Suggestion: Application For Closured Character "Perks"

[Ehver]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, or even if this is a good idea in the slightest, but it's a thought that occurred to me that I'd like to explore - especially since I've seen similar systems implemented on other servers before.

On a server such as this, in which player-vs-player conflicts are many any myriad, would it be a worthwhile idea to implement a system in which those who allow their characters to be permanently closured in the course of a story get some kind of reward for doing so? For instance, that they could apply to have the next character they make start at a higher level based on the level of the closured character, the strength of their application, and the circumstances of their closure and the how much of an RP-impact their character and its death had. This is obviously a subjective matter of opinion, but so is everything else that requires an application (or any sort of staff intervention).

I'm not going to get into dictating when or why people should closure their characters, or throw any judgments around if they don't, for whatever reason, but I do think that it might be a positive push to reward those that are willing to take risks and accept the extremest of consequences. The people that do this tend to generate a lot of truly quality RP with far-reaching consequences, and invest a lot of time and effort into their character in doing so.

To be clear, I am NOT suggesting that whenever a character is closured, the next character that the player makes should automatically get a boost of some kind, whether in starting levels or something else. I AM suggesting that when a character is permanently closured in the course of a story, they should have the opportunity to APPLY for such a boost, which can be approved or disapproved depending on a variety of IC and OOC factors depending on the staff's discretion in the same way that PrCs and other applications are handled.

I have a lot of respect for the players that are out there constantly pushing the limits and swallowing the consequences of their actions, or letting go of long-existing characters in favor of fresh blood. I know from personal experience that it's hard to do, and while I'm not suggesting this for my sake (as my closured character is already long, long gone), I do think it might be a nice idea for the future.

I don't know what sort of bonus would be fitting for this sort of thing, though starting level seems the easiest, or even if this would be a good idea (not sure if it would sow bad blood for those who closure their characters and don't get any bonus based on their application?), but it's an idea. And just to reiterate in case this is taken the wrong way, I am not suggesting we judge or punish those that keep their characters around for the long term!

Curious to know thoughts on this. Good idea? Bad idea? Too much hassle? Unfair? Discussed before? What "perks" would be acceptable and worthwhile? Etc.

[Iridni Ren]

I would not want this and could write an essay on why. To be succinct, though, closure is part of a PC's story, and we should not view our PC's story ending as something that needs a reward. The reward was the journey: telling a good story with a fitting ending.

That said, I sort of think it happens already. Players who do a good job with their PCs build a reputation that helps them get their next PC started. It may not be formalized, but that's my perception.

[Dumas]

I’d be against any sort of reward for player character closures. Closures should be a natural part of a story, and a reward in itself.

Character closures for some players happen frequently - their style of play might be more prone to it, and as such, they could stack up “perks” far more than other players. This, to me, makes it feel sort of as if it could be a contest, and it shouldn’t be.

[Arawn]

For what it’s worth, the Team has considered this, but we always end up coming to the same conclusion as Iridni has.

[Ehver]

For what it’s worth, the Team has considered this, but we always end up coming to the same conclusion as Iridni has.

Understandably. For what it's worth, I do agree - closuring my main was something that I had been looking forward to for a long time, and the journey to reach it was an absolutely amazing and heart-wrenching ride and I don't regret the decision I made in doing so.

Closures should be a natural part of a story - but more often than not, they aren't. And while many of us do find the ending of a story to be rewarding (myself being one), there are equally as many people who don't. This server is difficult and it takes a lot of effort to create a character and build a meaningful story, let alone to get up to the higher levels.

I don't know that it would harm the server by implementing something like this, especially if it is gated behind an application. And it might ease the difficulty that inherently comes with letting go of a beloved character, and give people some incentive to let their characters follow the natural course of an unfolding story.

Like I said, I 100% agree that closure shouldn't need a reward... But what is and what should be are not always on the same line, and I have the tentative feeling that this kind change might foster an atmosphere in which people are more open to ending their characters and, in particular, letting their characters be ended when the story calls for it.

I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that there are many instances in which conflict breaks out and neither side is willing to admit "defeat", leading to a continuing cycle that devolves into OOC grudges. Admittedly, this is another problem altogether and could potentially be treated as an entirely separate issue... But it does illustrate the fact that what "should" be isn't always an accurate measuring-stick by which to make decisions.

[Legion XXI]

Arelith has a reward system and it has just led to people "farming" PCs for rewards.  It's common to roll an easily solo-able class and just powerleveling to the required prerequisites for a reward.  Sure, the application process would weed some of this out but ultimately I'm against anything that makes closing a character about anything other than the story.

