The Deathblow

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I posted this idea in another thread, but I want to run a poll now, and get some more focused thoughts regarding it.

Basically, I'd like no PC on PC death to be accidental. I'd like you to have to type 'kill PC' again, to kill them. Mercy on doesn't do this, by the way. It simply withholds a blow that would take the remaining HP from your victim, but often times that means that the victim is still up and fighting. And it has it's place, but this is an area where I think we can add a feature.

This change might create a lot more long termed conflict. I for one would leave anybody I didn't consider a threat alive, and it would make mugging easier to conduct without killing the victim. Mind you, I don't want to eliminate PKs. I want a fool proof way for you to not kill someone, but rather,  incapacitate them.

This isn't for realism's sake - it's for playability's sake.

There's an arguement to be made for extending this reasoning to NPCs, too. It could be a flagged behavior, for the creature to be a "killer', for instance.

How this would basically work is that a blow that currently would send you below -10 hp and kill you, would become a blow that put you at -5 hp. To kill whatever you put down, would either require a PC to type in "kill rangy.man" again, or perhaps a different command, like "deathblow rangy.man", or what have you. An NPC would need the "killer" flag to kill you. For instance, gith would have this flag, and beasts that eat meat would have this flag, but a tregil wouldn't, and a duskhorn probably wouldn't (though a bull would), and you could make raider NPCs that didn't kill you, but robbed you. NPC soldiers wouldn't have this flag either, I mean, unless you're in Red Storm or Luir's or ... uh, anywhere but Allanak ... ? Heh.

This creates a couple of solutions for existing issues. One, sometimes you don't sap people too well, or know how to handle a hammer, and you want to play the mugger. This solves that. Sometimes, there's issues where without this, resurrection is your only recourse. This solves that. Sometimes you just don't want to kill people - you want to hurt them, and make them talk, and ... this solves that.

This wouldn't change the rules for PK. This wouldn't add any softness to the game, if you ask me. I think it would actually add a little more danger, for a couple of reasons. First, now people who might not have attacked you before because they didn't want to kill you, can do that that. Two, now they can capture you - yeah, fun is had with "we need the info's" scenarios. Three, spice smuggling issues disappear, and there's no need to rework crim code to do this. More PC on PC interaction is to be had with criminals, and hey, more criminals who live to tell the tale. If you forgot to put on no-save arrest, well, you still get arrested. Only now, some other criminal might be in there with your beaten body, robbing you. More rivalries get extended, going beyond the somebody dies scenario. Less plots fall through, because the person running them died when the person inflicting death on them might have liked to not do that.

Oh, and suddenly, having a medic character around becomes about ninty times more valuable. And what ... do I hear longer stories for beloved characters?

Well, that's the idea. What are we thinking?

[Saellyn]

Usually when I'm killing someone with mercy, I don't apply a deathblow. The combat stops. Even with mercy off, if a blow knocks them out, the code doesn't immediately take another shot (unless it was the first of the two in a dual-wield attack).

You DO have to type kill again, usually.

[Synthesis]

third tier branch handjob > blowjob > deathblow

> deathblow amos

You attempt to suck the life out of amos, but slip and blow yourself up!

[Narf]

As it is now you have to kind of build your PC around not killing people. It takes some effort and direction, but it's very much doable with most guilds with no real sacrifice in the playability of the character. You just have to care about leaving victims alive.

Adding this would make characters that actually put effort into developing those skills kind of pointless.

[CodeMaster]

Usually when I'm killing someone with mercy, I don't apply a deathblow. The combat stops. Even with mercy off, if a blow knocks them out, the code doesn't immediately take another shot (unless it was the first of the two in a dual-wield attack).

You DO have to type kill again, usually.

I guess 7d was talking about situations where you have 30 hp and a half-giant or dwarf hits you for 50 hp.

High strength doesn't have very many drawbacks, but this is one of them.   I feel like such a change would devalue a skill like sap, though, whose entire purpose is the nonfatal KO blow.  Otherwise why would anyone learn to sap when they could just be a high-strength dwarf with blow of death at their disposal?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I don't see how sap would be undervalued, since for anyone not having sap, getting a victim to that point would require combat, which quite often allows the victim time to flee. Sap would still be the fastest way to lay a victim low, by far.

