Aberrant: 2011 - OpNet - 2008: Arbitration

[Singularity]

Some people have discussed using a storyteller or arbitration system for the proposed OpNet - 2008. Here's what I've said so far:

,,

Quote:

Originally posted by Singularity:

5. When it comes to the character sheets, I am of the opinion that each character should have a sheet made for them but I am not 100% certain that these sheets need to be public. I would greatly encourage the publication of said sheet, but perhaps someone wants to play someone with a secret that has yet to be revealed and providing the sheet up front would completely negate that subplot.

So, what do people think?

[Hugin]

I like the idea of some sort of arbiter, not for interaction or stories, but for character creation. If we're starting over from scratch in this new area it would be nice to ensure that characters out of the gate have a similar gauntlet to run through.

[The White Rat]

I like the arbiter idea for combat resolutions and character creation.

If there is a combat situation, I think that an element of chance needs to be involved. To make sure that the players are being honest, an arbiter could be used to make pertinent die rolls, and track lost health levels. They would not need an arbiter if they were going to use a die roller where the results can be publicly viewed.

Mutual resolution and cooperation on stories is part of the 2016 OpNet verse. I would think that the 2008 realm would be different, where players could have their characters killed. This has the effect of keeping the number, of high powered novas, low. If you are powerful, a small groups of Novas may try, and can, defeat a more powerful Nova, due to the enforcement of character creation and advancement.

An arbiter or ST would allow for a higher level of drama, because characters will actually die. To enforce this and arbiter would be needed to ensure that the victor won legitimately and the vanquished actually perished.

An arbiter in this case could be any other member of the OpNet community who would, in an objective manner, roll the die and witness the outcome. It would be up to the players to write the specifics of the conflict.

[Fae Dreamweaver]

I'm with Rat on this. Also, it would definetly give a different "flavour" to the 2008 Universe, make it more attractive to play both worlds.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

I favor arbs for creation.

I'm less sure about combat (although I'm not opposed). The problem is we run the risk of encouraging people to create combat machines.

[z-The Morrigan]

Quote:

Originally posted by David 'Dr. Troll' Smith:
I favor arbs for creation.

I'm less sure about combat (although I'm not opposed). The problem is we run the risk of encouraging people to create combat machines.

Combat can include social and mental "fights" as well. Just because they haven't been done in Aberrant doesn't mean that we can't do things like that.

[Fae Dreamweaver]

Quote:

Originally posted by David 'Dr. Troll' Smith:
I favor arbs for creation.

I'm less sure about combat (although I'm not opposed). The problem is we run the risk of encouraging people to create combat machines.

Not really, you would just want to create a combat machine if you expected to be seeing a lot of violence. I would imagine quite a lot of characters wouldn't be seeing combat unless it was by accident, and the rest (elites & co.) are pretty much entitled to be combat machiens.

[Neil Preston]

Does a player have the right to deny combat? In other words, can a character get jumped and gacked, or can the player say "Nope, I don't want this to happen to my character, so it isn't happening,"?

[The White Rat]

Denying combat? I would say yes, and no. Just like in real life, you may be attacked by someone. When you are, you have several choices, fight, flee, parlay or hope for mercy.

If not getting into combat is your goal, then make sure your character does not get in such as situation, can defend themselves, of has the ability to flee.

Due to the more 'chaotic' nature of the 2008 world, where characters may die, I would try not to get too attached to them. That being said, I suppose if you really objected to combat, you could negotiate some sort of 'settlement' with the attackers player.

I think the plan is for this world to have a different 'flavor' than 2016.

[Singularity]

Quote:

Originally posted by The White Rat:
Due to the more 'chaotic' nature of the 2008 world

In the canon setting (which is part of the proposal), the world has much less chaos in 2008 as opposed to what it has in 2016 (specifically, post Ibiza violence and uncertainty).

[The White Rat]

What I mean by chaos, is not the 2008 world, but the manner in which characters interact in the setting.

