Cripple (x) head/leg/body/arm

[WithSprinkles]

I hardly see how attempts to clearly and precisely outline my meaning are in any way sly. I'm saying exactly what I mean, sometimes to exhaustive length and detail -- the content just isn't appreciated, and that's fine. Again, a base ideas was offered and people that opposed it gave suggestions to make it palatable. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater makes no sense.

I'll also apologize if you did not the colorful language 'torture dolls', that was unhelpful and hard to quantify on any basis, but focusing on a tiny portion of the entirety of my contributions of the thread is an ad homenim sidestep at best and your last statement was a strawman, Metekillot.

You guys realize that some of you ARE more established players in the community and a lot of us newer players respect and want to play with you? Looking for insult where folks are just trying to contribute, or repeatedly pushing them away when they want to fit in is a non-starter.

Edit - I'm clearly done with the thread. I'll respond to a PM if anyone wants, but my even posting was a bad idea.

[MeTekillot]

I think perhaps you may be getting yourself a little too worked up. May be that I grouped your post in with the other handful of posters in the thread who are asserting that the only purpose behind this idea was to increase griefing potential against other players. Griefing is deliberately sabotaging another player's game experience for no other reason than to take pleasure in their misery. That's not the case with this idea, as I've stated a few times. It's to offer an opening for more enforced narrative potential for people roleplaying grievous wounds inflicted by their rivals.

It's so they don't suddenly forget they have a gimp leg when sprinting down an alleyway would save their character; their lovers and friends might look upon them with pity (and perhaps disgust) after the injury; give them a chance to overcome the sudden disability and succeed despite having one hand, or no tongue -- or let them fail in their attempt to overcome it. I want them too tell a story that involves other people in the process beyond the current meta of "drop pack" or "etwo sword;bash".

Also, if the guy decides to 'quit die' after the crippling, I'm not gonna deny a little bit of satisfaction in that. Don't want to get crippled or killed?

[maxid]

But the only time this would even come up is at a time when, currently, you'd just be pk'd.

This is literally only going to save character lives.  I absolutely do not understand the people who claim this would make greifing more common.  The proposed idea has it happen when you're ko'd and at someone's mercy.  That's a pretty rare event already, and if it happened now your options are 'kill them' and 'let them go'.  The former is vastly more likely than the latter in almost any scenario.  Claiming that it will add griefing, with zero reasonable evidence, while ignoring all contrary conversation intended to help explain how it wouldn't doesn't come across very clearly, and doesn't really address the idea in question very well.  You shouldn't worry about lead poisoning when you're discussing unleaded gasoline.


And WithSprinkles' point about 'well this seems to cause contention so the idea is bad as a whole' is super unhealthy for discussion.  All you need to do to cancel any idea you, personally, dislike is to raise some ruckus in the thread and get the idea declared toxic?  That can't be what you're saying, can it?  I know the GDB has a few personalities that go apoplectic with any level of disagreement (especially disagreement that doesn't have ten layers of sugar coating on it) but even so, this is a pretty absurd argument to me.

[chrisdcoulombe]

I really want to cripple someone's head now.

[Eyeball]

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.

This from someone who put forward the absurdly simplistic reply "because Murder Corruption Betrayal".  You know, instead of an actual example of how this would enhance the game.

[MeTekillot]

Vivaduans would not be able to heal many of the suggestions in this thread.  They can't cause the body to regenerate or re-attach stuff.

I feel like it would be relatively straightforward to retcon this to foster playability and conflict, or just have magick/Vivadu evolve.

[MeTekillot]

Nudging this idea up the boards because I still think it's a good one

[Jihelu]

I firmly think you should be able to combine medicine + vivaduan healing to get body parts back on. We, with modern scienecence, can slap finger back on if you get it back on in enough time.

Of course we also have sterilized tools, coolers, etc. However we don't have healing magic, and I feel some stitching + healing magic (Or even just healing magic) should be able to phase a limb right back on. It also brings up a good question: What if I /do/ stitch a finger back on and slap a heal on it?

I also think we should just outright have a regenerate spell that can regenerate bigger and bigger parts of the body with higher casting power

[Dar]

I remember helping a person reattach a finger.

He was a bynner trooper and a templar cut his finger off.

He went to a vivaduan and paid them to reattach it.

During the ceremony, I as a mindworm entered his head and rewired the connections between his mind and his lost appendage. It was a pretty funny scene.

[X-D]

Looks like I missed this the first time around.

No, it is not a good idea.

Maiming should always involve consent and staff.

And so, the code to do these things already exist.

[MeTekillot]

That was addressed in the various posts throughout the thread. Three or four times, actually.

[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.

Specifically, what you said about it requiring consent is wholly addressed with the above quoted caveat: Notify the player of the crippling and let them elect to die instead, as the current consent to maim details already.

