making raiding fair

[ibusoe]

I was thinking about raiding the other night and we face the classical catch-22.  When someone tries to raid you, it's tempting to spam flee, especially if you don't know the other player.  If you're raiding people, it's tempting to insta-kill them because you're worried that they might spam-flee.

Quite a conundrum, no?

What I propose:

I propose that when a (potential) raider enters the room with (potential) prey, then each side snaps out an emote.  Then, both sides are free to continue emoting, talk, emote running, fighting, etc., without actually using combat commands.

If it appears likely that combat will break out, I propose that it is good ettiquite to allow the person who first executed their emote to have the privilige of the first fight/flight command.  After that, players may fight/run/emote/watch their opponent at will until their is a logical conclusion to the scene, either someone escaping, someone dieing, one side gaining the upper hand or etc.

Note:  If people post criticisms below, I'll use them to improve upon this idea.

Note:  If enough people like this, I'll expand on it.

[RogueGunslinger]

This game isn't fair. Welcome to Armageddon.




Err... I have nothing to add, sorry.

[Cerelum]

I was thinking about raiding the other night and we face the classical catch-22.  When someone tries to raid you, it's tempting to spam flee, especially if you don't know the other player.  If you're raiding people, it's tempting to insta-kill them because you're worried that they might spam-flee.

Quite a conundrum, no?

What I propose:

I propose that when a (potential) raider enters the room with (potential) prey, then each side snaps out an emote.  Then, both sides are free to continue emoting, talk, emote running, fighting, etc., without actually using combat commands.

If it appears likely that combat will break out, I propose that it is good ettiquite to allow the person who first executed their emote to have the privilige of the first fight/flight command.  After that, players may fight/run/emote/watch their opponent at will until their is a logical conclusion to the scene, either someone escaping, someone dieing, one side gaining the upper hand or etc.

Note:  If people post criticisms below, I'll use them to improve upon this idea.

Note:  If enough people like this, I'll expand on it.

While I personally hate being insta-killed by anyone, I do not think that they should have to follow any rules of engagement about it.

While I think your heart is in the right place, I think you're bordering on "Do it this way cause I said so." instead of "This would improve the game."

[musashi]

What you propose could be summed up as: The Honor System.
Which doesn't seem to me to be a solution so much as a plea; if everyone just choose to "do it this way" things would be better.

... ... could be you're right, but there's no way to enforce that.

[Gunnerblaster]

You need to relax and stop telling people how to roleplay.

If you have a problem with someone's roleplay - File a complaint. It's there for a reason.

[MarshallDFX]

You need to relax and stop telling people how to roleplay.

If you have a problem with someone's roleplay - File a complaint. It's there for a reason.

Gunnerblaster emotes out of turn!  *subdue gunnerblaster*

[Gunnerblaster]

You need to relax and stop telling people how to roleplay.

If you have a problem with someone's roleplay - File a complaint. It's there for a reason.

Gunnerblaster emotes out of turn!  *subdue gunnerblaster*

*Your subdued, despite your attempts to wrestle away!*

[Wasteland Raider]

Shadows of Isildur had this. It was called "the Rules of Engagement." It was a massive, colossal failure, an annoyance, and something I would likely quit playing raider PCs over if it were ever implemented.

[Yam]

Shadows of Isildur had this. It was called "the Rules of Engagement." It was a massive, colossal failure, an annoyance, and something I would likely quit playing raider PCs over if it were ever implemented.

Heh heh heh.

[Delstro]

Raider and victim need to understand and agree on one thing.

Armageddon=interaction

If the raider and victim understand that it is more fun to interact with other characters than it is to not interact with other characters, then staying (If you are the victim) and not insta-bashing (If you are the raider.) are more fun than going through the motions.

Leave the motions for real life. Enjoy the unexpected.

[Clearsighted]

Pretty much what Rogue and Gunner said.

[HTX]

I've been suggesting this for years:

'threaten <target>'

Clearly indicates the aggressor doesn't want to attack immediately, just threaten, thereby putting both parties at ease. Also, if someone wants to flee, they can, just not in an unrealistic manner (they'll initiate combat).

An easy enough solution which I've seen solve this exact problem in several other games. Tried, tested and true.

[RogueGunslinger]

I like that solution, actually. One command, just >Threaten amos. No approach code. No massive change. Just a code that makes youa ttack when someone tries to flee.

[musashi]

As long as flee self allowed the person in qustion the chance to get away without starting combat, provided their flee skill was high enough ... I'd be all for that.

[Cerelum]

As long as flee self allowed the person in qustion the chance to get away without starting combat, provided their flee skill was high enough ... I'd be all for that.

No, cause then they would be able to run away in all situations, being surrounded, having a sword held to their chest, etc etc.

Should HAVE to enter combat THEN flee, this way it gives the attacker a chance to get a reeling blow and also gives the person being attacked a chance to rp out before spamming FLEE.

[Dresan]

I've always felt there is plenty of places for safe RP in this game. (ex taverns, cities, outposts)

Equally i've always felt there isn't enough actual killing and death in this game. Unless your a newbie, you often die when you want to die. (ex. follow X to apartment, purposely piss off noble/templar, sleep in the open in the wilds, decide not to flee after being attacked)

You need to make some powerful friends if you want to kill someone who doesn't actually want to die.

Also, having been on boths sides of good old 'charging in and two rounding someone'. I can honestly say it adds alot more to the game then people often think.

1. There is RP before the insta-kill.
2. There is RP after the insta-kill.
3. There is RP as to why someone would insta-kill someone
4. There is RP as to why someone would be in a place that allows someone else to insta-kill them.

The game is alot more enjoyable when there are places where you know you could potentially die no matter what you do. 

[musashi]

As long as flee self allowed the person in qustion the chance to get away without starting combat, provided their flee skill was high enough ... I'd be all for that.

No, cause then they would be able to run away in all situations, being surrounded, having a sword held to their chest, etc etc.

Should HAVE to enter combat THEN flee, this way it gives the attacker a chance to get a reeling blow and also gives the person being attacked a chance to rp out before spamming FLEE.

They would have a chance to get away ... based on their flee skill. If said raider is really the desert trodding combat badass you (general "you") think he is, then you should have nothing to worry about. Your offense is so high they won't pass the check anyway, right? Of course, for balance why not say that failing the flee attempt while under "threat" puts them in post-skill use delay, that way they have to weigh the options and think ... hmm, am I reallly realllllly fast enough or should I just give up my pack?

