Discovery Gaming Community

I have always felt (imho--of course) that things we create in game should be derivative from what's already there. Meaning, if there aren't sun destroying death rays, don't create an rp that includes them. If there aren't psionic characters or beings from another universe don't invent them from thin air.

You shouldn't invent "new technology" that surpasses in a fantastic way what is present already or new technology that supplants what other players must use.

For example, I make a new scanner chip that makes my ship invisible to yours. Can't do it--I have twisted your play in order to accommodate mine.

We also have to be careful in our inventions not to create something that becomes acceptable that can be easily twisted to unacceptable use by others.

Meaning, if you do "create" something, it must have absolute boundaries and definitions that prevent others from spring boarding and extrapolating off your invention to ridiculous extremes and your invention cannot grant you a practical, in-game superiority to other players--especially in regards to equipment and ship capabilities.

All that said, its a bit disingenuous to criticize players for stretching their imaginations in a science fiction role playing game.

Have you read science fiction? Played an RPG? Stretching the imagination is what they are all about.

What is needed is a structure for creating new rp that defines conditions that must be met for it to be acceptable.

This isn't a definitive attempt at that but to get the ball rolling...maybe we can develop one. Please modify, add input, clarify or correct. I genuinely would like to hear others input here. This is an important consideration for everyone. Instead of the "try anything and see what people say" approach, we might be able to make some ground rules that decrease abuse or ill-conceived ideas--without killing creativity and freedom.

1) Inventions that grant new capabilities must be directly connected to an existing, in-game accepted rp or device.

2) Any new capabilities granted must not compel other players to accept their effects. There must be a built-in "out" that allows other players to not be affected by them if they so chose.

3) Capabilities must be clearly defined as to their effect and limitations and conditions for existence--i.e., how they work, why they work, what they can and can't do, what is required to make them do it and how and where they can be used and made.

4) Capabilities used that require voluntary participatory role play to have an impact must still not negate the above rules. So if you "invent" an effect that requires another player to "play along' there still must be a built in way for other players to not be affected by it if they so chose. This in a way that makes its affect on the other player who did chose to be affected by it still consistent and believable. For clarification, the death ray melts metal on the participating players ship every time but won't work if you don't want it to--not logical so should not be allowed. If a believable device to explain how it can work in one case but not another can be produced then it may be acceptable.

5) An effect that is created in a single, non repeatable way to facilitate a particular, unique role play may be allowed if it is firmly and extremely derived from already existent effects or devices in the game. This sort of effect would have to be a "one-shot wonder" for a back story, character or faction development and still must meet the other criteria with the one exception that it might not be acceptable in more than a single instance. Example: I create a machine that allows me to merge human and nomad dna so I am a true hybrid but the technology is a fluke and does not work again--thus no one creates an entire new species to populate the universe and force everyone to accept them. Even for such role play, it should be directly derivative from already in-game devices.

So chime in with your own contributions and insights!

I think you're spot on there Tink, if you're going to RP some new tech and it isn't passive, i.e. something only you can RP, such as intellect or charisma, then you've got to give folks an out, FL is designed for combat it has no mechanics for dealing with an RP construct. So we have to be "fair" when we create our constructs. Do leave a little flaw that people can find. Godmodding is so tiresome.

Last Thanksgiving, I got it in my head that I wanted to RP a place more than a character.

I made it up, threw in a little personality, & try to present it in a way that doesn't interfere w/ anyone elses RP concepts.

A player can RP for weeks on end on the same station I do, & never once have to adapt to my way of looking at the place unless they choose to go down & take a look.

...at least that's what I was shooting for:yu:

i must have pulled a muscle in my brain because i'm not quite sure what this thread is about. no flamage meant, i'm just a bit confused on the topic

' Wrote:i must have pulled a muscle in my brain because i'm not quite sure what this thread is about. no flamage meant, i'm just a bit confused on the topic

No problem--my kids get mad 'cause I use big words sometime.

The point is when we 'make up' some Freelancer device for our rp--like a planet killer--then 'shoot NY' with it, we are driving over the line with creative freedom.

"Oh, you can't dock NY anymore, Tink blew it up with his planet killer."

Or Tink invents a mind control beam broadcast from Rochester that enslaves all of Sirius. "I must take the money from my cardamine run to Tinkerbell now...all hail..Tinkerbell...*drool*". "Mon-star..serves..Tinkerbell now...all hail Tinkerbell!"

