alessiodoomboy
Radio Bob Approved
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2022
- Messages
- 370
- Thread Author
- #1
DeNuke's asked me to get my thoughts about rebel RP written down somewhere after a lengthy discussion we had in VC, and since I spoke for a while about it, I figured it'd be best to put it in a forum post.
1. The Infamous Anarchic Structure
Rebel RP on Willard has had an anarchic structure for as long as it has been around, at least, as long as I've been around. From a management perspective, this can make it a bit of a nightmare, because it means that the control is very much out of management hands, and oftentimes we see this cause a detrimental relationship between management and the player base as the player's desired goals and the management's desired goals are different. The most obvious example is a militaristic rebel group focussed on constant city attacks - with a desire to permanently kill CP characters especially - with a management that's trying to preserve a calmer tone of the city that's more stable for server health. When the desires of management and rebel players misalign, problems begin occurring OOC.
This leads many from a management perspective to conclude that a rebel whitelist is best for the narrative of the server. It's quite simple - by adding a whitelist, the management gains a level of OOC control, and they can use that to direct the rebels in a way that's healthier for both balance and narrative. It's confusing and frustrating, then, to see rebel players adamantly denying this form of control. It's easy to conclude that they've looked at past, poor attempts at implementing a whitelist system and incorrectly assume a whitelist system isn't possible, but there are also some benefits to an anarchic system that are easier to see on the ground.
An anarchic system puts more roleplay in your roleplay. Roleplay is a collaborative creative process at the end of the day, and an anarachal structure means that not only are you creating an individual character but your also creating a group identity alongside your other group members. By co-ordinating with other people, you're creating something new entirely. This means that the creative avenues you have as a rebel is much broader than any other faction, as there is an extra layer of creativity that's completely absent from any other faction in the server. (This isn't to say the rebellion is the best faction in the server, just that this is one of it's unique benefits.) With a whitelist system, this is gone, and there is not a single faction which has this benefit.
2. Rebel Goals
Militaristic rebels are often seen as the enemy from a staffing perspective. After all, they're goal is to cause strain and instability in the city ICly, but that often results in strain and instability OOCly for the server. Escalated responses are feared in management due to the terrifying ability for total wipes of the rebel scene. After all, that's their goal ICly. The problem is that retaliatory sweeps often come at the expense of everyone but the intended target, who has already DC'd, and that the militaristic rebels also often PK other characters in the process to begin with. PKs in general are always a hit to the server, as they remove character development and are fairly upsetting for the player involved. So why do militaristic rebels do this?
It's rare to find a rewarding goal in Willard. Any goal a rebel has is inherently server changing in a server that's most comfortable with a status quo. The server isn't really structured to be flexible with the chaos that's inherent to rebel goals, so it's hard to reward a rebel for their efforts asides from some scripts (that is only useful so far as it processes rebel goals. This is essentially rebel cookie clicker). Therefore, the rebel naturally resorts to the two clearest options to have an effect on the server: A PK, or map destruction. PKs affect other players directly by - well - killing them, and map destruction indirectly affects everyone in the server (who interacts with that part of the map) by changing the very ground they walk on. The reason these two options are so often the rebel default is because they are the two things that they can see the effects of actually happening (without insane risk to self).
But why can't rebels just passive RP, like loyalists, or even CPs? The server is city RP, after all - isn't everyone signing up for some form of slice of life? Well... not really. Rebels are uniquely expected to make their own goals, and their groups are solely responsible for the progression of those goals. This can be stressful for some rebels - as goals are difficult for CT and Staff to produce, yet alone a player. This pushes them towards shotcops and bombings in order to not be seen as a rebel that never does anything, but this too gets them hate for persuing goals that aren't seem as meaningful or impactful enough (even when these things literally cause the exact effect they'd want IC, extremely effectively). On the other hand, rebels are also invigorated by this responsibility. Many rebels are not scared of a PK - because they'd prefer to go down doing something effectual rather than live forever feeling as though they haven't achieved anything and therefore have failed.
Okay, sure, but what about infiltration? Rebels should be getting into Combine factions, and doing their goals from there, right? To which you have to ask... What goals? You get into a Combine faction (which is already difficult, has OOC restrictions, and limits your options as a rebel), you ascend the ranks, and then...
Well, okay, maybe I'm not being entirely fair here. There are rebel goals that involve infiltration which can be extremely cool from an RP scenario. Infiltrating politically to get a position of power, making a pro-rebel speech, and quickly escaping in a well planned propaganda operation is fun, and very cool from a roleplay PoV, but it is far too much effort and risk for far too little reward. Weeks or even months of planning on extremely old characters, for something that has about the same effect as what you could achieve with a week old character with a band of friends you meet in the slums.
