Aberrant: 2011 - Character Death

[Machina]

Since XP is going to be so regulated in the new '08 forum, how are we going to handle character death, whether voluntary or involuntary? If a player decides to kill a character off for dramatic reasons, does he start over with a new character at base XP, or may he bring in a new character at the same level his old character was at? And what if the death is involuntary?

[Dreamer]

I thought that, charatcers made after the start could be more powerful..IE start with EXP. I am not sure how much EXP they should or could start with but I thought they would.

[Access]

Maybe have them start at half the xp of what a character that had existed the whole time would have. That way they are below the curve, but they aren't too far below.

[The White Rat]

I used to play a D&D campaign world called Dark Sun. In it everyone had to have four characters, one active and three 'on deck'. For every level the active character gained, one of the 'on deck' characters gained a level. This meant that if you had a certain character you wanted to play after the primary one died, you could give all the xp to that character, at the expense of the other two.

When one of the characters died, you made a new one with beginning XP.

We could use a system like this if someone wants to run multiple characters. For two characters, though, it would have to be a two for one ratio similar to what Access suggested.

[Singularity]

Right, this is a potential problem here.

What about new people to the board: do we say "sorry you weren't lucky for showing up on time, you must play a brand new nova while Eric over there stumbled across it just before we started and his new character won't have exactly the same restrictions as yours?"

The concept from the get-go involved new characters being new novas. Does it mean that careful and luck come into play? Sure. But it also means that _everyone_ starts off equal.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

Meaning you get exp for the ones that you play...

[Good Alice]

The whole point of having a set power level of novas that is the same for every nova. IE all novas getting the same amount of exp and at the same time is that it limits the power of characters to an agreeable power level.It also at the same time let new players come on board later on with out suffering from the limits of being weak or feeling the need to make something bigger than what is already here.

So, let's say we start now and give 10 exp a month at the first of the month, every month. In two years all novas can have 30 nova points and upto 240 exp. The one that was made two years ago and the one that was made today. You may say that rewards people who come later and punishes those who keep onto their characters for ever. I see it this way. If you don't do that, why should I just make ten new alts that each post the least amount of way to get exp? I mean really it is not hard to pump out 30 point novas who are intersting.

So the set exp for everyone sets the power level of the board and if someone new comes in who wnats to play a badass they can, but her eis the bar..you don't like it?Go home. If some one new comes here and wants to play a new nova they can.

I guess what I am saying is htat I see this new place as somewhere we can have a limit, to how big you want to make your character but not really how small you want to make them.

[Chiteki Hoshiko]

All novas start equal. Seriously, that's the whole point of this new board, it's what it was built around. I thought it was going to be the one thing there was going to be no arguing about.

[Machina]

Good Alice makes a point. If new characters start out as "new" characters, the only motivation people will have to not just start a dozen alts and make a token effort with them to collect XP every month will be their own conscience. We can police that as a community, but only to an extent.

And won't this disparity just create the same issue we've got on the 2016 forum now, only writ smaller? Veteran players will be quantum-powered psycho gods, new players will be virtually ineffectual. You wonder why people who show up to the boards now make 50 and 80 and 150 NP monsters? I think it's because a lot of people feel like they can't make a dent in the mythos without a generous power spread. They may or may not be right, and there are always exceptions to the rule, but face facts; the more prolific characters on the forums are some of the ones with the largest power set.

[Harold 'Mythic' Anderson]

(I'm being lazy and not signing back into the Sing account )

Unfortunately, there will be some degree of disparity between characters. Having every nova start at the same power level as well as advancing at the same rate limits the disparity to only when a character is started.

To that end, we've got a few options to limit even that sort of disparity:

• Creation of only one new character per month.
• Limit the distribution of experience only to active characters.

From where I stand, these sort of limitations (or variations on those two themes) can help curtail power disparities.

Further, this model is similar to how things are run on most (if not all) MMORPGs. Everyone starts at the same level. It might be somewhat harmful for those who join late but it's less harmful than systems where seniority is rewarded at new character creation.

[Machina]

So if a character is inactive for a month, no XP? And what qualifies "active"?

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

2 posts a week?

