CombatRP rule addition

[greehn]

IGN: greehn
DATE: 07/31/21

WHAT YOU WANT TO SUGGEST OR MENTION: I want players to have the option to agree before a fight to not gain any kill perms or major assault perms on their respective characters after their fight.

HOW WILL THIS BENEFIT THE SERVER/COMMUNITY?: I want street brawls and getting into fights to be a lot more fun and have more opportunity for character growth. I want to be able to have my character get into a fight with someone and not have to worry about them getting their whole gang to kill my character afterwards.

Having the option for both parties to agree before a fight OOCly to not gain any sort of major assault perms or kill perms after a fight would be ideal for this scenario. It will allow for 2 characters to engage in combat without having to fear that one of their characters could have their leg sawed off or get killed afterwards. This to me will bring a lot more fun into getting into fights ICly as well as open more pathways for different forms of rp for different people. It also is a bit silly to me how 2 characters who want to have a spar in the dojo are able to gain perms on each other after their fight.

I would like to also make clear that both parties will have to agree LOOCly before a fight happens that both characters won’t have KPs or MAPs on them after the fight is over. This rule should only negate KPs and MAPs for both characters, not gain anything else.


EXAMPLES:
A) Two characters have minor assault perms on each other but both agree to not having anything further after their brawl.
OUTCOME: Both characters walk away from the fight with at most a broken nose, and no perms on each others characters.

B) Two characters have major assault perms on each other but both agree to not have any kill perms on each other after their tussle.
OUTCOME: Both characters walk away from the fight, majorly injured and whatever, but no further perms on each other after, no matter what happened.

If you would like more clarification on what I am saying, please just start a conversation with me or leave a reply.

 

[callumㅤ]

+1

 

[pashy]

-1
I do understand and agree with the character growth part but I think to other people that GangRP and want to take things further this will create a problem and a blockade from GangRP.

It's just making the same problem as "Agree OOCly that you won't scam me if I buy from you."​

 

[greehn]

-1
I do understand and agree with the character growth part but I think to other people that GangRP and want to take this further this will make a problem.

It's just making the same problem as "Agree OOCly that you won't scam me if I buy from you. "​

One party doesn’t have to agree to not having perms afterwards. It’s optional.

I edited the wording to have “optional” since i didnt make it clear.

It’s for those who don’t wish to seriously gangrp, but have some fun with fights without having to worry about their character dying.

 

[pashy]

One party doesn’t have to agree to not having perms afterwards. It’s optional.

Yeah but people will just go in all fights agree no perms and if the "One party" doesn't agree they will just avoid the fight out of fear which not only all should be kept ICly but will make it less likely for GangRPers to gain permissions.

 

[Totalore]

Yeah but people will just go in all fights agree no perms and if the "One party" doesn't agree they will just avoid the fight out of fear which not only all should be kept ICly but will make it less likely for GangRPers to gain permissions.

I feel as if not wanting to gain perms or give perms is the whole point of avoiding a fight like that

GangRP is able to take a very small L sometimes yk

I +1 this suggestion even tho I've always done it when I ever fight on srp

 

[Ocean Man]

+1

 

[greehn]

Yeah but people will just go in all fights agree no perms and if the "One party" doesn't agree they will just avoid the fight out of fear which not only all should be kept ICly but will make it less likely for GangRPers to gain permissions.

Yeah but obviously you’d be warned for failrp if you’re avoiding a situation.

You also have to realize they still have perms either way so they can’t run away from the fight. The suggestion doesn’t trash existing perms, only those after their scuffle if both players agree to it.

 

[pashy]

I feel as if not wanting to gain perms or give perms is the whole point of avoiding a fight like that

Yes and that's what I'm saying it will just make a problem and a blockade to GangRP. Fearing for something to happen from the fight should be kept ICly not OOCly

It's just like "fearing for further consequences" from doing that and that

 

[pashy]

Yeah but obviously you’d be warned for failrp if you’re avoiding a situation.

You also have to realize they still have perms either way so they can’t run away from the fight. The suggestion doesn’t trash existing perms, only those after their scuffle if both players agree to it.

You're right, but this doesn't solve the reasons I disagree. It will still make a "blockade" obviously because if a party doesn't agree for no perms the other will probably try to run from the fight or avoid doing something major which still makes it less likely for permissions to be taken because of an OOC fear not IC

 

[Ocean Man]

+1

Having to just walk away after a fight, nothing happening to you're char seems more realistic than to have someone hunt you down just because you called them a "karen".

edit: just fixed something to make it more sensible.