3. The Magic Cure That Will Fix Everything Forever and Always
The anarchic structure of rebel RP is it's strongest element, however, there currently is little to play into this facet of rebel RP. This is why custom expos were so beloved - because they played into the unique benefit of rebellion RP. You could pick a spot on the map that focussed on your goals - and not only could you achieve them, but the creative team would also be able to collaborate on this creative process - even being able to give your group entirely new goals that fit with the unique essence of your group but are also completely external. This is wonderful, and what it looks like to have a fully cohesive rebel RP system.
So, in order to make an anarchic structure work *for* the server, instead of against it, this needs to be leaned into again. There should be some sort of system that allows the creative team to be able to understand the underlying themes of a rebel group and then be able to build off of it in ways that are satisfying to both the group and management. In some cases this could mean redirecting the energy of more destructive groups into areas outside of the city that can both have meaningful consequences and not negatively impact the server, however for other types of groups - such as infiltrators or crime syndicates - this could mean providing opportunities within the city that create interesting roleplay for everyone involved.
In short. Understand the benefits of an anarchical rebel structure - which is the collaborative creative process it creates - and be a member of that collaborative creative process to create and support goals for rebel groups, rather than be an enemy to them. You'll have to be more fluid and be forced to make some compromises, but this will also allow them to be controlled in a way they won't be dissatisfied with.
4. PK Policy
This is a section where I'm putting my much less structured and directional thoughts out there. This part is much more of just an unhinged selection of thoughts I have about rebel RP, that I wasn't quite sure how to fit into a solution that I was sure about, and moreso just difficulties I've spotted.
The PK Policy is inherently tied to rebels since they're the ones that are PK'd the most, as well as being the ones that cause events that result in PKs the most. Whilst there are not definitive statistics, especially since the lines of what is a rebel can be pretty blurred, I think it's safe to say that rebels are PK'd more than any other faction combined. How does this affect rebel RP? Well, rebels will often try to PK CPs as a form of rebelling. Whilst this isn't terrible, it's understandable why this form of rebellion is discouraged, as it creates divide between the factions, as well as the fact that it's focussed on killing characters, which isn't ideal.
A blanket NLR policy can also be sort of toxic for rebels. The inability to get PK'd during an operation will make the whole thing feel sort of meaningless, and too easy. A sense of achievement is vital for successfully creating rebel goals, and knowing that even if you had failed, you would be NLR'd makes the whole thing feel sort of cheap, and can kill initiative to play. This is not the same for CPs, since patrolling around the city isn't really enhanced by the possibility of a bluesuit with a USP downing you in 0.375 seconds with an autoclicker. At least, not in the same way, especially since there's not too much you can do to stop it as a CP.
Well, maybe this can be fixed with a policy where you can only be PK'd if you had something to do with initiating an encounter. That way, rebels can still have their risky ops, but CPs won't be slaughtered en masse with no real way to protect themselves. However, these protections would make CPs quasi-immortal in literally anything they do, since they barely ever initiate (most sweeps are retaliatory), whilst the protections this offers rebels only help rebels who are actively making mistakes by putting themselves in unnecessary danger. This is pretty unfair to a faction which already gets the short end of the stick in terms of PKs. This will ultimately aid to a divide between factions as rebel players become rightfully upset that they're basically the only ones capable of dying.
4.1 Solution?
What if there was a PK policy where you can only be PK'd if you had something to do with initiating an encounter, but with one major twist. Characters who have been responsible for PKing another character (at any point? Recently?) are vulnerable to being PK'd themselves in an encounter they didn't initiate. This helps even the playing field, making CPs vulnerable to being PK'd whilst also making shotcopping purely for the sake of PKs less viable as not all CPs will be vulnerable. This would also mean there is a motivation for willingly NLRing another player. Players would have to seriously consider whether the benefits of PKing said person are worth being potentially PK'd themselves.
So why does solution have a question mark? Surely this is perfect... Well, there are a few flaws. Firstly, the exact specifications of what PKing a character would need to be laid out. Does participating in a firefight that results in a PK on the other side count? If so, every CP would be PKable and we'd be in the same position we started. What about downing someone in a firefight, who's later dragged off by someone else and PK'd? What if people start co-ordinating to abuse the system by having a single member of their group execute everyone instead of doing it themselves? What if you don't really want to execute someone, but your command unit forces you? All these logistical flaws make me unconvinced of this solution.
