"Dieing" State, for improved RP

[AlchemicRaker]

Man walks into town. Everyone (well, one guy and all his OOC friends and multiple accounts) attacks and kills him. It doesn't help that (I don't think) there's no way to revive the guy or recover him... and there's absolutely no RP, and nothing to be done about it.

My suggestion: The character enters a "dieing" state. For 1 or 2 cantr hours, he is "dieing", he can't move, he can't enter or leave buildings or vehicles, and he can't work on projects... he can't even attack or eat healing food. He CAN give and receive items, still (so he could pass his keys to a friend, for instance). His character isn't entirely dead, so he can still view the character and the events of the location until his time runs out.

The above suggestion's purpose is to improve RP. A second suggestion comes along with it:
Other characters can "help" the dieing character. It's an untimed project (like resting). When the dieing person... would die (after his time runs out), if there is anyone helping him, then he doesn't die, he is restored to fully alive (no longer dieing), with 1% Health.

- Natso

[Ice-Man]

Try RP your death or give items when your head is chopped off. That's what happens when your character dies. It gets it's head cut off. At least in my gameplay.

[AlchemicRaker]

Try RP your death or give items when your head is chopped off. That's what happens when your character dies. It gets it's head cut off. At least in my gameplay.

Well, that'd just be (really) poor RP, to give items while you've been beheaded.

- Natso

[Ice-Man]

That's why I'm against this suggestion. You can be stabbed and have few moments of 'life' to RP and you can be beheaded and die on an instant. You can't roleplay if you're stabbed or killed instantly, becouse you don't know that, and attacker can't rp it either, becouse it would be forcing rp actions on your character.

[Piscator]

I think we would fare better with the delay-attack-until-victim-logs-in idea. You wouldn't be able to do much, but you'd at least get a chance for some last words.

[returner]

I have heard this exact suggestion somewhere else before. No different whatsoever. Pretty sure the general concensus was that it was too much effort, too hard to do, had implementation flaws, could be abused and isn't always realistic.

[AlchemicRaker]

edit: blah. Don't post while dead tired.

[returner]

Huh?

edit: if you mean the thread I made.. perhaps you should read it. It's about my character needing to kill others, but me OOCly feeling guilty.. holds no relevance to what you're talking about, and I hardly see the humour, or how that'd make you laugh out loud.

[reve]

I think we would fare better with the delay-attack-until-victim-logs-in idea. You wouldn't be able to do much, but you'd at least get a chance for some last words.

Can't agree with that. What if I want to hit'n'run? I have to wait for the other person to log in? No way...

[Piscator]

That would be exactly the point. Hitting & running is what makes fights so frustrating. If you decide to kill another char, the least one should expect in an RPG is that you stay in the same room with him while you do it. Imagine playing a pen&paper RPG with your friends and leaving the room to drink a coffee after you made your move. Terribly impolite.

[Arenti]

That would be exactly the point. Hitting & running is what makes fights so frustrating. If you decide to kill another char, the least one should expect in an RPG is that you stay in the same room with him while you do it. Imagine playing a pen&paper RPG with your friends and leaving the room to drink a coffee after you made your move. Terribly impolite.

The only thing this will change is changing the combat system.

[YugoStrikesBack]

So you think you can change the combat system huh? Wait for the effects of changing the amount of water required for tea to become fully implemented and then talk.

[Arenti]

So you think you can change the combat system huh? Wait for the effects of changing the amount of water required for tea to become fully implemented and then talk.

Not a small change to the combat system. But an entirely new one.

[SekoETC]

If someone is 100% damaged then they are dead, no more playing. However I wouldn't mind people entering a dying state before they reach 100% damage.

Why do people kill others? It's usually a) the person is a threat b) the person has stuff you want to have or c) the person is a nuisance. Often more than one of those three. You can drag a person into a locked building to at least temporarily stop them from being a threat, but the person can continue to be or start being a nuisance when he wakes up and also continues holding his items unless he's ready to drop them voluntarily. Also a person can continue being a threat if they have a crowbar or if they can hit fast enough when someone comes in. If there were types of attack that can be used to eliminate a, b and c, attackers will be left with less reasons to kill a person and might be more inclined to find it morally questionable.

IRL if you beat someone up or stab them or shoot them or even more so chop them with a sword or an axe, the person won't be able to fight back. They'll be likely to go weak from the shock or fall unconscious. If it was obvious to the attacker that the victim is defenseless and not a threat, people might show some sympathy or ruthless killers could be scorned by witnesses. If the game told the wannabe attacker "The victim is lying on the ground, apparently unconscious. The next hit is likely to kill him. Are you sure you want to hit him?" that would at least make it take one click longer. But fights happen awfully fast when there are several people involved, so it would make more sense if damage varied greatly within a range and people were allowed several hits on a person instead of just once a day. It would make battles seem more realistic and if you had to click several times, it would give others more time to react. The damage could still be balanced so that in average you did the same amount of damage you now did in one hit, but it would be divided to say, 5 or 10 hits. Currently people are afraid to use anything other than 100% since they know if they don't hit the person hard enough to drag or kill, they'll have to wait until the next day and the target might be gone by then. But if you had more hits then you could stop when you've done sufficient damage and not do anything excessive.

