D
Deleted member 4096
Guest
- Thread Author
- #1
I think fundamentally, any complaints about Resistance roleplay will have to be mirrored by that of those within Overwatch, namely OTA and MPF Forces. The reason being for them is because they're diametrically opposed forces. That which one does will always be resisted by the other in-character. On an organizational level beyond IC though such animosity doesn't exist as almost everything should be communicated on a bipartisan level. Most things dedicated and changed to one faction cannot exist in a vacuum, and will likely cause either issue or be countermanded with different iterations put through by the other, IC and OOC as well.
Because of this, my CCC would be broad and be looking at Willard as an entirety instead of solely the Resistance and other Anti-Civil Activities.
Because of this, my CCC would be broad and be looking at Willard as an entirety instead of solely the Resistance and other Anti-Civil Activities.
Throughout my time roleplaying, I've come across a few things exhibited by players regardless of server, and if it's moderated.
These are:
1. A majority of players whom roleplay do so for their enjoyment and not their character's;
2. Over time, Players will prioritize actions that will allow them to continue their character despite it being uncharacteristic of them,
overall valuing their consistent character.
2a. A big cause of this is due to time invested. Compounded by objective gains within Willard,
and the resultant barriers largely being time-oriented; taking up hours, if not days to get a character at an enjoyable level.
3. Most players regardless of ability to write, roleplay within good faith.
3a. But because methodology differs from player to player, the need for administrators arises to ensure commonality and a balance.
4. The more that a system governs a players behaviour within a roleplay setting, the more they will prioritize it, often at a cost of roleplay itself.
These are:
1. A majority of players whom roleplay do so for their enjoyment and not their character's;
2. Over time, Players will prioritize actions that will allow them to continue their character despite it being uncharacteristic of them,
overall valuing their consistent character.
2a. A big cause of this is due to time invested. Compounded by objective gains within Willard,
and the resultant barriers largely being time-oriented; taking up hours, if not days to get a character at an enjoyable level.
3. Most players regardless of ability to write, roleplay within good faith.
3a. But because methodology differs from player to player, the need for administrators arises to ensure commonality and a balance.
4. The more that a system governs a players behaviour within a roleplay setting, the more they will prioritize it, often at a cost of roleplay itself.
Going through my several weeks within Willard I had little idea in what I wanted to do initially, and eventually the wanderings of my character, Argyle Bentwick, led to him being on the trajectory of, well, becoming an Anti-Citizen and staying within Indigent, rarely traveling outside to Triumph and Victory. Which eventually set up a shop within Indigent and facilitated it to both be an Anti-Civil organization to launder materials to resistance groups and provide a small gathering place for roleplayers, really.
However, throughout all of that, the only times I had actually encountered anyone engaging within resistance roleplay was both The Risen via their leader, Harry (Madcombat), and Spades (Nyx). The latter ended up having their facility raided within a week which ended, to my knowledge of, the only anti-citizen clinic at the time. Occasionally I've heard about Cole's Homeless Shelter and how the leader was eventually killed by Civil Protection, but I am unsure what they had primarily did with their own-hand to cause such issue. And 'Red' whom is played by Travis who I ran into in the Underground, which I participated on a small quest to gank a fast zombie.
Outside of that, a lot of anti-civil roleplay has been, well, incredibly sparse. Most people whom I interact topside do very little to actually engage, and those that I've heard of and know on an OOC-basis are incredibly reclusive. Resistance roleplay in its entirety is, at best, insular, exclusive and incredibly skeptical about engaging outside of those whom they entrust both on IC and OOC basis -- not included to simply recruitment, either. At worst, Resistance roleplay is entirely separated from other spheres of roleplay within Willard, namely Civilian and Civil Protection.
I won't go into theatrics and say that the effects are staggering, but I believe there's an apparent dichotomy from Willard's atmosphere in driving how people are wanting to keep segregated in their roleplay. Underground and in exclusive areas, there's Resistance, of course, but above-ground their influence is barely felt other than administration's events. Above-ground, because of the lack of influence, the roleplay involved is built upon layers of intricate planning, detail, organizations and more. But. There's nothing. As bad as it sounds, and I mean this in no actual offense, but it feels like it's Facism roleplay with extradimensional ingredients.
And, well:
Roleplay, to me, is about creating interesting scenarios and developments between character-to-character and organization-to-organization.
And those same developments and scenarios cannot cohesively form independent of administratively-backed decisions if there is no interaction at all.
But with that: Why does this exist in the way it does? Why does the Resistance, whenever they make an operation, attempt to pull it off where there's little chance of any actual encounter with Civil Protection, with an OOC bailey around their IC intention? What is this incredible, definitive and indefinite separation from actual interesting encounters stem from?
