower-pots. They help to flesh-out the world
and assist in the "willing suspension of disbelief" that is such an
enjoyable part of UO.
>> The very fact that it is a virtual community allows for that sort of
>> playing. It isn't "the background", it's the environment.
>
>That's why I specifically mentioned the background. Again though, just
>like the UO environment allows someone to run around and (try to)
>pretend they're playing a dinosaur, doesn't make it (as) appropriate
>as roleplaying a "proper" Britannian character.
You are still confusing avatar with character. An avatar isn't a
character pretending to be an avatar. An avatar is, by definition of
the word, *actually* what most of us are playing. It's what ALL of us
are using to access the world, in fact.
I, for example, am not "pretending Dundee is a dinosaur" nor am I
"pretending Dundee is an avatar". Dundee *is* an avatar. It's a
fact. Not even opionion. By definition of the word.
There doesn't have to be an in-game rationale for it. The fact that
it is an online, virtual-world makes it so.
I should say, we're all using avatars. Some of them are characters
and some of them are not.
>> Of course, we do need characters to flesh-out the world and monsters
>> and animals too. If you enjoy playing one of them, more power to ya.
>> It's more fun for you and it increases the enjoyment of the game for
>> the rest of us, too.
>
>I dunno if you would have said that if Anna had killed and then
>criticized your Dundee avatar for killing a backpack-less healer...
I take my chances when it comes to interacting with characters. A
town guard would have responded the same way. For that matter an NPC
monster could have wandered on screen and attacked me then.
(Certainly if any kewld00ds had been around, they would have taken the
crim'flag as an invitation to attack - and they aren't even
characters). Your character, as part of the background of the world,
should react in whatever way would be appropriate for a character to
react. No problem.
>I put them in quotes because my best friends are those that I've
>actually met in real life. I don't know if I could make friends to
>such a deep level among people I've *only* met and talked to online.
Try actually talking to them, as yourself. It helps. One of the
reasons I think it's better.
>> Ah. Well I don't have to promote avataring, because that's what
>> people are doing already. If roleplaying would make it an RPG, then
>> what does avataring make it? An online-community, IMO.
>
>RPGer's can make online communities too - why can't they?
Because they aren't real people - they are characters. At best,
make-believe people can have a make-believe community.
>In fact, because of a greater chance of "commonality," I think they have a
>better chance than avatars, of making such a community.
?? That's it...? I would like to see more on this thought.
>> You trying to turn our community into a roleplaying game? Whatever
>> for?
>
>I want it both. I want it all! Including your wallet. Hand it over!
I think we can have both, but only if there's a healthy mix of real
people and background-people.
>And when it reaches that perfect balance, OSI will discontinue it "due
>to the player base not being large enough to justify the continued
>expense of maintaining the one remaining shard."
Well, whatever happens in UO will be carried on into the undiscovered
country. "Multi-user Online Environments" will continue to evolve
regardless what happens to UO.
>> I tolerate them less than you might imagine....
>
>I believe you. I'm mainly talking about many of the *other* avatar
>type players in UO. Heck, Anna's best-friend in the game ended up
>being one of them - so tolerant that Anna felt she had to dump her.
>And she did. So I've run into this first-hand, and big-time.
This strikes me as sad. And, "yeah... suuuuuuure you can build an
all-roleplayer community... uh huh...").
>> I see roleplaying as an excuse for antisocial behavior as often as
>> not.
>
>No, I think you're really talking about "stated pretend roleplaying."
>Those who give such excuses are usually just giving excuses,
>pretending they're roleplayers when in fact they're not.
So roleplaying is not enough, it has to be Real True Roleplaying.
I think you have unreasonably high expections of your fellow users in
a mass-market audience. Most of them won't even pretend to roleplay
(whatever that means), let alone Do It Right (whatever that means),
ever.
>Just make sure your Guildmaster is an actual Guildmaster in real life.
>Don't want him roleplaying, just *pretending* he's a Guildmaster. That
>would be wrong! :-)
If he's the one that can access the GM-functions on the guildstone
then he is, really and truly, the GM. No "pretending" required.
>> All of the above applies to avatars as well. I can't visit britannia
>> "in person" - I have to use an avatar.
>
>Not fully, not in my definition of avatar
You have one seriously whacked definition of the word avatar.
