Server lore and whatnot

Please keep discussions focused on the actual campaign. If you want to talk about what is serverlore or whatnot, do it in another thread. Thanks.

Said, done. Since it's an actual thing that honestly bugs me most if not all the time, and since for once it was called out by an 'old guard' rper, I think it's good to discuss it in some way.

Also, Thelos' question was interesting(very socratic)

What's serverlore?

----
For the whatnot, I'd like to answer to Dru (publicly,'cause I think it's an interesting discussion) about:

There are plans to do some rotating in and out to account for people wanting to have time in SW. Though I honestly don't know why people care so much about being in SW, but some people like it.

Two reasons: first of all, everyone can roleplay their chars in Storwmind without being afraid of being ganked by anyone, not even random passerbys(or even mobs). As much as one can like PVP, most of us, we like it or not, separate RP and PVP. Sadly, such doesn't happen in other cities and hubs(Ironforge is awesome for rp) but that depends by the fact that the other races are simply not as represented as the humans. And that depends... Okay, will stop here, cause all of you know what I think about the lack of rp population in DB.
Second reason, the fact that SW rp, eith all its flaws, has at least one very good thing: it is 'free'. There is completely random rp, people going around with their own plots, crossing in many many ways, and only a very few of them controlled by a mastermind. It feels alive and 'real', while tipically plots outside by their own nature tend to be scripted in a very major way, which brings to chains not all rpers like.

I don't understand what this thread is about.

You've posted a response to Drustai, you've posted Thelos's question, but you've not really specified.

What is being discussed?

Raelan wrote:Oh, so now you suddenly don't have a problem with serverlore. Alright.

Careful planning is not the same as server lore. We want to give as many role-players a memorable part to play in the Siege of Orgrimmar events as possible. We can't do that without some planning.

Right now it's looking like the horde guilds involved will be going by flex raid wing unlocks to determine the progress of the Darkspear Rebellion, and thereby the defeat of Garrosh Hellscream. That is the sort of dependable measure we need, and it still draws from developments in the game directly.

It's not like we're making up a "Siege of Thunderbluff" where the evil "Brogha Darkblaine" and his "Mog'rosh Braves" have taken control of the city for their own malevolent gains.

We're doing our very best to stay true to the game, and provide our fellow role-players with a role-playing experience that is authentic, engaging and fun.

Zigger wrote:I don't understand what this thread is about.

You've posted a response to Drustai, you've posted Thelos's question, but you've not really specified.

What is being discussed?

It's meant to be a continuation of the discussion in the Lionheart thread, without derailing it further.

I personally would choose to go when the Blizzard lore changes, so does the lore we roleplay ourselves in.

But it's DB and lore-crafting is an omnipresent thing throughout every guild/community so there's not much you can do about that. Drustai & co. have been working on making this a good series of events so I see little to no reason in stopping the enjoyment of others to wait for an undisclosed amount of time for a new patch to come out.

On the other hand, if these 'major giulds' all go about saying Garrosh is dead while the NPC stands in Orgrimmar bellowing in your face, it's equally 'unrealistic' and somewhat immersion breaking.

As to answer Thelos's question, server lore is everything that's not part of the game. From your character, guild, group, community, everything. Server lore is everything that's on the server, inclusively.

I'll go with the "Huh"? as well... I thought this was about the serverlore question or... Is it just random discusions about things in posts? (Being "whatnot")

But what the heck might as well go with this?

Is serverlore even connected with when some people decide when a boss would be dead? I don't see a reason to throw a fit, just becouse sometimes the majority says the guy dies today or tomorrow! Who cares?! Of course the people doing the chain of the events do. So why the heck do you have to rain on the parade of planing just becouse in the "In my days we had X". It's not a big deal. Personally i don't see him being killed in a day after release (First kill) too much fun. Hell yeah patch ove-- Already... Hm... What now?

The idea of moving it further was so the events could be made and planed for both Alliance and Horde. And no one is forcing anyone to follow this.

Now. For what Tuomas quoted. The first barrens campain was fun. Though more then a month for generally least me was bit long. Some started leaving after week two. Now i haven't heard the idea of going there and back in the SoO campain. But i'd rather just see it personally like two weeks. Sure more for those who want... Maybe at start maybe after.. *shrug* It's still being planed as i know. Just the fact that it being too long for too many isn't all that great as we've seen in Barrens which I might add was finished up to the fullest by Regiment and Freelancers. Some went home before. Tempest went to learn kung fu to beat Garrosh. Still it was cool, but i think a bit too long. BUT I don't see why you'd go back and forth.

