Cripple (x) head/leg/body/arm

[MeTekillot]

Quid pro quo: How do you differentiate between someone knocked out via Sparring/Non-Fatally and someone on the verge of death's door? Do they have to be literally on their way out to maim them?

If you get knocked out in a boxing ring or on the street by someone mugging you, you're still vulnerable to someone stomping your knee the wrong way and making you walk funny for life. One would consider the act of crippling someone an obvious near-lethal attempt on their body's functioning. Woe betide the jackass who cripples anyone he knocks out in the sparring ring. One would think he won't last long.

I'd still prefer there be some sort of permanent magickal (and perhaps obvious? either to the naked eye or those with special eyes) of curing a crippled wound, and to be able to temporarily make up for it with spicing. Of course, missing fingers is missing fingers, but I'm of the opinion there needs to be SOME sort of peril to characters beyond dying or getting their precious text belongings stolen, that doesn't require staff intervention every single time for them to swoop in and apply the effects.

[JohnMichaelHenry]

I read somewhere (help files or maybe gdb) about how Zalanthans are tougher than humans in RL, and their bodies can take a lot more punishment. Based on that, how about just being able to break; leg; arm; finger; rib; maybe even neck if you intend to kill them.

Instead of it messing with any stats or skills, a break could cause other effects that would heal in maybe half the time it would take us in RL to heal it. Example: Metekillot decides that he wants to break my leg, so he does. Effects could be, can't run, or climb, and maybe some combat penalty to dodging or something. Break my fingers, and I can't steal with that hand, or do sleight of hand, slip, palm, that sort of stuff, or maybe you can but with a penalty.

That might satisfy Mek's desire to enforce his gang violence on folks, and with a timer, it would be more acceptable to me knowing that I will heal in a few in game weeks or so. I'm no coder, so I don't know if it would be difficult to code effects like that, but it seems like there are similar effects (by spells or other means) in game already.

[MeTekillot]

I like it.

[Veselka]

I do think the best way of going about it is through 'long lasting' but not permanent.

[John]

Hello.

I would just like to point out that this is the 50 year + old mistake of getting a small measure of fun for one person at the expenditure of a lot of it for another.  This does not make a game fun to play.

Based on the feedback in this thread only, it seems that only one or two people are completely opposed to the idea, and more are actually for it.

That being said, If Consent to maim already does this, which I was not aware of, I would like staff to chime in and say so.

If that is the case, when someone is stunned or mortally wounded you could "OOC Consent to Maim, or die?" and let the player decide. If nothing is said in like a minute, finish the job.

If we are treating these things like polls then I cant say I'm a fan. It seems like it would require a shitload of coding and I'd rather see that time spent elsewhere.

I dont habitually post "No" in threads. I doubt I'm the only one.

[Riev]

However, the point is not "Its too much coding work". Its whether the idea has merit, and to round out the idea.

Let Nath and Ness decide what they think is too much work. Don't tell them its "easy", and don't tell them its "too hard".

Does the idea have merit? Where is it lacking? What could be improved? Is the idea good, but players would ruin it? How could you frame it so that doesn't happen?

"I'd rather them work on something else" is an invalid reason to say "no" in your non-habitual manner. Tell me WHY. Lets DISCUSS.

[John]

This idea doesn't excite me enough TO discuss. That's the problem.

I'm under no obligation to discuss every idea that gets thrown up. I have no interest in discussing this idea. If it was implemented it would get a big "meh" from me and I'd probably opt to just be PK'd. This is from someone who always gets excited when he's the victim of torture (big shout out to Butcher Brons for the smile he gave my PC. That was awesome!)

I only came in this thread because I felt obligated to after my silence (among many others) was used as evidence there was widespread support for the idea.

[kahuna]

... Also... no.

You cannot remove a character's tongue, causing them the inability to speak, without their consent. If the player is not interested in playing a mute character, it is the instigator's responsibility to kill them off, or not, as their character would proceed.

I don't understand how, then, adding a command to do this rather than relying on staff to respond to the situation, is against policy. Unless you are suggesting that staff would take this command, implement it vanilla, and completely disregard their own policies.

