The "proper" responses to raiders.

[Krath]

• Command:
  >intercept muscular
  You position yourself to intercept the tall, muscular man if he moves.
• Mechanics:
     The intercept command takes into account a few factors such as size,
  speed, the guard skill, the rescue skill, watch, and the number of
  people you wish to intercept, or, the number of people set to intercept
  a specific target.
     Use of this command is applicable in scenarios such as preventing a
  criminal from escaping, or raiding a traveler, or chasing a beast about
  if a hunter. If in combat, the applicability of this command narrows
  to your target.

I like it!

[Gimfalisette]

I like the intercept idea. I don't think you should get to try to intercept while fighting, though. The "flee" command on the victim's part already takes care of whether that happens or not.

[staggerlee]

I'd really prefer it be worked into guard. Simply because the game already has a ton of commands, the idea of having more worries me.

[brytta.leofa]

I like the intercept idea. I don't think you should get to try to intercept while fighting, though. The "flee" command on the victim's part already takes care of whether that happens or not.

But a noncombatant should be able to use "intercept" to try to prevent a combatant from escaping, as in the current "you guard, I hit" combination.

I'd really prefer it be worked into guard. Simply because the game already has a ton of commands, the idea of having more worries me.

Maybe it can be syntactically worked into guard, but I think the difference in intention is worth coding in.

[Gimfalisette]

But a noncombatant should be able to use "intercept" to try to prevent a combatant from escaping, as in the current "you guard, I hit" combination.

Isn't the intent here to encourage more roleplay and less reverting to raw code to force one's will on another? That just sounds like another (slightly milder) version of "you subdue, I hit."

[Marauder Moe]

The intercept idea has come up before, FYI.  Search for threads about a "threaten" command.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

But a noncombatant should be able to use "intercept" to try to prevent a combatant from escaping, as in the current "you guard, I hit" combination.

Isn't the intent here to encourage more roleplay and less reverting to raw code to force one's will on another? That just sounds like another (slightly milder) version of "you subdue, I hit."

I think the intent is actually to facilitate a better way to conduct raids in the first place. We've been encouraging RP for fifteen years. If there is a non-aggressive way to encourage or force somebody to stay somewhere, isn't that better?

You are right, it is a milder version of subdue, without the hit. It also takes into account the concept of distance as opposed to subdue, by not requiring you to be right on someone. It allows the use of commands by both parties, whereas subdue is extremely limited in that regard.

[Gimfalisette]

So then it doesn't need to be operative in combat.

[NoteworthyFellow]

So then it doesn't need to be operative in combat.

Someone outside of the combat, though, should still be able to attempt to intercept someone from fleeing.  Perhaps it could be more difficult, but I see it as making it more difficult to flee because there are two people attempting to stop you, and not just one.

I advocate this for the sake of realism, and I like the intercept/threaten idea quite a bit as it is.

[Gimfalisette]

Basic principle, guys: If you make it more and more dangerous for people to submit themselves to the code, you'll make it more and more enticing for them to get away as quickly as possible. Do you see how that actually LIMITS roleplay potential? If threaten/intercept provides a bonus to combat, then necessarily it will be used primarily for gaining an advantage in combat. That's exactly the opposite of what you're claiming to want.

[brytta.leofa]

I have been convinced that Gim is right.

Realism-wise, intercept on a combatant makes sense, but what we specifically need to do here is encourage pre-melee interaction.  Combat lockup is probably okay as is (perhaps flee needs to be nerfed slightly).

Making intercept work only on non-combatants nerfs people fleeing out of raids without giving raiders an advantage once they start combat.

Edit: for horrifying malapropism.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I'll go with that. I thought you were against the entire concept.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

The agressor cease to be able to intercept once s/he
enters combat.
   If a target is in combat, the applicability of this command changes.
If the target flees, combat will stop, but there is a chance that
non-combatant interceptors in the same room can keep him/her from
leaving the scene.

Is that better?

[brytta.leofa]

If the target flees, combat will stop, but there is a chance that
non-combatant interceptors in the same room can keep him/her from
leaving the scene.

I think that's what Gim was arguing against.  And I agree that such an interception is realistic, but probably doesn't help to encourage what we want to encourage.

[Gimfalisette]

The problem with intercept functioning to stop someone from fleeing combat is that it will make combat much more deadly for those without the flee skill. So yes, it helps to make it stop working for the raider who is attacking the victim, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's all good.

I don't know, I feel very "meh" about it. If you want to design a skill that will make pre-melee RP happen, then do that. Don't start piling a whole bunch of other crap on the skill too and dilute the purpose of it.

Doesn't a subdue even break when combat is initiated, for this very reason?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

>intercept tall
You position yourself to intercept the tall muscular man if he moves.
The husky, grim raider positions herself to intercept the tall muscular man if he moves.

The tall muscular man attacks you.
You are no longer able to intercept him.

The tall muscular panics and attempts to flee.
The tall muscular man flees, but the grim, husky raider prevents him from leaving the scene.

>tell tall We just want fifty coins. That's the toll for passing through this region.
You tell the tall muscular man, in sirihish:
  "We just want fifty coins. That's the toll for passing through this region."

The tall muscular panics and attempts to flee.
The tall muscular man flees west, as the grim, husky raider fails to prevent him from leaving the scene.

>say (sighing) Well, we've got his sunback. That's something, I guess.
Sighing, you say, in sirihish:
  "Well, we got his sunback. That's something, I guess."