[Adieren]

To the raiders- Stop griefing! It makes me want to pick up awesome stats, train with Mr. Miyagi and come and keel you all to grief you back. There are ways to raid without ruining plotlines/characters lives/etc. Don't kill people who are desperate to live- provided they don't look/don't contact.

To those raided- You can either turn or burn. Cooperate or disintegrate. If you're fabulous, maybe they might let you live.

[Yam]

To the raiders- Stop griefing! It makes me want to pick up awesome stats, train with Mr. Miyagi and come and keel you all to grief you back. There are ways to raid without ruining plotlines/characters lives/etc. Don't kill people who are desperate to live- provided they don't look/don't contact.

To those raided- You can either turn or burn. Cooperate or disintegrate. If you're fabulous, maybe they might let you live.

There's no such thing as griefing.

[Twilight]

Outside of my experiences with Blackmoon...

If you look and act badass enough to be trouble, you are generally left alone by a raider, although not always.  If you don't, you are not, although not always.  Sometimes looks can be deceiving.

Seems a reasonable state of affairs to me.

[Sephiroto]

Since you never know when a raiding candidate will actually RP with you or not, sometimes you just lay the smack down to ensure you get something to take home to ma'.  Shoot first, RP later.  This can suck, especially if you're on the receiving end.

So, we need a way to force the chance for RP.  You would need to trap or immobilize your target.  Set an ambush to capture folks in nets using a net and a skill, or maybe one of those covered up hole in the ground things.  If you fail they can stay and RP or they can run, their choice.  If you succeed they're bound.  They can try to escape.  Odds are they won't.  You can then RP all you want.  If they don't comply then, stab them over and over and over until they do comply or die resisting.

Since using traps and nets is a pretty powerful tool similar to magick, maybe the new class of ranger/warrior/hunter that gets them would be a level 1 or 2 karma class.

Just an idea...

[Synthesis]

As long as flee self allowed the person in qustion the chance to get away without starting combat, provided their flee skill was high enough ... I'd be all for that.

No, cause then they would be able to run away in all situations, being surrounded, having a sword held to their chest, etc etc.

Should HAVE to enter combat THEN flee, this way it gives the attacker a chance to get a reeling blow and also gives the person being attacked a chance to rp out before spamming FLEE.

They would have a chance to get away ... based on their flee skill. If said raider is really the desert trodding combat badass you (general "you") think he is, then you should have nothing to worry about. Your offense is so high they won't pass the check anyway, right? Of course, for balance why not say that failing the flee attempt while under "threat" puts them in post-skill use delay, that way they have to weigh the options and think ... hmm, am I reallly realllllly fast enough or should I just give up my pack?

The problem is, 'flee' almost always passes before you actually incapacitate someone in melee, even if you're a 50+ day warrior.  The only thing you can hope for is a couple of quick, consecutive reeling blows, but you this is only reliable if you have very high (read: dwarf-range) strength and you're dual-wielding bludgeoning.

[Qzzrbl]

As long as flee self allowed the person in qustion the chance to get away without starting combat, provided their flee skill was high enough ... I'd be all for that.

No, cause then they would be able to run away in all situations, being surrounded, having a sword held to their chest, etc etc.

Should HAVE to enter combat THEN flee, this way it gives the attacker a chance to get a reeling blow and also gives the person being attacked a chance to rp out before spamming FLEE.

They would have a chance to get away ... based on their flee skill. If said raider is really the desert trodding combat badass you (general "you") think he is, then you should have nothing to worry about. Your offense is so high they won't pass the check anyway, right? Of course, for balance why not say that failing the flee attempt while under "threat" puts them in post-skill use delay, that way they have to weigh the options and think ... hmm, am I reallly realllllly fast enough or should I just give up my pack?

The problem is, 'flee' almost always passes before you actually incapacitate someone in melee, even if you're a 50+ day warrior.  The only thing you can hope for is a couple of quick, consecutive reeling blows, but you this is only reliable if you have very high (read: dwarf-range) strength and you're dual-wielding bludgeoning.

Two easy solutions to this.

Poisons.

And raiding-buddies.

[Synthesis]

Thanks, Captain Obvious. 

[Lizzie]

If it was fair, it wouldn't be raiding. It shouldn't be fair from the raider's side, and it shouldn't be fair from the victim's side. In Armageddon, it isn't fair on either side. Which means, it's working exactly as it should.

[HTX]

Thanks, Captain Obvious. 

Doesn't make their suggestions any less valid.

Personally, unless my character is overly cocky, or an extremely proficient fighter, they'd probably seriously contemplate just giving in to a mugger's (or a raider's) demand. Yes, I know OOCly it's easy to escape, but my characters, you know... tend to have a natural aversion to pain? And therefore will think twice before risking getting stabbed or bashed by doing something stupid whilst getting mugged/raided. In my experience plenty of players will react realistically to a mugging/raiding attempt, in accordance to their character's personality; I think people too often underestimate the roleplaying ability of our players.

[Eyeball]

Everyone keeps going on about how it's twinkish to flee when a raider "enters the room" and how they should stand and emote instead.

There's the whole problem.  "Enters the room", i.e. suddenly, without warning, teleports into sword reach of your throat. This is hardly fair either.

The corollary of allowing raiders to set traps and such is to give travellers fair warning of their approach and time to flee.

[Rogerthat]

THIS is hilarious, i didn't even read the other post. But your asking to MAKE raider fair? Raiders don't have to emote, nor do the prey, if you feel hmm, I cant think of the word, look around more often, make sure noone is near, if someone is near get the f*** out of there. Have more people with you. Be trained. I dont know there is so many other options.. Sigh. 

[HTX]

Yeah, but the thing is, in my experience, thugs/raiders who insta-attack are very, very rare now-a-days. In fact I'm not sure if I can think of a single case off the top of my head right now (not in recent times anyway). Ditto with insta-fleeing victims. So, to not give people the benefit of the doubt isn't fair.

Anyway, as a (potential) victim, you have the upper hand because it's easy to flee before you lose all your stun or HP. So therefore, if someone insta-attacks you unrealistically, it all comes down to code and mechanics and you shouldn't be ashamed to spam-flee yourself. I find that your raiding/mugging attempt is much more likely to be successful if you play the scene out rather than jumping on the 'kill' button (unless you've got uber stats/skills/something else up your sleeve), and hey, the scene will be more enjoyable. So what if, say, one in fifty victims insta-flee, just file a complaint via the request tool and go about your day.

