What kind of plots do you prefer?

[MeTekillot]

The thing is, in real life, beating someone down promotes a primal responseof taking the fight out of themthat isn't easily expressed in game, so murder ends up being the solution y

[James de Monet]

Yeah. Pain and shame are huge motivators of human behavior IRL that just aren't as effective in game because characters only ever feel them to a rational extent (if that much), not to the irrational extent that humans often feel, and quickly learn to run away from.

If pain and shame worked better IG, you wouldn't see so many plots having to go all the way to murder for someone to 'win'.

If a powerful character can't get the last word without killing someone, guess what? Someone is going to die.

[CodeMaster]

"The only reliable coded punishment one PC can inflict upon another is the mother of all punishments (murder)."  This might actually be true, or close to it, and I think more problems are caused by it than meet the eye (I have been thinking a bit about nuanced reactions in Armageddon lately):

There is this game theoretic paradox that has been studied (I forget the context, economics or sociology probably) that basically goes like this: if you raise the punishment for crime X too high, you can actually increase the rate at which crime Y is committed.

The common example is this: imposing the death penalty for robbing a bank can raise murder rates.  Why?  If you're robbing a bank, you know you're fully boned if you're caught, so you can see that shooting a hostage is going to have a negligible effect on your punishment -- especially if shooting the hostage increases your chances of escape.

The Armageddon examples: imposing the death penalty for being a known pickpocket is going to raise the rate at which pickpockets steal without emoting.   Imposing the death penalty for quietly rebelling from clan X is going to raise the rate at which clan X's storage room is robbed and its NPC guard killed.  And so on, and so forth.

If you accept this perspective, there seems to be some extra hidden value in adding other coded punishments to PC's toolboxes (i.e. beyond just giving players more to do to each other).  It would lead to less of the aforementioned warped, counterintuitive behavior.

For instance, it would be cool if you could 'injure' PCs instead of killing them: set their max HP to 10 and their strength to very poor (i.e., something completely debilitating that completely rules out bouncing back to life and seeking out PK revenge).  Have it last for an in-game month.

[BadSkeelz]

"The only reliable coded punishment one PC can inflict upon another is the mother of all punishments (murder)."  This might actually be true, or close to it, and I think more problems are caused by it than meet the eye (I have been thinking a bit about nuanced reactions in Armageddon lately):

There is this game theoretic paradox that has been studied (I forget the context, economics or sociology probably) that basically goes like this: if you raise the punishment for crime X too high, you can actually increase the rate at which crime Y is committed.

The common example is this: imposing the death penalty for robbing a bank can raise murder rates.  Why?  If you're robbing a bank, you know you're fully boned if you're caught, so you can see that shooting a hostage is going to have a negligible effect on your punishment -- especially if shooting the hostage increases your chances of escape.

The first Imperial dynasty of China (the Qin) was brought down because of this in less than 15 years: so many people were condemned to death for relatively minor crimes they decided to just up and revolt.

The problem is there are a bit too many ungrateful twinks out there who will swear bloody revenge on you and maxgrind backstab and not just be glad they weren't executed out of hand. I'm not saying there's a lot of players like that (I suspect it's only a handful), but it's enough to create a negative feedback loop between the Enforcers (Templars and soldiers) and the criminals. Better to kill anyone who's warranted execution than spare them, because most of the time sparing gets you nothing positive in return. This encourages Enforcers to be more and more lethal to those they encounter. Conversely, if an Enforcer comes in who's just murderous from the word "go," everyone else is going to do their best to remove him (or just avoid the character).

That's the problem painted in broadest strokes that I've seen.

Generally, if your character ever finds themselves thinking "I really should kill this idiot," they probably should.

[CodeMaster]

Interesting, I appreciate the pointer re: the Qin Dynasty.  I'll goaltend my post a little...

The problem is there are a bit too many ungrateful twinks out there who will swear bloody revenge on you and maxgrind backstab and not just be glad they weren't executed out of hand.