I'm not going to debate or defend your definition of the word. It
isn't my definition of the word and it isn't the definition that has
been in common use for online environments for *years*.
>- "real" avatars could come
>over and dress and act and look how they really were in their home
>world.
You're talking about a character pretending to be an avatar - which
strikes me as one weird way to define avatar.
An avatar is the "virtual body" we use to visit virtual environment.
You use your avatars to roleplay. You pretend that your avatars are
characters. Bully for you.
I should say the distinction is "non-character avatars" versus
"character avatars". Easier to type "avatar" or "character", but
apparently that's causing confusion.
>That is, if you were really playing an avatar,
I'd be pretty whacked, as you described it... But since I'm not, then
let's get back to our discussion.
>A good example in fiction of "real" avatars by my definition is in
[snip list of *characters* from books]
I do not have a character that I pretend is an avatar, hoss.
We all have avatars. That's what they are called in online games,
muds, virtual world, (whatever else you can call these things).
Your avatars are characters.
My primary (and currently my only) avatar is not a character.
Most people playing this game have non-character avatars.
You think that's a Bad Thing. I think it's a Good Thing and a
Necessary Thing if we're every going to have a real (albeit online)
community.
>You are *forced* to play your sort of avatar in UO in a way that
>compromises the "translation" - you say it's really just you there,
>but it doesn't look like you, Dundee... it looks like a character, to
>me....
All player characters are avatars.
Not all avatars are characters.
You can tell the difference PDQ. It's a little trickier than telling
the difference between a PC and an NPC, but it isn't *that* hard.
>> But real communities - online or otherwise - don't *just* need
>> background - they need real people.
>
>I'm arguing what I think is the best style - and what I think is best,
>are real people roleplaying characters with good backgrounds, creating
>a virtual community in doing so. I think the designers of UO would
>agree. I also feel I must stress again that I understand and don't
>really mind that you don't agree with this.
Regarding "I think the designers of UO would agree. " - so what? I'd
just as gladly debate the point with them as you. In fact, I'm a bit
shocked Raph hasn't lept in here already, since he seemed pretty
keenly interested in 'game versus community' debate. He must be busy
fixing the rep system.
You *can* create a virtual community with characters. I don't think
that's a Good Thing and I don't think it is what will happen. Most
people don't and won't roleplay.
But your characters are a welcome and good part of the world - A world
in which real people will create a real community.
I may make a character or two myself, as a result of this discussion,
and add to the world-background with an interesting persona.
But I would seriously recommend that you get a non-character avatar
and explore the world "in person". As yourself, via an avatar. It's
GREAT.
>And some, like *me,* prefer to wait a while and let both types pay to
>beta-test the new patch before rejoining UO.... :-P
Oh.... Well, when you're finished waiting....
Let me know so I can stop killing packless healers.
Ron Findling
>>> Well, I am a bit confused about that. None of the other ultimas are
>>> role playing games - they are "computer roleplaying games". Something
>>> can either be one or the other, as I see it.
>> In terms of gameplay, that you pretend you're really someone else,
>> there is no difference. And it's this sort of gameplay that I believe
>> we were talking about.
> Totally disagree. If you aren't roleplaying, then it isn't a
> roleplaying game. CRPGs (or for that matter, any game you play by
> yourself) don't involve roleplaying,
Why do you say that? I fail to see the connection.
> ...so they aren't roleplaying games, no matter *what* the publisher
> prints on the box.
It seems you're using a definition of roleplaying that I'm not
familiar with. To me, "roleplaying" means "pretending you're someone
else." Which makes it neatly opposite to (what I think is) your own
definition of "avatar," meaning "playing yourself."
I think my definition does agree with that of the publishers you're
talking about, which also fits in with how they've designed the game
to be played....
> ...as you point out, it's only my opinion that "non-character"-avatars
> are more appropriate for this environment than character-avatars. I
> can't *prove* it and I'm not trying to. No circular logic here. It
> just seems to me that the reason more people use avatars instead of
> characters is because they, like me, feel that it's more appropriate.
I think I have a right to harp on you with this because beyond
circular reasoning, I have yet to see any reasons *why* "avatars" are
"more appropriate," whereas comparatively I have given reasons for my
position.
And I think more people use avatars because it's easier, and because
they're often intimidated by the k00l d00dz out there, as I've said
more than once already. Not because even they necessarily think it's
"better" or "more appropriate." Though some do, of course.