[Eyeball]

if you feel hmm, I cant think of the word, look around more often, make sure noone is near, if someone is near get the f*** out of there.

This isn't really how the senses work in real life, is it? I don't have to consciously think "now I'm going to look", "now I'm going to look", "now I'm going to look".. I just do. Even if I watch in the game, it can only be in one direction unless I type constantly.

It's ridiculous that out on a flat, open place like the salt flats, a raider can move into striking distance before the traveller will even notice. The code gives raiders a ridiculous advantage already. But people are only talking about how victims can spam flee.

Raiders should have to chase down their victims (i.e. win a race or follow until the victim is exhausted) or use some sort of tactics like hiding on a road or track until someone comes by and spring up around them.

[Spice Spice Baby]

Anecdotal evidence isn't always the most useful thing, but I'll toss this out there: I have never had a bad experience when playing a victim and I have only ever had one person no-emote spam-flee from me as a raider.

[HTX]

Anecdotal evidence isn't always the most useful thing, but I'll toss this out there: I have never had a bad experience when playing a victim and I have only ever had one person no-emote spam-flee from me as a raider.

I agree with this observation. Anecdotal evidence or not, I think your stance is logically sound. I've yet to see sufficient evidence supporting the claim that "most people insta-flee/attack" (if you think otherwise please enlighten me, though I doubt anyone but imms willing to go through the time-consuming task of digging through logs would have reliable access to such information). So therefore the burden of proof rests on those making the unsupported claim, not those taking the negative stance (ie. you and me). Which is why I think this line of thought...

Since you never know when a raiding candidate will actually RP with you or not, sometimes you just lay the smack down to ensure you get something to take home to ma'.  Shoot first, RP later.  This can suck, especially if you're on the receiving end.

...Is not always the most sound way to look at things. Put some trust in your fellow player, and you may be pleasantly surprised.

I do still agree that a threaten command would put such fears and doubts to rest, however.

THIS is hilarious, i didn't even read the other post. But your asking to MAKE raider fair? Raiders don't have to emote, nor do the prey, if you feel hmm, I cant think of the word, look around more often, make sure noone is near, if someone is near get the f*** out of there. Have more people with you. Be trained. I dont know there is so many other options.. Sigh.  

The problem with this approach, Rogerthat, is that the code doesn't always enforce realism, and probably can't ever 100% enforce realism, because there's simply far too many variables to take into account when deciding whether something is realistic or not. Therefore, it's up to the players to use judgment on whether something is realistic and acceptable from an IC point of view.

A single desert room is huge, and as mentioned, it's unrealistic to rush in and start attacking without an emote because the raider might be on one side of the 'room' while the victim is on the other... And even if you take into account time compression in Armageddon, it's unrealistic to instantly attack the moment you enter the room.

Also, as the victim it's simply common courtesy to throw in an emote before fleeing if the raider goes through the effort of throwing in emotes. You've got to understand that as a roleplaying game, it's not a race to see who can manipulate code and game mechanics to 'win' like in a Hack 'n' Slash MUD; think of this as writing an interactive novel rather than trying to win via the code. Although immediately running away from anyone you encounter in the Wastes isn't, in itself, unrealistic or wrong, if you don't at least throw an emote out there it just reeks of raping the code mechanics to your advantage, when the game by its nature strongly discourages that (when possible). Here, we care about narrative, not winning (hence the reason many players go through the effort of fleshing out their characters and giving them flaws, even if it doesn't support winning it's all about the story which unfolds). Also, it doesn't take long to type out:

emote immediately wheels his mount around in alarm and slaps its flank, running in the opposite direction of ~the-dude-who-just-entered-the-desert-room.

Especially if the other person goes through the effort of throwing an emote out and acting realistically, too. That way, the other person can see that your character is, indeed, running away immediately, but it doesn't look like you're trying to forgo the story in order to get a coded advantage, either. It requires a degree of trust, but I believe the playerbase (generally) has enough maturity and roleplaying ability to deserve such trust.

[FantasyWriter]

Just out of curiousity, I have two questions.
There are to anyone who wants to answer them:

1. How many raiders have you had attack you without a single emote or "tell" before hand?

2. How many times have you raided and your victims spam-fled?

I would assume that these two issues aren't nearly as big an issue IG as they are on the GDB.

[Cutthroat]

Just out of curiousity, I have two questions.
There are to anyone who wants to answer them:

1. How many raiders have you had attack you without a single emote or "tell" before hand?

2. How many times have you raided and your victims spam-fled?

I would assume that these two issues aren't nearly as big an issue IG as they are on the GDB.

1. Once. About two years ago I was attacked just two rooms away from the gates of Allanak, after a few combat rounds told "Gimme yer lizard", and died. This happened so early that I actually respawned. I've only been raided once - after that I was smart enough to take reasonable precautions before going out, like any good Zalanthan would.

2. Almost every time I've tried to approach someone, it's up, up and awaaaay. However, a precious few times people stick around, it often works out very, very well for all parties involved, and I think that those players that ran away probably wouldn't have provided a good scene if they had stayed.

You are probably right though. It's not that big of a deal. The honor system works quite well, and if people start randomly running, there are plenty of coded ways to make a person stop.

[brytta.leofa]

Just out of curiousity, I have two questions.
There are to anyone who wants to answer them:

1. How many raiders have you had attack you without a single emote or "tell" before hand?

2. How many times have you raided and your victims spam-fled?

I've been raided thrice.  Only once did the "raider" attack without any interaction beforehand, and I'm pretty sure it was a hapless newbie (I spam-fled, of course).  One encounter I "won."  None was fatal.

I guess I've never, per se, raided anybody.

[Gargath]

I enjoy playing raiders. I am also not one of those people who shoot you with an arrow of death from a room away or walk in and smush you.

I tend to enter a room and have an enjoyable RP scene. The last five times I raided someone, it didn't even come to combat. They coughed up the loot without any blood loss. Out of the last ten times I raided I can only think of one time when someone ran away without so much as an emote. It is double-edged though, when you let people live rumor spreads pretty quickly and, as someone said in a different post, all of a sudden greeber #10983 happens to rub elbows with someone important. Depending on how you like to play, this can be enjoyable and involve some cool plots or a real bummer.