[Iridni Ren]

Ehver,

The current situation is not perfect, I agree, and what "is" and what "should be" are distinct. I doubt, however, that we will ever avoid completely cycles of grudges and OOC conflict. Unfortunately, I feel that players who can't "let go" are going to still be unhappy--unless their applications for the perks are then automatically approved. The perception that they've been treated unfairly will just be moved to a different venue when they don't receive the exact same reward as some other players. Consider also the message sent to those who don't apply at all.

If we agree that good players are accepting of consequences and get on with it, then it seems such a system will reward less agreeable players. Sometimes we all give the squeaky wheel a little grease to stop its squeaking, but in this instance I wouldn't favor it.

[Norture]

Agreeing with everything Iridni said here. As it stands, some people already accuse the team of "favourtism" towards good sports, when really it's all just an attitude thing. I can't imagine how it'd be amplified if there was an actual system in place.

[peps]

It works on that server you're referencing because it's so easy to level there that bump in ease of leveling doesn't matter much.

The only thing I would possibly enjoy seeing taken from there is the random chance to receive the ability to ride horses if you close your char past a certain level.

[Ehver]

I'm going to be honest and say that I find these arguments unconvincing, as they seem based on the principle of not rewarding "undeserving" players, whereas I see this change as promoting desired behaviors.

Whether "undeserving" players also benefit from this idea or not shouldn't matter in the slightest - especially if the overall atmosphere and attitude on the server improves because it.

[Iridni Ren]

Welp, I didn't make the argument it would reward "undeserving" players because presumably the application process would prevent that. What I said was "less agreeable." To quote your own description of them, "neither side is willing to admit 'defeat,' leading to a continuing cycle that devolves into OOC grudges. " This seems less agreeable to me than someone who is chill about it and keeps it IC.

Moreover, the heart of my argument is it does not promote desired behavior.

Who is rewarded? Those who ask for more just because they "allowed" their PCs to be closured.

Who isn't rewarded? Those who are content to have their PCs closured without any extra incentive.

I don't see that as incentivizing good behavior but rather bad because it weakens the proposition that you said you believe yourself:

I 100% agree that closure shouldn't need a reward...

[Ehver]

We'll have to agree to disagree then, Iridni. I don't know what else to say that would have you understand my point of view.

[Iridni Ren]

I don't think I have any trouble understanding what you've written, so if you feel you've expressed yourself adequately, then I do understand it. We just disagree

Some parents, for example, believe you should pay children an allowance for doing household chores. Others think everyone who lives in a home should contribute to taking care of it without having to be paid. Who 's right?

I'm not sure.

But!!

If you believe that a child should do chores without an allowance, you will undermine your own belief by paying the child who asks for an allowance. And the child who used to not ask for an allowance will  now very likely start to ask for one.

[Ehver]

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree, regardless of understanding.

[Better Dread than Dead]

Acknowledging, of course, that this would primarily benefit me and players who share my style of play, and thus I am very biased in how I’d view a system like this, I think many things — the scarcity of loot, the difficulty of acquiring end-game crafted goods like enchanted gear, only serves to encourage players to hold onto a character long after the proverbial sun has set on them. Character closure I’ve found to be rather uncommon — far more common is these characters are shelved, only returning when they feel as though things are exciting again, which naturally leads to resentment about, say, high-level characters sticking their nose in conflicts they were heretofore uninvolved in.

As such, anything that could provide players with an incentive to close their characters would be a welcome addition, in my opinion. We can and should, of course, consider implementation carefully, because there are those who could and would game the system, like on Arelith. This isn’t me speaking as a developer or a CC member or a former DM, merely as a player who knows how things work. It would be nice if the stories characters had an ending, and it would be nice if players sought this out of their own initiative; however, I think we need to be honest with ourselves, and accept that our systems, at present, do a lot to discourage players from bringing closure to their characters.

[lakhena]

I've been on servers with perks for closure / permadeathing.  It can incentivize people to let their PCs end, especially when paired with a reward that is tied to improved storytelling on the next PC, rather than a reward of increased levels or % of XP.  What I've seen work well is customized RP item (no real stats) or one low level magic item easily found in the loot tables (with a story tied to it) or allowance of some background story perk (e.g. you were a lower tier noble's bastard son). This tended to help people get excited about the next PC and what story they were going to tell with it, rather than just reduce the XP grind from a month to a week or whatever. 

I'm not saying that an XP reward for closure is a bad thing -- I just prefer to see, if it's done, a reward that's based on enhancing the story for the next PC.

[Zwickelfaust]

Adding a reward for closing a character is not a good thing. Many times, a closure goes nothing like one hopes. It can be sudden and harsh. Giving special treatment to those lucky enough to close their characters the way they wanted can be unfair. That being said, the idea of an application for closure is a great idea. Many times, a player wants to close their character on their own terms, and finding a DM to assist your closure could be difficult. If there was an application for a DM assisted closure, a player might be able to make plans with the DM team that can satisfy their desire to close their character properly and with some flare that only a DM can assist with. I'm all for applications for closure, but I don't think it should have any effect on your next character.

