Synn
Level 6
Like I said in the post, I didn't read your original post, I was only replying to the person I clicked "reply" on, not the post itself!
mc.roleplayhub.com
players online
FEEDBACK | Kill Permissions Re-Evaluation
- Thread starter hebwig
- Start date
TrapstarRp
Level 23
1+ still with the whole thing and as a gangrper I think it’ll bring more players in, maybe not as experienced but ones that know how to detail and action unlike a lot of people. I think it’ll also make it more popular as I think it’s been iffy and it has its moments to where it dies out but I think if this goes through it’ll liven up a lot on gangrp.
Honestly for me its a +1/-1,
I only say this because in my opinion, when you decide that you want your character to be in GangRP, you just have to accept the fact that your character will be killed at some point, for the crimes they've committed, thats just realistic. As other people have previously stated, removing the character dying factor in GangRP, would remove the fun and risk, that GangRP builds itself on. To be honest, if you are really that attached to your character, then do not put yourself into situations that will get yourself killed, it's as simple as that.
But I do agree with some points that you stated, for example, many GangRPers are in GangRP purely for killing others characters, which shouldn't be the main goal. Looking back at GangRP's older days, I do remember there being something similar thing to this, but I don't remember the name to it. It was where both parties could agree that the character being killed would just forget everything that happened, and it would act out as if they killed the character, but the person was still able to use the character. (I remembered its NLR)
Overall, I do agree that something needs to happened to be able to essentially "revive" it, as these days it just revolves around killing one another, with no story behind it, to be able to gain relevancy.
I only say this because in my opinion, when you decide that you want your character to be in GangRP, you just have to accept the fact that your character will be killed at some point, for the crimes they've committed, thats just realistic. As other people have previously stated, removing the character dying factor in GangRP, would remove the fun and risk, that GangRP builds itself on. To be honest, if you are really that attached to your character, then do not put yourself into situations that will get yourself killed, it's as simple as that.
But I do agree with some points that you stated, for example, many GangRPers are in GangRP purely for killing others characters, which shouldn't be the main goal. Looking back at GangRP's older days, I do remember there being something similar thing to this, but I don't remember the name to it. It was where both parties could agree that the character being killed would just forget everything that happened, and it would act out as if they killed the character, but the person was still able to use the character. (I remembered its NLR)
Overall, I do agree that something needs to happened to be able to essentially "revive" it, as these days it just revolves around killing one another, with no story behind it, to be able to gain relevancy.
+1
I don't understand why people keep bringing "realism" into the discussion. Karakura is anything but realistic, it's a fictional island city where crime runs rampant, so much so that the city itself is governed by a gang member, you can quite literally commune with ghosts and spirits, failed portal devices lie dormant beneath the surface, among many other examples. I've read through the whole thread and one of the major concerns of people who are against this amendment is that people will begin baiting major assault permissions instead - how it isn't realistic that a large part of the students would have prosthetic limbs, glass eyes and missing fingers. I ask you, then, how is it any less real than what are essentially senior high school students being killing machines with body counts in the tens or an incredibly high unnatural death rate, particularly for Grades 7 to 9 teens? At least this way, we aren't wrestling away control from players. As has been said multiple times over the course of this thread, forced character death is frowned upon in most roleplaying communities, and from the name of this server, I'm led to believe we are one, too.
While this may drive away a certain crowd of combat-savvy players, I think it's worth it to bring in a new crowd of people who are interested in exploring a new avenue of roleplay, one that is, yes, very predominant in SchoolRP, much to my own surprise upon joining. People may say that this will kill GangRP, but I disagree. I'm of the humble opinion that restrictions breed creativity. Through this, gangsters will have to find much more interesting ways of damaging their targets. For example, I've been watching the kidnapping of Yui Tsu closely through secondhand screenshots and news reports, and I am simply in awe of how much more intricate it is than most Gang Roleplay actions, in spite of there not being any killing done. Many more interesting ventures will open once we peek through this curtain of uncertainty and unwillingness to change.
Lastly, roleplay should, in my opinion, be collaborative, not competitive. This doesn't mean that characters can't be on opposing sides of a fight, it simply means that, out of character, everybody should be satisfied with the outcome of a story. By introducing this rule, the competitive aspect isn't even fully removed, for those who enjoy playing like that, it's just that the most severe outcome of a situation is removed.
