Cripple (x) head/leg/body/arm

[mansa]

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.

You're definitely allowed to disagree and stop playing your character at any time.   I'd rather give players the choice to continue or not.  I can't say for certain what other players would do.

[Cabooze]

I dont think maiming needs to be something forced onto other players via code. If you want to maim another character? Do it ICly. Pretty simple and straight-forward. If someone refuses to accept a permanent injury as a result of that maiming, file a player complaint and let staff sort it out.

Instead of relying on some sort of coded command to force conditions onto another player, just rely on the fact you're both playing the same game with the intent to roleplay. If someone doesn't want to roleplay, armageddon isn't for them. If someone doesn't wanna RP being maimed and refuses to do the scene? Fade to black, inform them of their injuries and move on. Like said above, if they refuse those injuries that they sustained via RP, you take it into a player complaint.

[MeTekillot]

That's not how it works, currently. The idea intends to change that. Specifically meant to take the necessity of staff intervention out of the interaction.

[kahuna]

You're definitely allowed to disagree and stop playing your character at any time.   I'd rather give players the choice to continue or not.  I can't say for certain what other players would do.

The point is this feature wouldn't give you the "choice" as many others have stated it forces a situation upon your character. There needs to always be a balance between the playability of the game and the realism. No one wants to play maimed characters, or I should say very few do and those that do have my utmost respect for tackling that.

[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.

[triste]

You're definitely allowed to disagree and stop playing your character at any time.   I'd rather give players the choice to continue or not.  I can't say for certain what other players would do.

The point is this feature wouldn't give you the "choice" as many others have stated it forces a situation upon your character. There needs to always be a balance between the playability of the game and the realism. No one wants to play maimed characters, or I should say very few do and those that do have my utmost respect for tackling that.

Yeah, I wasn't aware of the <quit die> option Metek already presented when I replied to you before, but that actually grants you exactly what you propose ("I'd rather die than be crippled.") so once again we have a win/win situation with choice completely factored in.

[kahuna]

Yeah, I wasn't aware of the <quit die> option Metek already presented when I replied to you before, but that actually grants you exactly what you propose ("I'd rather die than be crippled.") so once again we have a win/win situation with choice completely factored in.

Okay then explain to me what exactly is the purpose of coding it in then if the majority of players will probably do this? You would have to collect data to be sure but the reticence alone present in this thread speaks volumes.

To me this just seems like the childish desire to want to ruin peoples characters in some way. PKilling is one thing, players can move on from that, but disfiguring, gore, maiming, cutting off limbs is a completely separate issue with a ton of nuance and variables involved. No one wants their PCs maimed, I maintain that if that were true you would see far more of those types of characters in game from chargen or they would accept maiming RP that can already occur with staff assistance. The most maimed you will ever see a PC is the one-eyed people who think it's cool to have one eye and put it in their sdesc.  Other then that if the vast majority of players prefer to have attractive, strong characters then you will find very little support for this from the main playerbase, many of which do not even frequent the forums.

[triste]

Yeah, I wasn't aware of the <quit die> option Metek already presented when I replied to you before, but that actually grants you exactly what you propose ("I'd rather die than be crippled.") so once again we have a win/win situation with choice completely factored in.

Okay then explain to me what exactly is the purpose of coding it in then if the majority of players will probably do this? You would have to collect data to be sure but the reticence alone present in this thread speaks volumes.

To me this just seems like the childish desire to want to ruin peoples characters in some way. PKilling is one thing, players can move on from that, but disfiguring, gore, maiming, cutting off limbs is a completely separate issue with a ton of nuance and variables involved. No one wants their PCs maimed, I maintain that if that were true you would see far more of those types of characters in game from chargen or they would accept maiming RP that can already occur with staff assistance. The most maimed you will ever see a PC is the one-eyed people who think it's cool to have one eye and put it in their sdesc.  Other then that if the vast majority of players prefer to have attractive, strong characters then you will find very little support for this from the main playerbase, many of which do not even frequent the forums.

I think is a false assumption that the "majority" of players would quit die.

* looks at my icon with a chick missing an eye, looks back to the conversation *

I don't think it's childish. It's roleplay enabling. If anything it is the rampant PK which is childish, not realistic and probably occurring for lack of other options.