Raiding RP has been very enjoyable over the years and I really do find it a shame that people feel the need to attack (or run) without any RP.

[Gunnerblaster]

You want Roleplaying!? FINE!

Code Select Expand

>charges wildly at ~man, swinging ~sword over ^me head and yelling loudly in a viking-like war cry!

>bash man

>kill man

>begins chopping wildly at ~man after driving ^me shoulder into !man, sending !man sprawling! (If I succeeded)

[UnderSeven]

The problem with this that I see is that there is the assumption in the start that emoting = role play.  It doesn't.  The raider enters, and sure they toss out an emote about entering and then the victim tosses out an emote about running and lets just say that these are two people who would of otherwise insta-attacked and spam fled.  All we did by adding a rule of engagement is that now instead of insta-attacking and insta-fleeing, they'll do it after tossing out an emote.  They're still doing the exact same thing they were before and probably will try to bend the rules to their favor, ie the attacker will have a trigger that attacks the moment the victim emote comes out and the victim will have a carriage return inserted after their emote followed by a flee path. 

This rule of engagement suggestion literally changes nothing.  The people who want to role play raider/victim role play will still role play it and the people who don't, still won't.

And on another note.  Rules of engagement are not a good idea IMO.  They add hands of god to the game that don't necessarily make any realistic sense or have any baring on the world.  It just opens up the door for endless bickering about who did or did not follow the rules well enough and was x emote good enough?  How many words does the emote have to be?  How long can the victim wait before emoting before the attacker can attack anyway?  What if the victim deliberately holds off on emoting to do some commands that the attacker won't see, such as psi or waiting to regen just a little more moves. 

Frankly I think the only way this works is the way it works currently.

As an aside, I'm heavily turned off by games with rules of engagement.

[Synthesis]

Approach code.

Intra-room location grid.

[Cerelum]

Approach code.

Intra-room location grid.

No Accursed Lands... NO!

[Synthesis]

Approach code.

Intra-room location grid.

No Accursed Lands... NO!

Baby. Bathwater. Figure it out.

What I mean to say is:  is there something in particular about approach code and intra-room grids you find objectionable, or are you committing a fallacy of division?

[FuSoYa]

Approach code.

Intra-room location grid.

No Accursed Lands... NO!

Baby. Bathwater. Figure it out.

Are we talking about Rain Man when he says... "HOT WATER BURN BABY!!!"

Brandon

[Sephiroto]

Just out of curiousity, I have two questions.
1. How many raiders have you had attack you without a single emote or "tell" before hand?

2. How many times have you raided and your victims spam-fled?

I'll share my experiences with you, FW.

One of my least favorite raiding experiences was the time when this dude quit out in the middle of the desert.  *Poof* Gone.  Lame.
A couple of us got positive account notes for roleplaying it out well and the person who quit out got some negative notes for being a douche.

I also dislike when people spam run away and subsequently quit out (often in unusual or unsafe locations) to evade law enforcement or raiders.  This happens somewhat regularly when raiding.  This happened on numerous occasions while hunting down a Dragonsthrall Servant.  Please don't do this.  My LEAST favorite raiding experience was when I tracked one said Dragonsthrall Servant to a cave after a confrontation in the desert.  It turns out that they had quit out just moments before my arrival.  Lame.  So, I take it as they're hiding.  I set traps and wait around.  Well, that person logged back in 5 minutes later to some nasty surprises.  Instead of playing it out or running away, they ran to the -next- room, which was also quit safe, narrowly avoided combat, and logged out -again-!  This time they didn't log back in for many hours.  I didn't want to wait around for this person, so I left.  I never submitted a complaint, but this pissed me off.  Uncool.  If you want to run into the city and wander around, great.  If you want to run to the Byn compound for safety in numbers, great.  Don't run to a secluded cave and "hide" (logout) from someone who would more than likely find you there if you stayed logged in.

As a raider I've had people turn tail and run without emotes many other times, but over 10 years I've never kept track of numbers.  There are well-played and poorly-played raidings.  It's probably 50/50.

Being raided:
I have been attacked on several occasions in the past 10 RL years with no tells or emotes.  I do not typically mind this, but it doesn't make for a very well-played scene and it isn't my favorite situation.  When this happens I calm myself by thinking, "Tembo don't emote, why should another PC?"  Tembo are on a mission to eat your face.  We get no warning for tembo approaching.  No delay.  No time to run.  We get claws to the neck and face.  So I expect that if a PC is on a mission to render you prostrate, not emoting is A-OK.

I often find myself running away from raiders out of OOC instinct.  I try hard to defy that and encourage roleplay encounters and I really hate when people run from me when I raid.  More than once I've actually -turned around- and went back torward the raider in hopes that there would be an adequate scene to follow.  A similar situation happened in a non-raiding environment between my Sorcerer about 2 years ago and a Tuluki hunting party.  After he bolted, he lingered 2-3 rooms away to give them the opportunity to pursue.  They never did, but I wanted them to have the opportunity to engage or be diplomatic.

One notable thing about raiders is that, in my experience, magicker normally announce their presence and RP'd very well.  I suspect this is because magickers generaly are very confident because they can easily maintain the high ground.  I like this.  Or it might be because they're bored, and killing you in a few seconds really isn't that fun.

[HTX]

You want Roleplaying!? FINE!

Code Select Expand

>charges wildly at ~man, swinging ~sword over ^me head and yelling loudly in a viking-like war cry!

>bash man

>kill man

>begins chopping wildly at ~man after driving ^me shoulder into !man, sending !man sprawling! (If I succeeded)

I'm not sure which post you was responding to, but if it was mine I'd to point out that I was discussing what's makes a good "narrative" in a roleplaying intensive game (not necessarily good "roleplaying", because as previously pointed out, emoting doesn't necessarily = good roleplaying). I was also discussing what is realistic.

Also, I wouldn't do what was described in that example in a desert room, personally, if that's what you're suggesting. In a more enclosed or smaller area, perhaps, but in a desert room if my character were to charge another, I'd throw an emote in and give a lengthy pause. Why? Because realistically speaking, the victim would have a chance to turn around and flee during such a long charge through a desert room (unless they were on foot or on a significantly slower mount). Due to an unfortunate lack of code enforcing realism in such cases, the raider also has to take into account realism. Yes, it might mean the victim would escape, but an open charge through a desert (or other open, large expanse of land) should not be effective in the first place for the raider, and I can see the merits of an approach system in such cases. Sneaking, hiding, traps, arrows or casually approaching a victim without arousing suspicion should be the most effective means.