In the end, we may all theorise. We will disagree, we will agree, we will agree to disagree, but the truth is that we won't really know what will happen until the rule is set in place. I think collaborative storytelling isn't a theoretical exercise, it's a practical one, so why not give it a try?
I don't understand why people keep bringing "realism" into the discussion. Karakura is anything but realistic, it's a fictional island city where crime runs rampant, so much so that the city itself is governed by a gang member, you can quite literally commune with ghosts and spirits, failed portal devices lie dormant beneath the surface, among many other examples. I've read through the whole thread and one of the major concerns of people who are against this amendment is that people will begin baiting major assault permissions instead - how it isn't realistic that a large part of the students would have prosthetic limbs, glass eyes and missing fingers. I ask you, then, how is it any less real than what are essentially senior high school students being killing machines with body counts in the tens or an incredibly high unnatural death rate, particularly for Grades 7 to 9 teens? At least this way, we aren't wrestling away control from players. As has been said multiple times over the course of this thread, forced character death is frowned upon in most roleplaying communities, and from the name of this server, I'm led to believe we are one, too.
While this may drive away a certain crowd of combat-savvy players, I think it's worth it to bring in a new crowd of people who are interested in exploring a new avenue of roleplay, one that is, yes, very predominant in SchoolRP, much to my own surprise upon joining. People may say that this will kill GangRP, but I disagree. I'm of the humble opinion that restrictions breed creativity. Through this, gangsters will have to find much more interesting ways of damaging their targets. For example, I've been watching the kidnapping of Yui Tsu closely through secondhand screenshots and news reports, and I am simply in awe of how much more intricate it is than most Gang Roleplay actions, in spite of there not being any killing done. Many more interesting ventures will open once we peek through this curtain of uncertainty and unwillingness to change.
Lastly, roleplay should, in my opinion, be collaborative, not competitive. This doesn't mean that characters can't be on opposing sides of a fight, it simply means that, out of character, everybody should be satisfied with the outcome of a story. By introducing this rule, the competitive aspect isn't even fully removed, for those who enjoy playing like that, it's just that the most severe outcome of a situation is removed.
In the end, we may all theorise. We will disagree, we will agree, we will agree to disagree, but the truth is that we won't really know what will happen until the rule is set in place. I think collaborative storytelling isn't a theoretical exercise, it's a practical one, so why not give it a try?
Lizalopod
Level 129
W post :0
Twitch_Rush_Me
Level 10
-1 I don't agree, you are simply suggesting a way to kill gangrp even more than it is.
+1 / -1
While I do agree with certain things in this re-evaluation, such as the rule about having KPS on someone having KPS on you, removing much more of the toxic Gang Roleplayers and making the community of crime more welcoming to people who would like to explore it, I believe the consent rule can be abused by people that have an attachment to a character. A situation can go like:
"Hey, your chars about to die because I stabbed them twice. Can I have your consent to kill your character?"
"No, I don't wanna lose my character."
A person can gatekeep their character simply due to any reason, ranging from pettiness or even attachment to that character. Although I am one to grow a bit of a link to my characters and thus would get slightly annoyed if I were to lose one, it just does not seem fair in the eyes of other roleplayers. They could continue to just use that character over and over again, maybe get minored or majored but they'd continue to do this cycle. What makes GangRP and just CrimeRP in general more fun is the chance of losing a character, you have to play it somewhat smart. You have to avoid baiters, follow rules to the T, etc.
Yes, this does remove a lot of roleplayers in the crime scene that who do not want to adjust, but it also removes a majority of the people that keep that side of the community alive. I'm not saying we COMPLETELY remove the consent idea but instead make our way around it or add some adjustments as it still adds a lot of things that I believe could be beneficial to people doing the roleplay.
For example we could:
1.) If a person does not consent to their character being killed and the other party would like to eliminate their character, they could be given the option to roll out of a certain number. Whoever gets the highest roll will have the say on the KPS on the character. I believe this exchange should be done before any big fight happens, however it can be also be done at the end of it. The rolling system is used a lot of in GangRP so we could leave it all up to chance to be decided, also utilizing the KPS rules that a lot of people are famliar with.
"Player B does not consent to Player A killing their character"
"Player A rolls 50 out of 100"
"Player B rolls 61 out of 100"
"Player B would like to keep their character."