[Hugin]

Is death really an issue? How many folks have whacked their characters now when they can replace said character with an equal heavy hitter?

Null issue.

[Erin 'Stellar' Donovan]

But in the regular forum your character only died if you allow it. In the '08 forum, it can happen even if you do not want it to. There's a difference.

[Hugin]

Dunno, sounds like it will be pretty darn easy to pull out of situations you don't like, even with arbitration.

[Machina]

No, it's definetely an issue, because the first time somebody whacks a character and says "I think my new character should come back with full XP because..." it's going to be a bigger issue than if we don't figure it out now. As long as we're writing a "charter", we may as well get all this shit squared away so it doesn't become volatile later on.

[Singularity]

Well, the rough draft of the charter I've whipped together touches on this topic relatively clearly:

Quote:

Section 1, Clause 1 – Characters shall start as novas who have erupted within two months of the character’s introduction to the OpNet – 2008 Board and Fiction areas.

That clause came right out of the original discussions of this proposal and from how (at least) I have been approaching things: new characters all start the same. Frankly, that's the best method I can find to keep things equitable across the board.

[Good Alice]

Let me put to you this way. Does anyone here have problen with Proycon's power level? Or Timeslip's?

Cuase if you do then this new way works for you.If you don;t then well the new way doesn't. The problem witht eh power level in this forum is that the only limit really is quantum. I can make a quantum five character with every power in the game that would make any reaosnable nova of quantum 6 look like a pussy. The new board we are setting the limits based on a defineable and messurable limit.

No one has more than X EXP points after 30 nova points. Right there. Here is the line, you can't cross.

But no that is not enough for some people. It seems some people want to have there is the line, for you.You can't cross it.I have this line here that is further away...Cuase I was here first, or becuase I made sure my charatcer didn't run into anything I couldn't Mary Sue my way out of.

Well let's face it, I have been at this site longer than nearly everyone else who posts here.I ain't well liked by some of you.I know this and I really don't care. I do however have this to say, me being here longer than Timeslip should not let me have a more powerful charatacter than she does. I should not have anymore rights, or sway over the board than Singularity. I should not be given more goodies than Waki. i could go on and on, but here it is.

If you limit the amount of EXP a nova has based on the date they are made, you may as well say to Jager, that all of his charatcers can have quantums of 8. As in all honestly some of them have been on this board long enough compared to timeslip to have those rights. Many of them were around long before the limit of quantum 6 were in place, and the number of titatns and gods a player could have were set on the feild. Jager had no less than five character who had quantums of 6+ run around. He limited himself.

And Singularity..One charatcer a month or whatever limit you put down as to how many charatcer people can make..Well then in 6 months I could have six characters. For no other reason than I want them to have exp.

And active..how the fuck do you define ative? i am working a on story for YT, and she hasn't posted lot because I am trying to refine a story to get i the way i like. She is running for her life..Do you think she should be hopping on to opnet and post willy-nilly? So even we if buy the built and only give exp to active charatcers..What is a an active one?One who posts X times a month? Wlel whati only post X times amonth and no more or no less? Or what if one y charatacters is ina coma?Do i have post them being acoma?Or What they are away form computers?Do i have post a fiction?And if I do post a fiction what if I post long fiction that explains why YT is in the midle of a jungle, licking her wonds for a month..Do I need to make is X posts long to be active?

[The White Rat]

Why not limit the maximum characters anyone can have, at any given time, to two or three. These characters, of course, must be active participants in the fictions and on the boards. This will prevent someone from sitting on an army of characters, just so they can all get XP.

Alice, I'm not sure I understand the point of your post? It may be that I am dense, but if you could, explain to me what exactly you are trying to say?

[z-Carver]

Quote:

Originally posted by Erin 'Stellar' Donovan:
But in the regular forum your character only died if you allow it. In the '08 forum, it can happen even if you do not want it to. There's a difference.

Actually, given the way that Revenant laid out Arbitration to me, if you establish at the beginning of the fiction what the outcome will be, you can retain your consent right to insist on no character death. To be more clear, if you enter into a fiction with the agreement no character death, and the other characters in the fiction write your character's death, you should call for abritration. And if things work the way Reven described to me in another post, then I have fewer qualms with this than with what I thought WR was suggesting.

