New to the forums?Log in with your Farwoods account.
GM Ethos
Staff

This week's Sunday playtest was held on February 13th. Feel free to discuss the events of it herein and give your opinions on your experience and feedback for the game.

Kuro

Tonight on Farwoods: a rat was sliced in half and we had to play Danganrompa for a bit.

This post was made by a character that has since been deleted.
Kuro

They didn't even serve a meal at the trial =/

This post was made by a character that has since been deleted.
Hugo

Bhajiit did nothing wrong.


Also, there was food. Hugo just declined.



Also I fear that when Hugo does finally swing his sword with purpose, no matter how justified, things will go wrong.


So far he's only used it for practice, weapons testing and sparring, since arriving on the island.

Kuro

I think we should all strive to do basically zero murders anymore in the game unless it's really, really impactful. Like a really big deal telegraphed well in advance.

Hugo

I tend to shy away from most types of killing, even if it doesn't much bother me. But it should be communicated anyway.


As I've said in character, and maintain the belief OOCly, what made this one impactful is that the killing blow wasn't the strike that brought them down, but while they were on the ground. And not a coup de grace, either.


Even though it's obvious the rat could never harm Hugo (I mean, minimum 34 attacks that don't hit armor, shield, or get parried... And he would probably recover health in that period) if you're attacking someone, there's a good chance that they or someone else will step in.


Death is a possible consequence; but it's a much more acceptable outcome in that sense... Not really a murder within the context of a medieval-esque setting. 

GM Ethos
Staff

In the context of the game's themes, which are intended to be "heroic fantasy/storybook" a la Disney's Robin Hood, it is not really a desirable outcome. If that's what people want to roleplay, and no one objects, I am not going to tell anyone otherwise. But to make it perfectly clear: Unnatural death is an extremely uncommon occurrence on Kalris. Intentional killing should not really be what any character aims to inflict on any other character, because it is so far outside of the Kalrisian culture as to be borderline unthinkable.

This is not Game of Thrones. Duels aren't potentially fatal. I don't care what they're like in real life. When critters get knocked out, they are fine unless agreed otherwise between the attacker and the victim OOC. This will change with the addition of Permadeath, but the expectation that characters aren't going to kill each other without good reason will not.

Stop being so edgy.

Hugo

No, I don't think it's desirable; and that's why multiplayer games where there's significant build up and time invest, but also permanent death (for example, Rust) often fall flat. Death absolutely should have significant meaning.

But the Old World has been pretty directly described to me as an often violent place where not even the aversion to carnivorism has spread entirely throughout. A land with a lot of fighting, and a lot more death. Characters coming from the old world may have been well caught up in this.

Perhaps we just need better direction on what the old world is; but an Old World character is going to think somewhat like an Old World character.

And as for my OOC views -- it's not really supposed to be about edginess. I just kind of figured that when you play with swords there's a good chance you'll get hurt or worse.

GM Ethos
Staff

There are three tiers of Old World:

  1. Medieval-tier technology, probably 11th-13th century, where Common has spread widely and Kalrisian ideals are generally accepted. Carnivorism, being considered on the level of cannibalism in modern human society, is essentially extinct -- even eating birds and fish is rare. Anything you can craft is assumed to be something these people have access to. Killing is considered ghastly the same way that Europeans in the Middle Ages would have considered it a deadly sin, even bandits. No one here is trying to kill anyone they fight unless they're a real bastard (outright war excepted). Species live intermixed much like in the game itself. This is where most typical Old World characters would come from.
  2. Tribal society, probably 5th-10th century, on the fringes of the known world, where Common is less widespread. Hunting for birds and fish is still not uncommon, since they are not considered "intelligent" animals, but enough basic technology has filtered its way out here that eating other intelligent creatures is still considered deviant and freakish. Species are often separated into distinct clans which fight for territory and might enslave each other (think Viking thralls), but eating each other is the sort of thing only the greedy and powerful would consider for much the same reasons humans might have eaten each other. This is where most typical Foreigner characters might come from.
  3. Wild society, which exists largely beyond the boundaries of the map, where animals still exist in their "natural" state, have no exposure to Common or Kalrisian ideals, and are basically entirely uncivilized. All technology more or less propagates through the world map outward from Kalris, which invented all of it and spread it through trade over hundreds of years. It's extremely unlikely that anyone would ever play a character from here, possibly that they'd have even heard about it. But it does exist out there somewhere.

That said, you are of course free to decide your character's backstory how you see fit and this isn't necessarily meant to dictate your character's backstory or attitudes. Just understand that the lore has been written with the game in mind, in order to accommodate the mechanics, and death is not a significant part of the mechanics and shouldn't be considered a common occurrence. Making characters who intend to kill people seems to me to violate the spirit of Combat Guideline #8: intending to kill other people's characters, which they have invested time and effort into, unless it's part of a planned storyline that you are working on together, seems to me the opposite of playing a villain (or hero!) in good faith and with respect for others.

Again, this is not Game of Thrones. This is heroic high fantasy. Swordfighters in this game are swashbucklers. This is not supposed to be a grim or dark setting. That, at least, I think I have been fairly straightforward about from the start. Characters don't drop dead in Redwall because they had a sparring accident. No one should expect to consider injuries anything other than a mild inconvenience unless the game explicitly tells you otherwise (and even then, they will always heal in time unless you took them as a trait as part of your character's backstory). If you want to play a character who takes dueling very seriously and considers it dangerous, go right ahead. But that is not the general expectation, we lean towards cartoon violence here.