Well, in my opinion and perspective: Willard's Permanent Kill System
Before I begin, I would like to introduce you to the Prisoner's Dilemma Game, below:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma)
If you don't want to read a literal essay that's fine.
To give a good summary of it:
There are two players.
Each player has a binary choice.
These two players rely on one another's actions, each independent of the other.
Each choice is weighted both negatively and positively, respective of the other player's choice.
Willard's Permanent Kill system factors ekes its way into a lot of things. In a way, it is an omnipresent tool that is everywhere, anywhere, and throughout any kind of roleplay it could be executed and enforced, willingly or unwillingly, visited upon any character that suffers an in-game death. It factors into so much, infact, that everyone on an OOC level is aware of it and its consequences to the point of the vast majority of people despite their tenure attempting to actively avoid it in all situations. Which, well, is what people should do.Roleplay, to me, is about creating interesting scenarios and developments between character-to-character and organization-to-organization.
And those same developments and scenarios cannot cohesively form independent of administratively-backed decisions if there is no interaction at all.
But with that: Why does this exist in the way it does? Why does the Resistance, whenever they make an operation, attempt to pull it off where there's little chance of any actual encounter with Civil Protection, with an OOC bailey around their IC intention? What is this incredible, definitive and indefinite separation from actual interesting encounters stem from?
Well, in my opinion and perspective: Willard's Permanent Kill System
Before I begin, I would like to introduce you to the Prisoner's Dilemma Game, below:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma)
If you don't want to read a literal essay that's fine.
To give a good summary of it:
There are two players.
Each player has a binary choice.
These two players rely on one another's actions, each independent of the other.
Each choice is weighted both negatively and positively, respective of the other player's choice.
But in a narrative format engaged with Resistance and Combine, it means that those forces that should be intersecting stay far, far away from one another unless either side belives they have an explicit, overwhelming advantage to which they themselves will suffer little to no losses. All done in fear of losing characters both because of enjoying said character and, for the Resistance, how long it takes to get an adequately prepared character up and running again with questionable metagame simply they simply wish to continue to interact and roleplay with their original group. At least, most of the time.
Because of this, my point about the fundamental issue of Resistance Roleplay is brought to the head: Within the narrative that Willard interacts with it disposes of good faith roleplay and issues ultimatums equally and at both parties. Punitive measures that end up having their behaviour changed and adopted in all antagonistic interactions for the worse. Narratives require continual engagements to grow as a character and also help shape the server on both sides, without chance to do so, and imparting nihilistic risk in trying to evade so, most players are pigeonholed into bad faith acting whenever plausible to ensure they don't lose their character; in return for others losing theirs, or simply disregarding the entirety of player-to-player interactions in favour of admin-facilitated events, elongated or otherwise as it provides lesser risk and intensity compared to others.
A quick representation I made in Aseprite made up in 5 minutes could be:
(Forgive the adhoc bullshittery, it doesn't have text and is primarily for spriting.)
This is a representation of not just players, but also could be organizational; either as TLC, the sponsored Resistance faction, or as individual cells.
(Forgive the adhoc bullshittery, it doesn't have text and is primarily for spriting.)
This is a representation of not just players, but also could be organizational; either as TLC, the sponsored Resistance faction, or as individual cells.
Repeating: Both parties exist in opposition of one another. Any interaction with them are usually opposing and because of the nature of interaction both Resistance and Civil Protection have something to gain. In a further twist, both players are also encouraged by the nature of objective reward in terms of getting extra Sterilized Credits for the Civil Protection on capture and/or detainment and likewise the Resistance member has things to gain in continued obfuscation of operation, amongst other things.
And the goal is not to enforce, or twist the characters to behave uncharacteristic of themselves.
It is not to inherently ensure the Resistance gains a flat-footed handicap against the Civil Protection for OOC belief either.
The goal is to somehow nudge the direction to ensure that, in most if not all cases, the players can rightfully trust one another.
And that the players themselves can give subsequential storylines such as rivalries and other things if they wish to.
It is not to inherently ensure the Resistance gains a flat-footed handicap against the Civil Protection for OOC belief either.
The goal is to somehow nudge the direction to ensure that, in most if not all cases, the players can rightfully trust one another.
And that the players themselves can give subsequential storylines such as rivalries and other things if they wish to.
I don't think the Liberation Front Coalition would actually endeavour to do anything substantially different than the Civil Protection or OTA unless something fundamentally changes in the PK conduct. Because, to me, the main thing that forces people to adopt their own characteristics is largely OOC motive as they don't wish to have their characters gone, primarily due to the intensive time taken in both cultivating them, and the same intensive time it takes to cultivate another character to a level that they feel that they can operate them on a similar level of enjoyment.