Stormwind is good now and so and easier for some guilds to get things done as well as like then you have no guards for 2 weeks or more and it gets really dead or something (Or becomes a Pirate paridise). For myself between the Barrens and SoO campain i only wanted to do some events back normaly as Freelancers while maybe try to get some new members, while let people do their own storylines. But after that'd be done the new Campain would be ready and good to go! With fun, even though not really for low levels which brings us to...

LAZY PEOPLE! Or whatnot. Anyway SW isn't the only Blue zone, it's just easier to be in. And Dru was mainly mentioning the guilds who -want- to join. What you rather eat cookies and hug death knights in SW then be killing orcs?!

Sure! That's why there is time in between the campains and after. No one must join them and sure low levels can't if they want to not die 1000000 times. But hey it's still fun (Even if more deadly this time around).

The point was that some wish to go to the campain and go back to sw then come back to the same campain. Since some want it long, but not too long but still want long! And they don't want to miss any part of it!

I'll damn start ganking people on the Isle just to make you all gear, grab your boots, swords and brain we got some things to kill!

Here's the problem.

If I think Garrosh is already killed but Bob doesn't, how do we RP Together?

That's the ultimate question, that's being asked in these situations. And exactly the reason why it is murky to "claim" we're only "this far" or we've already "won" when other people, and rpers are not yet at the same stage of the RP, and then the question is, how do you still RP together instead of segregating, because segregation sucks.

With that problem established, the argument becomes; who's right? Who do you follow? And why the fuck You but not Me?

The problem isn't the fact that you want to RP these events, it sounds like a shitload of fun, and it damn well should be RPed. the problem is How do you RP with eachother when you're on two different parts of the progress bar?

That's the issue that's being debated; not that people want, can and should RP as part of the main storyline.

You can claim to do this for
"most of the guilds and people" but people on DB-RP aren't the entirety of the RP population, the people and guilds in your group of contacts aren't the entirety of the RP population. And thus the murkyness of segregation and Claims of rightenousness. is a problem.

what if the rp-pve guild starts rping they defeated garrosh with their ~40 man guild, before your campaign has finished? They have the right to rp that.

I usually treat such things as "rumor has it that...".

One guild could say "rumour has it that Garrosh is dead already." and another could go "well I don't think so.. There's still a lot of fighting going on."
Who's right? Nobody.. and nobody needs to be right.

Of course, if you're going apeshit and say "You're an idiot. Garrosh is dead. I saw his corpse." then I find it absolutely valid to take this ICly. "You're suffering brain damage, and if you don't shut up we'll put you in solitary."
Because let's face it.. how many soldiers actually saw Napoleon dead? I bet none of you did. You're not that important. Your ass is not the equator's check point.

Considering He died on an island of arsenic poisoning, I doubt anyone soldier did. But sure a lot of regiments beat the Old guard xD At every battle fought.

And JP, I agree with you, but that's the "issue" (not so much a problem for me really...) when its the big RP-campaign, to actually win the siege of ogrimar with its conclusion matching story of wow.

The chance of segregation between RPers is the main reason in vanilla and TBC and to an extend WotLK Large parts of the RP community shied away from rping in that zone. Sure we called it Meta-gaming back then, and that's not the most apt-term for it, but that's the discussion being held here.

I thought, but feel free to correct me, that the part of the campaign was to "take part" not to "be" the win. Even when the siege is succesful to a degree, it doesn't mean all soldiers go home the next day. So the exact point of time where Garrosh is defeated needn't be important.

So you could go
- "well we took part in the siege"
"Why are you back?"
- "We did our tour of duty.. but if there's still a role for us to play, we'll go back. For now, we're back to make sure our homeland is safe too."

Again.. reduce the importance of your own person in the official lore and the importance of exact points in time.

When Gilran hosted the Battle of Theramore campaign he invited all guilds willing to participate from both factions. And then announced that this server would handle the bombing of Theramore on a specific time, namely just after the battles.

By doing so the majority of the community got to experience this Blizzard Lore happening at the same time so it didn't cause confusion. I think that's the best idea, however it's as difficult as it's brilliant, granted.

erwtenpeller wrote:

Raelan wrote:Oh, so now you suddenly don't have a problem with serverlore. Alright.