[Singularity]

That's up to the people using 2008, Rat. You might foresee a violent world and others might see something far less destructive, hence linking the need for arbitration to the perceived likelihood of combat seems rather subjective.

[Fae Dreamweaver]

I was in fact thinking more along the lines of characters being able to die would make combat less likely and, as such, more significant, as people would think twice about putting their characters into combat situations.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

I think the key words there are "people ... putting their characters into combat situations". It'd be a problem if people didn't have a choice about that. Example: I have resources 5. I hired "T" to kill you in your sleep in your home in New York, you're dead.

[The White Rat]

You make a good point Dr. I would say that if you want to kill someone, you have to do it with your own character. Hiring someone to do it, to another character, while they sleep, is obviously not something that can be allowed. The person whose character is in jeopardy would have a choice against such an obvious workaround.

However, I do think that attempted assassination should be allowed. Usually, you are erased for a reason. You either piss off someone powerful, or you meddle where you are not wanted. In this case, a hit could be put out on your character. The character in jeopardy could be made aware of it through rumor or direct notification. In this way, they could do something to prevent their death.

Extreme paranoia can make for some excellent drama

[Dreamer]

Here is what i see, making charatcers, sure. Outside of that not really.

In times of conflict.not conflict is a boarder term than combat, and two or more characters are in the story. If they can by all means settle this conflict peacefully then let it done so.As in both player agree on the outcome OOC Then thye do not need OOC help. If both parties want the conflict, but do not whole agree on the outcome, I owuld ask both players to seek up from a nuureal and trustworthly person. IE if me and Jager want sotry that has conflist, but both think we should win, we could go to Sing to talk aboutwhy and how each of should win. If that is not enough, the chances are you shouldn't wright this story. On those gorunds if you are not flexiable enough to work under those setting, then you will most likley not get into many stories.

[The White Rat]

Dreamer:

Why not use a die roller to determine the effects and damages of each characters abilities. Believing you should win and actually winning are two different things. Asking for one person to decide who would win removes ingenuity, tactical acumen and even chance from a conflict. A combat situation could depend on the order in which powers are used, or simply with an initiative roll.

[Dreamer]

Or it could be based ona plan, or many other factors but this not he rela world or evena table tp game it is a place for stories.

[The White Rat]

Is not what you are describing the 2016 universe? I think what is being palnned is something different, closer to a TT than just fiction. Why make a new world, if it is just going to be the same as the last one.

[Warren Verona]

I'm going to go out on a limb here. If combat is an issue as to whether or not it should be arbitrated the answer, in my opinion, is a simple one.

It's the player's choice. Allow me to give a few examples:

1. Carver and I enter combat. We're cool with each other and I trust her to give my character the props he deserves and vice versa. Ergo, we deal with it in a manner we feel is appropriate.

2. White Rat and Crusader meet in a deserted alley. Combat and hilarity ensues. Neither player quite sure about the other. Be it writing style, some slight OOC in the past, or just cuz the fu man chu White Rat has just screams 'creepy'. Whatever the reason, the player(s) turn to another player. We'll say, Singularity.

Singularity (providing he agrees to) acts as their arbiter during the combat.

As a side note, both players do not have to agree about bringing in an arbiter. As long as one desires an arbiter, that’s it, you get an arbiter.

It is the arbiter duty to make sure rules are not broken not tell players they're right or wrong, or 'pick a side'. If you can't remain neutral, don't agree to do it. You’re only there to make sure White Rat doesn’t roll a 12 die pool when he only has 8. Or to make sure Crusader doesn’t try and think when we all know he can’t. Sometimes we overlook things, it’s the arbiter’s job to make sure we all play fair, we’re human we screw up from time to time. You get the picture I think.

IF you choose to bring in an arbiter, he/she cannot save you from anything. They are not there; they can't pull any strings to save you from, whatever. You wanted an arbiter; you lost, so deal with what the victor chooses to do with you (kill you, leave you broken and dying, strip you naked smother you in chum and dangle you over a vat of hungry sharks.) its just as much a game as it is a fiction board.