I also agree with Cabooze a bit that you can and should roleplay this off, if anything I fear the coded option potentially supplanting other options like good ol' eye gouging and other forms of mutilation and that is the only reason I might be opposed, otherwise I am in favor.

[MeTekillot]

A 10 hour elf pickpocket might quit die. But a 30 day merchant, 50 day Enforcer, or a sponsored role who got got by his rival?

[WithSprinkles]

I don't think maiming needs to be something forced onto other players via code. If you want to maim another character? Do it ICly. Pretty simple and straight-forward. If someone refuses to accept a permanent injury as a result of that maiming, file a player complaint and let staff sort it out.

Instead of relying on some sort of coded command to force conditions onto another player, just rely on the fact you're both playing the same game with the intent to roleplay. If someone doesn't want to roleplay, armageddon isn't for them. If someone doesn't wanna RP being maimed and refuses to do the scene? Fade to black, inform them of their injuries and move on. Like said above, if they refuse those injuries that they sustained via RP, you take it into a player complaint.

That's not how the consent helpfile is worded. The way I am looking at https://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Consent, it says that consent needs to be obtained for every scene that is graphically described in game.

From documentation:
In the case of mutilation, an action that would cause a character to lose their ability to function in some way, the victim may request that they be killed by the procedure. It is then the instigator's responsibility to attempt to kill the victim, or take some other appropriate course of action. The victim should not request other punishments, bargain, or otherwise discuss the situation out of character beyond this provision.

A coded command isn't workable under the current rules because it takes away player agency. Code has no place because maiming can't happen without consent. It is being plainly stated that there are some that they would not consent to maiming, so a coded command to do that to a character would probably be a detriment to the game now and in the future. If someone DOES consent, and doesn't act out the injury, that is something else entirely.

Under current rules, if a player consents, the act may be carried out. If not, the victim may be killed, but they have no option to bargain. The aggressor CANNOT fade and tell someone they have been maimed. They can choose to back off from a kill or finish off their victim. Those are the options.

Look at this logically. If someone WANTS to play out a maiming, they will probably eagerly RP it out. If they are not into the gore, they will fade, but still accept the injuries given. If ANOTHER player fades or in ANY WAY says that they want you to end it, they have withdrawn consent to continue the interaction and want to move on with life (or their character's death). I'm shaking my head that it's now seemingly accepted/desired to have someone put in a storage request rather than pull up your bootlaces and give them a good end scene like the epic characters of old.

My previous post in the thread had the notion to have locdesc expanded to have permanent disfiguring scars also give uniform debuffs that people can have for their own use when customizing their characters (staff included if they wanted to add it to someone for a story).  If someone WANTS to be maimed, or play a character with a disability, they could still have this done under their own agency. This is NOT complaint territory for people to write up reports for. This is extra swag for players for their OWN characters.

The narrative, "they can always store," makes me mad enough to spit fire and it usually takes a while to get me there. Moreso in this instance, because sometimes people have to wait days for a new character, or do borderline OOC things to kill off their character.

It's not that Arm is not for players that have 'dissenting' opinions from a vocal few - that particular refrain should maybe stop playing so often. I personally like my games hardcore or I wouldn't be here, but if you go to any other MU* out there, they know what power posing is. Walking up to another character and emoting that you kick their teeth without their permission is a basic MU* NO NO, and asking for it to be hard-coded is a head scratcher.

[triste]

I don't think maiming needs to be something forced onto other players via code. If you want to maim another character? Do it ICly. Pretty simple and straight-forward. If someone refuses to accept a permanent injury as a result of that maiming, file a player complaint and let staff sort it out.

Instead of relying on some sort of coded command to force conditions onto another player, just rely on the fact you're both playing the same game with the intent to roleplay. If someone doesn't want to roleplay, armageddon isn't for them. If someone doesn't wanna RP being maimed and refuses to do the scene? Fade to black, inform them of their injuries and move on. Like said above, if they refuse those injuries that they sustained via RP, you take it into a player complaint.

From documentation:
In the case of mutilation, an action that would cause a character to lose their ability to function in some way, the victim may request that they be killed by the procedure. It is then the instigator's responsibility to attempt to kill the victim, or take some other appropriate course of action. The victim should not request other punishments, bargain, or otherwise discuss the situation out of character beyond this provision.

A coded command isn't workable under the current rules because it takes away player agency.

