Brawl Code (Split from RAT)

[Barzalene]

I  disagree with you Armaddict. I disagree with you in spite of you're being one of my favorite players. (Still remember some of your PCs from years and years ago.) I don't think you are soft or a baby or wrong to have another opinion.

Where I disagree with you is that i n the seedier places some risk seems appreciate.

[Down Under]

I'll be more careful...

You'll be dead!

[Armaddict]

Where I disagree with you is that i n the seedier places some risk seems appreciate.

I think you're probably on a phone and that means appropriate.  I hate GDBing from phones.

However.  This is the issue that I've been speaking of.  This isn't about -generating- risk, it's about -removing- risk.  This is removing risk from people who have far worse intentions.  You're saying 'There should be risk to mouthing off to someone at the bar.'  I'm saying 'There should be risk to taking that mouthing off, and escalating it to outright assault.'  This is about people wanting a way to circumvent criminal code to punish people for what will, in the end, be very minor things.  This will take those places that are already described as seedy, already have the atmosphere of seedy, already have the option for physical violence for people who are bored together and want to do it, and make it so that despite it being what is usually the -prime- social scene anyway, and the -only- one for certain races and classes, it can now be removed as an option for play by anyone who feels like it.

You guys have a genuine trust in other players to do it right.  You feel the player complaint tool is going to make it all better.  I, however, see past experiences, past mentalities -of my own-, and -current use (attempted and succeeded)of brawl code as is-, as a painfully red warning flag that this will result in one player's boredom resulting in willy nilly removal of another's roleplay.  They will not pick fights with NPC's of those same types.  They won't acknowledge vnpc population.  They will straight up decide that every time they see this PC there, because they said this thing, and because they are not a combat-oriented character, they will be knocked out every time they enter.

You can call that 'real to the game world', but in the end it comes down to player-centered circumvention of the criminal code that -every other person- is subject to in -every other place-.  If you can't knock a person out in an alleyway if a soldier patrols by, WHY should you be able to do it in the middle of a bar?  If you can't get into fistfights out in -front- of the building, why should you be able to -inside- of the building?  By taking that uniformity and putting an exception in, that exception will be utilized in the worst of possible ways.  Now I've already acceded that the 'stool forcefield' could be changed to at least where if one party draws their weapons to defend themselves, the brawl ceases.  That at least allows you to steal stools, but it doesn't change the fact that willing combatants are a present -need- for the code to be accurate, well-identified in purpose and use, and well-weighted with the rest of the existing game world.  However, going past that is a serious coded risk, with far lesser benefit than people are trying to make it sound.  In the end, it basically lets a Byn Sergeant run the seedy bar of each city.  That's...such a huge boon, right?

Edited to add:

Besides, in the case of the Gaj...you keep trying to make it sound like it's a fight club in there.  It's literally the commoner's waterhole of most of the city.  If you really think that every commoner who goes in makes a conscious contract that they might get their ass kicked by getting an ale and looking wrong at someone, I think you've got it wrong.  That's because that contract doesn't exist...unlike the unwritten agreement of the brawl code.

I think if you go back through my post history, you'll have a very hard time finding posts where I'm against conflict, against killing PC's, or against violence.  I want more of it.  But this isn't codedly -allowed-, this is codedly -protected-.  This isn't 'fights happen', this is 'commoner arena'.

And on a further note...I'm against this mentality, that for there to be more accurate portrayal we need to remove risk from the instigator.  Or that violence needs 'safe havens'.  When I played combat heavy characters, I attacked people in the Gaj and got my ass dragged to jail often, but apparently that's just...too severe for the combat badasses of today.  HOWEVER...it has also just occurred to me that if this change were made in favor of what you're proposing, but you -still- put in that bit about the 'drawn weapons forcefield'...there's not as much to complain about.  Though as was discussed on page 3 or whatever, that essentially means the new code doesn't change a thing.  Except for juggling barstools.


EDITED AGAIN TO ADD:
Story time!
I once had a dwarven bynner who got on bad terms with an elf.  Brawl code wasn't in place, so I couldn't do anything about the verbal argument.  Some instance happened where I was at the gates of the city, that elf approached and got all mouthy again, and I turned to leave...but he'd planted spice on me.  Guards grab me, I'm all struggling and swearing vengeance.  On the way to the jail, I break free long enough to drop my weapon on the side street before they resubdued me.  I did my time.  I came out.  I got my weapon.  I marched right into the Gaj and knocked that neck right the fuck out.  I went to jail again, got a minor fine by a templar this time, got my weapons back, and went on my way.  And that necker didn't talk to me again.   Soooo...if it's IC for your character to do it, why wouldn't you do it like this, as is?  As I said...this is about people wanting to be protected by code, it's not about making things more real.  The means to achieve the ends talked about are already in place.

