Tac | Thu 21-Sep-17 04:00 PM |
Member since 15th Nov 2005
2050 posts
| |
|
#68998, "Trib Law and Consequences"
|
I believe the crux of the Trib law problem comes not from any actual issues with the Law being poorly written (which it is), but that the consequences aren't fun from an OOC perspective. IC, My badass hero Villager doesn't give two ####s about the law. I kill mages. Don't care where. But that is tempered, not by the fear of getting on Tribunal's bad side, but by the OOC annoyance and time wasting of dealing with guard NPCs all over the place.
Or, if you aren't a villager, and you aren't an Outlander, and you have an actual desire to ever buy anything, you have literally invulnerable shoppies that kick your ass if you forget for a second that you are WANTED. You have to mow throw low level NPCs attack you even though they die 2 rounds later. You have towns like Udgaard, which don't even have Tribunal protection, being completely inaccessible.
None of this makes sense IC. Very little of it is punishing in an IC sense. Almost all of it seems designed to annoy, punish, and waste the time of the WANTED player.
Imagine, if you will, a Thera where you, as a minotaur, got attacked by every human female. After all, you are an abomination born from the death of a human female. How playable is said minotaur? Even as a hero this would just be *annoying*. Now if Human Female PC wanted to try and murder you, that would be interesting. That could be a fun little story between two players, but being harassed by NPCs isn't fun or interesting. It obnoxious.
If you want to fix Tribunal "law", fix guard NPC behaviour to give them any sense of self-preservation. Fix all the random "guard" mobs that shouldn't give 2 ####s about a WANTED flag. Make shoppies murder-able and loot-able, so if they want to start something because you are a criminal, they can reap the consequences. Now being WANTED isn't pure player annoyance and you can fill that hole with meaningful player interaction instead of time wasting punishment style behavior.
|
|
|
Trib Law for Murphy
[View all] , Lhydia, Tue 12-Sep-17 05:22 AM
Law vs. Man,
Saagkri,
21-Sep-17 05:49 PM, #62
RE: Law vs. Man,
Jarmel,
25-Sep-17 10:48 PM, #70
Trib Law and Consequences,
Tac,
21-Sep-17 04:00 PM #60
That's my main issue with creative flagging,
Kstatida,
21-Sep-17 04:08 PM, #61
I think that's universally true. No one argues their m...,
Tac,
22-Sep-17 11:32 AM, #65
RE: Trib Law and Consequences,
Jarmel,
25-Sep-17 10:55 PM, #71
Yeah that's what I do,
Murphy,
26-Sep-17 01:09 AM, #72
RE: Yeah that's what I do,
Kstatida,
26-Sep-17 02:26 AM, #73
RE: Trib Law and Consequences,
Tac,
26-Sep-17 10:49 AM, #74
Epic fail Murphy,
Lhydia,
21-Sep-17 08:26 AM, #57
RE: Epic fail Murphy,
Kstatida,
21-Sep-17 08:59 AM, #58
Good for you. Move along.,
Murphy,
21-Sep-17 09:51 AM, #59
Not everything is free to be reinterpreted,
Murphy,
18-Sep-17 08:18 AM, #1
RE: Not everything is free to be reinterpreted,
Jarmel,
18-Sep-17 08:59 AM, #2
You're making no sense, please stay on topic.,
Murphy,
18-Sep-17 09:18 AM, #4
Was that before or after he left the game forever? n/t,
Lhydia,
18-Sep-17 09:05 AM, #3
i feel like you know this,
laxman,
18-Sep-17 11:16 PM, #5
Exactly,
Murphy,
19-Sep-17 12:52 AM, #6
Any IMM care to weigh in here? (n/t),
Current challenge (Anonymous),
19-Sep-17 02:22 PM, #7
Sure.,
Ishuli,
20-Sep-17 12:16 PM, #8
Do you take into account,
Kstatida,
20-Sep-17 12:58 PM, #9
You're assuming,
sleepy,
20-Sep-17 03:50 PM, #10
