Suggestion Change the Death Rule

[Exopritl]

By the Death rule, I am referring to the rule that states "you cannot kill another players character without their permission." That may not be an exact quote. However, I am going to continue with this post assuming we're all on the same page as far as what I mean.

So' I have two arguments against the rule in its current form.

Argument 1: The site is based on conflict
If you go to the Open Roleplay section of the site, where most of the roleplaying occurs. You will notice that most of the threads are tagged "Dominion" "Skirmish" or "Invasion." There's also "Junction" but tbh I dont really understand the purpose of those threads and not sure my argument is applicable to them. The other three threads, however, are forms of conflict. During conflict people often die and the risk of dying is a very real and very non voluntary risk. Although one might say that you volunteer to risk dying when you choose to actively participate in conflict.

Argument 2: It's unfair to certain character types and it limits rp possibilities
So say I wanna play an assassin, Mercenary, body guard, bounty hunter, battle droid, pilot etc. All of these characters would logically find themselves in PvP situations with other players. Sometimes those situations would result in one player or another wanting to kill the other and trying to do so. However as things are now, if player A is fighting Player B under a mutual agreement to fight and player A wants to try and kill player B but player B doesnt wanna be killed player A is forced to basically nerf themselves down. This unfairly benefits player B.

Also it kills the story. Death is or can be just as important a part of a story as fighting or bargaining or dialogue. Death makes people feel things, both readers and writers. I think that's why we're all here because we want to feel things from quality collaborative story writing and I feel like making death by player permission only really reduces the potential for quality writing.

I feel like a simple fix for this would be to add a tag that people could apply to threads that was called "PvP+" or "PvP-" what these tags would mean is that in a PvP+ thread players are welcome to fight. The opposite is true in a PvP- thread. In addition to these tags change the Death rule to state that "characters may only be killed with the player's permission, BUT engaging a character in a PvP+ thread is assumed to mean that you give permission for that character to die." Maybe thats a bit wordy and someone can come up with a way to simplify it. Also this would necessitate certain threads being required to be labeled PvP+ such as skirmishes, invasions, and the upcoming Annhilation threads.

 

[Jerec Asyr]

One of the big challenges I see is the inverse of your first argument. Change how Chaos treats death, and all those threads - Invasions and so forth - would be less appealing for many, choking out activity. You'd get invasions even more dominated by the hardcore fight-y types and far less participation from many.

 

[Adron Malvern]

Yea, no. I am so against this in every way possible.

 

[Raya Krayt]

There is nothing to stop people from having their characters killed off in current PvPs with their consent so all this rule would change is allowing people to kill off characters without the writer's consent which has the potential to be damaging to the community and could spread toxicity towards those who killed other players' characters against their will.

Edit: I have been on a site where this was allowed and I was reluctant to get into PvP so that will likely cause the same reaction here.

 

[Exopritl]

Yea, no. I am so against this in every way possible.

Please don't comment on my thread if all you're gonna say is no I'm against this. If you oppose, I respect your right to do so. However, I put time and thought into my suggestion. Like ive been thinking about this for several days. So I feel like the least you could do if youre going to comment against the idea is come up with some comprehnsive reasoning as to why. I wanted to create a conversation on the subject so if you could elaborate in order to facilitate the idea of having a conversation, it would be much appreciated.

 

[Darth Metus]

Yea, no. I am so against this in every way possible.

 

[Exopritl]

One of the big challenges I see is the inverse of your first argument. Change how Chaos treats death, and all those threads - Invasions and so forth - would be less appealing for many, choking out activity. You'd get invasions even more dominated by the hardcore fight-y types and far less participation from many.

There is nothing to stop people from having their characters killed off in current PvPs with their consent so all this rule would change is allowing people to kill off characters without the writer's consent which has the potential to be damaging to the community and could spread toxicity towards those who killed other players' characters against their will.

Edit: I have been on a site where this was allowed and I was reluctant to get into PvP so that will likely cause the same reaction here.

There would still be options for players to participate in invasions and such without engaging in PvP and if they did engage in PvP there could still be an ooc agreement not to kill eachother. The only difference is that pic agreement would need to be established beforehand rather than automatically assumed. Also theres nothing that says you can't run away or rscape death in some fashion. I feel like niether of you fully read and understood my suggestion at the end of my post.