[Barzalene]

I definitely get what you're saying. Your way, we give up some adrenaline rush. My way the seedy bar less accessible to a lot of PCs.

I don't think its right or wrong, but this or that.

[Saellyn]

Oh please.  The code in this case is not implemented for the purpose you want, you want it retooled, but utterly confuse 'bad things happening to my character' with 'players in this game abuse things'.

I have pointed out, time and time again, that the ENTIRE REASON FOR THIS THREAD is because people have ALREADY twisted the purpose of existing code to try and make it into something else.  Now I'm saying don't change it into that something else, because people will keep on twisting it as far as it will go.  You inherently trust players, I on the other hand do not.  This is in the middle of a tavern.  You say 'player complaint', I say the thing that results in a player complaint still cost someone their perhaps long lived, long loved character to an utterly bullshit use of this changed code, and since it is automatically in a public place, there is no chance they will get it back.  Having an abuser punished never makes up for the feeling of loss at the hands of abuse.

But.  People like me just want it soft because we don't like bad things happening.  It's not like I've lost 30 and 40 day characters through roleplaying forgetfulness under pressure, even though I had the command aliased.  It's not like I've intentionally given my character away because circumstances of the game demanded it.  Little off-handed insults like this?  They make you seem like a giant baby who's upset because you have to do things the old fashioned way:  Pretend that the templarate has a monopoly on justice in the city.

Get the mutual agreement, or it's not a brawl.  It's a fight.  Go ahead and make fights, but make plans to get soldiers out of the equation.  Try being smart about it, instead of insisting that because this is armageddon, mindless ability to cause harm to anyone you want is pretty much the way it has to be to be accurate.

I said put in the complaint if people felt like the issue was really as severe as they're making it out to be.

Also I put in suggestions to deal with barsitters. To include slandering and challenging to an arena fight.

[whitt]

Besides, in the case of the Gaj...you keep trying to make it sound like it's a fight club in there.  It's literally the commoner's waterhole of most of the city.  If you really think that every commoner who goes in makes a conscious contract that they might get their ass kicked by getting an ale and looking wrong at someone, I think you've got it wrong.  That's because that contract doesn't exist...unlike the unwritten agreement of the brawl code.

I think this is where some of the confusion might come into being.  I don't think the Gaj is the "commoner's waterhole of most of the city".  I'd bet it's much more akin to the Cantina in Mos Eisley.

Most commoners don't set foot in the place.  Mercenaries and rugged grebbers spend time in the Gaj.  They mind they're own business.  Even so, sit for one IC day in the Gaj and see how many brawls and stabbings you witness without any PC involvement.  No echoes of guards dragging the responsible parties away.. just sudden situation normal to bloodshed to situation normal.  Just like that, the Gaj is back to business.

[Saellyn]

No. Most commoners go to the Gaj because the other option is hoity-toitying it up with nobles. Most commoners in Allanak fear nobles. Avoiding them is a good thing. Everyone from your grebber to your hard as balls merc goes to the Gaj

[Beethoven]

To allude to something touched on before...is the policy really that the brawl code implies IC consent? Because I have been in multiple "brawls" during which my PC was basically being smacked around and beaten up against his will in the bar. No soldiers were called in, no player complaints were made to my knowledge, and it wasn't treated like any sort of shocking event. My PC may have made some inept swings back at his assailant, but for the most part, it was a very one-sided beatdown. I didn't feel that anything was wrong with that, but was there? Or was my PC giving implicit consent by not suddenly sitting down in the middle of the floor?

[Saellyn]

The "consent" deal means, ICly if you -want- to take thoseh its, you stand up. Regardless of asskicking or not, you stand and take it. As soon as oyu sit down, you are immune to brawl code.

[Beethoven]

That doesn't make any sense to me, though. My PC didn't want to take those hits, ICly. He didn't know anything about "the brawl code." Yes, he would have been "immune" if he had sat down, but what does have to do with anything? People are saying that brawling is more of a "let's get into a fight and settle this dispute" sort of thing, and anything else should be considered illegal, which is why it doesn't work to force someone into it--or that's what I thought people were saying, anyway.

[Delirium]

The Gaj is definitely a commoner's watering hole. It's where they go to hear the arena matches announced. "The Gladiator and Gaj".

It'd be neat if there were scripts to reflect this.

It's a rough and tumble place, yes, but if you go too far, you're still going to get smacked down. In absence of a more granular crime code, that's simply the reality.

