[Poll] PK Approval Model

Talk about anything TI here! Also include suggestions for the game, website, and these forums.

Moderators: Maeve, Maeve

Our PK model should be:

Poll ended at Sat Mar 26, 2022 6:16 pm

Open PK, no rules baby!
Restricted PK - current policy is fine, or I'd only tweak it a bit (see comments)
Heavily restricted PK - players apply to PK someone and get staff approval
Fully consensual - players can't kill someone without their permission
No votes
Total votes: 14
User avatar
Posts: 1984
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:54 pm
Discord Handle: ParaVox3#7579

Sat Mar 19, 2022 6:16 pm

Players raised that they thank our PK rules as they are now make people risk adverse. What do you think our PK model should be?

If you vote, please leave a comment saying why you feel the way you do so we can consider multiple views and opinions.
Also, please be kind to one another's views when responding to this thread.

Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:56 pm

Sat Mar 19, 2022 6:34 pm

The part of the policy I think is at issue is this:
- The only exception to requiring cnotes is if a character acts out of
  self defense.  Self defense is explicitly one of the following conditions:

     + A PC defends themselves from a crime or attack.
     + A PC catches another person casting magic. (Either party
       may consider a PK self-defense.)
     + A PC is threatened by another PC with deadly force.
     + A PC attempts to restrain/arrest another PC.
     + An awaken attempt was made on a PC without permission.
This discourages acts as simple as pick-pocketing, putting the instigator at risk of being pkilled immediately.
Simple muggings or strong-arming likewise.

I do agree with "A PC is threatened by another PC with deadly force." and would be fine if that was the threshold for such exemptions. When initiating an attack, perhaps some way to show it is with killing intent should be added, otherwise the 'finish' command cannot be used by either party.

Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 12:58 pm

Sat Mar 19, 2022 6:45 pm

I actually chose the third option of heavily restricted pk. The reason is, having played TI for... forever on and off, I know what it feels like to have your char killed just out of the blue. Especially, if you decide to play a noncombat char. I realize, part of TI is to have nonconsentual rp. That's all well and good. however, I feel as if it's too easy to just smoke someone, so long as you cnote it and what nots. That and, it isn't on the person who is doing the pk, who loses out on all the char development, but rather the person who just got killed. So I'd really just like to have a bit more restriction on it all. I almost went for the fourth option. however, I feel like not many people would actually consent to having their chars killed, and that it might restrict things a little too much.

User avatar
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:32 pm

Sat Mar 19, 2022 9:58 pm

I agree largely that the self defense policy is a bigger antagonism deterrent.
Pretty much every form of illegal antagonism comes with carte blanche to get the antagonist killed by the authority.

I'm simply not going to start a nonlethal combat or do a nonlethal pickpocketing if it means my character is possibly going to die for it.
Especially when these actions are codedly not very rewarding.

My suggestion is to modify policy such that a self-defense PK can only occur if an action was taken that was:
*Lethal in intent, or,
*The victim was unwillingly exposed to magic

This will make doing any kind of dangerous action a lot less 'all or nothing' from the initiator's side.

And like DeeDee suggests, add a [LETHAL] flag that must be used when initiating combat that must be used when an opponent intends to finish, arrest, or kindap the victim.
Around sometimes. Contact: galaxgal#6174

Posts: 1087
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Mon Mar 21, 2022 4:53 pm

I agree with the other posts, but to Galax's point I'd quibble just that I think kidnap and arrest should only have that lethal flag when a char's life is actually on the line. Like, bringing in Bert the Mouthy Peasant for a whipping shouldn't be lethal, nor should holding some random bard captive for ransom provided the intent isn't to kill said bard if the ransom isn't paid.

Posts: 18
Joined: Mon May 18, 2020 7:56 pm
Discord Handle: Murrmurs

Wed Mar 23, 2022 9:03 pm

What ought happen to antagonists when they are unmasked? I think that this is more crucial a question than something like player kill policy itself.