> Not that all that many people ever really take the time to think about
> it anyway. This thread, for example, consists of you and me. I
> wonder if any lurkers are even following it, or if we've bored the
> thread into killfiles everywhere...
That's a good question, but it's interesting to us, so I don't really
care that much.... :-)
Sometimes what happens in such debates is that the two sides involved
are expressing their sides so well that others feel no need to jump in
with comments of their own. I know I myself would be participating in
a lot more threads in this newsgroup myself if certain other people
weren't already "doing my job for me" already so well....
>>> That's what I meant by "this aint an RPG" and "avatars are more
>>> appropriate for this environment than characters".
>> Why didn't you use the word "common" instead of "appropriate?" The
>> former seems more... appropriate... in this context.
> IMO, they are more appropriate. They are more common, too, but that's
> because they are more appropriate.
Again, why? You haven't given any reason that I can recall beyond the
circular type.
>> If it were made up of 99% roleplayers, it could (and would) also be a
>> virtual community. So I don't see why it follows that because it's
>> supposedly a virtual community, that avatars "make more sense than
>> characters."
> I shouldn't say "virtual community", I should say "online community".
> There's nothing virtual about it, unless it is composed entirely of
> characters instead of real people.
Roleplayers in UO are made up of players who are all online, too...
heck there's even all sorts of web pages up for roleplaying guilds....
And this is Ultima Online, which is supposedly a virtual world. In
that context, there's no reason to think that any "virtual" community
it inspires is any worse than any "online community."
In fact, because UO is a "virtual" type of game, set on Britannia and
*not* Earth, I can argue that the virtual communities it inspires are
*more* appropriate than your "online" communities.
> Avatars are just the vehicles that real people use to access the
> world.
>
> So yes, 99% characters could make a virtual community.
> But 99% avatars could make a real community.
So can roleplayers, they often know "who's behind the mask in
real-life," themselves. They just tend to try to keep such RL
interaction to their web pages or whatever, and out of the game. So
they get the best of both worlds.
> I just don't think you can have a real community with fake people,
> no matter how convincing and "realistic" those fake people are -
> they are still fake.
I totally disagree. I fail to see *any* qualitative difference in
favor of your position between the roleplayer type communities in UO
and those that aren't made up of roleplayers. Just saying the latter
is "real" while the former is "fake" isn't good enough.
Some examples as to why you're right - and substantial enough
examples, would help your position a lot. I have yet to see them.
>> And if you're saying that avatars "make more sense" because *they're*
>> possibly that 99%, is circular reasoning. "They're better because
>> there are more of them. There are more of them because they're
>> better." That's only allowed in religious debates, not here. :-)
> I'm not saying they are better because there are more of them. "They
> are better" is my personal opinion. They are better because an
> online-community is a more desireable goal, IMO, than "an online game
> environment".
Well, now you have to show why roleplayers can't make the sort of
online-communities you're talking about, because I dispute that, too.
> And real people are required for a real community - online or otherwise.
*I* roleplay Anna McCloud. I'm real. And keeping in mind the context
that OSI is trying to show a virtual world, NOT the real world, with
UO, why is a "real community," the way you're defining it, inherently
better than a "virtual community," anyways?
> Characters are nice - but they are background. They're like the
> animals and trees and flower-pots. They help to flesh-out the world
> and assist in the "willing suspension of disbelief" that is such an
> enjoyable part of UO.
When "properly cooked" (well-played), I in fact think they're the meat
and potatoes, with the "avatar" types (k00l dude or otherwise) being
the parsley and lemon wedges.... :-)
The latter two foods aren't poison by any means, but it's not
something I prefer to try to live on. :-)
>>> The very fact that it is a virtual community allows for that sort of
>>> playing. It isn't "the background", it's the environment.
>>
>> That's why I specifically mentioned the background. Again though, just
>> like the UO environment allows someone to run around and (try to)
>> pretend they're playing a dinosaur, doesn't make it (as) appropriate
>> as roleplaying a "proper" Britannian character.
>
> You are still confusing avatar with character. [etc]
No, because I only brought up the dinosaur analogy to show another
style of playing that doesn't fit (as well) in UO. I do realize that
someone trying to play a dinosaur is trying to roleplay a character,
and not play an avatar.
