Discovery Gaming Community

Given the latest hubhub on out of faction tech, and people being shot with their own weapons, I only have one short question, mainly for the faction I co-lead:
We've set some hefty restrictions on our weapon/ship usage, basically applying the restrictions of the IMG ID to anyone who wants to use them. These restrictions are part of the agreement the character has with us for the general freelancer or merc. If a person breaches this agreement, and basically gives us a big middle finger when we come to reclaim our tech, will the admins intervene?

I'm not looking for an answer like "just set a bounty on them". Doesn't work.

If yes, the Reaver-shooting-sair-with-Tizzies deal should be treated likewise.
If no, IMG will immediately, and quite likely permanently, close all out of faction tech. Just because we can trust neither characters nor players in this community to stay true to their word.

' Wrote:If no, IMG will immediately, and quite likely permanently, close all out of faction tech.

And so will CR:dry:

Diplomacys change. Sure, its a not so nice move to turn against people you've worked with before, but it can happen, in roleplay and with solid reasons behind it.
Pulling the "I've planted a remote bombe in your gear so its now gone, lol!" approach (and asking the Admins to remove equipment is nothing else) is powergaming and rather disgusting.
Why can't you just stop trying to take away candy from kids and get along with each other?
I'm also saying this as a faction leader with the ability to give away tech. And I absolutely wouldn't bother getting shot at with LWB or Unioner guns, whats the different of being shot at by codenames, firekisses or Hornvipers? None. Absolutely none.
Let people enjoy their toys and stop complaining.

Right... Giving out faction tech is a roleplay action, conducted in character. In roleplay, you can render the person hostile to you, endeavor to try and get the weapons backa and so on.

However, you can draw up OORP terms and conditions with the player on their use and state them explicitly, if you so wish.

' Wrote:Once equipment is approved, then it stays approved, no matter what happens in roleplay or in the personal situation between the involved parties, unless terms and conditions on it are explicitly stated BEFOREHAND and agreed by both parties.

This means that factions cannot withdraw permission to use white cell technology and then submit a violation report because the player suddenly has unauthorised technology.

If appropriate, in role play, concerned player(s) can be killed, FR5'ed by faction(s). But the equipment rights remain.

On a side note, I think people being annoyed out of roleplay about getting shot by guns which they have handed to someone in roleplay, is all kinds of absurd. Get over it. When I hand guns to someone as [LN] leader, I accept the risk I might get shot with them at a later date. You cannot expect someone's character to be entirely honourable.

I really think the people who are getting annoyed by this are just being a little too precious about 'their' stuff, and taking their 'ownership' of it into an oorp context. It's petty, stupid, and absurd.

What harm does it do you, getting shot with IMG guns?

The player did not trick you.

The player's character tricked your character.

That is roleplay. Live with it.

' Wrote:The player did not trick you.

The player's character tricked your character.

That is roleplay. Live with it.

' Wrote:However, you can draw up OORP terms and conditions with the player on their use and state them explicitly, if you so wish.

Spot the inconsistency.

' Wrote:Spot the inconsistency.

A deal with a player is a deal with a player. If a player lies to another player then it is an issue.

If a character lies to a character, then it is roleplay.

What I am saying, is that oorp terms and conditions drawn up between players are of a different nature to those drawn up between characters. There is nothing wrong with a character breaking an in character contract.

A player breaking an oorp agreement (intentionally) is... Dishonest.

It's funny that you will read fault into everything I say n00bl3t. I find when people do things like that, it stems from an anti-something agenda. Do you hold one of those?

Uh, wrong.

Tech requests are RP elements, that have instant, real, ingame results.

Abusing the aforementioned RP has no instant, real, ingame consequences.

It's not a matter of ooc and RP - it's a matter of consistency.

And by the apparently "proper" logic - CR should still be using tizzies and coladas, scores of which remain in the faction armories as a result of an agreement with the Corsairs years ago. So can I mount my trusty two tizzies back? K thanks!

About your Corsair guns... I'm afraid contracts before the Tech Chart were basically nullified, requiring renewal in the new form of technology approval. If you get a new approval, though, nothing stops you from using your Corsair guns - they are white for the CR ID.

Edit: Btw, I wouldn't just call him "wrong". For one thing, his explanation very much makes sense - it is how Discovery RP rules usually work. He was also basing it on the (quoted) rule change that put this policy into effect, giving it some solid basis in definite fact.

' Wrote:And by the apparently "proper" logic - CR should still be using tizzies and coladas, scores of which remain in the faction armories as a result of an agreement with the Corsairs years ago. So can I mount my trusty two tizzies back? K thanks!

If you can find the agreement, have a white cell for corsair tech on the CR ID, and can convince the current corsair factions to put it on the tech permissions list, then yes, you may use them.

You have missed my point entirely however.


Allow me to clarify...

Quote: - Roleplay action occurs when CR hand guns to random.merc.blah

- Roleplay occurs in which random.merc.blah finds out he can make better money by shooting at the CR than he can by shooting for them

- Roleplay incident occurs when random.merc.blah actually does so. (roleplay consequence for the CR of not keeping the merc sweet)

- The CR get annoyed, in roleplay, and shoot him from now until forever, having rendered him hostile to CR and IMG. (roleplay consequence for the merc for pissing off the CR)

Is a good way of handling things.


Now, the way it seems to be going:

Quote: - Roleplay action occurs when CR hand guns to random.merc.blah

- Roleplay occurs in which random.merc.blah finds out he can make better money by shooting at the CR than he can by shooting for them

- Roleplay incident occurs when random.merc.blah actually does so. (roleplay consequence for the CR of not keeping the merc sweet)

- The CR get annoyed, out of roleplay, and complain about not being able to turn someone into sanctionbait for shooting at them, when they had near perfect in-character reasoning for doing so.

I can find near perfect in-character reasoning to kill admins.


I wonder what they'll think about that...