[COMMAND] Capture

[Raona]

For use against PCs only(?), this command would initiate combat with the intent of capturing rather than killing one's opponent. It would require a restraining device in inventory, such as rope or shackles. If victorious, the user of the command would end up with their victim bound, unable to move. This would happen at a reduction to 0 HP, or with a percentage chance whenever their opponent was stunned/dazed/similarly incapacitated.

[Rhangalas]

Sounds good to me. If you can bind a PC though, then you should also be able to gag them as a separate command. I'd also like for PC's to be able to "surrender <PC>" which would allow the the target to bind/gag them without the surrendering PC being stunned/dazed/incapacitated. It should also have a lag associated with it. I'd hate for someone to be able to insta-bind me after a half-round of being dazed from a bash attack.

[Adabelle]

Can not move or speak. I am not sure how much fun that would be for a player?

How long could someone be left like that?

[Brar]

I like it, sounds a lot like the first Billy Club for those who remembers it

[Enig]

I can't say I'd be in favour, personally. My opinion, if the two parties can agree on this OOCly there's no reason that the binding up and capturing can't be smoted. If they can't agree on it OOCly I don't think it makes sense to force a player, the victim in this case, into RP which they don't like, feel comftorable with, or have time for.

Whenever we come up with something like this we have to consider how it will be used, and I personally think we'd see the 'capture' command used to drag people off to remote areas of the game (ie. Skullport) or other places where teleportation magic can't be used. And then what if the captured PC has to leave, an hour or two into the RP which they've had no control over, still stuck somewhere they can't possibly escape from?

I fully admit that a PC who jumps up right after they've recovered from a stun and legs it is acting in an extremely lame fashion, trying to escape the consequences of their actions, but I don't think that forcing them to stay will result in a satisfying experience for either party.

[Rhangalas]

I can't say I'd be in favour, personally. My opinion, if the two parties can agree on this OOCly there's no reason that the binding up and capturing can't be smoted. If they can't agree on it OOCly I don't think it makes sense to force a player, the victim in this case, into RP which they don't like, feel comftorable with, or have time for.

I heavily disagree. Actions should have irrefutable consequences. Being able to simply avoid any repercussions by OOCly saying you don't feel comfortable with it isn't "good" game design.

Emoting and using rules of engagement in place of code hardly ever works. It almost always comes down to being an issue of co-operation versus a desire to "win". A lot of the reasons that OOC emotions screws things up for you and other players around you is when an OOC desire to win ends up trumping contributions made to creating a realistic and believable world. Unfortunately, there is very little that we can do about this, except implement as much code as possible to deter this kind of behavior - in my estimation, at least half of all players will fall back on a desire to win over a desire to realistically co-operate in the heat of the moment. This is the problem with ROE; there can never be an entirely objective way to view a PVP scene's conduct without 100% code support - which to this point, does not exist on any MUD. Regardless of that, there's no reason why you can't have code support for as many things as possible.

In short, I'm all for "forcing" players to RP realistically.

[Enig]

Whether or not you'd consider it good game design I don't know, but we *do* in fact have rules surrounding PvP interaction in the form of fighting and stealing in order to try and keep everyone having a good time. I think the key thing to remember is that even though we may be opposed to one another ICly that we're all playing a game together, cooperatively, OOCly, and as such if we end up in a situation where one of the two parties interacting with one another isn't having fun then we're doing something wrong, somewhere.

We don't allow people to murder other characters without provocation because it wouldn't be fun for the victims. Likewise, we encourage thieves to give their victims an opportunity to reclaim stolen goods. By the same token I think that it makes sense to not give everyone with a coil of rope the ability to dictate how another player is going to spend their time in the game.

[Adabelle]

I find forcing people to play the way you want can easily be taken too far. People play to have fun and when you start forcing people to RP situations like "We are gonna mess your character over and you should like it because it is realistic." you end up driving people away. I have played on MUDs that do that and now those MUDs have only have half a dozen people on a day, much less at a time. There is a fine balance between good RP and just a bunch of bullies who run around in huge packs 'forcing' people to RP what is realistic and only fun for their characters.

People contribute to RP. The player base is what makes this MUD so vast, fun and dynamic. When you start implementing hard coded consequences over respecting your fellow players ability to RP it diminishes that. I could list any number of examples of times players have RPed their characters being kidnapped and dragged off.

You have to find a balance between what is realistic and what is fun.

[Selveem]

I see both sides of this. I've seen players who are absolutely obnoxious to attempt to RP properly with after they've been had ICly. I RPed accosting someone once and they just walked away.