As matters stand, clearly, the assumed default state is one where characters who are thieves, mages, or concepts that rock the boat, are at an elevated risk of being player killed. So... What needs to change for the characters who put themselves at risk (for the sake of story or content) to actually do that?

... One option that comes to mind would be for there to be pathways available for characters who fill into those roles to be given a free set of skills straight out of chargen; if someone's going to be filling a role where they're expecting to be run down by the hounds, the weeks to months of skill grinding which lead up to them effectively producing that content sucks—an immediate source of risk aversion eliminated. Of course, there's the risk that folks who just want to troll around will be given more powerful characters straight out of the gate; I'd argue that the application process should be one capable of weeding out those most likely to be doing that. For example, two brotherhood characters are on the app list right now. What if they started out the gate with the thief skills and some combat skills? The player could, with little investment, immediately utilize that character in its role and be okay with losing them quickly.

But... I don't know that this alone would rectify the issue. I believe that a second—significant—source of risk aversion is the small player pool. The moment a character is 'outed' as being something such as a thief or a mage their RP pool immediately shrinks, to the point that many characters are effectively soft PK'd the moment they become known. A change in PK rules may help resolve the loss of a conflict character, but I don't know that it will resolve the issue that crops up the moment a character is known to be a thief or a mage (or a cultist, or a ....).

The resolution to that second issue is somewhere between the game's culture and the game's theme ... a known mage can't pick up public scenes, but could they pick up consistent invite scenes? How would current PK rules play with someone like Briar picking up an invite scene in Queen's? If there are only four people with pockets to pick, how does a thief expect to consistently pick up scenes with them after the second or third pick-pocket attempt is spotted, without side-eye and hands on belts being their flavor of RP forever-after?

User avatar
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:32 pm

Fri Mar 25, 2022 12:48 pm

The model as I understand in theme is that if you get unmasked, you pretty much either flee (liquidate) or let yourself get executed.
And to be fair, execution isn't a bad deal when you get a 100% RPXP refund. The design there is solid: If I'm wanted, I'd rather turn myself in than get murdered by a back alley vigilante, and the pbase gets their catharsis of beating a baddie or collective fear of watching a pyring or so on.

That said... yeah, the churn of gaining contacts, pooling skills, etc. every time you slip makes antagonist play unappealing and antagonists themselves risk averse.
There's also the fact that you're reintroducing yourself as 'the new guy' to a pool of lawful characters that very seldom changes every time this happens. I see 'law abiding' (yes I know most of us have a shady side gig ;) ) orderites and nobles burn out from boredom far more often than I see them get arrested or die.

So in short, curbing the grind might help. Patience will always be needed, but I would always favor the scale tipped more toward elbow-rubbing and secret-digging on new characters and away from having to do 'n, e, s, gather water' or 'pick practice_lock_keyword_here' a lot just to get up to what's considered baseline with established characters.
Around sometimes. Contact: galaxgal#6174

User avatar
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:32 pm

Fri Mar 25, 2022 5:07 pm

Also, I think one other thing might help with the 'soft pk' issue murrmurs describes; a way to create basically disguises that aren't a spooky cloak that can be worn in polite company.
In-lore we have really elaborate make-up and theatre kits for instance. And other impermanent ways to further alter a character's physical identity. ;)
I've seen this sort of thing implemented elsewhere. But I know that this is a heavy feature on a long list of already heavy features in a codebase under refactoring.
Around sometimes. Contact: galaxgal#6174

User avatar
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:20 pm

Sat Mar 26, 2022 3:01 pm

I pretty much agree with galaxgal's PK points. I like the way it is now, but I'd tweak things up to give antagonists a little more leeway without enabling a PK against them.

Posts: 1087
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Sun Mar 27, 2022 11:58 pm

I think the approval model (which I voted for) is more for non-combat characters to avoid being the victimized than it is to help villains. I think that's a separate problem.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests