A command to cripple an otherwise helpless (mortally wounded/complete unconsciousness, would not work on sleeping only) character with a non-lethal(tm) attack. Would permanently lower one of the four stats. You should only be able to be crippled once every few days so people can't spam-cripple your arms into poor strength.
Head = wisdom
Arms = strength
Body = endurance
Legs = agility
Automatically receive a generic scar on the location that you could just cover up with another scar or tattoo if you wanted.
People with bandage should make a check to see if you've been crippled before by assessing you.
He walks with a limp.
He holds his arms oddly.
He has a slight hunch.
His skull has a subtle dent in it.
Give Sorcerers/Vivaduans the ability to heal crippling, separate from the hp restoration they do already.
Nosave cripple. You will not resist attempts to cripple you.
Attempting to cripple someone recently crippled
He is already terribly wounded. It would kill him.
cripple x's arms (lifting a boot and stomping on %x elbow)
Lifting a boot and stomping on his elbow, you cripple the tall, muscular man's arms!
Yes! If I could endorse one feature it would be this, I literally will stop whining forever if something like this was implemented. Awesome idea mek!!
Would be a good idea to punish a foe instead of offing them. Good way to make more compelling stories with lasting consequences, extending rivalries or outright changing the trajectory of a character (shamed warrior unable to fight, etc). I could see this being a lot of fun.
It also has a lot of grief potential. Using the command carelessly for every opponent, ganging up on someone over successive days now that they're less able to resist, etc. I'd suggest this only be applicable to PC characters considering it has some twink application. I don't want to see a dozen permanently disabled, non-respawning scorpions and gith so as to clear the roads.
Dangerous idea but a fun one, I'd like to see it.
Quote from: BOXCARS on June 26, 2019, 11:34:09 PM
It also has a lot of grief potential. Using the command carelessly for every opponent, ganging up on someone over successive days now that they're less able to resist, etc.
Yes.
Somewhat related to this what I would like to see is coded handicapped for PCs that choose to have one eye.. it frustrates me to no end that someone with one eye would use archery/combat to the extent of someone with their full vision. I have been around people with one eye and they are completely fucked on one side for depth perception. Now removing an eye could have actual detrimental consequences to PCs, just log the eye removal and send in the log and they will get the "one-eye" flag and get a significant handicap.
Quote from: IntuitiveApathy on June 30, 2007, 05:39:36 AM
>necksnap amos
You try and snap the tall, muscular man's neck but fumble and snap your own!
Welcome to Armageddon! '(mantishead)
If the developers can code this it would be awesome and give an alternative to killing.
Oh hey mr. elf..Think you are soo quick? Let's see how well you quickly you get around with a broken leg.
This is so dark.
I love it.
I like the idea of a physical temporary debuff to characters skills, stats.
Temporary can be restored over time or through other means. Can have a time frame of in game years, but still temporary.
I was intending permanence unless cured by magick. You could still spice up as a crutch to your injuries.
Quote from: MeTekillot on June 27, 2019, 01:29:26 PM
I was intending permanence unless cured by magick. You could still spice up as a crutch to your injuries.
I feel that it would create a currency of Cure Magick and people would do out-of-character things to decurse themselves.
There are other tools that could be used:
Injury -> Leg Broken - agility damaged slightly by 1 in-game Year. Flee skill reduce. Kick skill reduced. Run increases stamina drain +2.
Get Bandaged successfully - reduce injury by 2/3 in-game Years.
Get Bandaged moderately - reduce injury by 1/3 in-game Years.
You already have this ability.
Wish up. Consent to maim. Then maim. Then do your obligatory PK (maiming) report. Staff should be taking it from there.
It goes awry when you don't do the report. I've cut hands off people before after they consented and then a month later I see them in the Gaj and they've got both hands. But I didn't log it and I didn't submit a report on the event so I only had myself to blame.
You don't have to wish up to PK somebody. I don't really see the downside to having code that does this. (Yeah, somebody will take this too far and be Maimin' Everybody, but the same thing happens with PKing.)