Just my opinion, anyway.

I'll share my experiences with you, FW.

*snip*

I noticed your examples were very old (some as old as 10 RL years you said?). Do you have more recent examples? The playerbase seems to have changed and matured over the past 10 years, so experiences which are up to a decade ago can't be used to draw conclusions, really.

The problem with this that I see is that there is the assumption in the start that emoting = role play.  It doesn't.  The raider enters, and sure they toss out an emote about entering and then the victim tosses out an emote about running and lets just say that these are two people who would of otherwise insta-attacked and spam fled.  All we did by adding a rule of engagement is that now instead of insta-attacking and insta-fleeing, they'll do it after tossing out an emote.

See my above argument (and note that not once did I claim it was good "roleplaying" - notice that I use the words good "narrative" and "story" instead). Yes, the outcome may stay the same, and I have no complaints about that. But the difference is that a story unfolds, rather than a couple of people seeing who can mash in commands the fastest. Armageddon is very much an interactive story, so this can only be a good thing. A few emotes thrown out makes things much more entertaining, then just the spamming of commands.

I do agree that we don't need an official "rules of engagement", however. Especially a needlessly complicated one. But I'd hope we as a playerbase can draw lines and come to a general conclusion on what is realistic and what isn't, as well as what makes a good story and an entertaining game, and what doesn't. Unless (or until) imms implement a threaten and/or approach system. Although I recall imms saying flat out that there would be no approach system in Armageddon 2 (don't recall them justifying their decision, however).

Just out of curiousity, I have two questions.
There are to anyone who wants to answer them:

1. How many raiders have you had attack you without a single emote or "tell" before hand?

2. How many times have you raided and your victims spam-fled?

I would assume that these two issues aren't nearly as big an issue IG as they are on the GDB.

1.) None, I don't think. Although I once had an assassin backstab me in a desert room without a single emote. Although he was hidden, and in my mind I pictured it as the assassin hiding behind a sand dune until I passed by, then stepping out and planting a knife in my character's back. Not unreasonable nor unrealistic, though emotes would have been nice.

I only have been raided a few times, however.

2) I have mugged and raided at least a dozen times in-game. I don't remember anyone ever spam-fleeing, although my memory has become cloudy.

[jhunter]

1. Once or twice have I been attacked without any thing other than:

The scary, hooded figure enters from the west.

The scary, hooded figure looks down at you.

The scary, hooded figure viciously slashes you on your head, doing frightening damage!

2. I've lost count of the times as a raider that people have immediately left the room before I could even attempt to interact with them or left the room as soon as I started rp'ing out that I was going to rob them.

[Synthesis]

Approach.

Intra-room grid.

All of this "Boo hoo, a dude on foot can't outrun a dude on a mount," and "Boo hoo, a raider appeared from the east and magickally was in striking distance," and "Boo hoo, I was close enough to chop a muthafucka with a bone sword but he magickally teleported 1 league away with the flee command" bullshit would be put to a well-deserved and elegant end.

As far as the difficulty involved in coding such a thing, I'd like to abuse the memory of JFK:

We choose to implement approach code. We choose to implement approach code... (interrupted by applause) we choose to implement approach code in 2.Arm and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

To those raiders and victims struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required — not because Accursed Lands may be doing it, not because we seek their playerbase, but because it is right.

Edited to add:  Here's another one, because this is kind of fun.

I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived — yet it is the most important topic on earth: the intra-room grid.  What kind of intra-room grid do I mean? What kind of intra-room grid do we seek? Not a half-ass measure built on artificial delays on combat commands and movement lags....I am talking about genuine intra-room grids, the kind of intra-room grid that makes spatial relationships on Zalanthas worth roleplaying, the kind that enables raiders and victims to clearly identify their position in a room's three dimensions and to approach, raid, and flee realistically — not merely an intra-room grid for players of Accursed Lands but an intra-room grid for all men and women — not merely an intra-room grid in our game but an intra-room grid for all MUDs.

[Fathi]

1. How many raiders have you had attack you without a single emote or "tell" before hand?

The only time a PC of mine has ever been attacked without a single emote, it was when a half-giant militia PC entered a room and insta-subdued her. Not really a "raiding" scenario.

2. How many times have you raided and your victims spam-fled?

I played a mage that used to mess with people in the wilderness in various non-lethal ways. One guy ran off the second I dropped an echo about magickal stuff happening, but I can kinda understand that.

[Cerelum]

The only reason I say no to approach code is because in the current ARM game it would take too long to get "right" I've played in games where they had this and it either depended on skills of movement or race to close the distance.

So you would get some people who went only certain races in the race instance, so they could always jump people before they could run away, or keep running them down.

Or you would get people who twinkishly ran all over the world as much as possible to raise that skill SO high that you would be standing on the northwest part of the grid, and they would come in the southeast side of the grid (Whole other side of the room) do sprint, kill person and they would charge across a football sized area in two seconds then decapitate you.

If there was some way to level it out where someone who twinks their skill up, or so that certain races didn't get OMFG fast speed, then I would be all for it.  Do I think that's possible, maybe... Do I think it's possible in this codebase of this game, no.

[Synthesis]

Does it not make sense that it might be exceptionally difficult to actually get away from a desert-elf on foot, out in the desert?  

That's the entire point of approach code coupled to an in-room grid:  if you're fast, you're fast, and if you're slow, you're slow, and the code reinforces this with the appropriate consequences.

That is, if you're slow and you get caught out in the desert on your own by someone who's fast, you can't simply 'flee' and be leagues away by the time their 'attack' delay has worn off.

Another very nice change would be to get rid of "hard" delays, and implement "soft" delays.

So, after backstabbing someone, you wouldn't be able to utilize another combat command without some delay, but you could still flee/draw weapons/say things/rescue your friend/etc.

Of course, with an in-room grid, the 'flee' skill itself would have to be reworked.  I'd suggest making it an evasion or dodge-like skill that reflects your ability to avoid being injured while someone is chasing after you with a weapon.  Hell, you could even add something like a trip or obstacle function to it, so you could delay your pursuer (that is, increase the distance between you and him to a point where combat is no longer feasible).