And yes, I'm talking about times when a blow would take off enough hp to kill you. For instance, once, long ago, I played a dwarf. He took a trip across the known, and twice during that trip, he got down to 1 hp. Twice. Weirdest thing ever. If something had hit me or bit me solidly, or even done more than graze me, I would have died. This idea would cause that killing blow to become an incapacitating blow.

Sap requires a choice of class or sub-class. And yes, there are other ways to subdue somebody, but I'd like to see the actual killing of somebody's character require that final command. As I said, I feel like it opens up many avenues that currently are not available, as well as solve a few other issues that have long plagued us, such as code quirks, spice smuggling failures, forgetting you have spice, forgetting you have no save arrest off, the fatal mistake and over-reaching finality of the law for a pick-pocket character, etc ... I guess I like the idea of creating longer stories, cooler death scenes, mobs with new purposes, and solutions to accidents, like sparring and lag.

[CodeMaster]

To be fair, my comment was a nitpick -- to show that this kind of change would empower high-strength characters by removing the element of risk associated with their otherwise frightening power.


"Make no mistake.  I want him alive..."

"Duhhh okay!  No problem boss!"
The monstrous half-giant with a dent in his head brandishes his man-sized axe.


Everything else in your post reads fine to me.

edit:
https://youtu.be/U7a0IkBVZdo

[RogueGunslinger]

It's a good idea.

[roughneck]

Bludgeoning someone with a rock, or cutting someone with a jagged piece of bone is not a precise art. I like it the way it is. There should be a fine line between life and death that's difficult to discern in combat. Accidental death sparring makes sense, so does killing someone you actually meant to merely incapacitate with an obsidian dagger. 

[MeTekillot]

I disagree with roughneck and agree with 7D.

[Marauder Moe]

I think instant/accidental death is OK.  Though I don't think I'd care/complain if things were otherwise.  Mercy triggering on an opponent who's still fighting is indeed kinda silly.

I definitely do think the near-death states could be revised.  There should be a range before unconsciousness where you're unable to fight move but still fully aware and able to talk, emote, and do inventory stuff.

[whitt]

Voted yes, but only for NPCs because random NPC death can break storyline and lose new players.  Finding a poor, dying, grebber out in the sands can create story.  However after some time even those folks (and critters) left mortally wounded need to wind up dead.  Truly nasty or hungry NPCs can be flagged "killer" the code will take care of the extra command entry.

The problem with this happening for PCs is that it means every player knows, without a doubt, that any time one player killed another it was entirely blatant.  That means the "no sergeant, it was a sparring accident" type of MCB is gone.  The "I didn't mean to kill them" defense holds no water.  While you may be protecting some player players from accidental death at the hands of other players, you're forcing an extra command and a intentional act on far more players.

Getting into a fight should be a life or death thing.  Sparring is generally safe, but there is the chance of death every time.  With this, there isn't.  Why not spar that giant?  You literally can not die.  Or more to the point, there might be a risk to your life, but only if the other person you're sparring is actively trying to kill you.  And everyone will know.  I'm sure RL folks wish they had this superpower.  Just unload your clip on someone and then no blood loss or potential for over-reaction, just let them sleep it off.  No thank you.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Just as a note, mortally wounded people do indeed often bleed out and just die. During such a time, you can also type 'quit die' to end that suffering faster.

OOCly knowing the other player's intentions and knowing there wasn't an accident in such a case is a good point. I don't know that that matters to me, but I can see how it could effect others.

And I'll note that this isn't to counter the life and death struggle thing. It's for playability's sake - for extending the stories of our characters. It's not a realistic feature. I'll freely admit that.

[Synthesis]

I was under the impression that "mercy on" effectiveness is linked to the PC's skill with whatever weapon they're using.