Controversial opinion though: killing any PC (or maiming) should automatically open a request prompting you to describe the circumstances.
Quote from: mansa on June 27, 2019, 05:14:17 PM
Quote from: MeTekillot on June 27, 2019, 01:29:26 PM
I was intending permanence unless cured by magick. You could still spice up as a crutch to your injuries.
I feel that it would create a currency of Cure Magick and people would do out-of-character things to decurse themselves.
And be held accountable to the rumors of consorting with mages. I see no problem.
Quote from: Brytta Léofa on June 27, 2019, 06:01:20 PM
Controversial opinion though: killing any PC (or maiming) should automatically open a request prompting you to describe the circumstances.
👍🏼
You should also have it in your stat output. So you don't forget.
You are affected by:
Crippled - Arms, Spice
Neat idea!
Quote from: Brytta Léofa on June 27, 2019, 06:01:20 PM
Controversial opinion though: killing any PC (or maiming) should automatically open a request prompting you to describe the circumstances.
An actual Request Tool Request? I'm for it. Way better than a pre-planned (someday I'll kill that Brytta), and if you don't post anything in it, it is still an open request that can ping staff as to something happening.
So long as its not an in-game thing, though. Because hoo boy would I hate to put a dagger in Lady Fale's neck, and be unable to run away not for backstab lag, but because I have to describe the circumstances of her death before I can continue.
Love the idea. Every bit of it. Let us cut off hands too.
I personally do love the idea of being able to maim people more impactfully (eyes/feet/hands) but I'm posing this idea with less severe penalty parsed out with little staff oversight so that it's more palatable to being implemented. If I really had my way, you'd be able to maim people to Sand dan Glokta levels. Take their tongues and they can no longer speak. Break their legs in such a way that moving always consumes stamina and they can't run anymore. Chop off a hand or a foot, or take an eye (or both!).
But I'd say start out with just being able to maim people's stats and then we can work from there.
I do want it noted that I also actually support the idea, because I've always been in favor of more minor-moderate violence in the world. More muggings, less "give me your gold" at the end of a knife. Someone pisses you off? You don't hire an assassin, you hire some out-of-work grebber from the 'rinth to break their fingers. Catch a 'rinther slinking around? Break a leg.
The ONLY downside is that it requires Mortally Wounded or other incapacitation, which isn't necessarily easy to do. It is actually easier to just kill someone, rather than maim them, especially as you get higher in skill/do more damage per hit.
I'm still down for it, just needs some more rounding out.
Use blunt weapons or whoop their ass and make them submit to a crippling (nosave cripple) after knocking off 75% of their hp in two hits.
Quote from: MeTekillot on June 28, 2019, 04:47:31 PM
Use blunt weapons or whoop their ass and make them submit to a crippling (nosave cripple) after knocking off 75% of their hp in two hits.
As much as I hate the 'nosave' creep that we've had the past couple years, this would actually be really good.
nosave cripple/nosave maim would work for Templar interrogations, back-room assaults, etc.
If they have nosave off, they get a message of "They would prefer death to maiming".
I'm all into my PCs getting maimed and f'ed up. It'd be cool if when subdued it toggled on.
Shit, make it classs specific to Raiders and Enforcers, and Templars/AoD sergeants. How's that for backstab branching compensation?
Going from "Your GP or your HP" to "Your coin, please, or your good knee."
I like the idea. As long as it gets logged in notes and such much like kills are. I can imagine a dude who's leery of mass killing the entirety of the opposite side of the rinth he's in while they're all young and untrained, because it'd be a twinky and unrealistic way of power control (targetting only pcs, as if they're the real representation of west/east side power of the rinth). While at the same time, more then eager to continuously keep the entire side crippled, etc.
Or if a Templar decides that every elf he sees must have broken fingers, they should start with the virtual population.