You need consent to maim currently.. to use cripple (as discussed so far in this thread) you're saying you don't need consent? It's just a command you can use on anybody who is morted so you're maiming them without consent correct? How is this not going against current policy?

[kahuna]

However, the point is not "Its too much coding work". Its whether the idea has merit, and to round out the idea.

Let Nath and Ness decide what they think is too much work. Don't tell them its "easy", and don't tell them its "too hard".

Does the idea have merit? Where is it lacking? What could be improved? Is the idea good, but players would ruin it? How could you frame it so that doesn't happen?

"I'd rather them work on something else" is an invalid reason to say "no" in your non-habitual manner. Tell me WHY. Lets DISCUSS.

Why is "I'd rather they work on something else" an invalid reason? People can give whatever they reason they want for opposing something that is how a discussion works. You don't get to decide whether a reason that someone believes something is invalid. In fact I would argue that the time and use of coding staff is one of the best reasons to oppose something such as this. There are far more ideas I can get excited over than this.

[Riev]

I only came in this thread because I felt obligated to after my silence (among many others) was used as evidence there was widespread support for the idea.

That's a fair point, to say "I don't agree, my silence just means I don't see that it has merit". The problem is that you're saying its not valid because of staff time, not because of the idea itself. You don't like the idea? Cool. Say so. Don't deflect it to Ness and make him say no.

You need consent to maim currently.. to use cripple (as discussed so far in this thread) you're saying you don't need consent? It's just a command you can use on anybody who is morted so you're maiming them without consent correct? How is this not going against current policy?

The idea (as the discussion has gone on) is that it could be tied to the nosave code, so that if someone doesn't want to be maimed, they can nosave maim and the command wouldn't work. Maiming already exists, it just puts the entire onus on the affected to RP accordingly (which they are under no coded guideline to do) or the staff to enforce it themselves. It isn't a policy issue if coded not to be.

Why is "I'd rather they work on something else" an invalid reason? People can give whatever they reason they want for opposing something that is how a discussion works. You don't get to decide whether a reason that someone believes something is invalid. In fact I would argue that the time and use of coding staff is one of the best reasons to oppose something such as this. There are far more ideas I can get excited over than this.

I say it, because very specifically Nessalin has said before that we as players don't get to decide what staff work on, or not, based on its complexity. If he, or Nath, think the idea has merit, are interested in it, and the Big Three agree its something they want, they'll do it.

You don't get to bigfoot someone's ideas, because YOU believe coder time is better spent somewhere else. You aren't staff, you aren't their boss, and they are volunteers. They'll work on whatever they damn well please.

[WithSprinkles]

I like the idea of having coded effects at hand on deck for a player to be able to apply to THEMSELVES just like a scar. Perhaps with a warning, if you take a missing limb, these coded effects will go into play. If a staff member decides to add and effect, it will also happen. I don't think another player should decide how someone else's character gets played long term.

I don't mind torture scenes or participating in them (or I used to), but I don't trust that people understand that you should maybe target a person once or twice in such a way and then either kill them and move on so THE OTHER PLAYER can move on. At least that's how i personally feel. A failing of this game is that you can't explain to the player acting on your character that you are enjoying the 'attention' less.  If they put your character in that position enough, making them less fun to play, why play that character or the game at all?

Consent is an awesome start, but damn folks. Empathy. Why does someone's option have to be to store/die/suffer longterm playing a concept they didn't want just because they met your character? That is the sum of this idea unless the player being acted on has control.

[mansa]

I like the idea... because right now it requires staff intervention to have a character be maimed.

You can use your temporary description field to display what sort of maiming happened, but that is temporary and has no effect on your characters skills/stats.  If you wanted your main description to be changed that is a request and an update to a pfile, same with stat debuffs.

I like having more options that are coded than not.

[Riev]

Honestly, WithSprinkles has an interesting take on the idea.

What if it isn't the AGGRESSOR who codes the maiming.
What if, like change locdesc, its up to the affected to apply the coded effects?