 

[Mordecai Zambrano]

No.

 

[Jsc]

No.

 

[Kaalia Pavanos]

No.

Edit:

In all seriousness, it simply doesn't fit the board's culture. Being able to build out a character's story over the long term is much more satisfying to me than writing thread-to-thread because the character could die at any moment in any thread that actually has potential board-impacting stories.

Not to mention the fact there are no real checks in place to keep characters in check in terms of power. It would require a rebuilding of the rules from the ground up to create something that would drive writers away.

 

[Darth Carnifex]

I think this would open up a can of worms that would be harder to cork closed again.

Leaving death up to the character's writer allows them to choose the time and place that they want their character to expire, if at all, and thus you can craft your own stories without fear that someone is just gonna roll up and merc you ezpz lemon squeezy.

It may take some of the wind out of the risk in writing, but I'm willing to suffer that drawback.

 

[Allyson Locke]

Please be constructive in the discussion.

 

[Fatty]

I'll put a modicum of thought into this since apparently its meme-time to say no when you're looking into the why a community of writers would be explicitly against a rule that would circumvent a rule intended to protect writers from abuses.

Yes, death is a narratively interesting concept.

But this is not something that should be forced on a writer. Notice that I used writer, and not player. Yes, this is a role playing site, but this is a media that attracts specifically writers. As such, to tell their story (imagine that every character you see is as pivotal as the Mandalorian in his own show), they must have control over when that character dies.

Few stories told by the main character, have that same character die in a random battle while they still have something in their story at stake. It'd be anti-climatic for them and quite tragic. Some writers go for that sort of thing, but a lot of others may not.

Which is why you are getting such meme-ish no's, because they view such a suggestion as completely absurd from this perspective.

 

[Tathra Khaeus]

Whilst yes, you have to 'nerf yourself' I would note that, there is more than just player characters in the universe. You want to be a bounty hunter/assassin ect? That's epic, plenty of people other than player characters to kill. I write a intergalactic genociding warlord, but I've got 6 player character kills. Does that mean Tathra isn't a very good genocidal warlord? Nah, not really. I think estimating yourself by how many players you can kill or toys you can break, is aiming in the wrong direction. But rather, what stories you can create - is better.

Tathra hasn't ever felt nerfed to me, and whilst he hasn't killed everyone he's ever met he's rarely lost a personal fight. I just work hard to make stories with people so both sides are respected.

So, I'll have to disagree with this. Cause whilst I understand what you're saying it turns all of this into a battle of one-upping each other.

 

[Sawa Ike]

Having been on sites where this was allowed and one person could have a bad day and bombard a public thread practically forcing everyone there to either godmod surviving or being killed off.(and he was reported and because it was public it was allowed to stand) it killed most people wanting to rp in public threads and divided interaction. A lot of the appeal of chaos is that it has freedom in most things and that includes death of a character and plenty of people die in threads some make for great stories like Kiriko the space polar bear or one of Ashin's but the characters are able to come back since there are netherworld portals opened.

 

[WelshPsych]

While character death is very interesting storytelling and I found it a natural conclusion to my main character's arc, I do not think forcing PvP to mean death is forfeited is right. I have had encounters where my characters has been greatly injured and suffered and fights where they dominate but that is the decision I make, because it is my character. If someone else kills them when I am not ready or wanting them to be dead because I opted for a PvP then I am going to find ways to bring them back and that isn't always great and brings a lot of salt.

The rule works, if you want to be an Assassin there are NPCs to kill, or you can build up skills in hunting and perhaps missing targets but growing from those missions. Taking a writer's choice with what happens to their character is not going to improve things. It will only bring salt and people unwilling to PvP which would suck.

I am firmly against this, death is the writer's decision, respecting that decision is not hard and asking for consenting the PvP harm and potentially killing their character is something you can do. Isn't that difficult either, allows for communication and creates clear ground rules which is fair for everyone.

 

[Raya Krayt]

There would still be options for players to participate in invasions and such without engaging in PvP and if they did engage in PvP there could still be an ooc agreement not to kill eachother. The only difference is that pic agreement would need to be established beforehand rather than automatically assumed. Also theres nothing that says you can't run away or rscape death in some fashion. I feel like niether of you fully read and understood my suggestion at the end of my post.