I sorta like the idea of being able to codedly cripple a person. I have been in situations where I'm supposed to be roleplaying an injury and I just forget and after a few more times playing it's like it never happened.
Howevah,
I do not like the idea of stats being permanently lowered. Whether we like to admit it or not, there are some players that would abuse such power. I can already see the entire elf population of Allanak ending up with broken hands and fingers, limiting their ability to do what comes naturally to elves, and thereby giving someone yet another opportunity to cripple them more. Seeing how agility would be the targeted stat, it would affect so many other things. Agility is pretty important. I could be okay with a temporary loss of specific skills or something. As long as there is a way to seek out healing that would completely remove the effects. PC to PC interaction is MY preferred method of play, but there are some that are quite happy if all their friends are NPC's.
Quote from: JohnMichaelHenry on June 30, 2019, 07:41:36 PM
As long as there is a way to seek out healing that would completely remove the effects.
Did you read the first post?
And spice would also be able to temporarily mitigate the effects of being crippled, depending on the spice in question.
I did read it, yes. The way you have it there, the only choice one has after being crippled is to go see a Vivaduan. ( I mean, cuz who's really gonna ask a sorcerer to fix their broken arm) And don't forget, it has to be a Vivaduan that can HEAL, which is I'm quite certain without looking at any statistics, is more rare now than it ever has been.
I do see upon reread that you said shouldn't be able to cripple over and over again. That's a viable option.
I still think it affecting stats is too much. For example. You broke my legs, and my agility is lowered, which will affect things like stealing, sleight of hand, swinging my weapon (hit chance is agility right? Or at least number of attacks per round is) which I should still be able to do perfectly fine. That is why I like Mansa's idea about skill impairment vs. stats being lowered.
Targeting stats was intended to make it a little more simple to implement but I'm game for being able to target specific skills as well. I don't want the scope of the idea to creep to where it would be too unweldy to implement.
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.
QuoteI 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.
Maybe there could just be a nosave option for cripple? I think that would put the onus on the victim to say "I'm okay with this.. I want to roleplay this.." otherwise if the nosave flag for cripple is off you just can't cripple them.
I will say that this is probably a waste though for the coders because 90% of players will just leave the flag off so they can't be crippled.
consent to Maim already exists, and if the player does not consent, that is consent to kill.
Quote from: Riev on July 02, 2019, 11:38:26 AM
consent to Maim already exists, and if the player does not consent, that is consent to kill.
Well I don't think you ever need to consent to kill. That's never been a thing, pkills can happen at any moment in the game with or without consent.
Where does it state that you have to consent to maiming? I read help consent and see nothing about that.
Then you missed a full paragraph.
QuoteIn 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.
Ah right. So blinding, crippling, etc. Is already by consent? I never knew that. So adding cripple would contradict the current policy? That's not good.
Quote from: Kryos on July 02, 2019, 03:03:19 AM
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.
Strongly in favor of this general idea and admire the simplicity of the specific idea.
I came up with a list of maiming types and affects based on these criteria:
- Change abilities, not stats.
- Provide a lot of different options: some mostly cosmetic, some damaging but playable, and some really crippling.
- Anything with a major long-term coded affect creates a request (in the request tool) for the perpetrator to note the circumstances. (Do this only if PKing does the same thing--if that's a direction we want to go.)
The List of Badness:
- Remove ear (left or right): creates appropriate ear object (elf -> elf ear), adds missing ear scar, no code penalty.
- Remove finger on hand (primary or secondary): creates finger object, adds missing finger scar, can't wear a ring on that finger. If more than three fingers removed on a hand, can't ep/es with that hand, request opened.
- Remove hand (primary or secondary): creates hand object, can't ep/es with that hand, victim knocked unconscious, request opened.
- Smash knee: victim can't run, walk description is "limping," may heal or become permanent, request opened.
- Smash ankle: can't run, walk description is "hobbling," permanent, request opened.
- Remove foot: can't run, missing foot desc added, walk description is "hobbling," permanent, request opened.