This is why Metekillot has reposted around 5 times that there would be a quit die option here, which is exactly in line with the documentation above.

Well thought out post, but what Metekillot is proposing has already thought through all these scenarios.

[Riev]

I mean, let staff decide the implementation to fit their rules around consent.

If they feel like coding in a save against maiming, so be it.
If they feel like saying it can only happen while in negative hps, giving you the option to quit-die? So be it.

I don't understand the argument of consent being what blocks the implementation. I get the pushback by people who don't want to be griefed, but I was here during the Subdue/Kill times. I was here during EX Dwarf strength revenge PCs out of chargen. Griefing happens.

This seems to be the most non-griefing, you have the option but you were already codedly-outclassed anyways... OPTION TO LIVE WITH A BROKEN HAND OR DIE thing. And Metekillot has suggested numerous times that none of it is "permanent maiming" if there were coded options to have it reverted.

[RogueGunslinger]

Reading this thread was a pain.

Chock full of people's immediate knee-jerk reaction and inability to approach an idea flexibly. Always taking the most negative and hyperbolic stance and unwilling to give even the slightest when presented with something that should alleviate their concerns.

It's amazing staff have the stomach to make any changes at all. There's always someone who's going to be vehemently opposed to it and willing to die on their molehill.

[Eyeball]

There's always someone who's going to be vehemently opposed to it and willing to die on their molehill.

Generally, I'd agree with this, but in this particular case: there are plenty of positive things that could be added in instead of just another way for players to get their rocks off by screwing others. As if cuddlers and whips and taints and death pits and arenas and who knows what other stuff lurking in the basements of noble estates aren't enough.

[maxid]

There's always someone who's going to be vehemently opposed to it and willing to die on their molehill.

Generally, I'd agree with this, but in this particular case: there are plenty of positive things that could be added in instead of just another way for players to get their rocks off by screwing others.

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but the LITERAL tagline of the game is Murder, Corruption, Betrayal.

We're here to be jerks to each other in various ways.  It's a fact of life that people are going to be mean to your character.  Whether there are positive things to add or not is more a distraction tactic than an argument against something.   If you don't want it to happen to your character, the 'quit die' option has been discussed numerous times to make it a more bog standard pk, which is the current code-supported solution already.  You don't like it.  That's fine.  But the way you're attempting to negatively framing it is at odds with the game world, and the types of stories that are typically sought/played out.

[Eyeball]

Is that it then? All there is to the game now is a continuous furball of characters trying to screw each other over in the name of "Murder Betrayal Corruption"? That's what Armageddon has devolved to? I'm pretty sure a lot of players don't play it that way even now.

[WithSprinkles]

I understand the sentiment, RGS.

I wanted to apologize to people if I came across too harsh (and we know I type too much when making a point). I'm not trying to squash the idea, I'm just clarifying my position and offering alternatives.

Talking about people's reasons why they take one side or the other with some play issues seems as if it would be constructive in a moderated general Discord talk someday, instead of it being focused on future stuff. Especially since we can't talk about certain these things when they come up in the moment with other players ICly/OOCly.

As for now, eh. I'm making a sandcastle on my hill.  (not being an ass, meant as playful) I invite people on both sides to help me build the walls and bring some tiny banners. I'm bowing out unless steam starts coming out of my ears.

[maxid]

Is that it then? All there is to the game now is a continuous furball of characters trying to screw each other over in the name of "Murder Betrayal Corruption"? That's what Armageddon has devolved to? I'm pretty sure a lot of players don't play it that way even now.

This is a boring, reductivist argument that doesn't even approach the sentiment of my point.  If you're looking to score cheap rhetorical points, cool, keep on doing this.  If you want to actually discuss the change and what it means for the game world, let's do that.

[Rogerthat]

I mean.. Less crippl'n more death since no one likes the idea to KEEP YOUR CHARACTER AFTER A BROKEN BONE THAT CAN HEAL? MOORE DEATH!

[maxid]

Yeah, I'm not really sure where the aggressive 'oh no, a tool to make more roleplay rather than just ending PCs completely!' attitude comes from personally.  I understand there may be code limitations that prevent it, and that's a-ok, but to be against it because you somehow feel that this softer option adds more griefing than 'your only option is death' just astounds me.