[Jihelu]

It would be nice to throw a crippling code onto someone instantly instead of
wish all 'can someone help me'

*Waiting....waiting....waiting.....waiting....*

'Ok staff isn't on just do it later k thanks honor system'

[X-D]

'Ok staff isn't on just do it later k thanks honor system'

Yup.

And to reply to both...As I already said.

Staff should ALWAYS be involved in these cases. If you Don't like it

Mercy off
kill person

Or, the above quote.

[Jihelu]

'Ok staff isn't on just do it later k thanks honor system'

Yup.

And to reply to both...As I already said.

Staff should ALWAYS be involved in these cases. If you Don't like it

Mercy off
kill person

Or, the above quote.

If the receiving player is able to consent to the mutilation, what is the point of having staff do it? Are they bored?

[X-D]

Because I do not think this is a thing that should be done without oversight....plain and simple.

Also because I think coding such a thing would have be in depth, needing to involve stats, levels of maiming, locations etc. And really the current method involving staff is better already costing far less time.

And, I really doubt anybody would consent to such a thing anyway, quit die would be 99.5% of the time...so why did staff waste time putting it in?

[najdorf]

Permadeath system is punishing enough. Rest should be upon the acceptance and RP of the recipient. For playability reasons, I usually prefer death over getting crippled (when captured by enemy). This would just add a further step to suicide.
It makes things more realistic, but takes away the fun from victims.   

[MeTekillot]

I'm confused how you all think having your character permanently killed is preferable to stat loss, either permanent or temporary. I'm likewise confused how you think meting out these killing should be LESS controlled than being able to damage stats/abilities/skills as an alternative to the killing.

[najdorf]

stat loss is okay, really? I will respond to you with your own venom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAqmTaRKNcg

[Hauwke]

stat loss is okay, really? I will respond to you with your own venom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAqmTaRKNcg

That really blows way past the point he was trying to make, don't you think?

[MeTekillot]

Yes. If you've had your strength repeatedly crippled, you're free to use melem tuek.

[Mercy]

Damn this thread was hard to read.

I like this idea, especially from the perspective of coded HELPING with roleplay.

This needs to have consent attached, hard stop. I presently live with someone that is dealing with PTSD and have already watched them be bullied from MUDs by people who don't quite grasp the nature of consent. Ignoring metagaming, people do not remove their consent to gain an in-game advantage. They remove consent to avoid RL discomfort and dredging up of trauma. This is paramount if you want to keep players in your game and y'know, be a decent human being. Consent is important.

I don't care if there is no way to remove the effects. It'd be nice if splints could y'know, do something >.> but that's a more comprehensive change and not exactly what's being asked of here. Putting all the control for applying the coded effects in the hands of the person being crippled is the least traumatizing way to go about this, and ensures consent. I think using whatever command it is to cripple/maim your character should also ping them with a message to create a report regarding the incident, and probably be logged for staff as well.

Bear in mind, this would effectively be no different than consent to maim it just would add the coded means to facilitate RP (where someone would've consented to being maimed anyway, and perhaps entice people to reconsider a PK that doesn't need to strictly be a PK). The upside is it requires less staff intervention. If you don't want to be maimed, then it's the same process of proceeding with a PK as things stand currently. Unless I'm completely missing something here. No "too bad you got maimed, go store if you don't like it." There are very real people on the other side of that collection of text, and words have a definite effect on people. It's why we're playing this game.


Sidenote: Maybe chill out with throwing around how other people might/will/do feel about this sort of thing. I understand why people have strong feelings about this; hell my initial reaction was HELL FUCKING NO, because I know the RL trauma this can dredge up. I know I saw somewhere the line (should go quote it but fuck me if I wanna go back through this whole thread) "No one wants their character to be maimed." That's definitely not true, I've definitely wanted at least one of my characters maimed in the past, ESPECIALLY as an alternative to just death. Mostly just cause they could've used some humility and I think it would've added to their character a lot. For me, my PCs are an in many ways an extension of myself but they are decidedly not me. I like watching how their stories unfold but I've never been interested in making them behave in a way that is suitable to me and me alone. If I don't care to explore the direction their story is headed, or I genuinely cannot wrap my head around how they would choose to proceed, then I'll store and move on with my life. Some people have a more intimate connection with their PCs, there's nothing wrong with this, and should be respected as well. And some people are just more deeply empathetic regardless of their connection and some shit just hit them in the feels harder.

I'm totally down to have a character of mine get fucked up if it makes sense IC and for there to be coded repercussions. It can be very awkward trying to participate in the game and properly simulate those repercussions without code.

[MeTekillot]

Mercy: I proposed several times in the thread previous that if a person is crippled, they are allowed to 'quit die' for the next 10 RL minutes, thus facilitating their character being killed instead if playing a maimed person is too disagreeable.

[MeTekillot]