Brawl Code (Split from RAT)

[Desertman]

An opportunity to say, "oh yeah? Let's step outside, Buddy."

This is fundamentally the same thing as telling them to get off their "Safe Zone" stool. They can choose not to.

[Barzalene]

K. Just a thought.

[Saellyn]

That would be a stupid idea because then some asshole could stand outsdie the gaj hurling knives into it and not get crimcoded.


Right?

[racurtne]

What I think D-man wants is to turn the low-class taverns into the...



https://youtu.be/yK0P1Bk8Cx4

A way to inflict some sort of coded violence on unwilling participants would be interesting. I don't really know of a good way to do that without it being prone to abuse AND avoid messing with the crim-code, though.

Modifying the brawl code seems like the easiest way, and I wouldn't be opposed to it.

[Inks]

I'd be up for Dman's idea. The post above mine makes me wish there was a damn like button.

I think the crimcode outside taverns is there for a reason, just saying.

[Desertman]

Thanks. Just to clarify, I also do not want people running into taverns randomly attacking people because they can do more damage to them now for no reason.

I only want a system where when two people have a dispute, or one person decides for good IC reasons to pick on someone else in this harsh world...both sides take it seriously because it is a more serious event.

I have seen so many times where people just keep talking a mean game because they know they are on their "Safe Zone" stool and can't be forced to stand. The only reason they aren't shutting up, is because codedly they know they have a "Stool Forcefield".

I have seen so many times where people get the crap beat out of them, to the point that they can't continue with the current code, and roleplay the entire time they aren't really hurt at all because codedly...they aren't. They are a tough hardass to the end and beyond because they know they are codedly not being damaged in any meaningful way.

I have seen so many times where people use the brawling code as a fun pastime instead of treating it like an actual bareknuckle fight because codedly they know it won't actually hurt them in any meaningful way. This one can probably also be contributed to the somewhat comical and goofy forced emotes you get from the brawl code, so people don't take it seriously.

I just want to put a stop to that.

If people do abuse a more harmful brawling code system repeatedly in some way...of course I would also want it fixed/toned down/taken care of.

I don't want a way to abuse people or their characters. I just want a system where the rough and tumble nature of the rough and tumble taverns are taken much more seriously than they currently are.

Right now it's a joke and is often used as exactly that. A joking laughing little pillow fight scenario, more or less.

[Inks]

Hear hear.

I hate people not being able to wail on dickheads who talk so much shit even though they aren't clanned. It happens in RL dodgy bars why not in Zalanthas which is infinitely more dangerous. People get shot and stabbed in bars on Earth, why not make brawl code slightly more robust?

[Barzalene]

Sigh. Got it. I guess I'm an optimist with a high opinion of you people. Newbies may not know better, but I kind of trust all of you not to do all those things.

[Barzalene]

I'm not arguing. Just explain it myself.

[Delirium]

The echoes should be adjusted, IMO. Hitting someone in the head with a mug is, while funny the first time, eye-roll-inducing the fifth and sixth.

[Desertman]

The echoes should be adjusted, IMO. Hitting someone in the head with a mug is, while funny the first time, eye-roll-inducing the fifth and sixth.

+1

[X-D]

There is the other side of the coin as well, mouthy people who only want to brawl because they know that A: The brawl code is as smart as a brain dead ant and does not take much into account...Like race or size for instance.
B: Win or lose, nothing is actually going to happen to them.

I am not sure which of those is more important, But I have seen plenty the breed, elf, etc pick a brawl fight with a Mul or HG  Or  Really old krathi,  Things they could never actually beat in a real fight, simply because they know that brawl code is so dumb it would allow a breed to pick up a HG...And even if they lose, so what?

I long ago stopped brawling with any of my PCs, simply because the code itself is too simplistic.

Now, You want to make me happy, Get rid of the "brawl code" Make it so "hit" ONLY works if unarmed, Make it real combat though with automatic mercy at 50% HP, and still allow KO.