That is, even if you ordinarily land 50hp+ bombs to the head and neck, if you're at (master) level and taking a shot on someone with 5 hp, you'll only hit them for 14.

If that's the way it works, it's basically fine with me.  It should take some modicum of skill and/or experience to be able to wreck someone -just enough- to incapacitate them, but not enough to kill them.


P.S.  The "accidental sparring death" argument is stupid.  Dying in sparring is either a) a legitimate stupid accident or b) someone metagaming the code as a shitty excuse for a lame PK.  If I ever play a Sarge, all sparring deaths will be punished by summary execution.

[valeria]

Add an optional feature for people who really don't want to risk killing someone, I'd support it. But whitt pretty much voiced my concerns with making it a mandatory across the board thing.

[roughneck]

Why are accidental sparring deaths stupid? They're frustrating as the player, yes, but I think some pretty serious accidents make sense if you have a bunch of trained killers beating the hell out of each other with blunted weapons every single day.

[Marauder Moe]

I can kind of see the argument that it's simply too inglorious of a way for PCs to die.  Just like dysentery, infection, wagon accidents, cancer, choking, and drug/alcohol induced unconscious vomiting.

[Delirium]

Hey now, I had a PC die of cancer and I thought it was the perfect way for that story to end.

[CodeMaster]

Why are accidental sparring deaths stupid? They're frustrating as the player, yes, but I think some pretty serious accidents make sense if you have a bunch of trained killers beating the hell out of each other with blunted weapons every single day.

It's always due to stupidity, but people kill and maim each other in wrestling and other grappling arts with some frequency (typically neck injuries).  I can only imagine what would happen if 10-pound "training swords" were involved.

[nauta]

Heh.  On my firstish PC, one of my recruits apparently killed a PC slave (very expensive) in a sparring accident.  It was the first time staff animated for me (other than the kankfly), but if I recall it was mostly to have the other corporal in the clan sit around with me while I freaked out about what to fucking do and how to tell my boss that his precious multiple tens of thousands of sid toy just got killed in a sparring accident.  It was fun times.

It did generate a lot of plots, though.

[jhunter]

I like this idea. Maybe make it toggleable. Turned off by default. So when it comes to a killing blow you automatically take it without having to enter "kill <target>" to finish them off. But with it enabled, you would have to enter "kill <target>" again to finish them.

[Kismetic]

Nah.

[lostinspace]

But then how will I 'accidently' kill that other Runner in the circle?

[valeria]

Same way you do now, everyone just assumes that despite getting told 10 times, you just "forgot" to turn mercy on. 

[MeTekillot]

but mercy off make u hit harder an win???

[Jingo]

I would like to spar against a master swordsman without immediate evisceration pls.

[BadSkeelz]

Try having him not use a sword.

[Saellyn]

If he's an actual master swordsman, that's not really gonna make a difference...

[musashi]

This concept seems really clunky during large scale conflicts.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

This concept seems really clunky during large scale conflicts.

... why? I'm not questioning you to be an ass, I'm curious. Back during the days, one would stride the field afterwards, finishing off their foes. I could see this happening with this command. You could save the leader, finish off his followers, have last word moments.

"Bind his wound. I'd hear who sent him, Jicks." " Yes, Lord Templar." "Kill the rest."

[Mordiggian]

I don't think the people left bleeding out on the battlefield were left that way intentionally 

I think the scenario you just described is already something represented with the mortal wounds thing?

[MeTekillot]

I think there should be an "actually mortally wounded" level of injury that you'd linger in for a bit that will kill you without magickal assistance.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I don't think the people left bleeding out on the battlefield were left that way intentionally 

I think the scenario you just described is already something represented with the mortal wounds thing?

You're right, it wasn't on purpose. But once someone is down, you don't worry about them until you have time. Here's the thing, really. While being killed in game is all well and good, the way it happens in terms of ... the time between up and at them and down and dead is terrible. If at, say, thirty HP, you could no longer fight or walk a room, but could do everything else, and mercy called a halt in that 30 hp area, alright. I could live with that. But right now, you have to take your foe down to -0 hp, or they can still run and fight and ... do more than lay there bleeding to death.

