PKPenguin321 wrote:cedarbridge wrote:PKPenguin321 wrote:cedarbridge wrote:NoxVS wrote:Meaningful roleplay requires conflict, otherwise it’s just two people awkwardly doing bar RP. The only reliable source of conflict is from antags considering the only conflict that can be formed between two non antags is shallow or forced.
You what.
I'm starting to think that the whole "TG is norp" thing is really just that people don't have any fucking idea how to roleplay.
To his credit, roleplay that comes about due to conflict is leaps and bounds more interesting than roleplay that doesn't.
To whom
To me, to NoxVS, to pretty much most of our playerbase? A tense and dramatic situation brought on by conflict is way more interesting than "another day at work" or close variants thereof, and I think this is something that can generally be agreed on unless you play on High-RP servers (where they still enjoy conflict-risen RP, mind you, but are more tolerant for RP that isn't) or are a massive contrarian.
i forgot to hit submit on a post i made on this chain fuck time to remake it
One thing I'm not a fan of is "Meaningful [action]" as generally it just refers to "[action] but I like it", making any serious discussion on the topic awkward as everyone has a different idea in mind. What do you mean by meaningful roleplay? Defining what meaningful roleplay is to you is to you and what level of conflict you might need would help others understand your point.
The biggest issue about Roleplay/meaningful roleplay is that everyone has a different definition of what roleplay might be and what is good or enjoyable roleplay. Defining this standard on a single scale is probably the hardest thing as some people treat basic coworker interactions as roleplay and others who won't count it, some who treat emoting as the bare minimum of roleplay and others who treat it as the minimum of high roleplay. We'd have to define what we're looking for in roleplay and accept that a lot of people won't be satisfied with the definitions at the end of the day.
You'd also have to elaborate which types of conflict are conducive to roleplay. Conflict also falls into the same trap as meaningful roleplay in that people can have wildly different expectations. The best current example is what we have with our escalation policy. Many people argue as if escalation policy's conflict isn't meaningful/good conflict because it tends to lead to nonantagonist murder or the fact that it encourages violent reactions over property crime is bad, discourages roleplay, and it makes the game feel like a TDM sim while others believe that nonantagonists being allowed to take agency and achieve conflict resolution in game avoiding the immersion break of an administrator intervening is a net positive and allows a natural way to recover and resolve situations without being forced to shove your thumbs up your ass and ahelp
And IMO, at the end of the day the server is best when it's a healthy mix of every playstyle. Chaos is fun, action is fun, survival is fun, cooperating and working with your coworkers is fun, relaxing peaceful slow rounds are fun. The issue with all of the above styles are when they feel too common or when they start to drown a playstyle out. Measured doses and all, even though everyone disagrees on what dosage they might like.
Also lmaoing @ ur life for saying "Antagonist conflict is the only good kind". Most all of the most hilarious and enjoyable conflicts I've had playing this game involve nonantagonist on nonantagonist interactions.
The rounds I'm talking about tend to be silly stuff like being drafted as security's surgeon to torture prisoners by replacing their eyeballs with flashlight eyes by the captain and head of security, creating a maint bar when the captain banned alcohol one round as I illegally distributing alcohol while avoiding questioning and lying to security and the captain barely avoiding being arrested, being crowned the king of the station by a bunch of fellow assistants so we could take the station under new management while delcaring that I would be fair and just as security attempted to hunt us down and prevent our peaceful message of reform and improvements to policy, or creating a deranged 9 shard supercharged oxygen supermatter setup that had a flaw that caused it to irradiate and nearly kill a decent percent of engineering as I had to repeatedly lie and distract engineering and the station while attempting to salvage the abomination gone wrong.
The stuff I said really doesn't do justice to the memorability, enjoyability, and "meaningful" roleplay that occured during those events. The real takeaway should be that the game can be fun and have "meaningful"/"engaging" conflict/roleplay if you're willing to step outside of your comfort zone and do risky weird or fun shit
I think antag rolling and antagonists have burnt the fuse in your brain out bro take the redpill