The only problem I can foresee with an in-room grid is the playability factor vs. the realism factor.  If a desert room is a league square, that's an awful lot of space to cover...so what's the appropriate amount of time for someone to walk across it on foot?  If it's too short, potential raiders can just set their speed to "run" and hope to close the approach distance before the target can type a direction command in.  If it's too long, people will piss and moan about how long it takes to travel.

Then again, it would be awfully nice if being wounded on certain locations actually had consequences, and you could specifically target or defend those locations.  Get hit really hard to the arm, and you lose your weapon/shield.  Get hit really hard to the legs and take a penalty to your offense, defense, and movement speed.

Of course, then armor would have to actually, y'know...be as protective as the descriptions really advertise.  It's a lot to think about, but that's the only way raiding will ever be "fair" where "fair" means "realistic."

[musashi]

I think a threaten type command would be a much better solution all around.

[Spice Spice Baby]

If an approach system was implemented along the lines of Synthesis' post, I would be down.

Otherwise, I think a threaten command would be a good compromise, but I am not convinced it's necessary.

[HTX]

Ah, I don't think Cerelum's concerns are completely unfounded. An approach code, like many new features, may take a lot of tweaking and testing. But it's still not out of the scope of Arm 2; imms have all the time in the world to tweak and tune Armageddon Reborn to perfection.

I'm not sure if I like the idea of an approach skill though. Or if there is one, it should only increase extremely slowly (getting better at sprinting is not easy, from both a realism and a balance perspective) and have a fairly low cap on how high the skill can increase. Why not just base approaching on stats, not skills?

As for racial benefits, they already exist and I don't see too many people picking races solely because of coded advantages, possibly because each race has its own coded and non-coded quirks, thus people only play a race if they truly desire to RP out said race. Although I did notice a curious increase in dwarfs and half-giants after the defense "nerf"...  

[Delstro]

I hate the idea of an approach code. A threaten code sounds good though.

[jhunter]

I hate the idea of an approach code. A threaten code sounds good though.

[Synthesis]

Any particular reason, or are you just being obstinate?

[AmandaGreathouse]

I dislike what little of 'approach' code I've seen thus far. (on The Inquisition). Imagine the people that already bitch about how long walks are around Tuluk/Allanak/Wilderness/In general. Now divide each room into nine equal parts that you can see into but nevertheless must use 3x the time and movement commands to cross.

And 'that's' why I, myself, am not in favor of an approach code.

[FantasyWriter]

I hate the idea of an approach code. A threaten code sounds good though.

[Delstro]

The approach code sounds like an extra step. Threaten sounds like an additional resource to my playing.

Approach target
Target walks farther away
Approach target
Target walk farther away
Approach target
Target walks farther away
Threaten target
Target attempts to flee and receives an axe in the face from you!

[Majikal]

I didn't read any of the posts, the thread title was enough for me to say I disagree with whatever it's about though.

Can we ban the use of the word Fair?

kthxbai

[jhunter]

Any particular reason, or are you just being obstinate?

Delstro covered my feelings about approach. It would be more of a nuisance and overkill when just adding the ability to "threaten" someone would solve the problem much more simply.

[Gunnerblaster]

Threaten sounds like an additional resource to my playing.

Threaten target
Target attempts to flee and receives an axe in the face from you!

This is wicked.

+1

[staggerlee]

Threaten sounds like an additional resource to my playing.

Threaten target
Target attempts to flee and receives an axe in the face from you!

This is wicked.

+1

You critically fumble and axe yourself in the face!
*BEEP*



...I think that a threaten command that works like guard is a good idea in theory. However I'd rather work on creating an environment that encourages strong rp than try to code away every possible exploit, that's an impossibly uphill battle and not even desirable.

Conceivably "threaten" could be abused as easily as "flee" can. All I need is someone running into the middle of a vast, empty plain with me and hitting "threaten" before I can get away. I can think of numerous cases where this could be stupid.

You can't code away abuse. All you can do is nurture rp.

[spicemustflow]

Possible sequels to this thread: "make backstab fair", "make poisons fair", "make scrabs docile" and "remove any adrenaline from the game". Also, no more climb fails, I hate those.

If you want to make raiding fair, hire a guard.

[janeshephard]

Two sids:

No point in emoting. The NPCs don't emote approaching you and what not. Why should you? Just attack. If you want to emote go ahead but don't expect players to hang out when you show up. Especially if you look threatening and don't speak their language.

[X-D]

Two sids:

No point in emoting. The NPCs don't emote approaching you and what not. Why should you? Just attack. If you want to emote go ahead but don't expect players to hang out when you show up. Especially if you look threatening and don't speak their language.

Actually.....We do expect them to stay around.

I am not going to hunt down all the past raiding threads, so I will just post what most raiders say on the matter.

If I am playing a raider and the PC runs on sight of me, you can expect that the next time I will not give them the chance to run and will be fighting with mercy off.

Or, in other words.

Stay around to play, it will likely increase your PCs chance of survival more then instaflee.

Course, if it is arrows or flying knives coming at you, by all means, run. Ranged attacks can be assumed intent to kill.

[Krath]

Two sids:

No point in emoting. The NPCs don't emote approaching you and what not. Why should you? Just attack. If you want to emote go ahead but don't expect players to hang out when you show up. Especially if you look threatening and don't speak their language.

Actually.....We do expect them to stay around.

I am not going to hunt down all the past raiding threads, so I will just post what most raiders say on the matter.

If I am playing a raider and the PC runs on sight of me, you can expect that the next time I will not give them the chance to run and will be fighting with mercy off.

Or, in other words.

Stay around to play, it will likely increase your PCs chance of survival more then instaflee.

Course, if it is arrows or flying knives coming at you, by all means, run. Ranged attacks can be assumed intent to kill.

I have to agree with X-D on this. When I get raided I try to give the raider the benefit of the doubt.

[janeshephard]

If I got raided I'd just flee or fight.

I really don't see how giving a raider the benefit of the doubt is realistic in game, or even warranted OOC. I'd rather be wtfpwned out of nowhere like a real raid would be then spend half a day emoting being afraid of the man in the evil mask.

[a strange shadow]

If your character has survival instincts, they might try bargaining for their life?

[jhunter]

Two sids:

No point in emoting. The NPCs don't emote approaching you and what not. Why should you? Just attack. If you want to emote go ahead but don't expect players to hang out when you show up. Especially if you look threatening and don't speak their language.

Actually.....We do expect them to stay around.

I am not going to hunt down all the past raiding threads, so I will just post what most raiders say on the matter.