There needs to be a 20-30 hp area where you are awake, but incapacitated, where mercy withholds the killing blow. A blow to you in this state should be a death blow, unless the attacker is unarmed.

[Revenant]

I don't think the people left bleeding out on the battlefield were left that way intentionally 

I think the scenario you just described is already something represented with the mortal wounds thing?

You're right, it wasn't on purpose. But once someone is down, you don't worry about them until you have time. Here's the thing, really. While being killed in game is all well and good, the way it happens in terms of ... the time between up and at them and down and dead is terrible. If at, say, thirty HP, you could no longer fight or walk a room, but could do everything else, and mercy called a halt in that 30 hp area, alright. I could live with that. But right now, you have to take your foe down to -0 hp, or they can still run and fight and ... do more than lay there bleeding to death.

There needs to be a 20-30 hp area where you are awake, but incapacitated, where mercy withholds the killing blow. A blow to you in this state should be a death blow, unless the attacker is unarmed.

Dorf spotted. Although, this would give new reason for prioritizing endurance, even though there's a lot of reason to do that.

[Delirium]

I don't think the people left bleeding out on the battlefield were left that way intentionally 

I think the scenario you just described is already something represented with the mortal wounds thing?

You're right, it wasn't on purpose. But once someone is down, you don't worry about them until you have time. Here's the thing, really. While being killed in game is all well and good, the way it happens in terms of ... the time between up and at them and down and dead is terrible. If at, say, thirty HP, you could no longer fight or walk a room, but could do everything else, and mercy called a halt in that 30 hp area, alright. I could live with that. But right now, you have to take your foe down to -0 hp, or they can still run and fight and ... do more than lay there bleeding to death.

There needs to be a 20-30 hp area where you are awake, but incapacitated, where mercy withholds the killing blow. A blow to you in this state should be a death blow, unless the attacker is unarmed.

I get what you're saying but would prefer the 0 to -10 range to serve that purpose. You can see and talk and emote but little else.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

No, see, that's the thing. There's a state, or should be, where you should be oblivious. Let's call it that negative range, 0 - -10. Well, leave that. That's real. Add another state, 1 -10, where you can't fight or walk, but you can bandage yourself, get things from your pack, use the way, talk, etc. Let mercy stop in that range of 10 to -10, then.

[Delirium]

I'm cool with that. 20-30 is way too high though.

[original]

I like this idea. I voted yes regardless of what I am going to argue here.

- If you allow no insta-gib, then a dwarf with a Massive, jade-inlaid, sun-patterned trident of doom will have a better chance of koing a person then my team of two elves, who will distract and sap the person and carry them off. That ruins any use to us and would make us sad.

- You send in your humans with small clubs and elves to ko a person, you send in HGs to spray blood on everyone's nicest armor they broke out for the HRPT (bastards) When I have a HG in my group I expect to tell him to please stay the @#$% calm until we tell him to fight, because when he attacks most everything instantly dies. That is the point though, that is half the fun of playing as/with/against a HG in a brutal permadeath game

An option is change set mercy so that it also makes an insta-gib attack display some 'pulled strike' message and only do partial damage. This would make the weapon still dangerous to use when trying not to kill the person, instead it would be a display of "I could have just killed you" and that gives the other person the option to disengage. It will still do a little damage though, because again, you don't send the captain of the guard with a massive, two handed broadsword to ko the Jake bleeding out in the courtyard. That strike will still do some small amount of dmg.

Depending how hard it is to put in to the game, I would go so far as make each strike only have a chance of being pulled depending how much damage it would have done. That way you still try to use a non-lethal weapon when trying to be non-lethal.

That is just one option. Another that I saw someone type above, is allow the 0-10 range keep you awake and able to speak or have a chance of keeping you awake. I like the uncertainty of a chance. Make it based on their con and current hp. Use the concept of not getting a psi because you are drunk, and make it so you only get some of the says happening around you and only make some of yours work. Blur out a person's sdesc a large part of the time when they emote/speak/ect.