But I would also want to include auto-retaliate. Currently if someone attacks with a group of three, they can kill a person if they get lucky, or can at least drag the person inside and stop him from escaping or fighting back. More than three makes death even more likely. I would separate friendly dragging and hostile dragging, allowing people to be lead by hand by people who they have added to their trusted list, or people could allow peaceful "dragging" by default if they're of the trusting type, and only add untrusted people to the refuse to follow list. If an individual or a group has enough strength to drag a person, they should also be able to restrain the person on the spot and search the person's inventory, but the person should be able to make automatic attempts to break free, hit the offenders and/or escape. Being hit by auto-retaliate should break the offender's concentration in most cases. Also an ability to restrain and gag people would reduce the nuisance factor. If a person was only able to watch and listen and would be informed they'll be freed once they are ready to play nice and cooperate, if the player is going to keep the character at all, their resistance is likely to break soon.

[Drael]

Its totally realistic. In RL, people do not die of beheading during medieval battles. Historically, they almost all died from extended periods of bleeding without help. Straight up death still happens, but only from the shock of massive wounds, which are less common.

But then in RL, its perfectly plausable to kill someone with a knife, or your fists, but cantr has endowed itself with this sort of high-fantasy d&d mentality when in comes to combat, hence the generally unrealistic insta-death.

Im fully behind most current fatalities being a state called "bleeding to death", with the possibility of being saved for at least a few hours. Some 10-30% of normal "deaths" could be called "fatal injuries" and treated as it is now.

Of course the whole hit-and run nonsense is another big unrealistic and unsatisfying flaw. On shouldn't be able to run up to someone, with a sword and sheild, hit them with a sword and then drive away from a townful of other people without any personal risk. The way it is currently, anyone not online in that instant, those few seconds is in a zombie-like sleep. If someone was truely sleeping, like in RL, you could just slit their neck peice of pie. If they are awake enough to block with a sheild, they are awake enough to hit you back before you run away.

In RL, people didnt just turn and run because it opens you up to being shot in the back with a crossbow, or stabbed in the back with an axe.

Anyway, without too much of a rant on cantr's bizzaro, not quite dnd'ish combat style, yes I agree with the suggestion. In fact id go for a longer time period, based on the level of wounds (Lots of wounds = shorter time still alive)

As for the person who "beheads" everyone they kill, im very glad ive never had to RP with you! Too much lord of the rings/warcraft/dnd, not enough knowledge of real life........

If there were types of attack that can be used to eliminate a, b and c, attackers will be left with less reasons to kill a person and might be more inclined to find it morally questionable.

Well good point. I suggested "disarm" a while back, but the objection was that items aren't actually equipped. I guess we could ignore that, and just make the target weapons decided another way. I think if we had an effective disarm, it would indeed making killing less moral. Something cantr needs pretty bad (Hey, they are sleeping, kill them. I think he took my sword because x said so, kill them, etc).

IRL if you beat someone up or stab them or shoot them or even more so chop them with a sword or an axe, the person won't be able to fight back.

Not strictly true. If you actually score a hit in RL, the wound can be anywhere from (most likely) a graze, to (least likely) mortal. A light wound will reduce your concentration a bit, and can sway a fight, but you can most certainly hit back, unless the wound was the much rarer and bigger type.

You raise a good point about unconciousness. If we maintained a realistic "dying" phase, there would still be good odds you remain unconcious (based on wounds), at least for the first part of it, due to shock before you woke up, if you indeed did wake. Any high level of wounds should cause an immediate risk of passing out from them, even before "dying".

But I would also want to include auto-retaliate. Currently if someone attacks with a group of three, they can kill a person if they get lucky, or can at least drag the person inside and stop him from escaping or fighting back. More than three makes death even more likely.

Yeah funny how they can block with a sheild, resist dragging, eat and still cant hit back when attacked! Thats some strange zombie state. Not to mention how people can drag without serious risk of getting hurt from the dragee's weapon. (Ever tried wrestling someone with a sword, lol?)

I would separate friendly dragging and hostile dragging, allowing people to be lead by hand by people who they have added to their trusted list, or people could allow peaceful "dragging" by default if they're of the trusting type, and only add untrusted people to the refuse to follow list.

Good idea. People should be easier to drag to and from cars if they allow it from their freinds. Could allow us to make hostile dragging a bit harder perhaps. (Although im personally in favour of their being a high risk of injury to the draggers, higher "threshold" doesnt make as much sense to me)

Of course if we have autoretaliate (or delayed response), which im all for, and your "hostile/freindly" setting, then you could just auto-retaliate hostile drags too. Or even better, rather than "drag", we have "subdue". Each "subdue" risks the auto-retaliation, until the person is fully pinned. Then they may be dragged to a location.

If this were a realistic system, the odds of getting hurt wrestling a man who has a sword, hand to hand, should be higher than fighting him with your sword and sheild - and whats more, wrestling/hand-to-hand is a highly technical skill, not simply a strength ability. (Skill system rewrites anyone ?)

(If anyone ever wants to see a highly realistic medieval RPG combat system, check out harnmaster - best ive ever seen, sooo much better than crap like dnd)