[peps]

Acknowledging, of course, that this would primarily benefit me and players who share my style of play, and thus I am very biased in how I’d view a system like this, I think many things — the scarcity of loot, the difficulty of acquiring end-game crafted goods like enchanted gear, only serves to encourage players to hold onto a character long after the proverbial sun has set on them.

This fully. I admit I have a difficult time closing my characters (I've done away with two? now), because I only have so much available time to play; unlike classical D&D or forum RP, we have to invest actual time that involves little to no roleplay to simply level and acquire gear to remain relevant assuming your character is one that would jump into action. While I'm not saying it's impossible to roleplay while dungeoning, it just ends up being impractical your 5th+ way through a dungeon unless your character is an archaeologist or similar.

I am behind Ehver on this, but like I was saying the place this concept originates from works for a reason. Maybe we could simply find a different way to incentivize our own players. Some off-the-top ideas: Lowered ECL for subraces (Possibly one less ECL max?), increased XP gain from the roleplay bonus, option to petition to add a reference to your closed character into the world indefinitely.

[booksarefun666]

Its hard to let go a character with all the time it takes to get a guy level 20. Really, the difference between it being in arelith and here is you can't circle grind to 30 (20) effectively and an incentive to let go of all that time would be good.

I'm not saying that the people that are level 20s in the mist camp or dementlieu are bad people. They won potm essessentily, nobody is going to mess with them and if they weren't so scared to lose their characters they could dictate the tone of the server and even then, they do simply by existing and going out when they can win.

All the current system does, favoring end game and being aged with fat loot, ensures nobody sane wants to closure. The ones that do frequently swap out characters, perpetually staying mid level and badly geared.

Closure isn't really a reward in itself despite it being said otherwise IMO. Most people leave nothing behind when they get corpse hid or even rarer and perhaps more tragically, by DMs, and you're doing deliveries to krofburg to recoop your loss.

[Iridni Ren]

Whether it is framed as placating disgruntled players who don't wish to let go of a conflict when their PC is closured or players who just hold onto a PC because of fearing to start over, in either case I think the system would reward behavior it would be preferable to discourage.

Dread's argument that it would be an incentive to clear out deadwood high levels, however, is different from rewarding that player who lets her PC go in a meaningful story arc.

I think any game based on the gradual accumulation of wealth and power is going to discourage anyone from wanting to start over, but POTM is primarily supposed to be about RP.  I honestly don't think it's that difficult to get a new PC going if someone is truly good at the game, because in just the last year, I've seen it happen over and over with veteran players.

You know what is hard? Being a completely new player without any in-game connections and being told all the time FOIC. A reward system for veterans would increase that disparity. If loot is scarce and end-game crafted gear is difficult to acquire for oldtimers, think what it is like to the player who starts here fresh without the experience of how that's done. The worst danger to me for POTM is it become more insular so that new players find it overwhelmingly difficult and--over time--the regulars suffer the inevitable attrition.

Character closure I’ve found to be rather uncommon — far more common is these characters are shelved, only returning when they feel as though things are exciting again, which naturally leads to resentment about, say, high-level characters sticking their nose in conflicts they were heretofore uninvolved in.

Will these players change even if they are promised a couple of starter levels up on everyone else, say? Given that most veterans say they achieve two levels easily in the first week of a new PC, I doubt that would influence their behavior much.

An easy fix for the above would be to say any PC not played in some set amount of time is considered closured and can be reactivated only by application. This would also address the recent discussion about antagonistic PCs who hide out until the heat dies down.

[Iridni Ren]

option to petition to add a reference to your closed character into the world indefinitely.

This I would support

[DM Brimstone]

What about mixing in memoriam loading screen text for closured characters as an incentive? Assuming it is possible and viable, as determined by the developers, it could provide an opportunity for closed characters to be remembered and a part of the server without (hopefully) putting too much strain on the dev staff with in-client alterations or an OOC graveyard area.

A simple sentence with the character name could suffice. For example:

"In memoriam Joe Outlander (playerlogin)
A freeze spell stopped him in his tracks, literally."

[peps]

What about mixing in memoriam loading screen text for closured characters as an incentive? Assuming it is possible and viable, as determined by the developers, it could provide an opportunity for closed characters to be remembered and a part of the server without (hopefully) putting too much strain on the dev staff with in-client alterations or an OOC graveyard area.

A simple sentence with the character name could suffice. For example:

"In memoriam Joe Outlander (playerlogin)
A freeze spell stopped him in his tracks, literally."