If they were really that bad, they'd probably just roll a dwarf and contrive a focus to put them in direct conflict with you.  Maybe the real issue is that this person now has an IC reason to play the PK game with you.  And to quote you from another thread:

Mmm, all those so-easy-to-excuse PKs though....

I realize this comment was made in jest, but it still baffles me how some people actually care to notch their belts with PKs in a game like Arm...

Better to kill anyone who's warranted execution than spare them, because most of the time sparing gets you nothing positive in return. This encourages Enforcers to be more and more lethal to those they encounter. Conversely, if an Enforcer comes in who's just murderous from the word "go," everyone else is going to do their best to remove him (or just avoid the character).

I think this: "most of the time sparing gets you nothing positive in return" is an unfortunate OOC reality, presumably not an IC one.

But I would argue that one thing you would get in return if you were able to injure them for an IG month (or even a year) is that you'd get to see them suffer.  Moreover, it also gives you a grace period during which you can monitor their behavior (hey a plot device) and easily kill them if they hint that they aren't grateful.

Edit: also good luck training backstab with 10 hp.

[BadSkeelz]

If they were really that bad, they'd probably just roll a dwarf and contrive a focus to put them in direct conflict with you

I believe it happens. Most people aren't that stupid though, since something like that's going to catch staff attention. What I see more of is 1) Amos does something that would warrant his execution, 2) Templar Malik spares their life [or maybe lets them off with a non-crippling injury] in exchange for future service which leads to either 3a) Amos fucks off and pays no attention to the favor they owe Malik or 3b) Amos swears bloody vengeance on Malik for the grave "insult" of being punished for their own action. That's the worse case scenario.

I realize this comment was made in jest, but it still baffles me how some people actually care to notch their belts with PKs in a game like Arm...

If I actually followed my own advice I'd have twice the PK reports and half of the problems I do.

But I would argue that one thing you would get in return if you were able to injure them for an IG month (or even a year) is that you'd get to see them suffer. Wink  Moreover, it also gives you a grace period during which you can monitor their behavior (hey a plot device) and easily kill them if they hint that they aren't grateful.

Most cases someone this Ungrateful will drop out of sight until they think they've amassed enough power to get revenge.

[CodeMaster]

Most cases someone this Ungrateful will drop out of sight until they think they've amassed enough power to get revenge.

This is definitely the risk and something I didn't give enough thought to.

I like that you brought up the example of a templar, though.  In some sense templars are ideal candidates for some kind of finite-time 'injury' or 'curse' spell:

• Letting Amos live poses virtually no risk since templars are so codedly powerful;
• as per my original reasoning, adding some nuance to the coded punishments might lead to less paradoxical all-or-nothing behavior from Amos;
• and, the templar killing Amos would generate far less plotcontent than letting him live...

the last point being what this thread is all about.

[Talia]

My inner cynic is saying right now that if PCs were injured in this manner but not killed, the results would go like this:

-- First, player of injured PC files player complaint, staff must respond
-- Second, player of injured PC sends in a bunch of questions/reports asking "how am I supposed to play like this ugh this suck so much," staff must respond
-- Third, player of injured PC sends in a storage request after giving the situation a maximum of 3 RL days of play, staff must handle

I mean, if the player is not going to roleplay appropriately, it doesn't matter whether there's a coded effect or not. A player who knows how to roleplay will say, "Wow, that very powerful PC let me live, I think I'll back off," and then roleplay the injury out without need for code. A player who doesn't will do the above.

[wizturbo]

I like that you brought up the example of a templar, though.  In some sense templars are ideal candidates for some kind of finite-time 'injury' or 'curse' spell:

Love the idea of being able to codedly injure or curse someone.  Like, if someone is beaten unconscious or otherwise helpless you could Injure <target> them, which applies a stat/skill/something penalty that lasts for X in-game time.  Should be fairly long (RL days/weeks).  Physicians might be able to lessen that time.  Magick users might be able to repair it completely with a wiggle of their finger...