So why share it? I guess I'm just hoping that someone can take the principles behind this solution and make a new one, or modify this one, in order to create something that is convincingly functional. Maybe this system is actually functional, and the flaws I'm seeing aren't actually there.
Conclusion
rebel RP sucks pls fix.
1. The Infamous Anarchic Structure
Rebel RP on Willard has had an anarchic structure for as long as it has been around, at least, as long as I've been around. From a management perspective, this can make it a bit of a nightmare, because it means that the control is very much out of management hands, and oftentimes we see this cause a detrimental relationship between management and the player base as the player's desired goals and the management's desired goals are different. The most obvious example is a militaristic rebel group focussed on constant city attacks - with a desire to permanently kill CP characters especially - with a management that's trying to preserve a calmer tone of the city that's more stable for server health. When the desires of management and rebel players misalign, problems begin occurring OOC.
This leads many from a management perspective to conclude that a rebel whitelist is best for the narrative of the server. It's quite simple - by adding a whitelist, the management gains a level of OOC control, and they can use that to direct the rebels in a way that's healthier for both balance and narrative. It's confusing and frustrating, then, to see rebel players adamantly denying this form of control. It's easy to conclude that they've looked at past, poor attempts at implementing a whitelist system and incorrectly assume a whitelist system isn't possible, but there are also some benefits to an anarchic system that are easier to see on the ground.
An anarchic system puts more roleplay in your roleplay. Roleplay is a collaborative creative process at the end of the day, and an anarachal structure means that not only are you creating an individual character but your also creating a group identity alongside your other group members. By co-ordinating with other people, you're creating something new entirely. This means that the creative avenues you have as a rebel is much broader than any other faction, as there is an extra layer of creativity that's completely absent from any other faction in the server. (This isn't to say the rebellion is the best faction in the server, just that this is one of it's unique benefits.) With a whitelist system, this is gone, and there is not a single faction which has this benefit.
2. Rebel Goals
Militaristic rebels are often seen as the enemy from a staffing perspective. After all, they're goal is to cause strain and instability in the city ICly, but that often results in strain and instability OOCly for the server. Escalated responses are feared in management due to the terrifying ability for total wipes of the rebel scene. After all, that's their goal ICly. The problem is that retaliatory sweeps often come at the expense of everyone but the intended target, who has already DC'd, and that the militaristic rebels also often PK other characters in the process to begin with. PKs in general are always a hit to the server, as they remove character development and are fairly upsetting for the player involved. So why do militaristic rebels do this?
It's rare to find a rewarding goal in Willard. Any goal a rebel has is inherently server changing in a server that's most comfortable with a status quo. The server isn't really structured to be flexible with the chaos that's inherent to rebel goals, so it's hard to reward a rebel for their efforts asides from some scripts (that is only useful so far as it processes rebel goals. This is essentially rebel cookie clicker). Therefore, the rebel naturally resorts to the two clearest options to have an effect on the server: A PK, or map destruction. PKs affect other players directly by - well - killing them, and map destruction indirectly affects everyone in the server (who interacts with that part of the map) by changing the very ground they walk on. The reason these two options are so often the rebel default is because they are the two things that they can see the effects of actually happening (without insane risk to self).
But why can't rebels just passive RP, like loyalists, or even CPs? The server is city RP, after all - isn't everyone signing up for some form of slice of life? Well... not really. Rebels are uniquely expected to make their own goals, and their groups are solely responsible for the progression of those goals. This can be stressful for some rebels - as goals are difficult for CT and Staff to produce, yet alone a player. This pushes them towards shotcops and bombings in order to not be seen as a rebel that never does anything, but this too gets them hate for persuing goals that aren't seem as meaningful or impactful enough (even when these things literally cause the exact effect they'd want IC, extremely effectively). On the other hand, rebels are also invigorated by this responsibility. Many rebels are not scared of a PK - because they'd prefer to go down doing something effectual rather than live forever feeling as though they haven't achieved anything and therefore have failed.
Okay, sure, but what about infiltration? Rebels should be getting into Combine factions, and doing their goals from there, right? To which you have to ask... What goals? You get into a Combine faction (which is already difficult, has OOC restrictions, and limits your options as a rebel), you ascend the ranks, and then...
Well, okay, maybe I'm not being entirely fair here. There are rebel goals that involve infiltration which can be extremely cool from an RP scenario. Infiltrating politically to get a position of power, making a pro-rebel speech, and quickly escaping in a well planned propaganda operation is fun, and very cool from a roleplay PoV, but it is far too much effort and risk for far too little reward. Weeks or even months of planning on extremely old characters, for something that has about the same effect as what you could achieve with a week old character with a band of friends you meet in the slums.