> I take my chances when it comes to interacting with characters. A
> town guard would have responded the same way. For that matter an NPC
> monster could have wandered on screen and attacked me then.
> (Certainly if any kewld00ds had been around, they would have taken the
> crim'flag as an invitation to attack - and they aren't even
> characters). Your character, as part of the background of the world,
> should react in whatever way would be appropriate for a character to
> react. No problem.
But if the way you're playing is "more appropriate," but your Dundee
character *isn't* a kool dude or murderer type, then (pretending Anna
& Dundee situation happened) why did he kill the healer?
Yes, I know the technical reason, but you're not a programmer, you're
not responsible, nor are you supposed to be responsible, for the
problems like "no backpack healers" in the game.
That's another reason why killing the healer doesn't fit. And that to
me is another reason that makes your style of play *less* appropriate,
not more so, than how roleplayers play the game.
I should add, BTW, that killing healers like that makes fixing the
problem by OSI less likely, and becomes a disincentive in general for
them to fix any problem that players can "work around." And that's a
bad thing.
>>I put them in quotes because my best friends are those that I've
>>actually met in real life. I don't know if I could make friends to
>>such a deep level among people I've *only* met and talked to online.
> Try actually talking to them, as yourself. It helps. One of the
> reasons I think it's better.
I do, out of the game. That's why I mentioned the "*only*" part. For
example, I know several people from Singapore now (I'm in Canada) that
I still talk to from time-to-time via ICQ, even though I'm not playing
UO right now.
>> RPGer's can make online communities too - why can't they?
> Because they aren't real people - they are characters.
No, their characters aren't real. The people behind them are real. I
should note that even you wrote "RPGer's" and not "characters."
> At best, make-believe people can have a make-believe community.
Since Britannia is also a "make-believe" world, I again fail to see
why such communities are "less appropriate," anyways.
>>In fact, because of a greater chance of "commonality," I think they have a
>>better chance than avatars, of making such a community.
>
>?? That's it...? I would like to see more on this thought.
Wanna make an online community made up of French players, so you can
all talk about French-related issues? Well, you're limited to the
number of French players in the game. I could give more examples.
But virtual communities are only limited to those limitations that
would naturally come about anyways in the game. The above mentioned
French-only community might still put a further restriction that only
tank-mages need apply, but a *virtual* community that only wanted tank
mages would be able to get everybody from every RL country that has a
tank mage.
Anna McCloud was part of a "guild-like" community where all the rest
of the players were from Singapore. If they'd limited themselves to
*only* Singapore players, Anna would have been out of luck.
>>> You trying to turn our community into a roleplaying game? Whatever
>>> for?
>> I want it both. I want it all! Including your wallet. Hand it over!
> I think we can have both, but only if there's a healthy mix of real
> people and background-people.
Hey, you forgot to laugh at my joke. I *know* it was funny, so you
have no excuse. :-)
>>> I tolerate them less than you might imagine....
>> I believe you. I'm mainly talking about many of the *other* avatar
>> type players in UO. Heck, Anna's best-friend in the game ended up
>> being one of them - so tolerant that Anna felt she had to dump her.
>> And she did. So I've run into this first-hand, and big-time.
> This strikes me as sad. And, "yeah... suuuuuuure you can build an
> all-roleplayer community... uh huh...").
Well, you'd possibly dump a real-life friend if you found out he/she
wasn't who you thought that person was, right? Or are you saying that
online communities, according to your definition, will always last
forever, no matter what?
BTW, it was only Anna dumping that other person's *character.* I still
know and am friends with the real-life person behind that other
character. When I come back to UO, if that person is also still
playing UO, there's an excellent chance I will make a new character
just to adventure with Jessica (the character who got dumped). And who
knows, Anna and Jessica might even become friends again.
>>> I see roleplaying as an excuse for antisocial behavior as often as
>>> not.
>> No, I think you're really talking about "stated pretend roleplaying."
>> Those who give such excuses are usually just giving excuses,
>> pretending they're roleplayers when in fact they're not.
> So roleplaying is not enough, it has to be Real True Roleplaying.
Well, most anti-social behavior in UO, as far as *I* have known, has
been from the k00l dood types, who, as I implied, have (if they tried
to properly justify themselves at all) just used "roleplaying" as an
*excuse* for their actions.
They weren't really roleplaying at all.