Quote:

Originally posted by Good Alice:
If you limit the amount of EXP a nova has based on the date they are made, you may as well say to Jager, that all of his charatcers can have quantums of 8. As in all honestly some of them have been on this board long enough compared to timeslip to have those rights. Many of them were around long before the limit of quantum 6 were in place, and the number of titatns and gods a player could have were set on the feild. Jager had no less than five character who had quantums of 6+ run around. He limited himself.

But something should account for the fact that some people are on the site longer; while I don't like the senority idea myself, I acknowledge that there should be some mechanic to acknowledge those who started playing early on, and continued to put forth the time and effort. Should we just award newbies for showing up and posting a few times? They have the 2016 board if they want to play one of the big dogs without the work. Rather like several other people have done.

Quote:

Originally posted by Good Alice:
And Singularity..One charatcer a month or whatever limit you put down as to how many charatcer people can make..Well then in 6 months I could have six characters. For no other reason than I want them to have exp.

Yes, you could have six characters. What is the point? You could do something so cheesy as to have a line of characters set up and ready to go. And if we instate the "you have to be active" rule, each one of those characters would have to meet the minimum posts per month to get their experience. If you do the work and effort, why shouldn't you earn the reward?

Quote:

Originally posted by Good Alice:
And active..how the fuck do you define ative? i am working a on story for YT, and she hasn't posted lot because I am trying to refine a story to get i the way i like. She is running for her life..Do you think she should be hopping on to opnet and post willy-nilly? So even we if buy the built and only give exp to active charatcers..What is a an active one?One who posts X times a month? Wlel whati only post X times amonth and no more or no less? Or what if one y charatacters is ina coma?Do i have post them being acoma?Or What they are away form computers?Do i have post a fiction?And if I do post a fiction what if I post long fiction that explains why YT is in the midle of a jungle, licking her wonds for a month..Do I need to make is X posts long to be active?

Ok, after attempting to read your post (remember what we've said about spell and grammar checking? ), I would say that posts counted include the fiction section and the OpNet. That way, you can write a X-post story about how YT spends the month on the run (not to mention chopping up a long post into several small ones helps with legibility). That's not a huge requirement for the handful of xp.

If you only post X times a month, well, then you've met the minimum required. Why is that a problem? If we set minimums, then we should be expected that they will be met. Any failure of the player to post after that simply means the character has been denied interaction, which is the point to interaction. And I think that most people will exceed their posting minimums with little to no effort.

I apologize if I didn't understand your point/questions, but to be honest, your writing fell apart and was hard to decipher. If you're going to post, please make every effort to make it legible, 'k? Thanks.

[Good Alice]

My point is this. If you were going to set in a power level Souly based on how long your character have been on this board then you may as well say this. Don't fight and play nice. Cause you are rewarding people who never want to see their characters die.

Singularity says this about being equal. I say bullshit. This not about being fair. This about not wanting things to change.It about wanting to make sure characters either always win or players are fucked up the ass. See I make a character who goes off into dangerous place, I get exp for them... I have the choice of either making so that my character always lives, or one time dies. in the case of my character dying I am kicked in the balls because I now have to start all over. Or I could Mary Sue my character threw all the fights.

Now tell me this do you really want a system that rewards people from making Mary Sues? Cause that is what you have. Either you play characters who never risk anything or characters who are doomed to be less powerful.

Now what I am suggesting doesn't mean all novas who come on to the field Will have equal power, but what I am saying is that no player should be punished for coming to this site latter than any other play.No player should be rewarded for coming here first. No way should we turn this into a fucking hierarchy based on how tightly you hold on your character, how friendly they are and how much you Mary Sue them.

You want to do that I can think of no better reason than to make a character who hunts down other player characters and kills them. Why? Simple to become the biggest bad ass in the world, duh.

So, what I am saying is that the site have an exp limit, and a nova point limit. Not the characters. The character have to live by the site limits and ever character made has to live by it. So if the site's limit is 80 exp and 30 nova points.

A nova can be made from anywere form 0-30 nova points and anywhere form 0-80 exp. Doesn't mater if you started that day or the first day of the 2008.