The solutions are manifold and restrictive to implement; as extensive that they may be, it requires both Civil Protection/Overwatch/I don't know who's agreement to implement it, amongst Community Managers whose philosophies are different. And that which I add are subjectively mine; that there'll likely be those way better out there in both efficacy and implementation, but the couple I have are:
- A change to the Permanent Kill policy in which those who aren't notorious and/or known, and caught outside of an operation could be given sentencing. Although it may be a break from Willard Lore, my vague proposal of a rework of Social Credit falling too low may prompt an amputation. It creates chances for characters to live despite committing offences, and would encourage resistance members to go incognito and actually attend; interact with both Civil Protection and other venues topside.
+ It allows for more interactivity and flow between characters, both good and bad.
- Can be abused by many, and may seem like a lore break for allowing someone to get away with something.
- Requires an extensive rework and agreement by likely CMs and Combine Admins, which is understandable if they don't want to do it.
2. When a character who's been involved in the Resistance for quite some time, and has been notable enough on either an IC or OOC basis dies, the player is given an option.
The option is the ability to create another character, intended for the resistance, with varying skill boosts and/or items approved. This would allow them to jump into
roleplay and effectively involve themselves without grinding crafitng or other items to set themselves back up to re-entry into the Resistance.
+ Allows players a reimbursal for having their character die, and allows them an easier time to roleplay Resistance.
- Varies from Administrator to Administrator. Administrative-intensive.
- Could encourage a mindset of Resistance members doing, frankly, idiotic things on the notion they will be reimbursed.
- Can be abused by many, and may seem like a lore break for allowing someone to get away with something.
- Requires an extensive rework and agreement by likely CMs and Combine Admins, which is understandable if they don't want to do it.
2. When a character who's been involved in the Resistance for quite some time, and has been notable enough on either an IC or OOC basis dies, the player is given an option.
The option is the ability to create another character, intended for the resistance, with varying skill boosts and/or items approved. This would allow them to jump into
roleplay and effectively involve themselves without grinding crafitng or other items to set themselves back up to re-entry into the Resistance.
+ Allows players a reimbursal for having their character die, and allows them an easier time to roleplay Resistance.
- Varies from Administrator to Administrator. Administrative-intensive.
- Could encourage a mindset of Resistance members doing, frankly, idiotic things on the notion they will be reimbursed.
On other notes I do have something else, though they are much less detailed and they're more of my ramblings and views, instead of earnest proposal.
Ever since the TnB's version of Ghost I do not enjoy intelligence groups, and it has grown to extend to a lot of infiltration operations. The reason for so is because of personal belief that any collaborative scene within roleplay that consists of a disproportionate power balance should, usually, facilitate for the weaker of the two. Infiltration roleplay from first-hand, and third party basis is less espionage roleplay and more just simply roleplaying the character 'as is' until the time comes to back out.
Of course, it's good and all, but the problem persists where there's little, if any, evidence of allowing the infiltrated faction the chance to realize something's up. There's usually no grand staging of talking into a radio at the top of a tower, no suspicious dead drop that's others could uncover, or anything that could expose the person for what they're doing. And in a narrative setting; I find that which the entire power lies in the hands of one person or organization with no threat or chance of endangerment to be very blase.
This goes for both the Resistance and OSI.
All it tends to be is a 'gotcha' moment wherein those get fucked for enjoying their roleplay and proliferates a sense of unsurety due to said consequence of getting suddenly and irrevocably fucked over.
I do not like OTA.
I do not think they're a good faction to be brought against the Resistance who attempts to do clandestine operations. That isn't to say that they themselves should be entirely removed or diminished, but I think that in most aspects what comes of Overwatch could be put as Civil Protection, as I find that OTA are less of an actual character and more of an atmospheric tool for conveyance. It may be pointed to some, but I just prefer Civil Protection overall. I apologize if I am a stickler about my belief. I just think they should be used as an instrument to Resistance whom are largely overt in their ministrations to destroy Civil Protection and the city.
I did minor tweaking from the original posting which was relegated to conversations, I had to go over it through most of it due to the swap entailing the need for reformatting so I think I did it exactly as the original intended to be. I'd firstly like to thank you all for reading my ramblings and my personal opinion on Willard, and the problems with how fractured & separate the spheres of roleplay tend to be here. I hope if it wasn't informational, that it was entertaining at the very least. Thank you all for reading!
I'd also like to include an addendum in that Willard's gameplay systems aren't at inherent fault. In fact they provide much more detailed systems regarding to how things operate, along with activities that allow for players to go about giving themselves a goal and working towards. Which is much more than what other servers originally had.