> I think you have unreasonably high expections of your fellow users in
> a mass-market audience. Most of them won't even pretend to roleplay
> (whatever that means), let alone Do It Right (whatever that means),
> ever.
It's not that I have unreasonably high expectations, it's that I try
to assign blame where blame is due, and *not* blame the real
roleplayers out there - even the murderous ones - for the fact there
have been too many anti-social kool dude *non* roleplayers.
And I reiterate I've never even played a "grey" sort of person myself
in UO, let alone a "red." I don't have a conflict of interest here.
> You have one seriously whacked definition of the word avatar.
> I'm not going to debate or defend your definition of the word. It
> isn't my definition of the word and it isn't the definition that has
> been in common use for online environments for *years*. [etc]
I had a big spiel all written out, but I decided to delete it, and
accept your definition, because I don't want us to get bogged down on
this particular matter. I think it's more important and interesting
anyways to instead discuss which approach - roleplaying or avatars -
is more appropriate for UO. I hope this is okay with you.
>> I'm arguing what I think is the best style - and what I think is best,
>> are real people roleplaying characters with good backgrounds, creating
>> a virtual community in doing so. I think the designers of UO would
>> agree.
> Regarding "I think the designers of UO would agree. " - so what? I'd
> just as gladly debate the point with them as you.
To me, that's like debating with John Carmack that Quake deathmatch is
really more about chatting with other players than killing them....
:-)
Of course, Quake DM doesn't have the problem of most players actually
chatting in-game rather than killing each other, so in that regard, my
analogy is weak. But Quake DM has all sorts of fun incentives to
promote that killing goes on, UO does not (IMO) have enough similar
incentives to promote roleplaying. But I consider that a fault and
problem in the game, and not something that promotes your side of
things.
> In fact, I'm a bit shocked Raph hasn't lept in here already, since he
> seemed pretty keenly interested in 'game versus community' debate.
> He must be busy fixing the rep system.
Or maybe he just thinks I'm a jerk and that you're handling me well
enough.... :-)
> You *can* create a virtual community with characters. I don't think
> that's a Good Thing and I don't think it is what will happen. Most
> people don't and won't roleplay.
It does happen and has happened - in spots, at least. Again, many
people seem to just want the "other guy" to start, then they'll join
in. I ran into this time and time again when roleplaying Anna McCloud.
> But your characters are a welcome and good part of the world - A world
> in which real people will create a real community.
>
> I may make a character or two myself, as a result of this discussion,
> and add to the world-background with an interesting persona.
Good luck, I hope you have fun with it. Do me a favor, if you intend
on making a "virtuous" type of character, and if Baja is a decent
enough server for you, create and play that character there, then
if/when I return, we can try to get the two together.
> But I would seriously recommend that you get a non-character avatar
> and explore the world "in person". As yourself, via an avatar. It's
> GREAT.
Why? I "play myself" (not to be confused with "play with myself,"
grin) all the time in real-life anyways.... :-)
>> And some, like *me,* prefer to wait a while and let both types pay to
>> beta-test the new patch before rejoining UO.... :-P
> Oh.... Well, when you're finished waiting....
I'm still reading of all sorts of substantial bugs in the new rep
rules, if/when those are sorted out I'll maybe return.
> Let me know so I can stop killing packless healers.
Hey, I thought you already said you were creating a special evil mule
to legitimately do that, instead of with your Dundee avatar? You
bastard, you lied to me, I'm gonna sue!
Where's Bunboy when I need him? :-)
George
Dundee wrote in message
<43E0E25911C00486.0EF2670F...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
>
>See, here's the difference between a character and and avatar. I *am*
>Dundee. "He" doesn't have a personality different from "my"
>personality because "we" are one person.
>
I am just curious Dundee. Have you ever played what you would consider a
real RPG? Have you ever had a character/avatar that was not the same gender
as you? Have you ever tried to play a character/avatar that was of a
completely different personality than yourself? Doing these things is what
makes roleplaying a fun experience. You can be something in the game that
you can never be in real life. I believe that Ultima Online is a RPG. No
matter that some people do not know how to or just don't want to role-play,
it is still an RPG.
By the way an avatar is the incarnation of another person.
The Avatar was a title given by Lord British to the one who practiced every
virtue faithfully. Nothing says that Lord British could not give the title
Avatar to many others as well.