Careful planning is not the same as server lore. We want to give as many role-players a memorable part to play in the Siege of Orgrimmar events as possible. We can't do that without some planning.

Right now it's looking like the horde guilds involved will be going by flex raid wing unlocks to determine the progress of the Darkspear Rebellion, and thereby the defeat of Garrosh Hellscream. That is the sort of dependable measure we need, and it still draws from developments in the game directly.

He's dethroned when he's people defeat him, so that's blizzard lore. If you choose to deviate from it, sorry that's the serverlore you so hate (Just pointing out you're being a hypocrite).
Same goes for the people who claim that you have to treat OOCers' attacks on RPers as "Kor'kron", "Horde", "<insert random mob>" to fend them off, yet choose not to abide the same standard now, when "OOCers", kill Garrosh first. The same OOCers we have to treat as random rebel pcs, or 7th Legion soldiers.

Izaa's comment is the best solution indeed.

Then again this is DB so whaddaya expect.

"He's dethroned when he's people defeat him, so that's blizzard lore."

Here is a question, which people? If the americans kill them on let's say realm X as the -world- first. Is he dead on our realm? If we kill him on our realm now, but some other realm the other time.. Wait... What if the germans kill him first?

So in the end it's serverlore anyway!!! Since servers beat bosses diffrently...

So basically you're not making too much sense on this. So who do we even follow ?

It would be nice to try and invite more guilds, even ooc i think Vang sugested that at some point (Not sure how many heard that idea)

Then again this is DB so whaddaya expect.

You?

I don't get the problem with server lore? Surely it's just flippin' awesome to mould the lore as we RP?

Obviously avoiding stuff like crowning Thrall king of Darnassus and stuff.

Why does it matter? Drus gang are in the east, the rest are in the west. I would prob just go along with the people who are RPing the siege really but as they and the rest are isolated whats the big deal.

Double standards are the problem.

We're currently three+ Horde guilds who intends to go with the 'Garrosh is defeated 1 week after the last wing of Flex' has been released formula.

None of us, will however, be taking part directly in Garroshs downfall, but will instead be fighting in the capitol of Orgrimmar. While we ourselves will assume Garrosh defeated around the 9th of October and plan our events around that, and welcome others to take part in it.

If others prefer to say that Garrosh has already been defeated, or will first be defeated after the next patch is released, that's fine. We explain our presence, or others still fighting - That there may still be some loyalists fighting back around/underneath the city.

Are these double standards anywhere but your own mind? I've certainly not noticed any...

PvPers should be taken IC as they have a direct impact on the roleplay. They come in, assault in the middle of RP, and have to be driven off. It breaks immersion if it is ignored. Therefore, it should be reacted to.

PvEers have no effect on roleplay. At the most, they cause a couple of random NPC yells and a statue to be put up in a few capital cities, which can be easily ignored (just like we ignore the constant death-knights-joining-the-alliance shouts and Nefarian's head hanging from the gates). Otherwise, everything they are doing is taking place in their own private instance, with no impact on roleplayers.

Also, previously it has been heroic server first, not the normal. So, more double standards. Normal doesn't count, but heroic does?



As for "serverlore" (and it's not really serverlore here, it's server tradition), I don't really care about how it's been done in the past. I am not and have not been trying to do things traditionally. Because tradition has revolved around RP ignoring the developments of the game in favor of more Lightis vs Cultists RP, while expecting the PvEers to handle all the major lore developments because they're apparently more special or something. That was an awful formula, and needed to be discarded.

Secondly, Defias' roleplay community is very tight. The vast majority of roleplayers on the server, from both factions, have been involved with this campaign in some form or another, and intend to be involved with its conclusion. Therefore, this is the perfect time to have a synchronized conclusion.


All that being said, I will talk to Rargnasha about how we might be able to incorporate the heroic server first into things. If it bugs people so much, then perhaps we can find a way of compromising. Perhaps Orgrimmar being taken occurs according to RP timeline, while Garrosh's actual physical defeat happens based on the heroic first, or something similar. Due to Garrosh being deep in the caverns below Orgrimmar, the two do not need to happen simultaneously.

Raelan wrote:He's dethroned when he's people defeat him, so that's blizzard lore. If you choose to deviate from it, sorry that's the serverlore you so hate (Just pointing out you're being a hypocrite)

I think our ideas concerning the term "serverlore" are slightly different.