If I am playing a raider and the PC runs on sight of me, you can expect that the next time I will not give them the chance to run and will be fighting with mercy off.

Or, in other words.

Stay around to play, it will likely increase your PCs chance of survival more then instaflee.

Course, if it is arrows or flying knives coming at you, by all means, run. Ranged attacks can be assumed intent to kill.

I have to agree with X-D on this. When I get raided I try to give the raider the benefit of the doubt.

Me three. I'd rather have a fun scene than a spam of code and being forced to kill a potential victim because they don't want to give up anything.

[janeshephard]

If your character has survival instincts, they might try bargaining for their life?

If my character had no choice but lets assume this happens in most places in Zalanthas, your average hood wearing mounted human can just spur his mount on and gtfo pretty quickly.

I suppose if I was paralyzed or some such then yeah it would make sense to bargain with my captors but this whole "approach and threaten" scenario just doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the world. Everything else either runs or attacks, heh.

[jhunter]

So in real life if someone pointed a weapon at your face, you'd realistically turn tail and try to run away from them or attack them?

[Krath]

So in real life if someone pointed a weapon at your face, you'd realistically turn tail and try to run away from them or attack them?

QFT

[X-D]

Well, maybe we have a difference of definition here.

To most players the word "raid" is equal to the word "Mug" Only Raiding is wilderness style mugging. Raid does not mean (normaly) Murder everybody you come across.

NPCs are not raiders, they are either neutral or murderers.

PC raiders usually do not want to kill your PC, Dead PCs cannot be raided again. And though murder is part of the game, it tends to do little to advance any sort of storyline. Being a final solution and all.

Also, Most raiders will not simply run in and attack (Unless you have already proven you will run on sight). So yes, if somebody does just run in and attack, by all means, stand and fight or flee. But waiting a moment to see what the other PC is going to do really changes the odds in favor of your PCs long term survival...it really does.

[Jingo]

I think we're all here to interact and not a game of death tag.

[janeshephard]

So in real life if someone pointed a weapon at your face, you'd realistically turn tail and try to run away from them or attack them?

Yes, and this is going to turn into a monty python script if we keep arguing about it. You would sit and have tea with your assailant? In the middle of the wilderness?

I think we're all here to interact and not a game of death tag.

That's fine but when your interaction is to take stuff from me or possibly kill me I do the same to you.

No. I'm never going to emote much with someone who is clearly out to rob me or kill me. Especially when I can get away or end the conflict very quickly.

(And from what I've heard in game this stuff rarely ends well for either party).

[Krath]

I think You should stop worrying about what you
hear from other people, and have your own experience
and encounter to go off of jane.

[X-D]

Boggles.

So, your PC would rather be dead then lose a few coins or some goods? Things that can be replaced?

Really?

[jhunter]

Boggles.

So, your PC would rather be dead then lose a few coins or some goods? Things that can be replaced?

Really?

[a strange shadow]

No one's saying you need to have tea, but being willing to play out hostile encounters will go a lot further to making your character's story enjoyable than simply spamming flee e n e n e n. I mean, ultimately, you can't win at Armageddon, so you may as well have fun with it.

[musashi]

So in real life if someone pointed a weapon at your face, you'd realistically turn tail and try to run away from them or attack them?

Yes, and this is going to turn into a monty python script if we keep arguing about it. You would sit and have tea with your assailant? In the middle of the wilderness?

I think we're all here to interact and not a game of death tag.

That's fine but when your interaction is to take stuff from me or possibly kill me I do the same to you.

No. I'm never going to emote much with someone who is clearly out to rob me or kill me. Especially when I can get away or end the conflict very quickly.

(And from what I've heard in game this stuff rarely ends well for either party).

I think you're confusing "you" with "your character" and seem to be more worried about winning the game than trying to play a flesh and blood person within its framework. Sorry to say my man, but you're going to be in for some disappointment because the people saying that they would rather RP with you than just wtfpwn you ... have typically been around a really really long time and are likely more than capable of just wtfpwn'ing you even after you try to insta-flee from them.

I think you're destined to go through way more characters and frustration at having your ass kicked abruptly and without the ability to do anything about it ... than the people who stop and RP with someone who seems willing to do the same.

[Krath]

What Musashi said.

[janeshephard]

What Musashi said.

I'm not confusing anything with anyone. What sane person sits on their mount waiting for a raider to make them a deal?

Point in note: how can one always tell the difference between an NPC raider and a PC one? Why don't you start there and maybe you'll have a case for sitting around and emoting.

[jhunter]

What Musashi said.

I'm not confusing anything with anyone. What sane person sits on their mount waiting for a raider to make them a deal?

Point in note: how can one always tell the difference between an NPC raider and a PC one? Why don't you start there and maybe you'll have a case for sitting around and emoting.

The person that doesn't want to get their head chopped off as soon as they make a move. The npc will enter and insta-attack. Then you have no choice but to respond with code. Same as if the pc raider entered and insta-attacked. The difference is that most pc raiders won't enter and insta-attack you and expect to be treated in kind. If I enter a room with you to attempt to rp out a raid scene with you and you resort to code to avoid rp'ing out the scene at all, then I too will resort to code and your pc will end up dead instead of just robbed and you won't even have a good story to tell.

[musashi]

Don't get me wrong, if someone just walks into a room and starts spamming coded actions at you, then get the fuck out of there if you can. Don't worry about emoting. No one would expect you to.

No one is gonna be like: Awww that guy sucks. I walked in and immediately started casting 'mon un doom poop' at him and didn't even bother to throw out a few emotes about reacting to the smell, he just ran east!

But if someone walks in and starts to RP with you, RP'ing back is generally just considered the cool thing to do, and the raiding scenes ... are awesome! I've never been disappointed with being jumped out in the desert when RP was involved.

There was even a time when someone did do the "cheesy" raider thing and be like: GIMMIE EVERYTHING YOU OWN! ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING!!!! I did.

It spawned a very cool mini-story of going around, training, finding friends, and kicking that dude's ass and taking all HIS shit about a RL month later.

[Lizzie]

Like it was said already, Jane: You're not defining "raider" how everyone else is defining it.

NPCs, unless animated by staff, will not raid you. NPCs (or mobs as they're called in MUD-ese) will try to kill you.

Being raided is NOT equal to being killed. Being raided is when some guy says "hands up and kick your boots over there! This is a stickup!" Being raided is NOT some guy showing up and killing you. That is being killed.

