-1 It wouldn't make sense or else there would be 0 killings in karakura at all, no one is going to give consent to their character being killed, only a small percentage of people will. Most people care about their characters a lot and will never dare to put their character on risk due to the heavy amount of character development and what it took to create their character and what their character has gone through. I think it would be better if we can go to a lore team member or a staff member and give them reasons on how and why we would kill someones character, call it a "CK" request. And if they accept it we could fully kill that persons character but if our character dies during the CK attempt/process, we lose our character permanently as well. There could also be the same scenarios that could escalate/ lead to kill perms, but instead it could be "new life rule" or your character is dead for a certain amount of time until you can use it again instead of KPS, since to have KPS you'd have to make a CK request to gain KPS approved by a staff member or lore team member.
Read the thread + the reply I gave to ImKana on the first page. It explains why it wouldn't be ideal to do the idea regarding LT / staff. NLR is a good idea since it's utilized heavily in other roleplay servers but it didn't work out in the past on SchoolRP. . .it wouldn't be a horrible thing to try again but I think SchoolRP is a lot different than the likes of Garry's Mod / GTA roleplay. It's more writing-based and tends to have completely different settings. I do appreciate this reply, though, just check out what I said to ImKana.
I'm a neutral positive on it, there's a couple things that I want to bring up
I've always been against character death, a lot of people know this. I think it's crumby especially when character deaths are hardly ever satisfying. However, from recent experience, it's very hard to get OOC consent for things even if they make sense to have happen. My biggest concern is..
If I cannot kill the person I'm after, so I stab them instead (normally killing them, but with new rules thats a no), then I'll just get arrested and get put in jail because there's really nothing stopping them from doing that. It's like there's a safety net of "Well my character wont die sooooo!" which isn't a problem outright, some mentioned that it'd even bring more people to Gangrp which I think is good. Then there's also the aftermath... If people can't kill characters, they'll turn to chopping them up instead.
The few people who have mentioned getting staff approved kills/lore-team approved, etc have a good idea since most people will say no. If we could adopt an FRP-esque kill system that'd be nice, but that also means re-implementing NLR which got confusing last time we had it.
The major BENEFIT I see in this is well.. Everyone will develop their characters! (in the ideal world)
ummm ill probably edit this reply later to fit in more of my thoughts as I sort them out, but those r my major ones.
Hi, Cloud. The safety net is fine because it'll limit arguments and it'll force you to think outside the box in how your character is actually going to attack someone if they want to avoid the police (as they are now the biggest risk regarding kills). Chopping them up is also not a horrible alternative. . .it'll take weeks of gaining permissions before you turn someone into a vegetable by chopping them up (as Minobu described it to me in VC), which still gives them enough time to roleplay as their character & to have more intricate interactions rather than an instant & forced death. I do like the idea of adopting FRP's deal with NLR & consulting lore team, but as I mentioned in my reply to ImKana, that likely would not work with SRP. It's a shame that their communities and staff alike are different, but I hope it makes sense why. Thank you, though!!! I really appreciate your input as you are an amazing roleplayer.
Yeah was just saying that the officers who join the force don't give auto KPS but they don't get the choice of whether their character can die or not; because it seems quite unfair for an officer to just never die. Same with gangs; like if you join you don't have the choice for your character to never die; unless like motive or something. It's hard to explain, I think the whole forum is kinda over the paper at least, and not a set of rules formed yet. I do think that either way it'll better the roleplay (well hopefully) than just a keybind that reads; stabs carotid.
If a police officer attempts to shoot your character with unconsented kill permissions, then you are free to kill them with unconsented kill permissions. I mention this in the thread. I hope that makes sense! Take care!
-1
alright so.. my reasoning well.
As much as I don’t like the GangRp community anymore .. I feel like this isint one of the major issues that come in between permissions at all. Some people might agree with the whole oocly permission thing but I just see this as a planned death.. which is not really suggested by most staff themselves. This takes away the realism and overall will increase problems/most likely to be abused. If someone comes up to you and threatens you with a weapon which would equal KPS the immediate the person getting threatened would ask in looc if they can use such kps .. if the person who is threatening says no in looc.. where do you go off from there? Do majors? Or ignore the whole situation even though I am pretty sure only staff can void situations now?.
This will be hard to set into the rules and discussed on all together. Like I said I don’t think killing and etc is the big problem in Gangrp especially it’s not EASY gaining them unless you were trying real hard to get them/the person was being way too bold, etc.
if you fear of your character getting killed you shouldn’t gang rp.. simple as that. Like in real life if you are threatening to kill someone or something you are mostly likely gonna know the person is gonna defend themselves.
Though I do agree on “people making throw off characters”. I feel like these type of people should just be reported to staff, yes it’s a lot but it’s better than ruining the whole experiences for everyone else. I also feel like Kps should last longer than a week just to keep people from easily handing them out. Gangrp should have it’s own separate rules that are super strict since majority of the Srp community is gangrp. Neverless than that, I feel staff should really consider looking into gangs that want to be verified due to there oocly toxicity and etc. to stop a lot of this madness, a lot of clean up work will have to be done before mostly anything can improve.
besides that, I feel like A LOT of what was typed down can be a big positive change, just.. the kps part I don’t think will have a availability to change.