- Remove tongue: creates tongue object, victim's speech changed to babbling, permanent, request opened.
- Remove eye (right or left): creates eye object, no coded penalty for first eye (for simplicity). Second eye applies permanent blind affect, request opened.
Quote from: Krath on July 02, 2019, 02:31:57 PM
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.
We didn't read the same thread then, most have caveats attached to their acceptance. That also has nothing to do with what you quoted.
Should anyone be surprised that those with G inclinations want to use those more, on top of just PK'ing and social bullying? No. It fits with the theme too.
Is that actually healthy or good for a game? Not like this it isn't. As purposed this is simply a cudgel that will be wielded just as bluntly.
How is this idea worse than just straight up PKing someone? I've had caveats that it not be permanent, if you don't mind becoming a spicer or become known to consort with wigglers.
Quote from: MeTekillot on July 02, 2019, 03:08:48 PM
How is this idea worse than just straight up PKing someone? I've had caveats that it not be permanent, if you don't mind becoming a spicer or become known to consort with wigglers.
You're forcing players into a role they might not want to play. Most people would rather just roll a new PC, so if you cripple them and ruin their character beyond repair they are going to suicide/retire and move on.
This really comes down to the freedom of letting players do what they find fun. If someone chooses to be a cripple in chargen that is vastly different than someone becoming crippled ICly and codedly by another player.
Yes, they can choose to store or suicide if they want. I see no problem. I prefer giving them options other than ending their character right there, since there are no other ways for me to affect their character for a semi-permanent period beyond that moment in time in which I have bested them.
I think what Metekillot is saying, that seems ... somehow to be getting misheard in text is this;
This system would only work when someone is Mortally Wounded or in a state where PK is effortless/inevitable.
There is already a consent to maim a character, this would give the maim options to the Player involved, putting the work and onus on them, rather than staff, or the maimed character to RP something they don't "have to".
You don't consent to be maimed? Then you're dead, fine.
You consent to be maimed? Now you walk at halfspeed and hate your life but your PC lives on.
I mean, personally, I'd keep with being able to cripple any helpless person whether or not they consent, and allow people who could resist to instead give up a nosave on it. The player can just store, after all.
Quote from: Kryos on July 02, 2019, 03:03:19 AM
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.
A crippled character has far reaching plot-hook effects on anyone who associates with that character, whether presently or in the future. A dead character leaves only the people that knew them to get revenge, whether or not they want it. A cripple can strive for his own vengeance, and feel the sting of lost lovers and friends who can't bear to look at him, or who no longer wish to associate with him as he's no longer useful.
Quote from: kahuna on July 02, 2019, 02:13:38 PM
Ah right. So blinding, crippling, etc. Is already by consent? I never knew that. So adding cripple would contradict the current policy? That's not good.
... 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.
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.
So you would be left with no way to IC'ly remedy a lot of the suggested crippling disabilities.
Consent would remain. Consent is not there because the interactions of the characters in maiming or torturing is in any way bad. Consent is there because such activity could trigger a player, outside of the intent of the interaction itself and specific to the personal circumstances of that player themselves. We have had players who did not feel the need to extend player to player courtesy to avoid this, and so we have had to implement a rule to require such courtesy.
Add the ability to 'quit die' after a crippling attack from another character. Give them the following prompt.
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.
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?
I'd also interject a fun thing to ponder: whippings. Currently requires consent, but it's a coded means of adding both scars, and permanently damaging your PC (with no way to reverse that I'm aware of). As we already have this kind of code in place (not to mention The Cuddler and other fun toys), would the ability to cripple a basically-dying person be that much of a stretch?
More than anything -- It's code, and code is work, and unless Staff were interested in it greatly, I don't think we'd see something like it soon.
Quote from: Brokkr on July 02, 2019, 04:12:44 PM
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.
So you would be left with no way to IC'ly remedy a lot of the suggested crippling disabilities.
Knowing this changes things for me. If this is and would remain the case, I say no way. I'm gonna have to jump on board with Kryos. Sorry, Met.