Definitely be a nice touch. It's always cool hearing of past happenings. What of the ability to allow DM force-closed characters to possibly garner the ability for a more in-client alteration? That's me assuming that DM forced-closures are rare as anything.

[Ehver]

Whether it is framed as placating disgruntled players who don't wish to let go of a conflict when their PC is closured or players who just hold onto a PC because of fearing to start over, in either case I think the system would reward behavior it would be preferable to discourage.

Dread's argument that it would be an incentive to clear out deadwood high levels, however, is different from rewarding that player who lets her PC go in a meaningful story arc.

I think any game based on the gradual accumulation of wealth and power is going to discourage anyone from wanting to start over, but POTM is primarily supposed to be about RP.  I honestly don't think it's that difficult to get a new PC going if someone is truly good at the game, because in just the last year, I've seen it happen over and over with veteran players.

You know what is hard? Being a completely new player without any in-game connections and being told all the time FOIC. A reward system for veterans would increase that disparity. If loot is scarce and end-game crafted gear is difficult to acquire for oldtimers, think what it is like to the player who starts here fresh without the experience of how that's done. The worst danger to me for POTM is it become more insular so that new players find it overwhelmingly difficult and--over time--the regulars suffer the inevitable attrition.

Character closure I’ve found to be rather uncommon — far more common is these characters are shelved, only returning when they feel as though things are exciting again, which naturally leads to resentment about, say, high-level characters sticking their nose in conflicts they were heretofore uninvolved in.

Will these players change even if they are promised a couple of starter levels up on everyone else, say? Given that most veterans say they achieve two levels easily in the first week of a new PC, I doubt that would influence their behavior much.

An easy fix for the above would be to say any PC not played in some set amount of time is considered closured and can be reactivated only by application. This would also address the recent discussion about antagonistic PCs who hide out until the heat dies down.

I ( agree to ) disagree on essentially every point you've brought up here. First of all, I do not in the slightest understand how it would be rewarding behavior that should be discouraged. In what sense? My suggestion is that this would be gated behind an application in the same way that PrCs and other privileges are gated - in which sense, people would have to earn it. It wouldn't be handed out to just anyone who tosses their character into a garbage bin, but to those who have created a meaningful story and brought it to an end, whether naturally or through conflict with other characters. How is this behavior to be discouraged?

Furthermore, I think it is unfair to say that starting a new character is easy. I do not consider myself a bad RPer, and I do not consider myself bad at this game, but I do consider it hard to start a new character, especially after closuring an old one. There are definitely those who do not - those that create and closure characters on a regular basis, and do a darn good job of it, too. I applaud them (and I think that they should be rewarded for doing so), but saying that is is "easy" is underestimating the difficulty that some have, myself included, in letting go of long-standing characters.

Next, neither I nor anyone else seems to be suggesting that the perk for this system should be starting levels. I used it as an example in my original post, because it was the most concrete and readily at hand - but I clearly left it open for other suggestions.

And finally, I am thoroughly against gating returning characters behind an application. My current character was shelved for quite a long time before I closured my previous main, at which point I drew her out of retirement, and I am glad that I did, and I don't think that I should be required to leave that decision up to the staff. I don't see how it is any of their business whether or not I want to play a character that I haven't played in a long time. That some people abuse this is another issue entirely, and not one that I or anyone else who has done nothing wrong should be punished for.

[MAB77]

Applications and in memoriam loading screens. These all require time to assess and built. Time we strain to find ourselves for our various tasks already. Adding more tasks to DM, Devs and CC is not a viable solution. Most Internet connections would not even allow for the loading screen to be there long enough to read. Beside, I can't even start to fathom the accusations of favoritism that may arise acquiescing to this or that request and not others in timely manner. It is a pandora box best left unopened.

I also disagree on a time limit for several reasons. There are multiple reasons, unrelated to gaming, one could be away for a while. Some have to contend with university semesters along a full time job (my case). We have players in military forces that sometime get deployed for long periods of times, etc. And sometimes it's just that a player needs a well deserved mental break. No one should be punished for having real life responsibilities.

The journey is its own reward as it was told earlier. Though I do advocate setting goals to accomplish at the characters creation to dictate when it should  retire, I certainly understand that stories grow in the telling and that one grows an attachment to their characters. Just as a new char is an opportunity to tell a new enticing story.

My point here is that we cater to a wide variety of playing styles. Holding on an old char is as valid as changing char frequently. It's all in the eye of the Beholder, we are all responsible for the quality of our RP and the fun we derive off it. So long as you have fun playing your current char, that you can further enhance the storylines of other you cross, that is all that is important. What need is truly there for more incentives on a RP server?