Staff members are perfectly fine with planned death and would actually encourage it because it encourages intricate roleplay and better writing. Take Ironside Koji's presumed death for example: I agreed on it with Prosthettics weeks before the event took place, and the roleplay we had was phenomenal and so much fun even though it was planned. . .BECAUSE we also did unplanned things during that event! We planned a conclusion, yes, but we also improvised on it. Players are allowed to do this as much as Prosthettics and I were; planning out things is not frowned upon by staff at all. Writing is still fun even with pre-determined conclusions (But, yes, it's also more fun without pre-determined conclusions. That's why you could get involved in criminal roleplay a lot differently than before, since killing will no longer be the focus)!
We don't want kill permissions to be easy to gain. My first point was that forced / permanent character death is frowned upon in several roleplay communities and shouldn't happen NEARLY as often as it does on SchoolRP. It doesn't make sense. Please refer to the thread for more elaboration on that point. I don't see the point in making kill permissions last longer than a week once consented upon; I mean. . .considering you are consenting them, you can work with the other person to decide the length at this point. That's ALSO a benefit in this suggestion being implemented! If you only want to consent three days (and both parties agree), then it can be three days. If you want to consent thirty days, then it can be thirty days. Why not?
GangRP should not become more overcomplicated than it already is. This helps lessen the arguments that would sprout from the confusion and complication within killing permissions. Tying major assault permissions in with kidnapping permissions (as I briefly mention in my original post) is also beneficial in limiting complication. Staff are looking into gangs and their behavior actively and I, personally as the crime faction lead, am not going to permit a gang to be verified if their behavior out-of-character is unruly. They are what demotivates others in GangRP and it's not sensical to give them benefits for that kind of thing. The clean-up work you reference in your post is exactly what we're doing now with this suggestion. I hope you understand what I mean and how this is one of the best steps we can take into cleaning up and bettering GangRP. Feel free to PM me over conversations if you want to discuss it further. Thanks a bunch for your input!! I hope my response is suitable.
+1 / -1
2. "If a police officer DOES attempt to shoot you, you are not required to ask them for consent in order to kill them. It’s vice-versa." This. This is something that makes sense to me, if this suggestion is accepted I'd like to see more specific scenarios where you can say OOC consent is not needed.
3. What happens to majors? Now that KPS isn't a thing, it'll turn into a constant cycle of "you took my leg now I'm gonna take your leg back". By not needing OOC consent for this aspect, you still see the same old toxic gangrp, just baiting majors more often instead of baiting KPS.
Not gonna go too much more into depth, these are just the first things that come to mind. I think this will be an amazing thing to implement once some of the kinks and finer details are worked out.
I like the idea of adding more specific scenarios. The one other scenario that comes to mind that could result in unconsented killing permissions is if a person leaves a verified gang with valuable information in their possession. . .it only makes sense to eliminate their character at that point, yes? This is a great suggestion that builds on my own and I appreciate it a ton! Also, for your third point, I want to reference a conversation that I had with Yonio in VC about that exact circumstance. . .
. . .with this addition, you can only remove ONE limb or ONE minor appendage per instance of major assault permissions that you have. Say that Player 1 has major assault permissions for seven days on Player 2 and chooses to remove their arm, which then results in Player 2 having major assault permissions for seven days now on Player 1 (because they acted on major assault permissions). I hope you're still following. So, Player 2 will also remove Player 1's arm. That's it. Player 1 cannot retaliate as they already removed one limb within those seven days, and the only way that they could remove another is if they get major assault permissions again in another circumstance. Player 2 can't do anything more, either.
Baiting is an issue we're going to have, even if we remove kill permissions or major assault permissions or mugging permissions or kidnapping permissions. It's baiting. People will want permission to do things to people. We reap more benefits with making kill permissions an OOC consent-based system, though, than we would with flaws (and a flaw would be that we can't really tackle baiting). Granted, I do feel like a toll would be taken on baiting considering kills would take place less. That's a lot of where the issues with baiting come from nowadays. I hope this makes sense & I really like your additions to everything!! Thank you!!!
forgive my awful writing skills i'm sure Sophia will see my response and make fun of something in it due to the writing
+1/-1
like the rest of the player base, I love the idea of this! I love that I won't have to lose my character for some kinda dumb reason. I'm more afraid that this system change will lead to a constant circle of people using major perms (ex "well you took my leg so I'm gonna take yours" x10) ill kill perms are removed then at that point where is the end that isn't just avoiding the person for a week. Also where would this put officers at? I feel like in a way it would make us overpowered (which might end up killing the gangrp community more) right now it's if you tase someone it's KPS but now we just don't have to consent to it and we're safe? ONTOP OF THAT Major Assault would just become the new form of kps and it would lead to people doing EVERYTHING to your character to make them unplayable (chop all their limbs off, make em go blind, cut their throat so they cant speak, burn their ears shut idk) which will just lead to them being. We have to be careful on what we choose to do with the current state of gangrp as the reality is if gangrp dies like 4 other factions die with it.
Refer to my example above. This is a super valid concern, so thank you for bringing it up. It's not a bad thing if people do that with the whole major assault repetition "until the character turns into a vegetable" (again, referencing Minobu's words). People get more time with their characters and are inevitably forced into more intricate roleplay when it comes to having limbs and appendages removed; whereas with instant, forced, and permanent character death, this would not exist. Take care!!!