Then again, on the flip side I _HATE_ forced RP. I've been subjected to some pretty retarded stuff that made no sense and been told to 'go with it' and 'RP it out.' Really, what it boiled down to was that they wanted to force RP on me I didn't feel I deserved based on my actions.

Ultimately, I don't think it should occur. As much as I hate not being able to take advantage of an advantageous situation, I value the freedoms far more. What good would it do, anyhow? You can't force someone into an RP if they are greatly opposed to it, anyhow. They'll just log off or, failing that option, go linkdead and OOCly suggest you go fornicate yourself. And, really, why should you? We're all here to have fun. I think it's a bit too one-sided to be considered fun.

[Rhangalas]

This thread has really derailed off into a wild tangent, but I'm going to weigh in one more time just to give more perspective to my previous posts.

...but we *do* in fact have rules surrounding PvP interaction in the form of fighting and stealing...

These rules limit character concept so severely that hardly anyone wants to play anything other than a Dudley Do-Right. These rules are the reason why two-thirds of the player base are mostly cliche clones with the other one-third posting on the forums pointing out the huge imbalance of Law versus Chaos.

I have played on MUDs that do that and now those MUDs have only have half a dozen people on a day, much less at a time.

It seems that every time someone suggests something you disagree with, you mention these elusive MUDs that do <suggestion> and no one plays because of it. Ironically enough, the leading MUDs of this genre have systems akin to what I have suggested. Leading meaning that they have at least fifty or more players online at most hours, and triple that many players or more in total if you count the entire player base and consider the various play times. It's basically a straw-man argument to pick the most unsuccessful MUD that employs these things and use it as a comparison to support your side of the debate. I could easily mention three MUDs that all do this and are the most successful to date, but I'm not going to, because it's against the forum policies.

I see both sides of this. I've seen players who are absolutely obnoxious to attempt to RP properly with after they've been had ICly.

Unfortunately, it leans towards the latter in most cases. It seems this sort of thing happens to my PC on a daily basis.

I've been subjected to some pretty retarded stuff that made no sense and been told to 'go with it' and 'RP it out.' Really, what it boiled down to was that they wanted to force RP on me I didn't feel I deserved based on my actions. You can't force someone into an RP if they are greatly opposed to it, anyhow. They'll just log off or, failing that option, go linkdead and OOCly suggest you go fornicate yourself.

This is where the rules should come into place. Not beforehand. Restricting everything in between "A" and "C" simply so "B" doesn't happen is just... bleh... see the above comments about no diverse concepts, clones, and cliches.

To summarize, yeah, this cuddly environment that's all about fun times might attract a few players for a while, who might think it's fun up until the point that they want to be original and find that they can't. Then, poof, they're playing something else that allows more diversity. A lot of times, you'll see comments on the forums like "I miss so-and-so, they were good role players, I wish they still played.". Well, where do you think they went? I've got a good guess.

[Gwain]

As long as there is a chance for failure I'm for it. Stunning then capture seems fair.

[Bellayana]

Failure or the person breaking free as a option. Depending on the type of binding you use, chains would hold more but would of course cost more.

[Selveem]

A lot of times, you'll see comments on the forums like "I miss so-and-so, they were good role players, I wish they still played.". Well, where do you think they went? I've got a good guess.

Try guessing. I bet you're wrong. In reality, most of them stopped playing any MUDs at all.

As long as there is a chance for failure I'm for it. Stunning then capture seems fair.

Failure or the person breaking free as a option. Depending on the type of binding you use, chains would hold more but would of course cost more.

Even if there's a chance for failure, don't you think someone will just re-stun as soon as they see the person 'break free' or if they, themselves, fail the attempt? Alternatively, they may just go killmode kill and finish the job.

[Gwain]

Even if there's a chance for failure, don't you think someone will just re-stun as soon as they see the person 'break free' or if they, themselves, fail the attempt? Alternatively, they may just go killmode kill and finish the job.

As someone with this capability already I can tell you that it would be extremely poor rp to just keep stunning. In fact, the current capability in the game is logged and can be explored by an admin if it is seen as abusive.

[Raona]

You know, this conversation leads me to believe I have suggested this before, with similar conclusion: namely, anyone you would want to be involved in this sort of RP with will willingly do this OOCly, and a coded approach to it is too ripe for abuse.

While there are several instances in which code along these lines would be handy, I've done it OOCly (both as the apprehender and apprehendee) and it's worked out fine.