'Consent' is becoming a serious problem.

This is a neat idea and something worth considering. I'm not saying that the Arbiter position is re-opening, but an earned position through recommendations is a solid idea to me.

However, we're derailing the thread so I'd like to get back on topic regarding consent.

 

If it ever came down to that, it should follow how Tetanus did it, basically telling them, of that rule, and give them a chance to void the action if they were unaware.

But still, a server wide established consent rule would be better than having to hunt in the various threads to see what each colonies specific rules are.

Or at the least, add them as sub-text for the public colony list.

 

I am all for this system, this is basically how Tetanus operates as well. Although, I'd tweak the name a bit, something like "He Who Shoots Can Get Killed," just to make it clear that retaliating to a potentially lethal action with another potentially lethal action also opens your character up to death.

 

Consent is deeply flawed, but in the end, in an environment that requires almost real-time responses to things, it's the only thing quick and dynamic enough to allow a given response at a given time. It's also one of the integral forms of communication when having a roleplaying scene occur out of the blue with someone you don't even know.

Personally, I prefer small dice roll systems for combat (each person rolls a given amount of dice depending on the complexity of the action; one if it's a simple thing, three if it's an advanced maneuver, and obvious actions require no roll), but they require not only require someone to oversee that they're interpreted correctly, but also operates on the assumption that people know how to interpret them in the first place, which slows things down to a halt.

Something else to note is that the amount of people who use consent correctly greatly outnumber the amount of people who don't; the dilemma lies less in the system and more on those who keep using it incorrectly. People who use consent correctly shouldn't be shouldered with the consequences of removal of consent meant to deal with a problematic minority who do it in a dumb way.

Liberty Mills has a good policy that guards against the abuses of consent. It should probably be a server-wide example on how to keep it's flaws in check, and it'd probably be the best way to deal with it.

 

This. It even exists in real life as the use of force continuum. Reactions to offensive attacks against your character should be structured around how you want the situation to resolve. If you want to do a non-lethal takedown, and tase someone, people probably shouldn't kill your character and could implement similar reactions in RP to defend themselves.

But if you start shooting or stabbing people with lethal weapons, they have every right to respond with lethal force -- and use of lethal force can result in death. Like I said, expect others to do unto you as you do unto them. If you don't want the possibility of your character dying, don't try and kill other characters.

Saying your character has Impervium armor when they wouldn't probably otherwise have access to it is godmoding. Durasteel is your common armor type, use it. It's essentially carbon-reinforced titanium (titanium being the metal with the best strength to density ratio.) You're not going to get much bettter than that without having massive resource bases.

 

This is entirely irrelevant and patently useless. If your RP gets to the point where you're using dice rolls against each other, you are no longer RPing, you are competing against another player. This kind of behaviour is toxic, and causes harm to the community by fostering OOC dislike of players.

If you really feel the need to fight with other people and prove your dominance over them, go play Call of Duty. Combat in roleplay should be done as a method of advancing plot lines and introducing new situations. You should want to lose, because losing helps character development. A badass that goes around killing people and never dying is an uninteresting concept. Great characters are ones that have failures and misadventures.

Firefly is my character. She's a small-time courier and trader who is short and scrawny and probably couldn't handle herself in a fight. At the end of the day, she's really just a girl with a pistol in her jacket. I play a character like this on purpose because it is infinitely more fun to actually be able to advance a plot through roleplay by taking a loss, rather than pretend to be an invincible badass and cause pants-on-head-retarded OOC shitstorms everywhere she walks. I could easily make a character like that, and I could roleplay them extremely well, but it would be absolutely boring, because risk and fear is what drives plotlines, not crappy consent laws and overpowered godmoding badasses.

 

Just do what me and Felith do

" I consent to pretty much everything as long as it does not involve death or cause my character to become a vegetable physically or mentally "

 

Death is a powerful plot focus when it comes to roleplay -- the reversal of such, or dealing with the problems of it -- and should be used accordingly. I'm not saying people should off their characters by the dozen, but you can really bring new life (ironically) into a roleplay by letting your character die. How would your friends react? How would others react? Every character is a person, and unless they REALLY REALLY were a dickwad, their death will raise some hell and help advance stories towards their eventual destinations.

So, use common sense. If you want to be a badass that shoots first and asks questions later, expect to get killed sooner or later. That's how RP works: you are not the protagonist of your own adventure story, you're just some guy or some bird or whatever in space, and you should act accordingly. Even if you end up dead, you can always create a new character. Develop a new set of skills, a new personality, a new outfit, a new everything. You have a world of freedom here and squandering that for petty edgelord badass stuff is bloody ridiculous.

Consent systems are plucking stupid. Get that crap out of here and be a responsible and reasonable roleplayer. Work with the people you're telling a story with, not against them. You will find the game much more fun and less hostile to you if you do.