You see, it would not stop the victim from fleeing. It would make it so that he might not be able to flee the scene. Fleeing the scene is the issue in most cases, anyway. It would probably make some hardheads give up and submit to the raid like they shoulda in the first place.

[Gimfalisette]

Edit: Nevermind.

[brytta.leofa]

I like intercept as an articulation of guard in these situations.  But things would have to be rebalanced to be sure that we're not simply making combat even moar lethal.  Much as we love to hate it, flee is probably "overpowered" for a reason.

[Malifaxis]

Upon the idea of using the intercept concept with guard

guard -o venomz
You begin offensively guarding the awesome, fatherly ex-thug and are ready to move if they do.
(this will try to block them from movement or offensive actions they perpetrate on anything else in the room)

guard -d venomz  (or just guard venomz)
You begin guarding the awesome, fatherly ex-thug.

I likey this concepty.

[Vessol]

I have a feeling that the same fight or flight mechanics will continue to play a role regardless of code changes. Some people just become very attached to their belongings and do not like the idea of something changing that they do not control, I think it stems from the ideas of past games players have played.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I have a feeling that the same fight or flight mechanics will continue to play a role regardless of code changes. Some people just become very attached to their belongings and do not like the idea of something changing that they do not control, I think it stems from the ideas of past games players have played.

I also have the same feeling, but I think a change such as this could manage to make such situations more fair, for both parties. Subdue is very limited. This essentially sets a stage, using the same sort of mechanics as guard or what have you.

For the record, making it an extension of guard is a grand idea, Malifaxis.

[LoD]

I have a feeling that the same fight or flight mechanics will continue to play a role regardless of code changes. Some people just become very attached to their belongings and do not like the idea of something changing that they do not control, I think it stems from the ideas of past games players have played.

It's an understandable attachment for the player, but less rational for the character.  In this virtual world we inhabit, many times our clothing, weapons, and armor serve to define us just as much, if not sometimes moreso, than our main description or emotes.  To some players, being divested of these items may actually seem equal to losing one's character because of the work they may associate with replacing or recovering those defining pieces they may have worked RL weeks, months, or years to obtain.

There's certainly more at work here than some missing coded "middle ground" that spans the gap between heavy-handed code use on the part of the raider (i.e. instant subdue) and heavy-handed code use on the part of the victim (i.e. st;mount;e;e;e;n;n;e;e;e or flee;flee;flee;flee;e;e;e;n;n;n, etc...).

Offering additional commands such as intercept, threaten, and refined versions of the 'guard' skill would likely help take strides toward more interesting encounters, but I'm not sure that it will ultimately solve the issues surrounding the raider/victim relationship.  It's an almost MUSH-like encounter as it relates to levels of trust in the other player; trust that the raider will use this opportunity to create the best story possible and not simply to take the victim for everything they are worth, trust that the victim will appropriately RP their environment and surroundings.

I would certainly classify it as one of the more delicate and difficult scenes to pull off well, where both parties are left with a sense of satisfaction and excitement.  There may never be an easy answer, but I like many of the ideas offered over time related to skills, code, and items that facilitate scenarios that deal with temporary or permanent loss of control for a given character.

-LoD

[Gimfalisette]

It's an almost MUSH-like encounter as it relates to levels of trust in the other player; trust that the raider will use this opportunity to create the best story possible and not simply to take the victim for everything they are worth, trust that the victim will appropriately RP their environment and surroundings.

Make raiders a karma class. A -high- karma class, with special imm support. Perhaps then trust could develop and these scenes could be fun for all. (I'm not necessarily completely kidding.)

[staggerlee]

I would strongly suggest that raiders focus on taking coin from their target, or targeting deliveries, wagons, and other things owned by an employer and not an individual.   This relates to things I said much earlier in the thread about who can profit from raiding and when, and why muggers don't do so well.

If players suspect that they're going to get stripped bare and lose their armor, weapons and gear, then they are probably going to panic  a little for the reasons LoD gets into.

[Fathi]

I would strongly suggest that raiders focus on taking coin from their target, or targeting deliveries, wagons, and other things owned by an employer and not an individual.

This would be an ideal solution, but as it is right now, it's next to impossible.

To start, most Merchant House employees in my experience actually own all their own gear--they can buy it at a discount or they might get some starter armour/weapons, but most of these characters have bought their items themselves, so nothing they have on them really 'belongs' to their employers.

Unless you get very creative or have a lot of staff help, waylaying a wagon is a pipe dream. I'd love the hell out of anyone who did it or tried, but we're talking about the average raider here who doesn't have tons of resources and dudes at his disposal, right?

Unfortunately, aside from hunters running around hunting and/or the Fist patrolling, I'd guess that about 80% of all deliveries and travel done by the Merchant Houses are done by wagon. When I ran a Merchant House clan for over an OOC year, we only had a handful of deliveries that we sent somebody north/south to deliver/pick up. Because it was easier--and more realistic, considering the nature of our deliveries--to just use a wagon.

There are no real employers to knock over and/or steal from who have employees that leave the city with frequency save for the Merchant Houses, unless you count military organizations and the CAM--both of which you'd have to be a nutter to try to raid.

I've seen as many as seventeen NPC guards on one Merchant House wagon, to boot.

So in short, I agree wholeheartedly, Staggerlee, but as it stands right now, the little guys who earned the 'sid for all their own stuff and may be partisans or loosely tied to clans are really the only targets for the average raider.