[The White Rat]

Revenant: You have described what I was trying so pathetically attempting to describe. Sometimes you cannot resolve a combat with mutual agreement and need a 3rd party to referee the combat.

If you decide to risk resolution of a situation with an arbiter, I believe you should be awarded an additional XP

[Singularity]

Quote:

Originally posted by The White Rat:
If you decide to risk resolution of a situation with an arbiter, I believe you should be awarded an additional XP

Experience is a topic for the other thread; that's why I made the individual threads. Plus, I made my opinion clear on the topic in it too.

[Good Alice]

Rev sounds a lot like what I said but still only focused on combat...Other things mater in the lives of novas than just who has the bigger bron.

[Warren Verona]

Quote:

Originally posted by Good Alice:
Rev sounds a lot like what I said but still only focused on combat...Other things mater in the lives of novas than just who has the bigger bron.

Suffice to say that again I've assumed too much. Logic I hoped would dictate the finer print for me but apparently not.

Wouldn't you think that if my suggestion worked for combat, it would probably work for any character vs. character interaction?

[z-Silvestru]

Quote:

Originally posted by Revenant:
Wouldn't you think that if my suggestion worked for combat, it would probably work for any character vs. character interaction?

I think that it would work that way. The only problem I see is that combat is one thing, and social interactions are another bag of cats. Social interactions tend to touch on much more sensitive areas, things that may create tensions that go beyond what you see in combat. I'm specifically talking about Carver's interactions with Wakinyan, where he could have called for arbitration, and the story could have ended in ways that would have ruined the character for me.

I'd like to suggest that all parties have to agree to an arbitrator. If they can't agree to that, then the story is dropped and never happened.

I know that we'll be entering a board where everyone starts the same, but it won't stay that way. New players and character attrition mean that sooner or later there will be more powerful characters, those who can force the arbitration issue and who have the numbers to do incredible amounts of damage to others.

It's one thing to have your character trounced; another to have them raped.

[The White Rat]

I understand your concerns Sylvan, but I also have some of my own. What if we have persons in the 08' environ who never agree to any sort of arbitration. They will have effectively written everyone else out of the fictions involving one of their characters. While normally this is not a problem, I can think of certain cases where such reluctance would interfere with other character's plans .

Lets use the example of a city defender:

If I run a city defender, and someone else wants to take over the city or take my place as city defender, I can effectively prevent it from happening by refusing any arbitration. Since we would now have to agree with the outcome of the fiction and, with egos the way they are, the fiction will not get written. The character who is the city defender will always be city defender and no one can challenge their hegemony in this case.

I look at the 2008 world and see a sort of 'Darwinian Experiment'. In this world, no-ones' position or title is secure. Even survival is not assured. If another character decides they want to mess with your character, due to competing interests, etc., they should be able to. Now, I do think that something like rape would be in poor taste, and would not be a fiction anyone would want to read. Besides, the other characters would probably hunt that player's character down and 'eliminate them'. Remember, this is only a game and participation is voluntary.

Sometimes things happen that you are unprepared for and that may indeed 'ruin' your character. You either dust yourself off and move on, or you don't play if it is such a big concern.

[z-Carver]

WR, I think your intentions for the 2008 board is very different than others; most people, from what I have seen, want an equitiable playing field for their fictions and interactions. I haven't heard that they want, effectively, a PVP board for their players.

The arbitration is supposed to be used to regulate disagreements between characters, not ruin their concepts. I'm not talking about avoiding character death, even, just avoiding taking the fun out of this for everyone but min/maxers who have the biggest numbers. You'll ensure that everyone creates tanks, just so that their characters can stop other PCs from forcing their characters to do things they don't want them to do, either physically, mentally or socially.

[Ultimax]

Yeah, not interested in a PVP experiment.

[The White Rat]

I'm not speaking of a PVP experiment, just an element of chance. What is the point of having stats and dots? Why make a character with a Mega-Dex of five, if he is just as likely to succeed as someone with only one dot? If I spend my NP or XP to raise a stat, shouldn't it provide some benefit over its previous value? If we never use the stats, then why even have them?

