Crime Rate Has Gone WAY Down

I'm having real mixed feelings about this one. I understand what DD is saying completely, it's so lame to plan for failure. And on Ferg's note, it's also so lame to have to lower your aspirations to see some sort of success in your missions.

To me? I think that yeah, in the TV show and in the comics the bad guys gotta lose. We're not either of those things. I would totally love it if a villain took control of parts of Jump... like crash alley, or something. I would love it if the roles were reversed and the Villains kicked the Titans out of their tower, and set up in it. To see the heroes have to make some hidden underground base to start THEIR uprising.

While a story like a TV show or a comic might have to have the heroes win, we AREN'T that. We're roleplayers. Our story doesn't end with a winner or a loser. Our story doesn't end PERIOD. Izzy and Ferg saying that it's unrealistic for villains to expect to be able to take over the city is silly to me. Villains should be able to obtain a goal like that. That won't end our game or anything, that will just change it.

Imagine if we DID have a power flip, and HIVE took over. Don't tell me that wouldn't be fun. That'd be great. Then we get to see how clever the heroes can be while they try to take it back.

Egill can help with that if he has no qualms about being a villain if it means that the future doesn't end in ragnarok being total distrucion. That is his whole premises of existence and allows for him to work with anyone.

And that is where Neo and Roman come in. If it's cool with the staff, I'd probably make Neo a supporting character for the HIVE, rather than just Roman if it's possible. Just until they get on their feet. She's still primarily Roman's daughter though.

I agree with the idea, but I still think it should be earned.

Bloo... so i can't say you are wrong or fully disagree with what you are trying to say since i remember proposing a site plot idea that was exactly what you are saying. I will admit that most of my writings are based on the assumption that no one wants to mess with the site's status quo in the plot department. Which i am still salty about and will keep reminding people about till march.

Now that I said that i think you are misunderstanding what I was trying to say:
Also i don't remember saying villains shouldn't be able to take over a city, I said world domination isn't realistic as that tends to be the most used and tired trope for villain motivation. Also I didn't say lower your expectations just for success, I said make it realistic.

While I would like to disregard the offered aid of specific characters in certain scenarios as they tend to be more of a coincidental occurrence then a shift in the thematical suggestion, it is quite interesting to propose the idea of 'Why not?'. Why shouldn't the villain win at some points?

I tend to believe that if a villain strives for planetary annihilation, then yes, he or she is gearing up for failure. Fergalicious is right to say that villains should be realistic. We do not have the capacity to make God-tier villains who would have the earth destroyed if they so desired. Doesn't sound like much fun either.

However, why shouldn't a villain be able to claim terrirtory (Falcone/Maroni/Kingpin etc) or wish to dethrone the Titans or any other team (I loved the part in the Young Justice cartoon where they lost their High Tech base, it gave the characters a perfect opportunity to grow)

In all honesty, roleplaying a villain was, for me, harder than roleplaying a hero. It's completely fine, as the feeling you get for getting it right is way more satisfying. A higher level of difficulty is natural in this scenario and there's nothing wrong with this higher difficulty.

It would seem natural in this regard for roleplayers who have some increment of skill to try their hand at a villain. That would balance out the site a bit more and pit them against newer heroes in turn, replicating the feeling of the Teen Titans in a sense of having this more experienced villain being a threat to relatively 'new' heroes.  

Acromonious, how would you suggest someone could 'earn' a successful plot? Would it be decided by the villain's skill at roleplaying? How would such a thing be decided?

That is exactly what I think it would be decided by, though even when you're a roleplayer with particular skill, it all depends on what the other characters end up doing.

I'm just saying if anything like that happens, it shouldn't be something that happens automatically. It should be something actually roleplayed and fought hard for, instead of us going "We'll let you have this one." Because that would be even more insulting to the entire point of this discussion.

That's kind of how it works.

If two people want something conflicting "I want to steal that wallet." "Well I want you to eat my fist." then someone has to back down or you reach the stage where people complain "She punched me without permission..." "She got away with the wallet without my say so..."

Roleplaying well is all fine and dandy, but if the opposing roleplayer doesn't recognise, or refuses to acknowledge that skill (or they roleplay equally as well) then you have an impasse. Someone will be required to back down. As a villain, I personally find that expectation on me more often than not.

P.S. Or I suppose I could just suck. o-o

A long time ago I was an E-fedder. Basically this but with professional wrestling. Every fight would have a referee of sorts. He/she would read the fight, not participate. An impartial member or staff member would, after a time limit or post limit, decide a winner. It would be based on skill of roleplaying, of how much you powerplayed (or meta-RP'ed or whatever it is called) and how much you stuck to your character. - This shouldn't be copy pasted, not saying anything about post or time limits, but the general idea might have some merit to it.

Would that help? Acromonious and DD would get the best deal based on their situations. Skill would be rewarded, without an impasse. I am completely for recognition of skill, but if the outcome is decided by the participants, it might never be a satisfying victory for any involved.

I don't know about that. If we did start doing that then it could work out beneficially, but it could also just result in both roleplayers being unhappy.

I'd say making a turn limit would be a poor decision. I can't say much more than that.

That sounds like a good plan to me. Perhaps not a solution but at the very least a good idea.

Wasn't that the purpose of the Titans News account?