You can even make it so that it still only works in the same places current brawl code does.

I bet you that then you would see FAR fewer stupid fights.

People would not be able to RP not being messed up if they really were, and if they did it would then be complaint worthy.

But long as we have brawl code even somewhat like it is now then I am quite happy with the stool forcefield.

Lastly, I would also make it so that  most damage spells still count as unarmed as long as the gemmer did not start the brawl.

So Amos got hit by a fireball, Well, Amos should have known better then to punch a mage.

[Desertman]

Now, You want to make me happy, Get rid of the "brawl code" Make it so "hit" ONLY works if unarmed, Make it real combat though with automatic mercy at 50% HP, and still allow KO.

You can even make it so that it still only works in the same places current brawl code does.

I bet you that then you would see FAR fewer stupid fights.

People would not be able to RP not being messed up if they really were, and if they did it would then be complaint worthy.

100% + over 9,000

But long as we have brawl code even somewhat like it is now then I am quite happy with the stool forcefield.

This is probably the only good reason I have seen for people who refuse to stand up. They simply don't want to be part of the goofy code.

Lastly, I would also make it so that  most damage spells still count as unarmed as long as the gemmer did not start the brawl.

So Amos got hit by a fireball, Well, Amos should have known better then to punch a mage.

This is the only part I do not agree with. But I am also a backer of the idea that gemmers should stay out of rough and tumble taverns with commoners to begin with in the first place. But, I will agree to disagree on that front since I do not want to derail the thread.

[Armaddict]

"Working as intended" was meant as it functions the way the state of the game is wanted to be.  Still no outright assault in taverns.

I used other examples, but this is the important one that I want an answer to.

So you walk into a bar.  You had a bad day.  There's a mouthy breed at the bar.  You decide you want to fuck him up, you start to initiate the brawl, and he pulls a weapon and says he will defend himself if assaulted.  How is this handled?  With current brawl code, crimcode is already left out, automatically, because of that unspoken agreement.  However, once you assert that you can do it to anyone, even the unwilling, that agreement is no longer a given, which means you're hitting the grey area of criminality.

The way it's talked about, you still talk about it as if you want this mutual agreement of non-harm.  Which is how it is.  However, as I stated earlier, if someone comes at me for a fist fight, and I have weapons and do not want to fight, yes, I will warn that I will defend myself as necessary.  In this case, does the brawl elevate to crimcode status if the brawler attempts to continue?  Who does it go against?  "I just wanted to fuck him up.  That fucker wouldn't agree to let me fuck him up, and pulled a weapon."  Does brawl code no longer work, i.e. do we trade a stool forcefield for a drawn weapon forcefield?  Does this cause people to freak out more because now people are completely willing to draw a weapon at the slightest hint of aggression?  In essence, this line of argument for the change says that the fulfillment of the ideal it promotes is:  Player A starts brawling.  Player B is unwilling, and draws a weapon to defend himself.  Player A draws weapons, <and you want player B to be crimflagged for elevating it beyond, even though it was self defense, because the ideal is that they learn their lesson in this rough tavern where violence is acceptable>.  This...is not a good platform.  Of course, that's just following the premise presented for the 'reason' it should change.

This is one of many scenarios that drastically changes what impacts are made by this suggestion.  These are places where coded 'overflow' will filter into other parts of the game, and how the game world is affected.  -I'm- saying the fulfillment of the brawl code has already been reached, and you're saying that the behavior around crimcode that's been prevalent for all sixteen years of my play needs a circumvention to allow you to assert dominance over someone who, in the end...is -talking shit-.  For me, this has never been an issue, but apparently this assertion of dominance is much more important to some, which means IC talk is crawling under people's skin on what is, in my mind, an OOC level.  IC...people know there's shit talking, but that open violence in response is not accepted (unless you can devise a way to get away with it).  That's why the payoffs of soldiers, of templars, of other people, has been so dominant.