[Brytta Léofa]

If you, as a player, don't believe you would enjoy playing a maimed character, then, for you, maiming == PKing. And it's not hard to imagine that many players who are reluctant to kill would be less reluctant to maim. So this is adding a kind of might-as-well-be-PKing that disproportionately affects you.

Not my position, but it's understandable that this could feel Very Bad.

(I would hope that a good maiming implementation would decrease num_pkills, but would also increase (num_pkills + num_maimings). The extreme goes down, the middle goes up--but it really does suck for you if you hate the new middle ground.)

[Riev]

If you, as a player, don't believe you would enjoy playing a maimed character, then, for you, maiming == PKing. And it's not hard to imagine that many players who are reluctant to kill would be less reluctant to maim. So this is adding a kind of might-as-well-be-PKing that disproportionately affects you.

Not my position, but it's understandable that this could feel Very Bad.

(I would hope that a good maiming implementation would decrease num_pkills, but would also increase (num_pkills + num_maimings). The extreme goes down, the middle goes up--but it really does suck for you if you hate the new middle ground.)

I think this sums up a counter argument VERY well, actually.

[WithSprinkles]

This whole thread made me realize that schema theory is real. It's like sitting at a D&D table with the folks that want to compose their own songs for their bard and the folks that want to 'Fight something already!" Both say they are roleplaying, but you will NEVER get them to agree on what RP is and both will ALWAYS think the other group is tedious.

When people bringing up policy, genuinely expressing concerns, and offering alternative suggestions provokes anger, my thought is that the base idea was probably not healthy overall. I said it before and I will say it again, I think that if the locdescs is expanded with new injuries (maybe even ones that comes with penalties), this would be moot.

So, someone cripples someone else and gets the 'quit die' response and a corpse. Satisfying? Is this a Mortal Kombat finishing move? Would them not playing along be the new rage quit? I thought this game was roleplay intensive, or was I wrong and we're roleplay accepted? Either way... Killing the characters of folks that don't want to be torture dolls without their full and willing consent. Oh no. Don't throw me into that briar patch!

If and when I play that out with someone, I will likely enjoy the heck out of the ensuing story. It won't be a random Amos rolling by for the lols. Been there, done that, and it only takes ONE negative experience to forever jade you on this game BECAUSE of its theme. I've only been playing about 7 years and what we are discussing was pretty much mine. It's sort of a BAD idea without tweaking, but that's just my opinion as a heavy social player.

(Edit: All that said, if it were implemented, I would just take my stated course of action and avoid it like the plague. I'd actually hope that folks that want it would enjoy it and get the utility they wanted from it with the people they play with. I just don't understand it and I may never.)

[RogueGunslinger]

If you, as a player, don't believe you would enjoy playing a maimed character, then, for you, maiming == PKing. And it's not hard to imagine that many players who are reluctant to kill would be less reluctant to maim. So this is adding a kind of might-as-well-be-PKing that disproportionately affects you.

Not my position, but it's understandable that this could feel Very Bad.

(I would hope that a good maiming implementation would decrease num_pkills, but would also increase (num_pkills + num_maimings). The extreme goes down, the middle goes up--but it really does suck for you if you hate the new middle ground.)

It is already such a rare circumstance that players get put in a situation to be maimed that even if the frequency changes to a large degree(and even that is an assumtion), it wont be having a noticeable impact on the average players experience. Like you would have to be purposefully inserting yourself into situations to be maimed in order for this to impact you.

To which I would question how seriously you think the world should be responding to your shenanigans. If you see maiming as bad as pk and you are so afraid the frequency of pk will go up a little for you due to a coded implementation that focuses on other options, then maybe your tastes go against the general ethos of the game we play.

We should avoid catering to a type of player that wants to be getting into conflict and suffering no tangible consequences just as much as we should avoid catering to griefers who would use such new code just to fuck with other players.

Similarly, If you hate the possibility of pk ever happening so much that any possible increase in its frequency offends you, I cant help but think there are better suited games than Armageddon out there for you.

[MeTekillot]

I would just like to let you know that your continued sly implications that the only motivation behind this idea is sadism/griefing is quite insulting.

"I think there should be more options for lasting consequences than loss of belongings or death of your character. Here are the details."
"So you want other players to be your HELPLESS TORTURE DOLLS, YOU MONSTER!?"