The only things I consider as "server lore" are concepts that have been inserted into role-play that contradict World of Warcraft lore, or overwrite parts of it.

Drustai wrote:As for "serverlore" (and it's not really serverlore here, it's server tradition), I don't really care about how it's been done in the past. I am not and have not been trying to do things traditionally. Because tradition has revolved around RP ignoring the developments of the game in favor of more Lightis vs Cultists RP, while expecting the PvEers to handle all the major lore developments because they're apparently more special or something. That was an awful formula, and needed to be discarded.

<3

As for "serverlore" (and it's not really serverlore here, it's server tradition), I don't really care about how it's been done in the past. I am not and have not been trying to do things traditionally. Because tradition has revolved around RP ignoring the developments of the game in favor of more Lightis vs Cultists RP, while expecting the PvEers to handle all the major lore developments because they're apparently more special or something. That was an awful formula, and needed to be discarded.

This needs to be quoted forever: as much as I love the random rp and the 'good vs evil' kinda thing, the complete ignoring of entire expack storylines feels extremely lame.

My defiinition of server lore quite overlaps with erwtenepeller's, but I'd also add tohse aspect of player made lore in the server which precise some aspects of the official lore without contradicting it.

Grim wrote:Are these double standards anywhere but your own mind? I've certainly not noticed any...

This really.

Cid wrote:

Grim wrote:Are these double standards anywhere but your own mind? I've certainly not noticed any...

This really.

Yeus.

The fact is the *Siege* of Orgrimmar isn't going to last a day. Vol'jin's been planning it for months, the city wouldn't just fold instantly because he rocked up to the gates and started killing.
Staging the siege in line with the flex raid unlocks means that people who have been involved in the long campaign to arrive at the gates can continue to rp the siege itself. Not neccesarily personally take part in the boss fights, but act as a support unit to put pressure on the already beleaguered Kor'kron and make it easier for the actual heroes (i.e. faction leaders) to take on Garrosh's generals with their forces.
If we go along the lines that you are suggesting, Raelan, and accept that Garrosh has been overthrown the day after the siege began, what are we meant to RP for the next 3 months?
"Garrosh is gone."
"Yup."
*End of topical RP.*

Drustai wrote:
As for "serverlore" (and it's not really serverlore here, it's server tradition), I don't really care about how it's been done in the past. I am not and have not been trying to do things traditionally. Because tradition has revolved around RP ignoring the developments of the game in favor of more Lightis vs Cultists RP, while expecting the PvEers to handle all the major lore developments because they're apparently more special or something. That was an awful formula, and needed to be discarded.

This isn't actually true.
Tradition hasn't revolved around RP ignoring development of the game in favor of more lighties vs cultists RP. RP involvement of ongoing wow storylines have Always matched the direct interest in those storylines.

Which is why nobody cared about BWL, but were totally excited about Naxx, and there was plenty of RP going on with Naxx, just nobody ever decided to actually get into naxx ICly. (with some exceptions, but those events never reached collectiveness)
Likewise TBC was very lukewarm with regard to RP involvement until Quel Danas, simply because that zone fucking rocked. You can see this over and over and over. going into the maelstrom had nobodies real interest, hence the RP involvement was minimal.

It has never been about ignoring WoW events, it had to do about having storylines that are tied to our character concepts, or that kinda fills our imagination. Add to that story-telling the early wow years was far less stream-lined than this expansion. Its far more easier for players to get wrapped in the current storyline than previously. Again, look at Bwl, look at MC.

Nowhere am I saying that you shouldn't RP in these things, fuck yeah you should, I've been doing it for nearly a decade. but ultimately your presentation of your involvement should be handled with care.


edit also has nobody ever given PvEers credit for ICkills of lore characters never, lol. Would you accept it more if someone from Destiny, or the Shattrath emporium, or Elysium would come up to you and say you man we totally defeated him (because we was first) the most you could say is that Destiny opened the silly gates of AQ I reckon. and even that was a server-effort, with the war shit.

I'm not saying Garrosh should be considered dead already, I'm however finding this 2 months shit a bit too much personally.(Not that it effects me, I'll be having fun with GTA in the meantime) Nor have I ever said I gave pvers credit. The "heroes" in lore did it. Same went for the Lich King.

Also good to see you suddenly remember, Drustai.