Could generate some cool stuff.

[Armaddict]

My inner cynic is saying right now that if PCs were injured in this manner but not killed, the results would go like this:

-- First, player of injured PC files player complaint, staff must respond
-- Second, player of injured PC sends in a bunch of questions/reports asking "how am I supposed to play like this ugh this suck so much," staff must respond
-- Third, player of injured PC sends in a storage request after giving the situation a maximum of 3 RL days of play, staff must handle

I mean, if the player is not going to roleplay appropriately, it doesn't matter whether there's a coded effect or not. A player who knows how to roleplay will say, "Wow, that very powerful PC let me live, I think I'll back off," and then roleplay the injury out without need for code. A player who doesn't will do the above.

To be honest, I don't think you're far off.

[Zoan]

Ever since I was abducted by a sorceror during a staff plot, I've loved magick stuff.

[wizturbo]

My inner cynic is saying right now that if PCs were injured in this manner but not killed, the results would go like this:

-- First, player of injured PC files player complaint, staff must respond
-- Second, player of injured PC sends in a bunch of questions/reports asking "how am I supposed to play like this ugh this suck so much," staff must respond
-- Third, player of injured PC sends in a storage request after giving the situation a maximum of 3 RL days of play, staff must handle

I mean, if the player is not going to roleplay appropriately, it doesn't matter whether there's a coded effect or not. A player who knows how to roleplay will say, "Wow, that very powerful PC let me live, I think I'll back off," and then roleplay the injury out without need for code. A player who doesn't will do the above.

I think the best way to handle this is create IC ways to address it.  Want to fix that shattered hand?  Well, go find a physician and pay them to help improve it...or cross over to the dark side and find a Vivaduan who might completely repair it...but you may not like their "price"...

[BadSkeelz]

Talia's point is that if someone isn't going to appropriately RP being let off the hook, they're probably not going to put the RP in to react to a crippling injury either. It's an attitude problem on the part of the players.

I think we might be getting a bit off track and over-exaggerating this problem, though. While I've yet to encounter a problem that can't be solved by murder (especially the problems of corruption and betrayal), the vast majority of plots get to trundle along past the point of it being apparent to us the players that someone needs to die.

[Talia]

I like any plot that doesn't end with: "And then Amos died to a scrab."

[Saellyn]

I like plots where Amos dies to a scrab because someone hurled him into the jaws of one after he failed to complete the mission that would change the fate of the Known World.

[BadSkeelz]

I laughed my ass off at a "plot" that ended with Amos dying to a scrab.

[Tetra]

I like the idea of an injure code, but not the notion that only PCs with authority would be able to use it.  What about hostage situations, where you need to bloody someone to a pulp but keep them alive for an exchange?  How about interrogations, where you have to find an answer without resorting to killing?  A crippling injury from a bahamet while out hunting(all of these things already happen without code, this would simply make it more concrete in the world)?  That could lead to some interesting outcomes.

If a code is implemented that enables so basic a concept as broken bones/fractures/physical & emotional trauma that drops ones stats negatively, it should be applied to the average PC in various circumstances.

[flurry]

I like any plot that doesn't end with: "And then Amos died to a scrab."

In fairness, that's the only way for the scrab to know that Amos won't come seeking revenge.

[wizturbo]

I like the idea of an injure code, but not the notion that only PCs with authority would be able to use it.  What about hostage situations, where you need to bloody someone to a pulp but keep them alive for an exchange?  How about interrogations, where you have to find an answer without resorting to killing(all of these things already happen without code)?  That could lead to some interesting outcomes.

If a code is implemented that enables so basic a concept as broken bones/fractures/physical & emotional trauma, it should be available to the average PC.

I'm fine with anyone being able to use to use the injure code, with the usual caveat that anyone who abuses it will lose it.  Just lack desert quit, or frankly any other thing in game.