[whitt]

No. Most commoners go to the Gaj because the other option is hoity-toitying it up with nobles. Most commoners in Allanak fear nobles. Avoiding them is a good thing. Everyone from your grebber to your hard as balls merc goes to the Gaj

Most commoners probably don't have the sid to rub together to go to the Gaj.  They stay home.  Leisure time is not real for "most commoners" in an era of such oppression and hard times as Zalanthas reflects.

[Armaddict]

Most commoners don't set foot in the place.

Inaccurate, particularly from the PC standpoint, but also in terms of past discussion.

To allude to something touched on before...is the policy really that the brawl code implies IC consent? Because I have been in multiple "brawls" during which my PC was basically being smacked around and beaten up against his will in the bar. No soldiers were called in, no player complaints were made to my knowledge, and it wasn't treated like any sort of shocking event. My PC may have made some inept swings back at his assailant, but for the most part, it was a very one-sided beatdown. I didn't feel that anything was wrong with that, but was there? Or was my PC giving implicit consent by not suddenly sitting down in the middle of the floor?

The brawl code is implemented as 'combat between willing participants who will not push it to too far'.  In its current state, if it's done against someone who is unwilling to enter the engagement, it falls under the realm of assault instead of brawling.  Think of it as allowing the 'take it outside fellas' to happen inside.  If someone says 'take it outside', and both people go and do their posturing and the fight ensues...they were both willing to enter the fray with each other.  Meanwhile, if one guy said 'I don't want to fight', but then one party was allowed to pull them off their stool and drag them outside to that fight, that would get cops called.  Likewise in game, but without the taking it outside.

[Armaddict]

That doesn't make any sense to me, though. My PC didn't want to take those hits, ICly. He didn't know anything about "the brawl code." Yes, he would have been "immune" if he had sat down, but what does have to do with anything? People are saying that brawling is more of a "let's get into a fight and settle this dispute" sort of thing, and anything else should be considered illegal, which is why it doesn't work to force someone into it--or that's what I thought people were saying, anyway.

The 'sitting' thing is a coded solution to the need for implied consent.  As has been discussed, this could be changed to the drawing of weapons to show you were not willing to fistfight, and just wanted to be left alone and would defend yourself, but in the end, it is a signified 'end' of the jurisdiction of brawl code, and the 'beginning' of jurisdiction for the combat code.

[bardlyone]

What about some sort of nosave brawl that would allow the person sitting down to still take a beating, for those who are open to it, but still protect those who are not? Would that be difficult to implement? Nosave arrest is pretty useful.

[Desertman]

I will say, I think brawling should do more damage, even if it's stun damage.

The problem with stun damage is simple. If you KO a guy, you now have carte blanche to drag him off wherever the fuck you want. Lack of resistance of subdue ignores crimcode.


So, if you want the ability to pwn somebodies face in a brawl and KO them, THAT has to be removed or changed.

I feel like you are all seeing something I don't. Cause I feel like - so if I'm losing and I have no friends to watch my back, I can run or diengage or beg for mercy or I might get knocked out and then really bad shit happens.
That's scary. That's a win. My PC could die! They could lose all their stuff! I don't even have to leave the gates! Awesome.

I personally like this idea too, but, you have to consider that the current "Carebear" system of having to agree to be part of "mutual combat" before it can happen probably only exists because a lot of people hate the idea of having to deal with bad things happening to their characters.

The only reason it's as "soft" as it is now, most likely, is because it would create a lot of butthurt to have it the way you have stated above. (I personally love it, but I understand a lot of people wouldn't.)

I understand that, and while I don't like it, I am open to finding a good middle ground to work around it.

Oh please.  The code in this case is not implemented for the purpose you want, you want it retooled, but utterly confuse 'bad things happening to my character' with 'players in this game abuse things'.

I have pointed out, time and time again, that the ENTIRE REASON FOR THIS THREAD is because people have ALREADY twisted the purpose of existing code to try and make it into something else.  Now I'm saying don't change it into that something else, because people will keep on twisting it as far as it will go.  You inherently trust players, I on the other hand do not.  This is in the middle of a tavern.  You say 'player complaint', I say the thing that results in a player complaint still cost someone their perhaps long lived, long loved character to an utterly bullshit use of this changed code, and since it is automatically in a public place, there is no chance they will get it back.  Having an abuser punished never makes up for the feeling of loss at the hands of abuse.