As someone who was around at the time...,
Lhydia,
20-Sep-17 03:52 PM, #12
RE: As someone who was around at the time...,
sleepy,
20-Sep-17 04:11 PM, #13
I don't think CF's trib laws were written by lawyers,
lasentia,
22-Sep-17 09:22 AM, #64
RE: Do you take into account,
Ishuli,
20-Sep-17 03:49 PM, #11
Flagging someone who defends their cabal,
Murphy,
20-Sep-17 04:33 PM, #14
RE: Flagging someone who defends their cabal,
Ishuli,
20-Sep-17 04:43 PM, #15
So being off-duty matters after all?,
Murphy,
20-Sep-17 04:59 PM, #16
RE: So being off-duty matters after all?,
Ishuli,
20-Sep-17 05:38 PM, #17
RE: So being off-duty matters after all?,
Murphy,
20-Sep-17 08:02 PM, #21
RE: So being off-duty matters after all?,
Ishuli,
20-Sep-17 08:13 PM, #22
What do you mean it doesn't specify jurisdiction?,
Murphy,
20-Sep-17 08:52 PM, #26
RE: What do you mean it doesn't specify jurisdiction?,
Ishuli,
20-Sep-17 09:20 PM, #39
Holy Molly!,
Kstatida,
21-Sep-17 04:56 AM, #54
RE: So being off-duty matters after all?,
sleepy,
20-Sep-17 09:00 PM, #28
RE: So being off-duty matters after all?,
Ishuli,
20-Sep-17 09:17 PM, #35
RE: So being off-duty matters after all?,
sleepy,
20-Sep-17 09:34 PM, #42
RE: So being off-duty matters after all?,
Ishuli,
20-Sep-17 09:53 PM, #45
Fellow 2L checking in!,
Andrlos,
21-Sep-17 05:51 AM, #56
Three law students? You poor bastards :),
lasentia,
22-Sep-17 08:56 AM, #63
RE: Fellow 2L checking in!,
sleepy,
22-Sep-17 02:34 PM, #66
RE: Fellow 2L checking in!,
Andrlos,
22-Sep-17 05:29 PM, #67
RE: Fellow 2L checking in!,
sleepy,
22-Sep-17 10:38 PM, #68
RE: So being off-duty matters after all?,
Kstatida,
21-Sep-17 05:15 AM, #55
RE: So being off-duty matters after all?,
Jarmel,
20-Sep-17 09:04 PM, #30
I mean...,
sleepy,
20-Sep-17 09:15 PM, #33
RE: I mean...,
Jarmel,
20-Sep-17 09:33 PM, #41
RE: I mean...,
sleepy,
20-Sep-17 09:38 PM, #43
RE: I mean...,
Jarmel,
21-Sep-17 12:38 AM, #50
My example was terrible Criminal A Criminal B,
Jarmel,
21-Sep-17 12:43 AM, #51
Tribunal library. Look for Precedents :-D,
Quixotic,
20-Sep-17 07:00 PM, #19
RE: Exactly,
Jarmel,
20-Sep-17 06:22 PM, #18
4b with some investigation can allow a flag. 8 doesn't,
Murphy,
20-Sep-17 07:54 PM, #20
RE: 4b with some investigation can allow a flag. 8 does...,
Jarmel,
20-Sep-17 08:45 PM, #24
Are you just deliberately misinterpreting my words?,
Murphy,
20-Sep-17 09:05 PM, #31
I simply quoted you first and questioned what was said,
Jarmel,
20-Sep-17 09:18 PM, #36
See post #37.,
Murphy,
20-Sep-17 09:27 PM, #38
RE: See post #48.,
Jarmel,
21-Sep-17 12:54 AM, #52
RE: Exactly,
sleepy,
20-Sep-17 08:33 PM, #23
He argues that your intent doesn't matter,
Murphy,
20-Sep-17 08:49 PM, #25
Focus on my example first ...,
Jarmel,
20-Sep-17 09:00 PM, #29
RE: Exactly,
Jarmel,
20-Sep-17 08:58 PM, #27
RE: Exactly,
sleepy,
20-Sep-17 09:16 PM, #32
RE: Exactly,
Jarmel,
20-Sep-17 09:16 PM, #34
That doesn't really answer the Q,
sleepy,
20-Sep-17 09:24 PM, #40
RE: That doesn't really answer the Q,
Jarmel,
20-Sep-17 10:06 PM, #46
That line in the sand cannot be drawn the way you draw ...,
Murphy,
20-Sep-17 09:19 PM, #37
RE: That line in the sand cannot be drawn the way you d...,
Jarmel,
20-Sep-17 09:48 PM, #44
Here's what I imagined that can justify a flag:,
Murphy,
20-Sep-17 10:31 PM, #47
I can see your point,
Jarmel,
20-Sep-17 11:57 PM, #48
What if...,
sleepy,
21-Sep-17 01:42 AM, #53
RE: What if...,
Jarmel,
25-Sep-17 10:36 PM, #69
Ok I have got this now,
Jarmel,
21-Sep-17 12:18 AM, #49
| |
|