Threaten, fleshed out

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Are we getting to the point where we need the Staff to weigh in with opinions?

Absolutely.

[ashjpd]

hehe, Thats what I was thinking, that is all we need now.

[Lasakar]

You could hit me all, but I just use CONSIDER <player> (besides emotes!).

For the most players it is allready a threat! And more I don't need to make my intention clear...  :twisted:

[Dan]

The addition of threaten... well, lets just say that I would definately make a thug character.

Picture this...

The seedy thug threatens you with his heavy wooden crossbow!

The seedy thug says, in sirihish, "Don't move now, or I'll shoot! Just drop your belt and keep along, there'll be no trouble!"

You attempt to draw your sword but the seedy thug attacks first!
The seedy thug shoots you with a heavy wooden crossbow in the head!
You draw a bone saber.

assess me
You are bleeding profusely.
You do not look tired.

think Damn it!


Something like this.

I wouldn't mind seeing threaten allow someone to level their bow/crossbow at you and let the arrow/bolt fly before you do anything in self defense.

Thoughts?

[ashjpd]

That sounds a lot better to threaten with a long-ranged weapon. Because,
in real life you would be able to hold someone back with a bow more likely then a sword. This would also give the attacker a disadvantage, not having a close up weapon drawn and such, so it might even things out a little. Maybe it could be a skill and if you are more skilled, then maybe you could do it with close up weapons, such as a sword.

When you try to threaten with an axe or something, it might say.

That is not a ranged weapon.

Or.

You are not skilled enough yet.

Maybe something of that sort.

Thugs and asssasins might be able to start out with the skill or maybe be able to branch it later.

Shrug*

I just think this type of thing would be something that a skilled person would now. For example, a raider that has been raiding for years.

Shrug*

Maybe even some of the tribes would have their chars. start out with the skill, which wuld bring more players to play them I think.

[lukie]

Threatening with ranged weapons sounds cool to me. It also makes sense that you could threaten using one from far away.

[jmordetsky]

I honestly think this is a fantastic idea. I didn't at first, but now that you've explained it.

Yes. Yes definately

As for range vs melee, I'm not convinced you need a range weapon to threaten.

For example, you are in the same room with me, or street, or section of the dessert.

I shout at you, from a good number of cords away, swaying a nasty looking hammer, "Hey you. Don't move!"

You move, I chase after you. If we're in the same "square", I should get a shot at you, maybe not a good shot. Then your flee roll determines if you do escape.

[ashjpd]

Now can an immortal say something on the subject?

[Lerl]

I like the idea except for one thing.  The initial attack should have similar success rate as rescue.  "You leap at the blue-eyed merchant but aren't quick enough! The blue-eyed merchant draws his weapon.  You hit the blue-eyed merchant grievously in the head."  If a bunch of newb raiders are gathering all around me while I don't have a weapon out and mounted, I would ALWAYS draw and dismount hoping they all don't get in and threatening in time.  Otherwise we'll see raiding groups that have exactly the number of swords to near instant kill someone before and when they dismount.  Also, immortals might to make sure to add plenty of "delay" after the initial attack.  A "delay" before the threaten takes effect (as the raiders are approaching) would be good too.
Rick

[Xygax]

Alright, so I've had some time to mull this over, and I'm thinking some of the coded features that already exist could be enhanced to provide equivalent functionality, without creating what feels to me like a somewhat artificial system.

First, let me say why I think this feels a little artificial:  The act of threatening someone is an intangible, roleplayed act.  It's one of those things we -want- you to work out ICly with shout, say, tell, psi, etc., and so adding a command that essentially creates an OOC bond between the two players involved in the conflict feels a little forced.  If the participants involved aren't proving themselves to be trustworthy players (spam-fleeing, fleeing to logout, etc.), the situation is better handled by the staff than by a coded system that cannot possibly understand all the IC nuances of the situation.  Also, I think the full consequences of a system like this aren't entirely clear, and in some sense I don't like it simply because it makes my spider-senses tingle and I can't totally express why.  Finally, it isn't trivially easy to code, as it's likely to touch a number of systems, combat, spells, and even what we call "specials", and so could leave a lot of breaks and loopholes when first implemented (this is the least of arguments, but still worth mentioning.  We're not afraid to tackle large projects, but things that are likely to leave exploitable loopholes always bother me).

Alternatives:

I haven't thought on this a great deal, but currently my favorite alternative to a system like this is to consider some enhancements to "guard," to make it a potentially more aggressive ability.

In particular, I like something I'm calling "guard stances" for lack of a better term, which means that you can choose what you'd like your character to -try- to do, when someone sneaks/runs/flees toward the exit you're guarding:

Block:  The default, this guard-stance does precisely what guard does now.

Subdue:  If your target is not in combat, and they flee toward an exit you're guarding, you may test your guard skill.  If it succeeds, you may then test your subdue skill to see if you can grab them before they slip past.  If you succeed in both, your target is subdued.  If they are in combat, then this behaves just like the "block" stance, or perhaps disengages them and their attackers while you grab them.