But.  People like me just want it soft because we don't like bad things happening.  It's not like I've lost 30 and 40 day characters through roleplaying forgetfulness under pressure, even though I had the command aliased.  It's not like I've intentionally given my character away because circumstances of the game demanded it.  Little off-handed insults like this?  They make you seem like a giant baby who's upset because you have to do things the old fashioned way:  Pretend that the templarate has a monopoly on justice in the city.

Get the mutual agreement, or it's not a brawl.  It's a fight.  Go ahead and make fights, but make plans to get soldiers out of the equation.  Try being smart about it, instead of insisting that because this is armageddon, mindless ability to cause harm to anyone you want is pretty much the way it has to be to be accurate.

I disagree with your opinion and your entire interpretation of the game world, the taverns, and my post. You disagree with mine. I'm fine with that.

I didn't mean to insult anyone. I feel the code does exist in its current format (having to ask for consent to brawl basically) so that people don't have to get beaten on in rough taverns if they don't feel like getting beat up. In my opinion that is soft and weak and "carebear" and not a good fit for the world of Zalanthas. I understand you don't feel that way. That's fine. Feel how you want.

[Kismetic]

I thought this world was supposed to be violent and scary, with no sense of equality for the masses, just whoever gets over the next guy however they can.  It's not supposed to be "fair".  As someone already pointed out, just sit in the Gaj alone for an hour, and tell me how many bloody fights have broken out.  I'd personally like to see the brawl code even more fleshed out as Desertman suggests.  I don't think it should be removed.  I think if ...  IRL, you can run your mouth, and then get popped for running your mouth, and the cops don't give a shit other than breaking it up (seen it, recently) ...  then Zalanthas should be everything short of murder allowed and maybe that AoD soldier is even amused and starts betting on the brawl.

More conflict, please!  Less whining!

edited for intense sarcasm

[Desertman]

I thought this world was supposed to be violent and scary, with no sense of equality for the masses, just whoever gets over the next guy however they can.  It's not supposed to be "fair".  As someone already pointed out, just sit in the Gaj alone for an hour, and tell me how many bloody fights have broken out.  I'd personally like to see the brawl code even more fleshed out as Desertman suggests.  I don't think it should be removed.  I think if ...  IRL, you can run your mouth, and then get popped for running your mouth, and the cops don't give a shit other than breaking it up (seen it, recently) ...  then Zalanthas should be everything short of murder allowed and maybe that AoD soldier is even amused and starts betting on the brawl.

More conflict, please!  Less whining!

edited for intense sarcasm

+1 - Would read again.

[Armaddict]

I'm not sure where/how this is being misinterpreted.

This is not about fair/just treatment IC.  This is about maintaining the integrity of code on an OOC level.  Your problems being addressed are not with the brawl code, they are with the crimcode.  I am saying that the attempt to revamp the brawl code to fit into that paradigm is a faulty, patched code concession that brings about more issues than the one you want to solve.

You can change the brawl code, and make it more affecting.  You can change the 'edge' of it.  But that 'edge' needs to exist to account for what is assault, and what is brawling.  There isn't a vague grey area in the middle.  As I've said, changing that edge from 'sitting' to 'drawn weapons' effectively changes that border, but doesn't change the overall complaint (hence why it's been said that I'm fine with it).

If you want in effect a more violent atmosphere that includes beatdowns outside of the current 'bordered' brawling, then there needs to be significant changes elsewhere as well.  However, a blanket 'You can knock this guy the fuck out just because he's here' exception to crimcode will lead elsewhere than I think you are imagining it going.

I'd appreciate if the accusation that I'm anti-violence or 'carebearing' or 'whining about IC conflicts' because I'm trying to thoroughly analyze full implications of the code beyond just the desired effect was dropped, because that's now...three or four times in this thread that this has been asserted, either directly or vaguely.  I am -far- from anti-conflict, I am -far- from whiny about player versus player interactions, but I -do- believe in keeping the code integrity intact so that all of its purposes and rules remain balanced and intact.  You're talking to someone who has lost a good, sponsored role due to being 'rented' into a bar's backroom and knocked out, and a guy who has had someone specifically wait until I was linkdead to attack--do I think the majority of players would abuse changes in code that make them abusable?  No.  Do I believe that properly safeguarding prevents the 'one time', when it happens to affect you?  Yes.  If an accessible, unguarded way of circumventing code that shows 'the way things are' is put in, people will use it.

Zalanthas should be everything short of murder allowed and maybe that AoD soldier is even amused and starts betting on the brawl.