If we are just going to do creative writing that revolves around characters, aren't we just making the stats meaningless?

An arbiter will ensure that a character with exceptional abilities will see some benefit from those abilities in an honest manner. Without one, I can claim 5 successes when in actuality I only got 2.

[Ultimax]

From what I understand the new area is so that we're all about equal in level, so that we don't have the issue of gods and mice playing around the same playground.

It is not so we can fight, battle, and go at it like this was some TT. It's still going to be about characters, their lives and their stories. Not about throwing down. Throwing down may happen but it shouldn't be the focus of the situation.

[z-Silvestru]

WR, I am not against arbitration. I do object to forced arbitration. I feel that all parties should agree to the arbitration, though, or the story should be abandoned. Many people here will carry through the arbitration rather than declare all their work null and void.

As I stated on the Experience thread, you are setting up a situation rife for abuse. Player 1 doesn't like Player 2. #1 decides to kill #2's character, so #1 gets him into a fiction and then attack him. #1 has a killer combo and #2 is a social monster, so he's at a disadvantage. He doesn't want to fight #1, but #2 calls for an arbitrator. Now, all it says is that the arbitrator has to be neutral. But #1 knows Player 8 feels the same way about the effectiveness of #1's combination. So #1 goes to him for arbitration. And he rules that the combo kills Player 2. And #1 gets his way, and maybe (if we go that way) gets a reward for doing so.

In two years, we're going to have players of different power levels on the boards both through new players joining and through attrition of the starting characters.

And I repeat: arbitration needs to be agreed by all sides, or else you will have character who don't want to take risks forced into them by the system I described above. At that point, Mega Dex 5 does indeed mean something more, as does what is actually rolled.

[The White Rat]

The arbiters responsibility is not to just make decisions based on the validity of one characters abilities over another. The arbiter has to make the combat rolls for all parties concerned. Either with a die roller or by rolling die.

Player #1's combo may be irrelevant if he loses initiative and finds himself enthralled by #2's Social abilities. Also, one player may botch their rolls, rendering that attack ineffective.

[Warren Verona]

Ya know something, ain't no one gonna agree.

And this is exactly why I'll prolly not be participating in this debacle.

What you guys need is one person, like Chosen, The Directors, or an Arbiter chosen by you to flat out tell you how it's going to be, using the feedback already supplied, and that's it.

If you don't like what they tell ya, either deal with it, or pack up yer action figures and go the fuck home.

Sorry to be a dick about it, but frankly, you guys are not getting anything done this way, just bickering. Seriously, you all could have prolly been posting your Characters by now.

[Warren Verona]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sylvan:
It's one thing to have your character trounced; another to have them raped.

You and Wakinyan should have dealt with that prior to posting it. If he took it a direction you didn't want it to go, the posts should have been edited to reflect that.

However, Carver did attack Wakinyan (granted in self defense, but she still attacked him) and for the most part would have lost. Don't bite off more than you can chew.

I'm no condoning his actions, frankly I still find it despicable that someone would think that particular act was entertaining and 'justifiable'.


However it makes for a great example:

If Waki didn't want to change the post, you call Arbiter. The Arbiter hears your side and should be able to call: "I'm in favor of Carver. This action was not agreed upon in the conceptual phase of the fiction and is a violation of the characters rights of consent. An act of this severity should have been agreed upon prior to the fiction in progress. Edit the post." At that point Waki either edits the post for violating your rights as a player, or suffers the consequences.

Under your suggestion, Carver, you call Arbiter. He doesn't. So, no Arbiter shows up help settle the dispute. You two get pissed, we have to deal with it the chat room for weeks, and we have end up hearing about it months after the fact... like I'm doing now.

An Arbiter is a player’s chance to handle things instead of having to hash it out in the chat room, or do something that leaves Player A pissed at Player B, or bother Chosen with “So and so made me mad! Scold them and kick them out!”