Kill:  If your target is in combat and they flee toward and exit you're guarding, perhaps a guard check and a weapon-skill check allows you a free shot at them as they go by, or allows you to engage them afresh (preventing them from leaving AND placing them in-combat with you as their primary target).

There are probably some other "stances" that make sense, but I haven't thought through the whole thing terribly thoroughly.

Another enhancement would be to increase the change of guarding a given exit, if more than one person are guarding it.  I once saw a sneaky bastard run past 3 or 4 half-giant soldiers guarding the exit of a room (the room only had the one exit), and the player still managed to flee past simply by spamming "n;n;n;n;n;n".

Yet another enhancement/change might be to put a longer delay (I'm not actually sure there's -any- delay, currently), on people who get blocked going through an exit (the delay should probably be slightly longer than that imposed by a regular, successful move).

Another still would be to make it cost some additional stamina to try to flee through a guarded doorway (and more still if you fail).

Now, I'm not running off to code any ofl these changes this very second, I'm just throwing out some ideas that I think are more elegant solutions than this "threaten" concept.

-- X

[Bestatte]

Xygax, I love the ideas! My only comment, is that all your "guard" stuff seems exclusive to guarding exits. What about if you're guarding a person? Obviously, in most cities unless you're a militia member, trying to kill someone who goes after the merchant you're guarding will result in a crimflag on you, but it would be great if "guard-subdue" allowed you to grab the sneaky thief/backstabber/whatever by the scruff of his neck if he fails to get past your guard. Without any crim-flag against the guard person for doing his job.

[Xygax]

Well, certainly if someone attacks your ward, trying to subdue instead of intervening could be possible, but it seems likely to be pretty dangerous (since you'll be in combat with the attacker if you fail, and he probably has his weapons out).  I'm not sure this is the behavior you want when you catch someone trying to -steal- from your ward, though.  Needs more thought.

-- X

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

If someone attacks you or your charge in the city, you get no crim flag. I have to second Xygax's suggestions and say that they do actually sound pretty good. I still like the threaten skill, but apparently that is not the solution best suited to this. In that case, these new ideas you speak of are great.

Another question would be this one. Is there a way that we can bind characters? That would be useful and should exist, and I'd think the way that one might prevent this from being too encumbering on the PC bound is to make the escape based on flee.

Example:

Code Select Expand

>The massive mul subdues you, despite your struggles.

>The massive mul fights to bound you, but fails.

>The massive mul fights to bound you, but fails.

>You struggle to escape the massive mul, but fail.

>The massive mul fights to bound you, and succeeds.

>The massive mul releases you, allowing you to fall to your back.

>You struggle against your bindings.

>You struggle against your bindings, but feel helpless.

The latter struggle is like saying that you failed fleeing a subdue. The first is saying that you just loosened the bindings a bit. Binding objects would have ratings, and for, say, vine rope, you'd need three good flees to break free, while iron chains might need four hundred, and so forth.

So?

[creeper386]

One thing that would be a big benefit to ALOT of these situations, but I don't know how it'd work. Is to be able to guard an entrance BEFORE/AS you enter. So as you go through you'd be guarding the exit already. As by the time you get the movement lag done most the time it's common someone will just walk off. Even right through the door you just entered.

The main problem comes in huge rooms, but you're already allowed to guard exits in large rooms so I don't see much difference. It'd just show that you'll trying to cut off the escape of any one.

Wouldn't help much for one person in the desert, but it'd allow someone to go into a room or dead end and block the exit.

Along with having bonuses for multiple people guarding exits... It'd probably at least allow people to do what they want to do.


The only problem I see is, it seems any ideas to come up with all say that it's the people being attacked/mugged/whatnot that are doing the poor RPing or not paying attention to IC circumstances. The only thing I can think of here that would help is most likely some way to at least somewhat avoid combat. And it goes back to certain "combat stances." Being able to run from someone attacking you. Depending on speed and such would be useful. Not anything extremely powerful, but something that could create some time. As I don't think every time it's the person who runs away who isn't paying attention to IC situations.


Creeper

[grog]

Another question would be this one. Is there a way that we can bind characters? That would be useful and should exist, and I'd think the way that one might prevent this from being too encumbering on the PC bound is to make the escape based on flee.

The young krath-burned gith jumps on you, hogtying you expertly
The young, krath-burned gith throws his ten gallon hat in the air, letting out a loud cheer

The feral-eyed halfling ties you up
The feral-eyed halfling places a blue fruit in your mouth
The feral-eyed halfling licks his lips, placing a lei around his neck

Etc.

I think I like it.

[Callisto]

One thing that would be a big benefit to ALOT of these situations, but I don't know how it'd work. Is to be able to guard an entrance BEFORE/AS you enter.

If you're going to walk south and guard the north exit in that room, type guard north before you walk in. I'm pretty sure that will work.

[theebie]

The latter struggle is like saying that you failed fleeing a subdue. The first is saying that you just loosened the bindings a bit. Binding objects would have ratings, and for, say, vine rope, you'd need three good flees to break free, while iron chains might need four hundred, and so forth.

So?

Iron chains ? I wouldnt try to break 'em, I would RUN with them :)