I think this is being overplayed.  They aren't lazy, they're corrupt.  They have their ass to cover if something goes bad on their watch, and even a soldier doesn't want to be on the wrong end of a templar asking how the fuck something happened when they were supposed to be watching for it.  I've had soldiers exiled.  I've had soldiers executed.  I've had soldiers enslaved.  Soldiers are looking out for themselves, and oftentimes, that means trying to be -real damn good- at their job to ensure that they have a good defense if something happens to catch a templar's attention, because if it -does- catch a templar's attention and they don't have a good defense (and even if they do), it isn't often going to be a simple slap on the wrist.  This is why it's generally safer to pay a soldier to -do- the thing rather than pay a soldier to turn their head.

So yet again.  Go ahead and change it to do more.  Go ahead and change where the border of brawling exists.  But that border can't be moved too far into the realm of assault or else it becomes blatantly usable in a way 'other than intended or directed', where you are drastically impacting things far more than just the ability to make a good brawling scene or set up a rough atmosphere.  Hell.  An easier fix to this would be to remove npc soldiers from bars more often.  But if you're trying to promote a rough atmosphere, or a harsh eat or be eaten world, there are far more constructive ways of doing it than making it so that a warrior in a training clan can go to a bar and knock out anyone he wants to.

I'm still wondering why, exactly, the same message keeps getting typed up when I thought this was covered back when there was discussion about drawn weapons.  Drawn weapons would be the new line, but if you don't like that line, -what- is the recourse for if someone who's being assaulted in a brawl draws their weapons to defend themselves?

[Beethoven]

I think a brawl is going to break out in this thread any second.


(If Desertman ever gets his ass off that stool, anyway.)

[RogueGunslinger]

 A soldier shouldn't give two fucks if two commoners people are killing eachother. Let alone a brawl or one-sided fight. They should care even less if it's some nobody breed being ganged up on by a group of Bynners.

Current brawl code doesn't represent the game world well at all.

[Armaddict]

A soldier shouldn't give two fucks if two commoners people are killing eachother. Let alone a brawl or one-sided fight. They should care even less if it's some nobody breed being ganged up on by a group of Bynners.

Current brawl code doesn't represent the game world well at all.

Where do you see this represented in the game world?

[Jihelu]

A soldier shouldn't give two fucks if two commoners people are killing eachother. Let alone a brawl or one-sided fight. They should care even less if it's some nobody breed being ganged up on by a group of Bynners.

Current brawl code doesn't represent the game world well at all.

Where do you see this represented in the game world?

I'd say the room emotes where you see brawls breaking out. You don't see anyone arrested. They just calm down after a bit.

[Kismetic]

Armaddict, I just think your version of Arm is really boring, and I also think most people who play this game are gonna agree with me.  Sorry if you wanted to argue.

[Armaddict]

A soldier shouldn't give two fucks if two commoners people are killing eachother. Let alone a brawl or one-sided fight. They should care even less if it's some nobody breed being ganged up on by a group of Bynners.

Current brawl code doesn't represent the game world well at all.

Where do you see this represented in the game world?

I'd say the room emotes where you see brawls breaking out. You don't see anyone arrested. They just calm down after a bit.

That still happens with the current brawl code in place.  The 'calm down after a bit' in particular.

Armaddict, I just think your version of Arm is really boring, and I also think most people who play this game are gonna agree with me.  Sorry if you wanted to argue.

That's a pretty shitty thing to say, considering that I heavily heavily endorse raiding, crime, killing each other, having plots based on grudges, wars between city states, wars between noble houses, dangerous wilds, 'rinth wars, and increased need to protect assets from cutthroat business practices.  In particular, raiding.  You're literally making that statement off of one thread where I'm saying 'Whoa, whoa, whoa!  This is not a favorable condition for code involved'.  I endorse risk taking, I endorse risks being present, but I do not endorse implementation of code that makes any of that risk free.  You're taking my lack of endorsement for making brawl code more invasive as an overall arching 'THERE SHALL NOT BE VIOLENCE IN THIS GAME.'  Pretty shallow statement, to be honest.

Why is it that when I say 'You can accomplish this, but you must take risks', it turns it into a 'You're a softy?'  I'm a little appalled, considering I'm the guy in threads who people have, in the past, accused of being obsessed with pkilling because I don't think it's plot ending, I think it's plot advancement, just for someone else.

Edited to add:  I find it ironic, these statements, considering I am often looking for people IC to commit violence for me, almost always find no one willing, and end up doing it myself despite a couple year trend of non-combat oriented PC's (with one exception, who was a raider who successfully raided once, I think, before having an entire army of PC's riding out to find him every time he was sighted).  It really reinforces the belief that it's not me being anti-violence, as is the assertion, but other people being anti-risk, where I am pro-risk.