[Desertman]

"Working as intended" was meant as it functions the way the state of the game is wanted to be.  Still no outright assault in taverns.

I used other examples, but this is the important one that I want an answer to.

So you walk into a bar.  You had a bad day.  There's a mouthy breed at the bar.  You decide you want to fuck him up, you start to initiate the brawl, and he pulls a weapon and says he will defend himself if assaulted.  How is this handled?  With current brawl code, crimcode is already left out, automatically, because of that unspoken agreement.  However, once you assert that you can do it to anyone, even the unwilling, that agreement is no longer a given, which means you're hitting the grey area of criminality.

He is too well armed! Arm yourself if you want to fight!

(easy fix is easy)

I have personally drawn weapons in game before to prevent people from brawling me with the current code. They always stopped brawling me. *shrug*

Seems like a non-issue.

[X-D]

Yes well, not like they have anyplace else to go.

And really, one would not be picking fight with mages...It goes right along with one of my two biggest complaints to brawl code. That being, no consequence.

Course, I'd be happy if you simply cannot codedly start a brawl with a gemmed mage.

Have it give an echo like if a non-HG tries to subdue a resisting HG.

I do not remember it exactly, but the echo you get is something like "Don't be silly, that is a half-giant."

Just be an echo like "The bartender stops you and says, "Are you an idiot, I don't want my place blown up!"

I mean, it stands to reason that Vennet Might not mind some broken mugs and blood on the floor, But something blowing the roof off his place might be a bit annoying.

[Saellyn]

Challenge that piece of shit to an arena fight and settle it like a real man. If he's too much of pansy to fight you in the arena, slander the shit out of him.

If you have to, bribe a Templar to -throw- him into the arena with you.

[Desertman]

Just be an echo like "The bartender stops you and says, "Are you an idiot, I don't want my place blown up!"

I mean, it stands to reason that Vennet Might not mind some broken mugs and blood on the floor, But something blowing the roof off his place might be a bit annoying.

Vennant might not want someone in his tavern that could blow it up to begin with.....

But, it is really an OOC issue. IC'ly, of course nobody would want them in The Gaj. That is a given. The problem is it would OOC'ly make playing them a huge pain in the ass....so we look past it.

I am biased as well because I do not play magickers, so the isolation issues would never affect me OOC'ly and I realize and admit that.

[valeria]

I would like it a lot more if you could just command emote your brawls, while still letting the code handle whether it goes through. And with some guidelines and examples in the helpfile.

[Desertman]

I would like it a lot more if you could just command emote your brawls, while still letting the code handle whether it goes through. And with some guidelines and examples in the helpfile.

I like this too.

[Armaddict]

He is too well armed! Arm yourself if you want to fight!

(easy fix is easy)

I have personally drawn weapons in game before to prevent people from brawling me with the current code. They always stopped brawling me. *shrug*

Seems like a non-issue.

The easier answer is "Yes.  I want to trade a stool forcefield for a weapon forcefield." By your wording...in which case...I'm not certain what the change accomplishes in the first place.

[Desertman]

He is too well armed! Arm yourself if you want to fight!

(easy fix is easy)

I have personally drawn weapons in game before to prevent people from brawling me with the current code. They always stopped brawling me. *shrug*

Seems like a non-issue.

The easier answer is "Yes.  I want to trade a stool forcefield for a weapon forcefield." By your wording...in which case...I'm not certain what the change accomplishes in the first place.

One makes perfect sense and the other is goofy.

"I refuse to stand so a fight can't happen in this tavern." is a lot different from, "I'm drawing an edge, you best step off or draw one yourself!".

If you don't see the fundamental difference for the scene, then I lack the ability to explain it any further.

[Armaddict]

Of course I see the 'fundamental difference', but I also see all the overlap and the demand for time spent here rather than elsewhere for what is, in effect, the entire thing that I've been talking about:  The result is the same, the benefit is pretty much nil, and the 'atmosphere' remains the same...the only difference is in one case, you let it go one step further.  In terms of what the argumentation to this point has been, it even...demeans what has been discussed as the boon.  "I wasn't willing to take it to blades." vs "Pussy wouldn't agree to a fight."