Quote from: Veselka on July 02, 2019, 05:56:10 PM
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.
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.
I like it.
I do think the best way of going about it is through 'long lasting' but not permanent.
Quote from: Krath on July 02, 2019, 02:31:57 PM
Quote from: Kryos on July 02, 2019, 03:03:19 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Riev on July 02, 2019, 03:48:14 PM
... 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?
Quote from: Riev on July 03, 2019, 08:25:47 AM
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.
Quote from: John on July 03, 2019, 10:14:26 AM
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.
Quote from: kahuna on July 03, 2019, 10:48:57 AM
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.
Quote from: kahuna on July 03, 2019, 10:50:59 AM
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteI 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.
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.
Quote from: kahuna on July 03, 2019, 01:55:53 PM
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."
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.
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.
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.
QuoteI 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 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.
Quote from: kahuna on July 07, 2019, 03:16:23 PM
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: kahuna on July 07, 2019, 03:16:23 PM
QuoteI 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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: kahuna on July 07, 2019, 04:20:27 PM
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: MeTekillot on July 02, 2019, 04:13:22 PM
Add the ability to 'quit die' after a crippling attack from another character. Give them the following prompt.
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.
Quote from: kahuna on July 07, 2019, 04:20:27 PM
QuoteI 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.
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.
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.
QuoteYou'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.
Quote from: MeTekillot on July 07, 2019, 06:35:42 PM
Quote from: MeTekillot on July 02, 2019, 04:13:22 PM
Add the ability to 'quit die' after a crippling attack from another character. Give them the following prompt.
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.
Quote from: kahuna on July 07, 2019, 07:29:52 PM
QuoteYou'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.
QuoteYeah, 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.
Quote from: kahuna on July 07, 2019, 07:46:55 PM
QuoteYeah, 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.
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?
Quote from: Cabooze on July 07, 2019, 07:03:17 PM
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 (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.
Quote from: WithSprinkles on July 07, 2019, 08:32:47 PM
Quote from: Cabooze on July 07, 2019, 07:03:17 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 08, 2019, 03:18:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Eyeball on July 08, 2019, 04:40:42 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 08, 2019, 03:18:52 PM
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.
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.
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. ;D (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.
Quote from: Eyeball on July 08, 2019, 04:55:12 PM
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.
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!
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.
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.)
Quote from: Brytta Léofa on July 09, 2019, 03:17:00 PM
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.
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.)
Quote from: Brytta Léofa on July 09, 2019, 03:17:00 PM
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.
Quote from: WithSprinkles on July 09, 2019, 04:04:22 PM
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!?"
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.
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?
(https://pics.me.me/i-want-you-to-git-gud-38582344.png)
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.
I really want to cripple someone's head now.
Quote from: maxid on July 08, 2019, 07:30:33 PM
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.
Quote from: Brokkr on July 02, 2019, 04:12:44 PM
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.
Nudging this idea up the boards because I still think it's a good one
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
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.
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.
That was addressed in the various posts throughout the thread. Three or four times, actually.
Quote from: MeTekillot on July 07, 2019, 07:35:20 PM
Quote from: MeTekillot on July 07, 2019, 06:35:42 PM
Quote from: MeTekillot on July 02, 2019, 04:13:22 PM
Add the ability to 'quit die' after a crippling attack from another character. Give them the following prompt.
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.
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'
Quote'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.
Quote from: X-D on November 12, 2021, 06:45:52 PM
Quote'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?
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?
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.
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.
stat loss is okay, really? I will respond to you with your own venom 8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAqmTaRKNcg
Quote from: najdorf on November 18, 2021, 10:09:48 AM
stat loss is okay, really? I will respond to you with your own venom 8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAqmTaRKNcg
That really blows way past the point he was trying to make, don't you think?
Yes. If you've had your strength repeatedly crippled, you're free to use melem tuek.
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.
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.
(https://i.imgflip.com/71kft6.jpg)