If they don't agree, its still consent rules.
If they agree, they can maim themselves with the code.
If they agree, but don't codedly maim themselves, its up to staff to follow up.

It takes out the nosave stuff, it puts the code in players hands, and frees staff up to do what they (should) do best. Player interaction and enforcing the game world.

"I have a report that says you had a broken hand. It was noticed that you haven't used the code for this. Can you explain?"

[Brokkr]

From my perspective, this is all cart before the horse.  If we had a combat system that inflicted certain kinds of wounds (broken arm, broken leg, big gash, etc) with coded effects, then perhaps it would make sense to extend it to a command like this so one could intentionally inflict them in addition to what could happen in normal combat.

Without that, I grow very wary when I see something that could be a prime way for players to screw with other players, in addition to the intended characters screw with other characters. Also it is worth noting that this is a role playing game, not a simulation. Not everything needs to be coded.

[kahuna]

The idea (as the discussion has gone on) is that it could be tied to the nosave code, so that if someone doesn't want to be maimed, they can nosave maim and the command wouldn't work. Maiming already exists, it just puts the entire onus on the affected to RP accordingly (which they are under no coded guideline to do) or the staff to enforce it themselves. It isn't a policy issue if coded not to be.

Yes I think I posted that there should be a nosave for it. Before that the initial idea is that you could just cripple whoever you want so long as they are mortally wounded. Which I am against for a variety of reasons I've already stated but since maiming requires consent per game policy the initial idea wouldn't even be able to work from that point on. So even if cripple is implemented you'd then have to ask for consent which we already have.

I say it, because very specifically Nessalin has said before that we as players don't get to decide what staff work on, or not, based on its complexity. If he, or Nath, think the idea has merit, are interested in it, and the Big Three agree its something they want, they'll do it.

You don't get to bigfoot someone's ideas, because YOU believe coder time is better spent somewhere else. You aren't staff, you aren't their boss, and they are volunteers. They'll work on whatever they damn well please.

No one is even arguing this point. You're making up this argument as if anyone who states their opinion on this thread is wrong and invalid because they can't tell the staff what to work on. No one in this thread ever said anything about that? Anyone who has been against this has stated their reasoning why and wanting a separate feature implemented is a valid reason to oppose some other completely arbitrary implementation of hardcoded crippling. Here are my reasons:

1. I'd rather see other stuff hard coded. (apparently I can't feel this way because this is me telling staff what to work on by your logic?)
2. Adding hard coded crippling  will add very little to the game.
3. Very few players want to play crippled, maimed PCs if this were the case you would see more of those PCs in game.
4. As it stands you can already choose to be maimed by a PC with staff assistance. So this isn't a new feature by any means.
5. As Brokkr stated earlier the game isn't really setup to handle broken bones, or injuries so to hard code this would feel "out of place" in the game world.
6. Others have stated that Zalanthans are tough, very tough comparatively to earthly counterparts, the idea of broken bones and torn ligaments could be hand waved with this alone.

[Riev]

You are wrong that nobody has argued that point. It happened 3 posts ago.

And I understand your point, you are against it. AS OP, the idea doesn't work, but as the conversation has gone on, there have been other ideas. You are arguing against the initial post, and not taking into account that other people have made suggestions and/or improvements. You disagree with the initial post, and if ONLY that post? Yes, that would break the consent rule.

It has evolved since then, as Code Discussion often does.

1. I'd rather see other stuff hard coded. (apparently I can't feel this way because this is me telling staff what to work on by your logic?)
2. Adding hard coded crippling  will add very little to the game.
3. Very few players want to play crippled, maimed PCs if this were the case you would see more of those PCs in game.
4. As it stands you can already choose to be maimed by a PC with staff assistance. So this isn't a new feature by any means.
5. As Brokkr stated earlier the game isn't really setup to handle broken bones, or injuries so to hard code this would feel "out of place" in the game world.
6. Others have stated that Zalanthans are tough, very tough comparatively to earthly counterparts, the idea of broken bones and torn ligaments could be hand waved with this alone.

