OOC "duel"

[Seeker]

How you feel (player OR Staff) if you encountered this IG:

You have a rival.  She thinks you probably need to be knocked down a few pegs too.

The two of you meet and chest-thumping ensues.  After things build through standard RP, they OOC you this:

OOC "I propose our characters have it out, right here right now. Here's the guidelines: Both have Mercy On.  No intentional murderizing through poison, spell or other means.  Whoever cannot continue the combat either by being knocked out or saved by Mercy must accept maiming, torture or disfigurement by the other."

OOC "Defeat may mean the removal of a limb, an eye, adding a disfiguring scar or even requiring new mdesc or sdesc, VICTOR'S choice.  You in?"


1)  Would you feel this is a reasonable use of the OOC command?
2)  Do think something proposed like this through OOC (an handshake agreement between players about guidelines for their PCS to work within) is interesting?
3)  Would you accept?  Would you negotiate?  Would "draw perraine.dagger;kill rival" instead of answering?

Whatcha think?

[Kavrick]

I think using the OOC command to enable more and better RP is exactly how the command should be used. Personally I'd probably accept if it made sense for the personality of my character and the context, even losing in this case means your story continues and develops further, honestly a fabulous idea. Also I might negotiate if I felt the need to tweak some things.

Overall, gets a big thumbs-up from me personally.

[Halaster]

I would not like to see it because I think it has the potential to be misused and cause bad blood between players. You're essentially turning it into an OOC agreement and if one side decided to go against the deal or betray it, then the other party would say they were breaking an OOC rule or agreement, and it would get messy.

It also puts pressure on the other player to potentially alter their intended behavior for OOC reasons that are not, IMO, justified.

That is not, in my opinion, within the spirit of a roleplaying-required game.

[cnemus]

I have had these kinds of discussions IC and would prefer for them to stay that way. There is always a risk of lying, betrayal, or accident that should remain an IC action, not an OOC one. [Agreeing with Halaster, above]

However, I can just respond to "OOC: Wanna safe duel?" With "OOC: Please keep it IC."

I don't think it takes anything away from my preference to allow this for those that want it, with the caveat that it will be between those players, not staff enforced.

[Kavrick]

I suppose I didn't really think about the implications if someone makes an ooc agreement and then just breaks it. Although I do want to say that without some level of ooc consent, even new mercy rules won't particularly help with people being so danger avoidant.

[Usiku]

It seems quite OOC to me.. e.g. you are taking your rivalry to an OOC level and your characters then become the weapons for the duel. Rather the rivalry should be between the characters and therefore the conversation about a duel can and should take place between the characters, not the players.

Duelling culture isn't something we really have in game, it's not something I have seen, but it is something that could be started (potentially by players). I'd love to see everyone challenging their foes to non-lethal duels. 

[perfecto]

Anything and Everything OOC breaks the game for me personally.

I'd %100 rather make any of the OP's suggested answers happen through RP hopefully.  If the concept of "Lets get it on! ... But also 'both' live to fight another day!" is somehow lost in translation, try harder with your next character. lol

[Dresan]

This sort of ooc stuff is more common in a Mush. And over the years people habe kept to add these sort of elements to this game.

However, this isn't a Mush, its a Mud. Specifically a game where your polital, financial or coded power determine the outcome of conflicts or disagreements.

[Kavrick]

After reading other people's replies to this, I feel like my original interpretation might have been off. I was reading this as a similar practice to what's put in the consent rules about mutiliation: https://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Consent, I thought the concept was to make sure the other person is ok with potential mutilation from losing the duel. Otherwise I agree that actually organizing the duel should be done ICly, not with the OOC command.

[Dracul]

Exactly as above would be immersion breaking for me, and ooc. OOC agreements do not align with IC deception.

I really only like OOC used for syntax, or clarifications as needed.

ICly say you want to hurt them but not kill them, OOC say mercy on please, if it fits your character actions. My character is appearing to have mercy on, etc

And remember, you can still accidentally kill someone even with mercy on.

[eska]

After reading other people's replies to this, I feel like my original interpretation might have been off. I was reading this as a similar practice to what's put in the consent rules about mutiliation: https://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Consent, I thought the concept was to make sure the other person is ok with potential mutilation from losing the duel. Otherwise I agree that actually organizing the duel should be done ICly, not with the OOC command.

Actually this OOC consent is meant to be asked when you want to RP the mutilation or torture scene. This is only meant to play the scene in case the other party agrees to it. Their disagreement doesn't change the outcome of the scene. They will be tortured, scarred or mutilated even if they don't give OOC consent.

[Kavrick]

Actually this OOC consent is meant to be asked when you want to RP the mutilation or torture scene. This is only meant to play the scene in case the other party agrees to it. Their disagreement doesn't change the outcome of the scene. They will be tortured, scarred or mutilated even if they don't give OOC consent.

That's true, you wouldn't really rp out mutilation from a fight anyway, so I can see where people are coming from. I'm convinced, I don't think you'd use ooc in this situation.

[titansfan]

I'd love to see more fights that don't end in death to happen. I'm in the realm of keep it IC though and not use the OOC command.

[helix]

I remember a few duels happening in the 2008-2010 era Arm, and it was all done in-character. The one that I participated in was fantastic - the other character and mine gathered Seconds and met just below Ayun Iskandir, a fortress west of Tuluk. The terms of the duel, all worked out in-character, were, 'to the yield' and we each had a Second. Any violation of the terms of the duel would have it become a free for all. With four 60+ day Warriors, every one of us with a branched weapon skill, it was a very tense scene. I wouldn't want to remove any of that tension by an OOC agreement - there was always the possibility of betrayal.