[z-Carver]

Dreamer:

I barely know where to go begin, but a good start seems to be: You just aren't getting it.

This board is designed to level the playing field, not to be a soft-n-cuddly, "all-are-equal" situation. This isn't a TT game where game balance is thrown off if the party isn't reasonably close to one another. In fact, in my TT games, characters who start late or have to restart from attrition usually start at 3/4 experience.

You keep going on about equality, and how it's not fair to start people from scratch. Well, it's not fair for Player X to put forward a ton of effort, grind his way up to the powers he/she wants, only to have Player Z go, "Ah ha! The points are finally to the point where I can bring in my uber-tank with no effort up to this point." Which leaves Player X going, "Why did I bother this whole time?"

Regarding character death: this is a poor point to use; people already cling to their characters on the 2016 board, where there are no penalities for starting over. Just ask Hugin about player death on 2016; he'll be happy to tell you about it.

Regarding Mary Sues on the board: you have a poor idea of what a Mary Sue is. I recommend going to Wiki\'s article on Mary Sue for clarification. And we already have several Mary Sue's and self-insertions on the 2016 board; out of politeness, I'll refrain from pointing them out.

Regarding Player-Killers: there will be some safeguards against this, including the Arbitration system. Go read what Sing has put together. It is fair and reasonably balanced. And if you do make a PK just to destroy everyone else, I suggest you be ready for the consequences of your actions.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

Now tell me this do you really want a system that rewards people from making Mary Sues? Cause that is what you have. Either you play characters who never risk anything...

I've considered this, but don't see a solution. If there is going to be risk, say the risk of the character dying, then there has to be reward (usually exp). The flip side of that is, no reward, no risk.

the site's limit is 80 exp and 30 nova points.

Pick one: Evolve or stagnate. If I'm already at 80 exp (1 year & 8 months from now), and I do something that should increase my backgrounds (earn money, become famous, ect), then I should be able to pay exp to increase them.

Mind you, there are other fixes for this sort of thing.

1) Grant exp that can only be used on skills or backgrounds (which implies more exp).

2) Kill characters after three or so years. You've evolved into a god, have a nice life, start a new character.

But all these solutions create problems in turn, and for the most part I think our current system is as good as we are likely going to see without a single ST running the show.

Also we've already voted.

[Good Alice]

ANd you miss the point It is not tatble top game, and guess what that menas it should have more built in thing to make it balanced. Why?Becuase we are dealing with more people. Sorry but if i come ot this site and all the combatact characters have 200 exp...Why should I playa combat character? If all teh social ones as wel?Why should I play a zero exp charatcer in this site if ever charatcer i can think of is just oing ot be weaker than thsoe who are already here? Why should I ever have my charatcers die if I am forced to start over?Why should I come tot his board if I can't make charatcer than can change the setting? It is not like the nprime, where Ic an make a chaacter who is over plowerful f I want to,or week..It is like the Nprime with here I am week and I will never catch up to you.

you have set down kings and queen of the world and the only way you will get rid of them is by their good graces.

[The White Rat]

First of all, it would take over 4 years to get 200 XP. Secondly, it would be unfair for those who have been playing for four years, to have someone start out at their level.

As characters die, the overall power level of the room stays lower precisely because they have to start over. Sure there will be characters who are more powerful, but that power has been earned through time, effort and perseverance.

You can't give something to someone who has not earned it, because it is not fair to those who have worked to get what they have.

Besides, not everyone wants to start out with a powerful character. Some actually want to start at 30 NP and play their character's evolution and advancement. What you propose would also be unfair to those players.

[Edison]

Really what this boils down to Alice. This isn't your world, it's ours. It's impossible for all of us to agree so we're voting. Not everybody shares your point of view and you'll just need to understand that.

[z-Carver]

Quote:

Originally posted by David 'Dr. Troll' Smith:
Also we've already voted.

This is the only answer I can give you, Dreamer. We've already voted that all starting characters start with 30 nova points and zero experience. Done and done - the experience question is a moot point.

[The White Rat]

Quote:

.....If there is going to be risk, say the risk of the character dying, then there has to be reward (usually exp). The flip side of that is, no reward, no risk.