[Wakinyan]

Thank you Rev this is a perfectly illustrated reason why I have always been an advocate for some sort of presence on the board.

It wasn't because I needed to be forced to alter a story. It was a lack of communication when it happened that could have been easily corrected and cleared up had a third party would have been involved. At the time Carver was self admittedly unaware of her own say so of the events (much to my own ignorance which I regret) and someone like a arbiter could have stepped up on that one and saved everyone the grief of it. But of course this isn't just my arguement for 08 but 16 as well so carry on.

[Singularity]

This may be a thread that is close to some kind of consensus and I'm going to initiate a process to make a decision. In the main OpNet - 2008 thread, I'm going to lay out a poll system and tomorrow I will open a poll regarding arbitration.

[Hugin]

This is joined in spirit with the post I just made in the exp thread.

The idea for the 2008 forum was based on the need for a place for those who'd like to play on an even field power-wise. It isn't based on a desire for a new paradigm. It isn't because some folks are tired of the freedom their characters enjoy in 2016, it's soley about those who'd like to play moderate power levels versus the godlike monsters that populate 2016.

[Warren Verona]

Quote:

Originally posted by Wakinyan:
Thank you Rev this is a perfectly illustrated reason why I have always been an advocate for some sort of presence on the board.

Don't thank me.

I'm also of the opinion that the less ignorant shit you do, you have less of a need to 'cry arbiter'.

[z-Silvestru]

Quote:

Originally posted by Revenant:

Quote:

Originally posted by Sylvan:
It's one thing to have your character trounced; another to have them raped.

If Waki didn't want to change the post, you call Arbiter. The Arbiter hears your side and should be able to call: "I'm in favor of Carver. This action was not agreed upon in the conceptual phase of the fiction and is a violation of the characters rights of consent. An act of this severity should have been agreed upon prior to the fiction in progress. Edit the post." At that point Waki either edits the post for violating your rights as a player, or suffers the consequences.

Under your suggestion, Carver, you call Arbiter. He doesn't. So, no Arbiter shows up help settle the dispute. You two get pissed, we have to deal with it the chat room for weeks, and we have end up hearing about it months after the fact... like I'm doing now.

An Arbiter is a player's chance to handle things instead of having to hash it out in the chat room, or do something that leaves Player A pissed at Player B, or bother Chosen with 'So and so made me mad! Scold them and kick them out!'

Actually, my understanding of the way that the arbritrator would work is simply to be an impartial judge of the numbers. In that case, Wakinyan's numbers would have allowed him to do whatever he wished to Carver. And that is the potential for abuse that I'm talking about. It won't be a concern immediately, but in two or three years, we're going to have a numbers imbalance in 2008 again, and the potential for abuse will exist.

And to be clear, if I called for one and he didn't, I would drop the story. Period. Also, an arbitrator isn't going to soothe all hurt feelings; there's always going to be someone picked to "lose," and that will create hard feelings with one more person added into the mix for fun. It's human nature - no one likes being told no.

I think that the arbritrator's role needs to be clearly defined before the board starts, since we've reached a point where there is a clear division of opinion on how it would work. This could certainly be a discussion for later, but I think that roles need to be clear: are they there to supervise the numbers, or can the arbitrator rule on character consent/player agreements? Just how much authority will they have?

[The White Rat]

I think an arbiter needs to be there to supervise the numbers and make sure the characters adhere to the rules. I also think that the arbiter needs to be there to make sure that all parties keep with their initial intentions. For example, Waki could not change his plans for Carver once he was victorious, unless they had agreed on an open ended ending.

If I beat someone in combat, and we had decided that the winner would leave that person broken, but alive, I could not then decide that I will kill them. I had already come to an agreement as to what the conditions of victory are. What is not known, is who would be the victor.

The arbiter's job is to keep everyone honest, and to make decisions about the legality/illegality of specific powers and techniques. Ex: I want to max a power, for a special maneuver. The arbiter would find out if the attempt was botched, or successful, and if a success, how many.