3. The Magic Cure That Will Fix Everything Forever and Always
The anarchic structure of rebel RP is it's strongest element, however, there currently is little to play into this facet of rebel RP. This is why custom expos were so beloved - because they played into the unique benefit of rebellion RP. You could pick a spot on the map that focussed on your goals - and not only could you achieve them, but the creative team would also be able to collaborate on this creative process - even being able to give your group entirely new goals that fit with the unique essence of your group but are also completely external. This is wonderful, and what it looks like to have a fully cohesive rebel RP system.
So, in order to make an anarchic structure work *for* the server, instead of against it, this needs to be leaned into again. There should be some sort of system that allows the creative team to be able to understand the underlying themes of a rebel group and then be able to build off of it in ways that are satisfying to both the group and management. In some cases this could mean redirecting the energy of more destructive groups into areas outside of the city that can both have meaningful consequences and not negatively impact the server, however for other types of groups - such as infiltrators or crime syndicates - this could mean providing opportunities within the city that create interesting roleplay for everyone involved.
In short. Understand the benefits of an anarchical rebel structure - which is the collaborative creative process it creates - and be a member of that collaborative creative process to create and support goals for rebel groups, rather than be an enemy to them. You'll have to be more fluid and be forced to make some compromises, but this will also allow them to be controlled in a way they won't be dissatisfied with.
4. PK Policy
The PK Policy is inherently tied to rebels since they're the ones that are PK'd the most, as well as being the ones that cause events that result in PKs the most. Whilst there are not definitive statistics, especially since the lines of what is a rebel can be pretty blurred, I think it's safe to say that rebels are PK'd more than any other faction combined. How does this affect rebel RP? Well, rebels will often try to PK CPs as a form of rebelling. Whilst this isn't terrible, it's understandable why this form of rebellion is discouraged, as it creates divide between the factions, as well as the fact that it's focussed on killing characters, which isn't ideal.
A blanket NLR policy can also be sort of toxic for rebels. The inability to get PK'd during an operation will make the whole thing feel sort of meaningless, and too easy. A sense of achievement is vital for successfully creating rebel goals, and knowing that even if you had failed, you would be NLR'd makes the whole thing feel sort of cheap, and can kill initiative to play. This is not the same for CPs, since patrolling around the city isn't really enhanced by the possibility of a bluesuit with a USP downing you in 0.375 seconds with an autoclicker. At least, not in the same way, especially since there's not too much you can do to stop it as a CP.
Well, maybe this can be fixed with a policy where you can only be PK'd if you had something to do with initiating an encounter. That way, rebels can still have their risky ops, but CPs won't be slaughtered en masse with no real way to protect themselves. However, these protections would make CPs quasi-immortal in literally anything they do, since they barely ever initiate (most sweeps are retaliatory), whilst the protections this offers rebels only help rebels who are actively making mistakes by putting themselves in unnecessary danger. This is pretty unfair to a faction which already gets the short end of the stick in terms of PKs. This will ultimately aid to a divide between factions as rebel players become rightfully upset that they're basically the only ones capable of dying.
4.1 Solution?
What if there was a PK policy where you can only be PK'd if you had something to do with initiating an encounter, but with one major twist. Characters who have been responsible for PKing another character (at any point? Recently?) are vulnerable to being PK'd themselves in an encounter they didn't initiate. This helps even the playing field, making CPs vulnerable to being PK'd whilst also making shotcopping purely for the sake of PKs less viable as not all CPs will be vulnerable. This would also mean there is a motivation for willingly NLRing another player. Players would have to seriously consider whether the benefits of PKing said person are worth being potentially PK'd themselves.
So why does solution have a question mark? Surely this is perfect... Well, there are a few flaws. Firstly, the exact specifications of what PKing a character would need to be laid out. Does participating in a firefight that results in a PK on the other side count? If so, every CP would be PKable and we'd be in the same position we started. What about downing someone in a firefight, who's later dragged off by someone else and PK'd? What if people start co-ordinating to abuse the system by having a single member of their group execute everyone instead of doing it themselves? What if you don't really want to execute someone, but your command unit forces you? All these logistical flaws make me unconvinced of this solution.
So why share it? I guess I'm just hoping that someone can take the principles behind this solution and make a new one, or modify this one, in order to create something that is convincingly functional. Maybe this system is actually functional, and the flaws I'm seeing aren't actually there.
Conclusion
rebel RP sucks pls fix.