Other things like, my character never dies, he can control Nomads with his thought waves, he's from another dimension and can spy on every human pilot at will from any location--blah, blah, yada, yada.

We have to have good reasons for our "inventions" and make sure they aren't "pulled out of a magician's hat" whenever we feel like it.

Hope that simplifies it.

I posted all this as I have a role play in progress along these lines and have worked hard not to make something for me that's unfair to anyone else or "breaks their game".

Does an automated ship sound like a magic trick?

Very nicely done Tinkerbell.
I think you should add a qualifier that these "rules" "must" be followed for the sake of courtesy and believability.

' Wrote:Does an automated ship sound like a magic trick?

<Thanks Xoria>

Let's use the automated ship as a concept to demonstrate:

First, we look for already approved/accepted in-game devices (actual vanilla/mod based first, role play ones second--and real life as a commentary/comparison source) in order to be "derivative". In creation of devices (by 'devices' I mean actual 'things' and/or 'effects') server rules can't be broken--your invention must work with server rules. You don't have the authority to replace server rules with "your good idea" (something factions could learn from too).

***********************************************
1) There are automated, intelligent robots on Gammu. The details and complexity of these robots in the game and mod are unexplained but sufficient to indicate they are fairly advanced as they are able to maintain an entire docking system and supporting infrastructure and communicate with some decision making ability (granting or denying docking clearances, firing the defense grid). They also appear to operate with full autonomy--not requiring further human assistance or programming.

2) There are comm vids (small inset game-to-player communication scenes) where robots communicate and apparently [assumed] assist ships in docking and facility scenes where robots barter goods and determine to share apparently random but relevant rumors with players (bars, equipment bays, etc., etc.)

3) Ships have automated controls that can follow flight paths, dock bases and stations, avoid collisions with navigational hazards, maintain formations and track targets and navigational points.

4) Nomad brain types are known to control multiple ships and fleets, though they use a stated technology of "neural transfer" which may not correlate with actual "robotic intelligence".

4) The actual crew size of ships is unknown and primarily assumed--with varying conclusions--by varying players--so it is undetermined. In real life, military ships use redundant systems and carry redundant crew to compensate for battle damage and the need for in-battle repair. Merchant ship use more automated systems and carry smaller crews. Fighters, bombers, tanks, etc., etc. use even smaller crews and rely on base repair and maintenance to provide sustainability.

The engineering crew on a 77,000 ton carrier I was stationed on exceeded 1,000 people in number but a merchant ship of near the same size I transited on once had an entire crew totaling 29 in number. Some current hoverfoil attack craft can be operated by one pilot and one weapons officer--though they carry a few more crew for systems maintenance.

The above do not take into account any player faction/character role play devices as they are only supportive--not authoritative.

So lets: look at what we can craft:

Already within Freelancer computerized controls can pilot a vessel with minimal input from a single pilot.
Stations have automated defense turrets which can engage hostiles independently.
Planetary installations can be fully automated.
Robotic designs allow near full simulation of human form.
Robotic intelligence allows human communication and some decision making, independent of external control.

Based on the above:

1) It's a reasonable assumption that its no stretch for a ship to have automated systems--possibly controlled by a single pilot or specially programmed robotic pilot. There is no way to determine actual numbers but there is no reason to say "it can't be done".

2) It's reasonable to assume a ship could be fully automated and operated by a robotic intelligence but to simulate the robots seen in game there could reasonably be some limitations as follow: a) Such ships might only operate in a set range of functions--perhaps restricted to a single system or a single trade run. They may not be able to program themselves to perform radically different tasks. This can only be an assumption so it cannot be mandated either way. A good example of compromise in this matter is the Harvesters, who pause before action and articulate their "thought process" and the variables they are processing to make a decision, which they then announce.

As the above is already an accepted role play standard (we use that to support the above--not as the sole justification for an automated ship), its reasonable to say, "My ship is automated" as long as some role play is provided in game to demonstrate that and show it at work.
***********************************************

So that's a good example to me.

I don't have much to say other than a huge:

Agreed.

Very productive thread here.

"Three cheers for Tinkerbell!"

"Cheers! Cheer...s......uh..." -Looks around at the people giving him weird looks-
"......well almost two cheers from a single person for you then."

' Wrote:Very productive thread here.

Thanks.

I really want people to be free to do anything but we all need a common structure so we don't break the universe we inhabit into a bunch of alternate universes.