I have always liked this idea. In addition to the increased drama involved in putting a character's life at risk. It also will have the effect of increasing character attrition, which will keep the number of low level characters at a fairly high level. However, the flipside is that a few characters could reach exceptionally powerful levels in this manner...although they did it at some considerable risk.

[z-Carver]

Quote:

Originally posted by The White Rat:
I have always liked this idea. In addition to the increased drama involved in putting a character's life at risk. It also will have the effect of increasing character attrition, which will keep the number of low level characters at a fairly high level. However, the flipside is that a few characters could reach exceptionally powerful levels in this manner...although they did it at some considerable risk.

Quote:

Originally posted by David 'Dr. Troll' Smith:
Also we've already voted.

Quote:

Originally posted by Edison:
Really what this boils down to Alice. This isn't your world, it's ours. It's impossible for all of us to agree so we're voting. Not everybody shares your point of view and you'll just need to understand that.

Refer to Edison and Dr. Troll... both are correct here. You are in the minority; if you want your world set up like that, start your own board.

[Good Alice]

We voted on something tha could be intertated as when the world starts as well from now on. I tried to put another vote up. but Singularity disagreed with even the idea of having said vote. He defined something in vauge terms and is upset because I ddo not see the meaning he wanted me to see and then he claims I am being bull headed. Good job, all dipolmatic of Him. I try to get a another vote to get a more defined anwser and it gets blocked. I know this isn't my world, but fuck you if you think I am going to let singularity define not only the topics of the new world but the way said topic are going to be talked about.

We voted on the start of the world, not the end of it. We voted on how the first character should be made, not how all character should be made..When iI pointed this out I was black listed cause it wasn't in singularity's frame of debate or one of his topics of choise.

So, here it is.That vote is fine and dandy but things can change, and I am not going to be unpset if my idea is voted down.I am upset because people let singularity use veto power over it.It is not my world, I know...But is it his?

[z-Carver]

GA, the vote you put up was ludicrous. As I told you when I first saw it, it was the most asinine thing I had ever seen. It was biased, incoherent and refused to actually address any real point in the muddled mess you've made of this discussion.

And I refer you back to all starting characters start at 30 nova points. Done and done. You've attempted to address this point, and no one has agreed with you. You've lost this battle - now, be a good sport and let it die.

If you don't like the rules, again, let me tell you to start your own board, and put all the work into it that Singularity has put into this. And before you assume that all of this has gone according to his desires, I know of at least one point that went opposite of the way he wanted it.

Majority rules, here - and you're in the minority. Learn to love it - it's the reality here.

[The White Rat]

I didn't say we should use the idea of risking characters for XP, only that it is an idea that I like. I understand that we have already decided this point, I just wanted to put forth my opinion; not advocate for it.

[z-Carver]

Quote:

Originally posted by The White Rat:
I didn't say we should use the idea of risking characters for XP, only that it is an idea that I like. I understand that we have already decided this point, I just wanted to put forth my opinion; not advocate for it.

You're skirting the edge of advocation there, but ok, I withdraw my statement. Maybe next time you could make your intention clearer, so that there is no confusion. A simple, "but I know that won't happen here" would have saved us both some unnecessary typing.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

I didn't say we should use the idea of risking characters for XP, only that it is an idea that I like. I understand that we have already decided this point, I just wanted to put forth my opinion; not advocate for it.

Oh, I really like it, I'll even advocate for if we get a better way/idea of doing it (I voted against it). The problems are I think most ways it could be implimented would put way too much reward on way too little risk. Just being in a risky spot isn't an exp, it should involve people actively trying to kill you. Totentanz earns 50+ or so exp per year, Hugo only earns 15.

But for that kind of environment to work, roughly half the PCs should be killed every year. If none of them are, then obviously we aren't really risking anything. However IMHO a 50% kill rate isn't a game most people can play.

Translation: I think we already have as much risk here as we are likely to get.

[The White Rat]

A 50% mortality rate is something I could live with. However, I agree with you Dr. Troll, most are not willing to take that much risk.