I did always think that Arm's lack of a duelist culture was a bit of a downside, though. People are very risk adverse with their characters - rightfully so. But at least in my case, I knew and trusted the other character (ironically enough, we were dueling because of an honor dispute, both tribal characters) to act in good faith more than I would trust most people.

[Riev]

It can be done ICly, but it does kind of require a bit of attention to be paid.

If I'm beaten to the point where I give up, I'll disengage. If the other person keeps hitting and wailing on me, was it because their character meant to, or was the player not paying attention? Just because you have Mercy on doesn't mean mercy is codedly given despite intentions.


That said, this is ALMOST like what brawl is meant to do, but brawl is 3 shades away from terrible.

[eska]

Three hit fights were always used to solve disputes. I witnessed these used in various clans and tribes as well as members of different tribes. I always thought these fights as some sort of duels.

[perfecto]

Three hit fights were always used to solve disputes. I witnesses these used in various clans and tribes as well as members of different tribes. I always thought these fights as some sort of duels.

Now that's good problem solving! +1 to see this worked into the cultures of the more populated areas..

[Lizzie]

Three hit fights were always used to solve disputes. I witnesses these used in various clans and tribes as well as members of different tribes. I always thought these fights as some sort of duels.

Now that's good problem solving! +1 to see this worked into the cultures of the more populated areas..

It was a common sparring practice at one point in several clans. In tribes it was referred to as "Three-Cuts" but it wasn't reserved for tribal play only.

[Riev]

I once watched Flint Sky play a game of Three Cuts with a Tuluki Templar.

While I understand the elf won ... elves couldn't possibly have won. So he cheated.

[Tailong]

OOC shouldn't even be part of something like that and it should be kept IC 100% of the time.

[Seeker]

The question wasn't intended to be about dueling or about settling IG disputes. (Pardon the unitentionally misleading title.  Oops.)

It was fundamently about how people felt about trying to set up mutually agreed upon scene boundaries in an OOC fashion.

The consensus appears to be that staff and players are firmly against.  Groovy.  "Let code triumph" appears to be community's preferred bedrock.

[Windstorm]

The consensus appears to be that staff and players are firmly against.  Groovy.  "Let code triumph" appears to be community's preferred bedrock.

It is always very important when reading to note that the GDB is not necessarily the playerbase at large. The GDB is a place never to take toooooooo seriously for that reason.

I would appreciate the sentiment of what you posted, Seeker, but the OOC command in general just isn't used that way on Arm, you know? A better solution would be an established dueling culture of some kind, which certainly isn't uncommon in spaces similar to Arm. Anything that would encourage more interesting and inventive interactions than instant death via codespamsupermove would be something I personally would welcome.

[Riev]

The consensus appears to be that staff and players are firmly against.  Groovy.  "Let code triumph" appears to be community's preferred bedrock.

As a note, I once as a Tuluki Templar that was overseeing two PCs that were really causing no end to the discord in our harmonious city. One was a well trained aide to a Lirathan, the other was a nobody who was trying to cause a scene.

In order to show off the somewhat-new Tuluki Arena, and to try and emphasize that such things could be "battled out" under His Light to determine the victor, we staged a little spar inside the Arena.

The "nobody" was apparently someone who just wanted to suicide, because despite one side disengaging, two people yelling to stop, and even a flee/return to the scene to stop combat the other person kept fighting.

It was clearly an OOC scenario that the person wanted to suicide their character. Even with established IC rules as to what SHOULD happen, it didn't because it was an OOC issue. As mentioned earlier, if you OOC that you want to have a 'safe' duel and the other side takes it too far there is no way to determine if it was an OOC flub or an intentional killing.



OOC CAN be used for this situation, but a lot of us seasoned Bynners stopped doing the "ooc mercy on plz" because if you WANTED to 'accidentally' kill your sparring partner, it felt like an OOC issue because you asked for mercy.

[Halaster]

I would appreciate the sentiment of what you posted, Seeker, but the OOC command in general just isn't used that way on Arm, you know? A better solution would be an established dueling culture of some kind, which certainly isn't uncommon in spaces similar to Arm. Anything that would encourage more interesting and inventive interactions than instant death via codespamsupermove would be something I personally would welcome.

I couldn't have said it better myself.  Agreed on the idea of a better solution being an established IC dueling culture being the right approach here.

[Brytta Léofa]

"Let code triumph" appears to be community's preferred bedrock.

On first reading I thought this was unfair and snarky. "Sola Code" isn't the natural alternative to OOC scene-arrangement. These three remain: OOC, roleplay, and code; and in the long run the greatest of these is still roleplay.

(astronaut-gun.jpg etc.)

But it is fair in this sense: in any given situation, code will always triumph and we haven't been willing to put limits on that. If I PK someone for flimsy, foolish, or purely OOC reasons, I may lose karma, but dead stays dead.

[Tailong]

The consensus appears to be that staff and players are firmly against.  Groovy.  "Let code triumph" appears to be community's preferred bedrock.

Let IC be IC should triumph in all situations. The same things you wanted to ask in an OOC manner can be handled the exact same way in an IC manner.

Code Select Expand

OOC "I propose our characters have it out, right here right now. Here's the guidelines: Both have Mercy On.  No intentional murderizing through poison, spell or other means.  Whoever cannot continue the combat either by being knocked out or saved by Mercy must accept maiming, torture or disfigurement by the other."

OOC "Defeat may mean the removal of a limb, an eye, adding a disfiguring scar or even requiring new mdesc or sdesc, VICTOR'S choice.  You in?"
Say: I propose a duel, right here right now. Both of us will be merciful, combat only. Whoever is knocked out, or flee from this field is subject to the victor's wrath. Keep in mind, I mean removal of a limb, disfigurement, let's get creative, hmm?

No need to go OOC.