I did read your suggestion. You suggested different tags for PvP threads where one assumes someone gives consent for their character to die and the other means you can't kill someone's character without their permission.

Like I said, there is nothing to stop someone who is willing to allow their character to die to say so to people participating in a PvP.

My understanding of your post is that you want to change the "you can't kill another character without the writer's permission" to "you can kill another character without the writer's permission" and if that isn't what you meant and you only meant having PvP being labelled differently depending on whether or not people mind their characters being killed then I fail to see how this changes anything really other than advertising characters whose writers don't mind them being killed.

However, at the end of the day, barely anyone wants their characters to be killed.

 

[Judah Lesan]

Exopritl

This change would have implications beyond just killing another persons character. Godmodding is not allowed for one basic and fundamental reason. The character you are writing against is not your creation. Beyond that however, this change now allows you to dictate the outcomes of something by nature requires two people to participate in. Calling hits in this manner takes the option away of the person opposite you to make the decisions about their creation, whether it be injury or death.

If you want to call death, then let’s extend this to the codex and factory. Let me destroy and dictate the outcomes of the submissions you spent so much time laboring over.

Why? Because I decided that should be the case. Not you, me.

Now to the mechanic you mention. What you’re suggesting about tagging pvp threads with a plus or minus is still you saying the other writer is giving their consent to kill their character. So what your actually suggesting is not a rule change at all. It’s simply a tag to say yes I’m willing to let my character die.

Forcing that on a writer by forcing certain threads to carry that rule, that would all but kill those threads, and the map game entirely. It would make those threads all about pvp again, or it would eliminate the likelihood of those threads getting used altogether.

If you want to explore death with your characters that’s fine! Other writers do as well and have plans to do so, and have. They have simply done that on their terms, which is their inherit right in the creative and story telling process.

That being said, you shouldn’t be surprised when people respond with a simple, I don’t like it, or a flat no, to this idea.

 

[Exopritl]

I have realized that this thread conveyed somethi g I did not necessarily mean to convey. I agree that forcing death shouldnt be allowed. I need to rethink my suggestion as it did not communicate what I ment to communicate.

 

[Telis Taharin-Zambrano]

A key idea of this server is based on conflict, yes...

But in the end, this is a cooperative Roleplaying site. One of the biggest key components of cooperation is allowing all sides of a conflict to write how it affects them, as by forcing an effect on another writer, you remove that writer’s ability to have control. And control should be equally held by all participants, in an OOC sense. While there is an expectation that writers don’t simply write out what happens to their characters, there is also an expectation that no character can die if it doesn’t fit in the writer’s mind.

If this rule were to be implemented, it would wind up causing more strife than creating more narrative moments. People would argue OOCly, and anybody could swoop in, say “You’re dead,” and the only defense would be a whole lot of arguing and bitter discussion. There’s already a way to emulate this idea, however, and for writers to mark themselves as more willing to face things like death, mutilation, or capturing through the “Bounty” toggle, though in the end it is always up to the writer undergoing the effects to decide how they play out.

Is it fun for an assassin to fail at their task? No, but that brings into question shifting things OOCly. If you’re writing to force yourself to write with somebody who doesn’t want to die, then odds are it’s in the hands of the person writing the assassin or bounty hunter to shift their focus, find a new target, and collaborate OOCly to prevent any bickering, arguing, or strife. The bounty toggle, as I mentioned, is a way to help do this.

In short, do I agree with this idea? No, not at all, for the reasons I’ve highlighted. Do I think it comes from a sourceless place? No, I can see the intent behind it and why this is a fond idea. However, in practice versus in praxis is a large difference, and most people don’t want to lose their characters out of the blue just because some random other writer said “Yeah, this happened.” That is how collaboration breaks down, and eventually turns IC conflict to OOC conflict.

... Plus, anybody who wants to die wants to write a dramatic death post, and this would kinda kill the ability for people to do that as they wouldn’t get much preparation in their own minds, in most situations. And it would I just turn into a slaughter fest where nobody puts any effort in their characters knowing that they could die as soon as they throw them into a thread.