Maybe we could set up an Elite's part on the 2008 board. There, you could earn the additional XP with the understanding that your character may die at any time. While your character is an Elite, he could only interact with non-elite characters in a non-violent manner.

[Machina]

What about this? Can we allow unspent XP to spill over to a new character in the event that a character dies? That seems reasonable, doesn't it? You did still earn the XP, and if one character wasn't able to take advantage of that, it seems fair that another character should be able to. Thoughts?

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

RE: Elites

I like that. But that is sounding close to a game rather than a forum. By the rules if this forum allowed cross overs then that violates the equality ideal.

,,

Quote:

Originally posted by Machina:

...Can we allow unspent XP to spill over to a new character in the event that a character dies?...

Asked and answered. No. Exp goes to PCs, not players, and all PCs start the same.

[Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Carver:
GA, the vote you put up was ludicrous. As I told you when I first saw it, it was the most asinine thing I had ever seen. It was biased, incoherent and refused to actually address any real point in the muddled mess you've made of this discussion.

And I refer you back to all starting characters start at 30 nova points. Done and done. You've attempted to address this point, and no one has agreed with you. You've lost this battle - now, be a good sport and let it die.

If you don't like the rules, again, let me tell you to start your own board, and put all the work into it that Singularity has put into this. And before you assume that all of this has gone according to his desires, I know of at least one point that went opposite of the way he wanted it.

Majority rules, here - and you're in the minority. Learn to love it - it's the reality here.

Let me fist start with tearing a part the statement. _All starting characters_. Simple enough statement, right? Well, all starting characters could refer to all the character that are made at the start of the board. So when 2008 goes live, _all the starting characters_ are all the characters. Six months from now making a character does not wholly mean staring characters...

So if I make a nova in say next year, they would have had to erupt within the past two months as well?

Well, Singularity put a lot of work in to this.. Well that is nice he is doing all this work.It is also nice for you to point out that it is not my site. It is also nice on advioding amwsering my questioning of if you think it is his site.

[Lou Anne Burgess]

I don't think there's ever been any ambiguity with what starting characters referred to, any new character is starting out on the board and therefore, they fall under that category. Be they created for Oct 1, 2006 or Nov 1, 2007 debut.

I don't think anyone thinks this is Singularity's site. He's simply been the one to take on the mantle of putting this all together and organizing it in a coherent and as neutral a tone as possible. A somewhat thankless task that overall as an impartial observer, I'd say he's done pretty well. The problem with your poll and bringing your point up now is quite simply - that ship had already sailed. The appropriate time to bring up questions and issues such as all characters having access to board accrued XP was either on Day 1 or when the 1st XP poll went up.

Those would have been appropriate times to hammer out suggestions like that. It's not to say that your ideas wouldn't have been rebuffed just as quickly as the daredevils/mentalists/psiads suggestion, but it would have been the right time. Honestly, I'm not certain that it would have succeeded in a poll but that's neither here nor there. With regards to your later suggestion of limiting the amount of XP ever available or forcing character death/retirement at X XP, that brings to mind the old SSI Gold Box games. They were great at the time, Pool of Radiance went from level 1 to 6 or so and then you had to go to a new game. That was an artifact of CRPG development at that time. If you want a thoroughly constrained & artificially limited setting like that, it would be best to start that up with that mind from the very beginning before any other thought is put into it.

Getting a board for a stepped progression or inherited XP setting would take at least as much work as Singularity has put into this, though you would be able to use his work as a guide. If you chose to go that route, I wish you luck, I'm sure that there would be others that find it appealing as recent discussion has born out.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

Those would have been appropriate times to hammer out suggestions like that.

Some of this was touched upon at the time. That entire bit with how much exp should be earned brought up the topic of the older characters getting too strong.

It's not to say that your ideas wouldn't have been rebuffed just as quickly as the daredevils/mentalists/psiads suggestion...

Ouch.

I'm not certain that it would have succeeded in a poll...

I'm sure. It wouldn't have. Two thirds of the site wanted more experience than 3 per month. If "4" is the compromise then "zero" wouldn't have flown.

With regards to your later suggestion of ...forcing character death/retirement at X XP

That was mine. It still has a twisted attraction but I suspect even I would vote against it.