George
Dundee wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 21:14:29 GMT, ro...@direct.ca (Ron Findling) wrote:
>None of the other ultimas are role playing games - they are "computer
roleplaying games.
Hmm, whats the difference. Of course the Ultima series were all roleplaying
games. The only difference was until Ultima IV your role was predefined.
Starting with Ultima IV you could pick your own role. They were definitely
roleplaying games.
Dennis Heffernan
Dundee wrote in message
<9878ED395E724024.8087C155...@library-proxy.airnews.net>...
|But IMO, even that falls a bit short of making UO a roleplaying game.
No, it is a roleplaying game because it, like all MUDs, was designed
and marketed as such. It remains a roleplaying game regardless of how
poorly its players play.
|But anyway, my point is, if you stay IC with someone who is OOC, then
|they are talking to a sock-puppet - and that's silly.
It's not "silly"; you just Don't Get It and never will.
|Anyone killing healers "because they have no packs" is very much OOC.
No one acting within the game can be said to be OOC. If you're killing
innocents around someone whose character would come to their defense you
can expect to be attacked.
Dennis F. Heffernan UO: Venture (Catskills) Dennis.H...@gte.net
Dennis Heffernan
Ron Findling wrote in message <3591242e...@news.direct.ca>...
|Let's not be that harsh, Dennis.
Yes, let's. It's past time to thin out the herd.
|It's mentioned as a adventure game -
|without the word roleplaying listed anywhere - right on the box.
|That's an unfortunate omission in my opinion, but it does mean
|Dundee's style of play isn't inappropriate.
All of the marketing material makes it clear that it's an RPG.
(Read the intro to the recent Garriott appearnce press release.)
It can't be anything _but_ an RPG.
Ron Findling
>> It's mentioned as a adventure game - without the word
>> roleplaying listed anywhere - right on the box. That's
>> an unfortunate omission in my opinion, but it does mean
>> Dundee's style of play isn't inappropriate.
> All of the marketing material makes it clear that it's an RPG.
> (Read the intro to the recent Garriott appearnce press release.)
> It can't be anything _but_ an RPG.
Yes, but....
Casual gamers don't always (nor do they have to) read or know anything
about that "marketing material" you're talking about, and companies
(should) know this. So if Origin really wanted to push this as an RPG,
they should have put it on the box.
I suspect they knew very well what they were doing here, and
intentionally left it off, to not "scare away" anyone who thought an
RPG might be too demanding. I should stress this is just a suspicion
of mine, I have no proof of this.
Doug Wright
"George" <mr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>Dundee wrote in message ...
>>On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 21:14:29 GMT, ro...@direct.ca (Ron Findling) wrote:
>>None of the other ultimas are role playing games - they are "computer
>roleplaying games.
>
>Hmm, whats the difference. Of course the Ultima series were all roleplaying
>games. The only difference was until Ultima IV your role was predefined.
>Starting with Ultima IV you could pick your own role. They were definitely
>roleplaying games.
>
I believe what Dundee is classifying as a role playing game is a good
old table top pen and paper rules in a big book game like Vampire:
The Masquerade (and anything else by White Wolf), Dungeons @ Dragons
(to an extint), Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, and a whole host of others. In
these games you make a character and BECOME them for a while in the
game universe. There is no preset goal other than what you make.
There are no bosses and endings, unless you want them. It takes work
and imagination and is more rewarding than any Computer RPG which is
what the Ultima games are.
UO has the potential though to be something akin to those table top
games. It has a very flexible and easy rules system. A very high
degree of interactivity and no predefined plotline. Roleplaying is
hard to describe, but if you want a good idea go to
rec.games.frp.storyteller and read the IC threads Those are
characters in White Wolf's world of darkness just sitting around and
talking IN CHARACTER. Or go look at www.white-wolf.com, www.tsr.com,
www.fasa.com, those are the webpages of three good true RPG
companies.
Doug
The Master
Doug Wright wrote:
> UO has the potential though to be something akin to those table top
> games. It has a very flexible and easy rules system.
You have never stood by and watched a buddy npk'ed under the Rep system because
you dared not interfere because you buddy had done a good deed that marked him as
a criminal so the pk could attack with impunity and if you tried to help your
friend then everyone would just attack you. Simple? Yeah right.
> A very high degree of interactivity and no predefined plotline.