1. No, you just don't get to say the idea is bad because you have better ones.
2. That's your opinion, and it is quite welcome in the thread if you explain why.
3. You are making an assumption. Few people play mutants, either, for reasons.
4. This feature, as it has evolved, is looking to shift the onus onto the players and give our volunteer staff more maneuverability to do "other things.
5. What Brokkr said is that if the combat system were more advanced, he could see how this would work. I didn't see it being "out of place", just "it would make sense to inflict coded combat injuries out of combat".
6. I disagree that you can handwave "broken bones" simply because "Zalanthas heal faster as a macguffin to ensure the game is still playable after a rough sparring session."

[Rogerthat]

I agree with the break command.. Could make more people use bandage.. Could create new items ig to be implemented to hold broken items, wo them takes longer to heal etc. Break seems like the best idea to mea.

[Halcyon]

I personally dont think the game needs more "griefer" support.   

It is very hard for a character to catch another pc in combative terms.  I do not see this functionality giving the game any more depth than allowing a long lived pc to lord it over lower played characters.   There are already any number of tools to do this.

[MeTekillot]

Sometimes bad things happen to your character. That's not griefing. I want people to be able to have more bad things happen to their characters, courtesy of other characters, without staff involvement and without having to resort to ending the character via PK.

[kahuna]

I want people to be able to have more bad things happen to their characters, courtesy of other characters, without staff involvement and without having to resort to ending the character via PK.

Yeah... why?

[triste]

I understand that Zalanthas is a harsh gritty world, I understand that "Murder" is in the tagline, but if you look at any harsh and gritty parts of the world contemporaneous or historical and hands would be cut off, people would be maimed at least as often as people would be executed for crimes. A mechanism for doing this would make it a more likely occurrence -- a good, realistic change that has potential to create more plots.

I want people to be able to have more bad things happen to their characters, courtesy of other characters, without staff involvement and without having to resort to ending the character via PK.

Yeah... why?

I can't speak for metek, but I think his reason here is pretty clearly stated. People are way too trigger happy with the PK, but to their credit I think they often "resort" to it for lack of options. PK can create some plots (EG people getting revenge) but by definition it will end many plots involving the character who was killed. I think people are unrealistically eager to PK in part because it is the only major option for punishing a player that doesn't require Imm intervention directly. I am generally of the opinion that adding options that facilitate roleplay and help create plots is a good thing: that is exactly what this feature would do.

[Eyeball]

I want people to be able to have more bad things happen to their characters, courtesy of other characters, without staff involvement and without having to resort to ending the character via PK.

Yeah... why?

Probably because instead of getting to gloat once, at a character's death, there could be gloating each time the character appears and demonstrates his or her blighted life. Pretty awful really, like the motivation of the top party members from Orwell's 1984.

[kahuna]

I am generally of the opinion that adding options that facilitate roleplay and help create plots is a good thing: that is exactly what this feature would do.

I wouldn't allow my PC to be maimed and would rather be PK'd. I would retire if maiming was forced upon me. How exactly does this foster plots or become a good thing for me? Are you suggesting you know exactly what the entire 100-200 players of this game want? I think this would be a pointless feature to implement and the great majority of players would simply retire or opt for the PK.

[triste]

I am generally of the opinion that adding options that facilitate roleplay and help create plots is a good thing: that is exactly what this feature would do.

I wouldn't allow my PC to be maimed and would rather be PK'd. I would retire if maiming was forced upon me. How exactly does this foster plots or become a good thing for me? Are you suggesting you know exactly what the entire 100-200 players of this game want? I think this would be a pointless feature to implement and the great majority of players would simply retire or opt for the PK.

Agree to disagree. As a player who often plays "evil" characters who probably should be punished it would be nice to have some options. If you would rather die, engage in combat and be killed, easy. Choice is better than no / limited choice.

[MeTekillot]

Add the ability to 'quit die' after a crippling attack from another character. Give them the following prompt.

Code Select Expand


You have been crippled. If you would prefer, you may 'quit die' within the next 10 minutes to instead die of the wound.


EDIT: I would still be fine with requiring consent in order to roleplay the gory details of the crippling.