I'm not even going to get into the adjudication policy on this one, because I feel that Silway has already tackled that part well.
Even if someone believed that the adjudication policy doesn't apply, or should for some reason be scrapped, I feel that the justifications I've read on several LJs, as well as the official explanation of the adjudication are pretty weak.
I love how his decision is being considered ‘plot directed’. If I decide to play a character who implicitly trusts elves, and an elf tells me to step into his circle without my weapons, and he kills me, I CHOSE to have my character trust that NPC. Just because an NPC is played by a plot member does not mean you or your character should trust that NPC.
I could easily see playing a very goodly character who says to himself ‘I would sacrifice myself if I felt it was for the greater good, but I don't trust this Lawrence guy - No way.’ So the 'I was forced because my character is a super good-guy' argument is pretty silly even if PLAYING THAT CHARACTER wasn't a player choice in the first place.
Third, several people involved in allowing this adjudication have chosen to assert that only negative consequences can result from this plotline. Really? Based on what? No instant gratification? I doubt very much that Silway is running a plotline that doesn't involve the potential for build, NPC favors, treasure, etc. EVEN IF being part of a cool story or getting glory aren’t considered rewards. So this argument that it's somehow against guidelines for plotlines and modules also strikes me as ridiculous.
Each person who plays NERO chooses to have their character take actions. Many of these actions are in some way encouraged, suggested or facilitated by NPCs.
If an NPC hooks me on a module, and I die on that module, do I get to adjudicate because an NPC gave me the option to go? What if my character is a good guy and the NPC told me I was going to rescue people... Was I forced into that plotline? What if there was no treasure on the module... Do I get to adjudicate because there were no 'benefits' to participating in the plotline?
Also, it seems kinda lame play a good character (cool) and then not accept the consequences of your own interpretation of how you should play that character. I love characters with some standards, weaknesses and plot hooks... They add depth to the game, and it's great to see them put in precarious positions because of their own standards or failings.
For a character to die as a result of his principles would seem pretty cool to me. To bitch about it afterwards, and to remove the consequences, sucks the coolness out of that action, and possibly out of the internal consistency of the character.
One of the coolest Characters I’ve interacted with in NERO was mute. The player was hardcore enough to let her friends get hit from behind because her character couldn't scream a warning, and it really affected the dynamics of how that character could role-play. Were there haughty NPCs and PCs who were mean to that character? Yes. Was it harder for that character to get certain social positions because of that player's choice? I'm sure. Was all of that badass, hardcore and cool? Absolutely. If that Player had bitched about not becoming a baron, or complained about an NPC being mean to her, or tried to adjudicate a death because she couldn't cry out for help, I would have thought she was lame. Being a martyr usually requires some sacrifice.
Can permanent death be less than fun? I'm sure. I've heard enough from people who have gone through it that I could see how some people would argue for a game WITHOUT permanent death, or one where you can only perm under very specific circumstances. I would hope that if someone is arguing against this death, they'd be advocating for such a system, to protect the characters and the feelings of others.
But we're talking about NERO, and if what I’ve read about is all that's needed to justify adjudication, I don't think I’d have a lot of respect for death in that chapter. I'd have even less if I felt that as a stranger, the standards would be higher.
Even if someone believed that the adjudication policy doesn't apply, or should for some reason be scrapped, I feel that the justifications I've read on several LJs, as well as the official explanation of the adjudication are pretty weak.
I love how his decision is being considered ‘plot directed’. If I decide to play a character who implicitly trusts elves, and an elf tells me to step into his circle without my weapons, and he kills me, I CHOSE to have my character trust that NPC. Just because an NPC is played by a plot member does not mean you or your character should trust that NPC.
I could easily see playing a very goodly character who says to himself ‘I would sacrifice myself if I felt it was for the greater good, but I don't trust this Lawrence guy - No way.’ So the 'I was forced because my character is a super good-guy' argument is pretty silly even if PLAYING THAT CHARACTER wasn't a player choice in the first place.
Third, several people involved in allowing this adjudication have chosen to assert that only negative consequences can result from this plotline. Really? Based on what? No instant gratification? I doubt very much that Silway is running a plotline that doesn't involve the potential for build, NPC favors, treasure, etc. EVEN IF being part of a cool story or getting glory aren’t considered rewards. So this argument that it's somehow against guidelines for plotlines and modules also strikes me as ridiculous.
Each person who plays NERO chooses to have their character take actions. Many of these actions are in some way encouraged, suggested or facilitated by NPCs.
If an NPC hooks me on a module, and I die on that module, do I get to adjudicate because an NPC gave me the option to go? What if my character is a good guy and the NPC told me I was going to rescue people... Was I forced into that plotline? What if there was no treasure on the module... Do I get to adjudicate because there were no 'benefits' to participating in the plotline?
Also, it seems kinda lame play a good character (cool) and then not accept the consequences of your own interpretation of how you should play that character. I love characters with some standards, weaknesses and plot hooks... They add depth to the game, and it's great to see them put in precarious positions because of their own standards or failings.
For a character to die as a result of his principles would seem pretty cool to me. To bitch about it afterwards, and to remove the consequences, sucks the coolness out of that action, and possibly out of the internal consistency of the character.
One of the coolest Characters I’ve interacted with in NERO was mute. The player was hardcore enough to let her friends get hit from behind because her character couldn't scream a warning, and it really affected the dynamics of how that character could role-play. Were there haughty NPCs and PCs who were mean to that character? Yes. Was it harder for that character to get certain social positions because of that player's choice? I'm sure. Was all of that badass, hardcore and cool? Absolutely. If that Player had bitched about not becoming a baron, or complained about an NPC being mean to her, or tried to adjudicate a death because she couldn't cry out for help, I would have thought she was lame. Being a martyr usually requires some sacrifice.
Can permanent death be less than fun? I'm sure. I've heard enough from people who have gone through it that I could see how some people would argue for a game WITHOUT permanent death, or one where you can only perm under very specific circumstances. I would hope that if someone is arguing against this death, they'd be advocating for such a system, to protect the characters and the feelings of others.
But we're talking about NERO, and if what I’ve read about is all that's needed to justify adjudication, I don't think I’d have a lot of respect for death in that chapter. I'd have even less if I felt that as a stranger, the standards would be higher.
Reply
Leave a comment