No post-defined plotline. No plotline at all. Just chop, carve, sell, chop,
carve, sell, buy armor, head toward dungeon, get killed by pk, start over. Keep
it up long enough and you can hope to own a castle which you dare not use for
fear of being looted.
Dennis F. Heffernan
Dundee wrote in message
<43E0E25911C00486.0EF2670F...@library-proxy.airnews.net>...
|An avatar is what you have in a virtual world. This has nothing to do
|with "The Avatar" from the Ultima series. This has to do with online
|communities, virtual worlds, muds, or whatever you want to call them.
I have never heard the term "avatar" used in this fashion in relation
to MUDs. I have only heard it used in this fashion in relation to utilities
like Mr. Bill's VChat and other graphic chat rooms.
There is a term "avatar roleplaying" used in RPG circles for games in
which the participants come up with game stats for themselves (almost always
idealized, whether they admit it or not) and play "themselves" in the game
world. It's not very common, and personally I don't think much of it as an
art form. (Playing yourself is not going to be much of a stretch.) Which
isn't to say that it doesn't have its place; Venture is about halfway between
avatar roleplaying and the Real Thing. I didn't want to invest a lot of time
and effort into writing up a character for UO when I didn't know if I'd be
playing the game for any appreciable length of time, and seeing who else I
have to work with hasn't inspired me to throw together anything more
ambitious. I cast not my pearls before swine. (My Dragon's Gate characters
were a lot more well-done, though Macavity did share a lot of my attitude.)
|Now, you can roleplay a character in a virtual world. Lots of people
|do.
In fact, you have to.
|I submit to you that Ultima Online has more in common with a virtual
|world than it has with a role-playing game.
A virtual world IS a roleplaying game; it can't possibly be anything
else. You aren't there; all you can do is portray a fictional entity that
is. Making that entity a copy of yourself just makes it avatar roleplaying --
which I would maintain is simply embracing a low standard. "But hey, that's
just my opinion; I could be wrong." -- D. Miller
|To me, it makes *perfect sense* that my "main character" be an avatar
|instead of roleplayed character. It makes more sense than trying to
|roleplay in what is very much *not* a roleplaying game.
It is your prerogative to adopt that point of view. You're wrong,
but it's your prerogative.
|See, here's the difference between a character and and avatar. I *am*
|Dundee. "He" doesn't have a personality different from "my"
|personality because "we" are one person.
No, they're not, and they can't be. Dundee, depending on how you
look at it, is either a pattern of electromagnetic impulses or a narrative
of an ongoing nature. You are neither. (Even if you wanted to argue that
a person is just electrical signals in the brain -- which you can't -- you
and Dundee wouldn't be the _same_ pattern of electrical signals.) Philosophically,
Dundee's existence is either a matter of correspondence -- which makes him
an electrical signal, which is not a person -- or coherence -- which makes
him fictional and still not a person.
All you are doing -- all you can do -- is roleplay the null choice;
a character with no personality differences from yourself. This is otherwise
known as "bad acting".
|You're thinking that Dundee is a character with this weird sort of
|background fantasy story made-up to excuse my lack of roleplaying. My
|point is there is a word for "the virtual Bodies" that people use in
|order to visit virtual worlds and that word isn't "character", it is
|"avatar". Why is that? Because "avatars" are extremely more
|appropriate for this environment than characters.
There may be a word for it but the distinction is merely a taxonomic
one between two species of the same beast.
|To me, Ultima Online is a community. The friends I've made in the
|game are real friends - not "those characters are my character's
|friends", but "those people are *my* friends". When people talk to
|Dundee, they are talking to me, and vice versa.
No, they are not your friends. Most people -- particularly
Americans -- are far too liberal with the use of the word "friend".
You don't have friends you haven't met in person. It takes years
of association -- a significant portion of a shared lifetime --
before you can possibly know someone well enough to call them a friend.
What most people call "friends" are really just acquaintances.
|I know you *want* this to be a roleplaying game. But saying it is
|doesn't make it so.
I know you don't want it to be one -- it would destigmatize you;
you wouldn't be a bad player if it wasn't an RPG -- but saying it isn't
doesn't make it not so. But since it is all pretend it can't _not_ be
a roleplaying game.
|And since this place - online rpg or virtual world - is what *we* make
|of it, then if we don't roleplay, it isn't an RPG. Look around. How
|much roleplaying is going on?