 

[greehn]

You're right, but this doesn't solve the reasons I disagree. It will still make a "blockade" obviously because if a party doesn't agree for no perms the other will probably try to run from the fight or avoid doing something major which still makes it less likely for permissions to be taken because of an OOC fear not IC

Did you not read what I put? You can still be punished for avoiding the fight.

 

[pashy]

Having to just walk away after a fight, nothing happening to you're char seems more realistic than to have to someone killing you just because you called them a "karen"

I think it's realistic for who you knocked out to try to get back at you and maybe carve or do something more major... Knocking out doesn't grant KPs by the way

 

[accht]

You're right, but this doesn't solve the reasons I disagree. It will still make a "blockade" obviously because if a party doesn't agree for no perms the other will probably try to run from the fight or avoid doing something major which still makes it less likely for permissions to be taken because of an OOC fear not IC

They're saying that beforehand both parties would know the possible outcome of the fight, even if one party were to disagree with the no gaining of perms. So, they can't be snotty about it, since they would be aware of what could happen (If they're not, then they shouldn't GangRP as a whole imo, or maybe learn more about GangRP!1!1!)

 

[pashy]

Did you not read what I put? You can still be punished for avoiding the fight.

I did, but I have the same concern about the OOC fear still. And if you read above I also said it's making the same problem as "Agree that you won't scam me if I buy from you" and when we used not to be able to lie on that people kept asking always and when you admit you're going to scam their character they started acting differently

 

[Ocean Man]

I think it's realistic for who you knocked out to try to get back at you and maybe carve or do something more major... Knocking out doesn't grant KPs by the way

Yeah, made a mistake before putting it out there.
But In my opinion, It would be fun to see someone just brawling it out instead of them risking their char for a major, If they get knocked out of course.

 

[pashy]

Yeah, made a mistake before putting it out there.
But In my opinion, It would be fun to see someone just brawling it out instead of them risking their char for a major, If they get knocked out of course.

I do agree with this and partly agree with the suggestion. I want street fights and brawls to increase and be fun rather than fear but I just think creating a problem to solve another isn't how it should be

 

[greehn]

I did, but I have the same concern about the OOC fear still. And if you read above I also said it's making the same problem as "Agree that you won't scam me if I buy from you" and when we used not to be able to lie on that people kept asking always and when you admit you're going to scam their character they started acting differently

I don’t see how it would change the outcome in any way.

player 1 (has perms not kps on player 2): approaches player 2
player 2: do you wanna agree to no perms after our fight
>if both yes
they fight and walk away with no perms
>if one no
player 2 takes the beating but has perms on player 1
or
they both fight and get further perms depending on what happens

this rule doesn’t allow you to run away from a fight, its just to determine what happens AFTER the fight. avoiding rp and avoiding perms are against the rules as far as i know.

 

[pashy]

I don’t see how it would change the outcome in any way.

player 1 (has perms not kps on player 2): approaches player 2
player 2: do you wanna agree to no perms after our fight
>if both yes
they fight and walk away with no perms
>if one no
player 2 takes the beating but has perms on player 1
or
they both fight and get further perms depending on what happens

this rule doesn’t allow you to run away from a fight, its just to determine what happens AFTER the fight. avoiding rp and avoiding perms are against the rules as far as i know.

The scenario you've put is one possible scenario from many others. I already can see how other scenarios can go bad from this rule

I'm giving you an example, the rule "Agree OOCly you won't scam"... Do not make up a scenario- try to take a quick scenario from a thing that occurred from the rule

Here I will give you a real thing that occured from that rule
(PashOP yes I'm scammer get out) : Do you want to buy my GMLI 1000 x double bix mobile? It uses Lamborghini engine and does an automatic oil-change

(Player two In LOOC): Are you going to scam me?

(PashOP unable to lie in OOC): Absolutely Nnnn-yes

(Player two ICly suddenly disinterested about the offer or asks questions then shows disinterest to make himself look innocent)
I tried contacting staff on said situations before as well but I don't get no help

So I'm basically using that rule and the scenarios that occurred from it as an example of how people could take OOC fear and act upon it ICly from this rule and something more than scammed I don't want is getting my character to lost a limb or killed so I can imagine people acting differently depending on the response which I would be frustrated from

However I think giving this a -1 is unfair because I find it good but from another side yet disagree with it due to fearing how people would use the "determind". So basically my concern is people changing the outcome because you're not agreeing and lead to a different scenario to happen than what should have happened
because the player is "attached" to his character

+1/-0.25 because I'm cool

 

[florestia]

+1