 

It's hard to say something is a competition when it's purely based on random probability. That toxic behavior is a mentality that is common in roleplaying groups, for a multitude of reasons; dice rolls fight against that by giving the player a solid framework they can't bullshit their way out of, as well as a solid outcome to something that could easily go both ways instead of having people go back and forth for hours on what was right and what was not, excluding extremely obvious instances where there would be no roll in the first place (i.e. that extremely dumb shotgun example). It's used perfectly in the standards for the Taranis Arena, so you can't honestly tell me it doesn't work in action and fosters hostility between players. However, for the flaws that I already mentioned above in my previous post, this wouldn't work beyond a controlled environment in the first place.

But hey, thanks for jumping at my throat over a possible alternative that I already said has fatal mistakes of its own and just dismissing it completely.

 

My three experiences in the Taranis Arena went smoothly. No problems at all. Only problem we had were figuring out what to do with a tie, but that was resolved easily and quickly without trouble. Dice Rolling is a good way to do combat in organized situations.

 

But hey, that's irrelevant and patently useless apparently, so you might as well bury it along with the entire consent system and hope and pray people rely on the one thing they lack the most: Common sense.

 

My problem with dice rolls is that the systems in place change things into a totally luck based environment. There is no accounting the skills a character has. For instance, if a civilian went up against a trained soldier, they'd both have the same chances of harming/killing the other. Adding in a system for skills is an answer, but at that point things become too rigid and bothersome for most people to want to deal with it.

Really we SHOULD hope for that one thing we're all capable of: Common sense and reasonable discourse.

 

I'll ask you a question: Could you have done the scene without rolling dice? No? Then there's some kind of conflict OOCly that's preventing you from roleplaying. Why are you competing with the other roleplayer? Why do you feel the need to be so better than other people that you have to rely on a universally fair random chance generator to determine the outcome?

Of course, it's always easier to blame the other guy. "Well, he's the one being the impervious badass, I need a dice system to fight him!" No you plucking don't. What you need is to work with him and against him. Conflict and competition are great in-character plot devices, but when it comes to a matter of "I shot you!" "lol no you didn't" "Yes I did!" then you and the player both have a fundamental problem of not actually wanting to roleplay, but wanting to fight against each other. Like I said, go play Call of Duty if you want to do that.

If you introduce a balancing system of mechanics into a population of problematic people, they will abuse it. You need to solve the problem at the cause, not the effect. Talk to the godmoders and edgelords and tell them that you will not roleplay with them if they do things you don't like out of character. It's really that easy. Nobody is forcing you to roleplay with them, and if it's attention you're seeking, they'll find it somewhere else.

TL;DR: you don't need consent and a dice system to play pretend in a 2d spaceman game, you need to teach people to not be shitheads, and if they don't want to not be shitheads, don't rp with them. it's that plucking easy

 

Christ man calm down. I said /organized situations/, such as arenas.

Personally I love RP fights. Hell one of my characters got shot in the shin last night and I was perfectly fine with that. Because it all comes down to common sense of what is right from wrong, as well as possible to impossible. Problem I'm seeing is you're a tad quick to jump to conclusions. Not everything is black and white.

Does it make sense for a simply civvy to win against a Knight in any fight? Naw not really. Why does dice rolling work in organized situations? Because most of the time both combatants both have some experience in fighting with blades or other melee weapons.

Anything else goes to RP fights if it's on the fly and not pre-planned for a one on one fight like that. RP fights are fun. They can have conflict and all that in them and still even be settled with both parties getting hurt pretty badly. I won't bother talking about the rest of what you said simply because I already made my point.

^ This. That's about all we can hope for. If people have this then fights can go smoothly.

 

I have never tried it, but players could agree of chances depending suppossed skills, saying for example action has a 25% chance to succeed. Luck is still there, but the balance changes.

 

You keep saying these things as if there is a competition in the first place. I think if you actually read that thread, you'd see that there are good portions of the standard that allow for exhibition without dice. The point isn't to win, it's to decide on a resolution fairly on things that can go one way or another on two characters with various strengths and weaknesses without having to devolve into discussions that last hours on what they're good at and what they're not.

First off, you're expressing the latter part as if it was both their faults. While it does take two to tango, in the scenario where only one person is being unrealistic or unfair about something, it becomes less of a dilemma about wanting to fight against each other and more about attempting to work with someone only for them to be pretty stubborn about something that amounts to god-modding. Clumping every instance of strife between two people about how a scenario plays out like that is a pretty ridiculous generalization, and one that's borderline hyperbole.

Secondly, the scenario you just painted is essentially an instance of god-modding, which is something that should be handled directly with staff, since it's against the rules. Consent works as a barrier to negate that, even with all it's flaws.

You do realize that by getting rid of the consent system, you are literally taking away the people's ability to say no, right? That's literally the entire concept of consent in the first place. As Badstar best put it:

I agree that we should teach people, but you can only teach so much when someone is unwilling to learn and just do it their way. Shitheads, as you put it, have the peculiar tenacity to keep being shitheads. (Spoiler: That's why they're shitheads!)

BOY DOESN'T THAT SOUND FAMILIAR

 

I hold the opinion that die rolls be mandatory only for non-combat drinking situations

it simply isn't realistic for every single sip to reach the mouth

I propose a d20 be rolled every time somebody sips a drink and if they roll under 10 they spill their drink