No, it is what it is. How many of its participants are poor players
does not change the nature of the game. Hell, most of the participants in
FTF roleplaying suck, too. Most RPG play in RL is nothing more than
elaborate (or not so elaborate) tactical exercises -- "hack and slash".
Even the highly-vaunted White Wolf Storyteller games are played this way
more often than not. But no matter how poorly played they are, they are
still what they are -- which is RPGs.
|I'm not terribly concerned with it. I'd rather talk to real people
|than sock-puppets.
Then what you want is mIRC or VChat. If you can't see roleplaying
as an art form and not just a puppet show, you're in the wrong hobby.
Dennis F. Heffernan
Dundee wrote in message
<9103EB3DBBFD328F.8EF10FA0...@library-proxy.airnews.net>...
|Totally disagree. If you aren't roleplaying, then it isn't a
|roleplaying game.
No, it's still an RPG; you just suck.
|CRPGs (or for that matter, any game you play by
|yourself) don't involve roleplaying, so they aren't roleplaying games,
|no matter *what* the publisher prints on the box.
They do involve roleplaying, just in a severely constrained environment.
|Not that all that many people ever really take the time to think about
|it anyway. This thread, for example, consists of you and me. I
|wonder if any lurkers are even following it, or if we've bored the
|thread into killfiles everywhere...
I've been busy.
|I shouldn't say "virtual community", I should say "online community".
|There's nothing virtual about it, unless it is composed entirely of
|characters instead of real people.
It is a virtual community, because a community is a place where
people live, and the only people who live in UO or any other MUD are
virtual people. In fact, the word "community" can only be applied to
a MUD in the very loosest possible sense of the word; in the sense that
if you put ten people in a room you have a community. A MUD is no more
of a community than a cocktail party.
|So yes, 99% characters could make a virtual community.
|But 99% avatars could make a real community.
If it's online, it is not and can not be a "real community".
|I just don't think you can have a real community with fake people, no
|matter how convincing and "realistic" those fake people are - they are
|still fake.
The only people you're going to get online are fake.
|Characters are nice - but they are background. They're like the
|animals and trees and flower-pots. They help to flesh-out the world
|and assist in the "willing suspension of disbelief" that is such an
|enjoyable part of UO.
And here, you say that those of us who do the work involved in roleplay
are secondary, just window dressing, and the slobs who just ooze all over
doing anything they want with no respect for the art are the important ones.
I'd say your sense of proportion has disappeared right up your aesthetic.
|Try actually talking to them, as yourself. It helps. One of the
|reasons I think it's better.
No, it doesn't. You are only interacting with these people in a
miniscule slice of their existence, in a fictional environment, in a
controlled and artificial fashion. If you become attached to that you
are only becoming attached to a mental image you have created to make
sense of a stream of insufficient data. Humans are good at that; it's
where religions come from.
|Well, whatever happens in UO will be carried on into the undiscovered
|country. "Multi-user Online Environments" will continue to evolve
|regardless what happens to UO.
No, they won't, because they're done evolving. This is it, folks.
What you see is what you got. This is the 'A' material.
|This strikes me as sad. And, "yeah... suuuuuuure you can build an
|all-roleplayer community... uh huh...").
The non-roleplayers were the minority in my experiences on Dragon's
Gate, and they definitely were not part of anything you could call "the
community". The entire group I hung with was seriously RPed. In fact,
the only absolute non-roleplayers I ever ran into were throwaway PKs.
|So roleplaying is not enough, it has to be Real True Roleplaying.
Yes.
|I think you have unreasonably high expections of your fellow users in
|a mass-market audience.
So?
High expectations are _good_. You can't get quality results out
of low expectations.
|But I would seriously recommend that you get a non-character avatar
|and explore the world "in person". As yourself, via an avatar. It's
|GREAT.
No. It's pathetic. It's IRC with graphics.
Dennis F. Heffernan
Ron Findling wrote in message <35974069...@news.direct.ca>...
|Casual gamers don't always (nor do they have to) read or know anything
|about that "marketing material" you're talking about, and companies
|(should) know this. So if Origin really wanted to push this as an RPG,
|they should have put it on the box.
You're not seriously betting anything on the intelligence of
marketing executives, are you?
I rather expect they figured that anyone buying UO had prior knowledge
of the Ultima line.