I was hoping a 'curse' code could also piggy back with injuries, and that obviously should be restricted those who would be able to curse.  Maybe that's southron templars, maybe some magick users...etc.

[Talia]

I like any plot that doesn't end with: "And then Amos died to a scrab."

In fairness, that's the only way for the scrab to know that Amos won't come seeking revenge.

[Tetra]

I like the idea of an injure code, but not the notion that only PCs with authority would be able to use it.  What about hostage situations, where you need to bloody someone to a pulp but keep them alive for an exchange?  How about interrogations, where you have to find an answer without resorting to killing(all of these things already happen without code)?  That could lead to some interesting outcomes.

If a code is implemented that enables so basic a concept as broken bones/fractures/physical & emotional trauma, it should be available to the average PC.

I'm fine with anyone being able to use to use the injure code, with the usual caveat that anyone who abuses it will lose it.  Just lack desert quit, or frankly any other thing in game.

I was hoping a 'curse' code could also piggy back with injuries, and that obviously should be restricted those who would be able to curse.  Maybe that's southron templars, maybe some magick users...etc.

Hypothetically speaking, I see such an injury system being piecemeal with the combat system.  

For example, Amos gets his leg bitten by a scrab while he is under 30 HP(using an algorithm that measures at a certain % of a PCs health to determine when injury can proc, the lower it falls increasing that proc rate).  Based on an endurance roll, there would be a chance for a hit to agility, or even flee perhaps -- to reflect the injury, with a slight decrease in maximum health.

The idea of injure being a button-press method of punishing ICly will absolutely be abused, even if you enforce consequences.

Edit: I also see this discouraging twinkery when it comes to sparring and other activities like hunting, making people behave more mindfully. 

[wizturbo]

The idea of injure being a button-press method of punishing ICly will absolutely be abused, even if you enforce consequences.

My original suggestion was it is only available if a PC is completely incapacitated.  A situation where the choice is Kill <character> or Injure <character>, both being equally available.  I don't see how that would be 'abused'...you opt to hurt the character instead of murder them...  No abuse there.

I hate the idea of the code randomly doling out injuries from loss of HP.  There are many ways to lose HP, some of which are prone to causing lasting injuries, some aren't.  Having to code those nuisances would be a nightmare.

[RogueGunslinger]

I like any plot that doesn't end with: "And then Amos died to a scrab."

In fairness, that's the only way for the scrab to know that Amos won't come seeking revenge.

LAWL. That got a good chuckle out of me.

[CodeMaster]

My inner cynic is saying right now that if PCs were injured in this manner but not killed, the results would go like this:

-- First, player of injured PC files player complaint, staff must respond
-- Second, player of injured PC sends in a bunch of questions/reports asking "how am I supposed to play like this ugh this suck so much," staff must respond
-- Third, player of injured PC sends in a storage request after giving the situation a maximum of 3 RL days of play, staff must handle

I mean, if the player is not going to roleplay appropriately, it doesn't matter whether there's a coded effect or not. A player who knows how to roleplay will say, "Wow, that very powerful PC let me live, I think I'll back off," and then roleplay the injury out without need for code. A player who doesn't will do the above.

I sympathize with the staff effort.  Also, I mostly meant the injury command as a kind of simple example off the cuff, not something I intended on defending and derailing the thread with.  Sorry everyone.

Talia, your last paragraph caught my eye though.  I don't mean to bastardize your comment, but you could say the same thing about the "hide" and "sneak" skills.  It's to Armageddon's great credit that there is strong RP reinforced by a coded backbone to act as a neutral, cold-hearted, third-party arbiter.

[Eyeball]

1. Get "injured".

2. Think OOCly, "well, do I want to roleplay out a RL month of moaning as a gimped character"?

3. Either store or pretty much log off for a month if I like the character enough.

Might as well just kill him.