In the end, it comes down to players accepting that brawl code requires willing participants.  This was a main point in wanting the change, and so I discussed it, and now you're accusing me of not seeing a difference.

Edited to add:  I'm okay with this additional step.  However, I'm not going to be one who pushes for it without verification that it's not a pain in the ass.  Coding is weird, and sometimes  things that look simple are actually kind of a bitch due to how it's integrated.  I can't say, since I don't know Armageddon's code, and I'd rather not push for something that is, in the end, a minimal contributor to anything 'real', when we have plenty of 'real' things we'd rather see.

[Desertman]

The result is the same, the benefit is pretty much nil, and the 'atmosphere' remains the same...the only difference is in one case, you let it go one step further.

I can think of four times I have drawn blades to stop a brawl. All four times it ended up with me fighting them on the sand after a challenge. One time it ended with me using their body as pillow with Gage Gritshaw. (Which was hilarious.)

Another time it resulted with me killing them with a bow with Jaster Sandeye. (Sorry dude I killed. I wasn't going to fight fair no matter what you did.)

Another time with Jaxon I fought them but only after seeing them using spice in the distance to try and "cheat". It was a close fight. We went on to become good friends after.

The other time is too recent to mention.

The result is far from the same.

I can't remember the number of times I have seen, "Refuse to standers", and it never resulted in anything awesome. Just a painful to watch awkward unrealistic scene.

The result is not the same. At least, it has never been for me a single time.

In terms of what the argumentation to this point has been, it even...demeans what has been discussed as the boon.  "I wasn't willing to take it to blades." vs "Pussy wouldn't agree to a fight."

See above for details.

In the end, it comes down to players accepting that brawl code requires willing participants.  This was a main point in wanting the change, and so I discussed it, and now you're accusing me of not seeing a difference.

I didn't say you didn't see the difference. I said -if- you didn't, since I didn't see why you would bring it up if you did. But now I see what your reasoning was.

I'm not accusing you of being a dumb dumb. I just meant I didn't know how to explain the basics of that scenario.

[Armaddict]

I can think of four times I have drawn blades to stop a brawl. All four times it ended up with me fighting them on the sand after a challenge. One time it ended with me using their body as pillow with Gage Gritshaw. (Which was hilarious.)

The result is far from the same.

I can't remember the number of times I have seen, "Refuse to standers", and it never resulted in anything awesome. Just a painful to watch awkward unrealistic scene.

The difference is that in those cases, those blades were drawn as an invitation for escalation, not merely to prevent the brawling.  If the forcefield is changed, so will the occurrence of drawn weapons...only with the effect of 'No, I'm not challenging you, but I'm going to sit in my seat, dammit.'  Because that's where we'd pushed it to.

I'd argue that the refuse to stander is indeed awkward and unrealistic...but it's just as much the fault of the instigator for making the assumption that if they stood up and used hit, the other guy would just hop up and agree to do it, because that's what -they- want to happen.  Again...the point I'm trying to make is that brawl code is a pretty simple bit of code, not meant to allow doling of justice in a rough bar, but to allow non-lethal combat between willing people.  Changing the willing part results in complications, including the change in non-lethal, which the results are more evident and clear.

The acknowledgement of the playerbase that they can try to brawl, but may be turned down, is very needed.  I'd suggest, instead:

say (jerking to his feet after %breed statement) You wanna fucking go?!

If (breed stands and/or attempts brawl)
   brawl
else
  emote surges forward angrily, but is stopped by passersby/friends/an off-duty soldier.
  say (scowling) Fucking lucky, you little twat.  Talk all you want, but you aren't willing to back it up.

In other words, instead of treating it like a given, test the water for the scene progression, rather than trying to yank the reins.