Raiders want your stuff. They don't want your life. If you, the player, can't fathom the idea of your character losing their stuff, then don't ever use a clan's locker, don't ever leave the city, don't ever leave your close circle of friends, don't ever rent an apartment. Don't own anything, in fact. Make sure that everything you possess, is someone else's property. I suggest a slave role.

Your characters WILL lose shit, Jane. They'll lose their things, they'll have their apartments robbed and looted, they'll have their lives threatened, they'll have their pockets picked, and they'll have their friends murdered. And, ultimately, they will lose their lives.

Such is the nature of this game. I personally recommend you learn to love it, embrace it, see it from the perspective of a challenge NOT to win, but to participate in.

When you do that, you'll "get" Armageddon. Til then, you just don't get it.

[Jingo]

Slight Derail:

Grovelling to power is probably an even bigger theme in this game than the three word tag-line. Considering the long list of entities that could destroy you (character you) if so wished, this is a very good thing.

Expect to die a lot until you get out of the win or die mentality. Because, on the other hand, if you can't beat 'em, you can always suck ass.

[Gimfalisette]

Grovelling to power is probably an even bigger theme in this game than the three word tag-line. Considering the long list of entities that could destroy you (character you) if so wished, this is a very good thing.

Expect to die a lot until you get out of the win or die mentality. Because, on the other hand, if you can't beat 'em, you can always suck ass.

QFMFT. I don't care what role you are playing, there is groveling involved--from the loftiest templar or noble down to the grubbiest newbie Byn runner. Part of playing smart is, in fact, knowing when and to whom to grovel. All of my most badass PCs have had moments where they have simply had to break down and beg, or make a deal, for their lives.

And I love it, and wouldn't change a thing about it.

[staggerlee]

So in real life if someone pointed a weapon at your face, you'd realistically turn tail and try to run away from them or attack them?

Yes, and this is going to turn into a monty python script if we keep arguing about it. You would sit and have tea with your assailant? In the middle of the wilderness?

I think we're all here to interact and not a game of death tag.

That's fine but when your interaction is to take stuff from me or possibly kill me I do the same to you.

No. I'm never going to emote much with someone who is clearly out to rob me or kill me. Especially when I can get away or end the conflict very quickly.

(And from what I've heard in game this stuff rarely ends well for either party).

You're really only hurting yourself. Tense or frightening situations are where roleplay is the most fun. Roleplay is why we're here, don't forget about it when the game is at it's best!
Wandering the desert, I solo rp like a motherf#&*@r; if I stopped as soon as another pc showed up... well that'd be kind of ass-backwards, wouldn't it?

I think you're suffering from a common misconception about this game: that "rp" means tavern sitting and sipping cocktails while chatting about make believe events, and that it stops when we start hacking things up with swords or running for our lives. Once you can see the game in a more holistic(?) manner it will start to make more sense, and be a lot more fun.

[Gunnerblaster]

I'm not confusing anything with anyone. What sane person sits on their mount waiting for a raider to make them a deal?

Point in note: how can one always tell the difference between an NPC raider and a PC one? Why don't you start there and maybe you'll have a case for sitting around and emoting.

People play for the interaction. So, even if in real life, you'd run - You'd still go through a variety of expressions, fears, thoughts and gestures. So why not let your character express the same emotions?

And, in all honesty, if someone pulled a gun on you in RL and you turned and ran, you'd be dumb and very dead since bullets run much faster then people. In a case where someone pulled a gun on you, it'd be relatively intelligent to just to try talking to them - See what they want. If they open up on you, you never had much chance, anyways.

People who ride up to you in the desert aren't going to say, "Har! I'm a raider!" (if they are, indeed, raiders). If their clever, they'll befriend you long enough just to get you vulnerable - Then they rob/kill you.

And, staggerlee pretty much said anything else I would of thought relevant.

[Rhyden]

I don't really have much to say that hasn't already been said, but it seems like janeshepard is making the slow transition between the h&s mindset and the true quality of rp that only this game encourages. And everyone goes through this phase, believe me. Everyone. There's some older players who don't even shake it, who don't really get that sense of rp.

With that said, do whatever you want to do janeshepard. Emote, don't emote, whatever - all that really matters is you play your character the way you think they should be played. You may find different consequences for different actions you make, and you're going to find that the learning curve around Armageddon is very steep because of it.

Other than that, my only advice is to take things slow and at your own pace, and stop every once in a while to smell the roses.

[Malken]

I don't really have much to say that hasn't already been said, but it seems like janeshepard is making the slow transition between the h&s mindset and the true quality of rp that only this game encourages. And everyone goes through this phase, believe me. Everyone. There's some older players who don't even shake it, who don't really get that sense of rp.

I'm still at that stage, 15 years later!

I'm almost there, I swear!

I wrote my first "think" like, two weeks ago.. Sure, I threw up after for like an hour, but that was worth it.

[KankWhisperer]

Yes, and this is going to turn into a monty python script if we keep arguing about it. You would sit and have tea with your assailant? In the middle of the wilderness?

I would. Riding up to someone who may be a raider and chatting with them or acting as if they are of no danger breaks their spirit. They wonder why is this guy/girl not scared of me. They just kind of look at you and you can ride off or they may get distance to shoot at you. Whatever.

[valeria]

You would sit and have tea with your assailant? In the middle of the wilderness?

Probably not tea.  Maybe a glass of wine 

[musashi]

Yeah, carry no weapons and wear no armor ... just a bunch of trinket like crap ... and offer the raider some ginka fruit.

Go on to talk about how the reason ginka fruit is so sweet is because the ginka makes its fruit by killing and eating other creatures ... so in a way, it tastes so good because you're eating what was once the life essence of another living soul.

That will probably scare most raiders enough to get the fuck away from you 

[staggerlee]

You would sit and have tea with your assailant? In the middle of the wilderness?

Probably not tea.  Maybe a glass of wine 

Don't write anything off as absurd too quickly!  Perhaps your assailant is a very intelligent and sophisticated man:


^{But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.}

[musashi]

Truely you have a dizzing intellect.

[valeria]

Don't write anything off as absurd inconceivable too quickly!  Perhaps your assailant is a very intelligent and sophisticated man:

Fixed!

[path]

The title of this post had us in stitches.

Well done.

[Thistle]

I'm locking this. The horse has been beaten and I don't want to see this turn into a flame war.