Shattered Kingdoms

I could see post-pk RP being just as legitimate as pre-pk rp.

And also another thing. Once PK has happened, it sparks rp for ooc months to come. There is RP behind revenge.

I think we agree. It boils down to a fundamental disagreement with regards to what good roleplay is on a MUD. For me to remain interested in a MUD, it has to be more than a glorified chat room where storylines are planned in advance and people are more interested in talking about how big their balls are than demonstrating how big they are by driving their enemies before them and hearing the lamentations of their women. I fully understand that not everyone wants the same thing out of the game as I do, however, SK used to cater to players like me and I left because I don't think it does very well any more.

Requiring a griffon who is a Crusader, the mortal voice of Alshain, and who has has spent his entire adult life devoted to purging evil from Pyrathia to address his enemies beyond "spit" is silly. In truth, 99% of players WILL interact with their enemies, and in meaningful fashion. On a personal level, I find that roleplay to often be the most trite and boring that's available, although exceptions do of course present themselves over the life of a character. The thing is, that griffon I described isn't poorly roleplayed if his "with enemies" RP consists of "kill" and "spit," he's poorly roleplayed if nobody else playing the game could tell you a thing about him, if he has no depth of character beyond "kill/spit" that is available to be seen by an appropriate number of other characters, or if he breaks RP for convenience by applying "kill/spit" to targets that he knows he shouldn't or that he should be expected to know he shouldn't.

Why do you think a griffon crusader is required to address his enemies? I thought it was clear from the 12/17 Rules Update and followup posts in the Rules Manager Q& A thread that you do not have to engage in any specific RP against cabal enemies, outlaws, or enemy tribunal members. So, no, this character would not be required to address his enemies, not even a spit. That just leaves random evil or grey people that aren't enemies as people you would have to address before attacking them according to Rule 1.

Rule 1 really has nothing to do with what is good or bad RP (we have Rule 2 for that), so this discussion does not boil down to what anyone thinks is good RP. It would not be bad RP for a crusading lightie fanatic to go mow down evil characters right and left without a word (nor would it be noteworthy good RP). That's precisely what they do with NPCs all the time. The point of Rule 1 is that behaving that way isn't fun for everyone involved since, presumably, people logged into SK are playing under the assumption that it isn't Team Fortress.

You may not believe Rule 1 is effective in that regard and needs to be adjusted, but that is the purpose of the rule. If you have any specific ideas in that regard, please share, as that is the purpose of this thread. It seems likely that the rule will be updated, but the specifics as to how are still up in the air, and I made this thread to give players a voice in that, as I personally want to enforce rules that everyone likes and understands. You acknowledge that not everyone wants the same thing from SK, so what is a version of Rule 1 that you think everyone could be satisfied with?

I think the PVP rules are fine, but it seems like the majority of the pbase disagrees with me. I have never seen a problem in letting someone know I was planning on ganking them, but I am fine with the change back to the old system as well.

Well, I don't prefer lawyers and think that parsing the language of the rules on a game is sort of stupid in general. I'd prefer the entire text of the rule read "Respect the fact that other players are here to enjoy the game too," except that you (Thuban) are a prime example of how some people interpret that to mean very different things than others.

Clearly on SK players have to roleplay before, during, and after killing people (rule 2) so I don't see why the bullet point that says that you have to roleplay before killing people even if you're diabolic is necessary. I disagree with the idea that it is uninclusive or inherently OOC to attack someone without addressing them even if they are a random evil or grey person; if my character thinks they need to die because of things he's learned about IC, he's going to get to taking out the trash, not hail them and tell them all about what he's about to do.

I actually haven't read the rules in a while. I also don't see why there should be a rule about helping or being patient with newbies - SK isn't daycare, and if a player chooses not to be a newbie helper that's their right.

the rulez as they r are currently written, with all the various addendum, revisions and clarifications, r killing the game.

if the staff's goal is to make sure we never break double digits outside of happy hour - keep on keeping on. if we want to start seeing 30+ players online again, sk should return to its roots and reverse course from the chat room, nanny daycare it's becoming.

it's ridiculous to constantly wonder when ur playing: can i attack this guy? does he meet the criteria in rule #1? guess i should go read rule #1 again to make sure before i do anything.

if u guys r going to keep going on this track, just add an auto option that allows people to toggle a pk flag. make it so that it is a permanent decision tho and then put a [PK] designation in the who list by the character's name (similar to PAR, HRO, etc), so we know who we can and can't pk without having to be a rulez lawyer.

Also, could you explain the intent associated with the rule? Not just your literal interpretation, but the actual intent. Why are these rules being enforced how they are? If the reason is because of one person's interpretation of them, that's a poor reason. What is the anticipated result, that's beneficial to the game and players as a whole, in enforcing the rules how they are being done so now? If it's to stop RP players from being killed, say that. If it's to stop PK entirely, say that. I just don't think anybody understands WHY things are being enforced so harshly other than, Thuban, "These are how I interpret the rules and it's my job to enforce ALL rules." What is the staff's goal here?

This is the crux of the matter. I would prefer to have just that line, but people are going to get upset when the staff thinks they are are violating this but they don't agree. I can live with that if the players can. If the players or the rest of the staff can't live with that, we unfortunately require more specificity in the rule.

I believe in enforcing the rules because a majority of players follow the rules, and it is unfair not to enforce them if, by breaking the rules, other players can get an advantage over rules-abiding players. I don't want to protect RP players or stop PK; I want to protect players who abide by the rules. To me, that is the job of the Rules Manager: to protect players who abide by the rules. This applies to every single rule, not just Rule 1. The anticipated result is that players who abide by the rules will feel like the rules are being fairly enforced and that people aren't going to cheat against them. That's a tall order, I know, but that's my goal.

If the rules themselves are flawed, they need to be altered. It seems to be a common grievance that the text of Rule 1 is too nebulous and open to interpretation, and that it is getting in the way of fun more than it is protecting rules-abiding players.

If you have specific ideas about how to rework Rule 1, please share them. I would like the players to build a consensus on how it should read, subject it to staff approval, and then put the changes into effect. I don't particularly want to enforce rules that make the game not fun, but I'm not going to just stop enforcing the rules.