2.) There are only a limited amount of times that a person can not give consent to kill their character. For example, let's keep the amount at one. If a person does not give consent the first time their char is about to be killed, the next time they do not have a choice if another person will gain KPS on their char. This way we don't have to eliminate the KPS rules a lot of people are used to. To monitor this, I believe there should be something put in the description of a character when right clicking someone that shows the amount they have left, as for it to not be abused. We could name it the term "Character Protections", or just make a better name as I had a hard time making one up.
"/viewdesc"
"RPNAME: Collyn Morris"
"Insert Description About 6'8 Dude"
"Character Protections: 0"
These ideas themselves are very rough ideas but hopefully this shows there are alternate paths to be taken regarding this rule. GangRP takes up a large majority of the server and if something like the consent rule is added, I think it would make the playerbase lose a lot of members for better and for worse. Yes, it gives more to the roleplay side of things but it also takes from another. I believe there SHOULD be a rule where all crime or combat related actions should be detailed, and not just someone going "/me stabs in carotid" as it just ruins the purpose of the roleplay scenarios that could have taken place. There will be little risk, the only risk being police officers and BMD.
To conclude, even though I think this idea of a consent rule is good, I also think that the negatives are on par if not a little bit higher than the positives and to resolve it, we could work our way around it. Please consider this suggestion, thank you.
While I do agree with certain things in this re-evaluation, such as the rule about having KPS on someone having KPS on you, removing much more of the toxic Gang Roleplayers and making the community of crime more welcoming to people who would like to explore it, I believe the consent rule can be abused by people that have an attachment to a character. A situation can go like:
"Hey, your chars about to die because I stabbed them twice. Can I have your consent to kill your character?"
"No, I don't wanna lose my character."
A person can gatekeep their character simply due to any reason, ranging from pettiness or even attachment to that character. Although I am one to grow a bit of a link to my characters and thus would get slightly annoyed if I were to lose one, it just does not seem fair in the eyes of other roleplayers. They could continue to just use that character over and over again, maybe get minored or majored but they'd continue to do this cycle. What makes GangRP and just CrimeRP in general more fun is the chance of losing a character, you have to play it somewhat smart. You have to avoid baiters, follow rules to the T, etc.
Yes, this does remove a lot of roleplayers in the crime scene that who do not want to adjust, but it also removes a majority of the people that keep that side of the community alive. I'm not saying we COMPLETELY remove the consent idea but instead make our way around it or add some adjustments as it still adds a lot of things that I believe could be beneficial to people doing the roleplay.
For example we could:
1.) If a person does not consent to their character being killed and the other party would like to eliminate their character, they could be given the option to roll out of a certain number. Whoever gets the highest roll will have the say on the KPS on the character. I believe this exchange should be done before any big fight happens, however it can be also be done at the end of it. The rolling system is used a lot of in GangRP so we could leave it all up to chance to be decided, also utilizing the KPS rules that a lot of people are famliar with.
"Player B does not consent to Player A killing their character"
"Player A rolls 50 out of 100"
"Player B rolls 61 out of 100"
"Player B would like to keep their character."
2.) There are only a limited amount of times that a person can not give consent to kill their character. For example, let's keep the amount at one. If a person does not give consent the first time their char is about to be killed, the next time they do not have a choice if another person will gain KPS on their char. This way we don't have to eliminate the KPS rules a lot of people are used to. To monitor this, I believe there should be something put in the description of a character when right clicking someone that shows the amount they have left, as for it to not be abused. We could name it the term "Character Protections", or just make a better name as I had a hard time making one up.
"/viewdesc"
"RPNAME: Collyn Morris"
"Insert Description About 6'8 Dude"
"Character Protections: 0"
These ideas themselves are very rough ideas but hopefully this shows there are alternate paths to be taken regarding this rule. GangRP takes up a large majority of the server and if something like the consent rule is added, I think it would make the playerbase lose a lot of members for better and for worse. Yes, it gives more to the roleplay side of things but it also takes from another. I believe there SHOULD be a rule where all crime or combat related actions should be detailed, and not just someone going "/me stabs in carotid" as it just ruins the purpose of the roleplay scenarios that could have taken place. There will be little risk, the only risk being police officers and BMD.
To conclude, even though I think this idea of a consent rule is good, I also think that the negatives are on par if not a little bit higher than the positives and to resolve it, we could work our way around it. Please consider this suggestion, thank you.
MaskedRp
Level 1
I don't know! I just think it gets rid of the whole risk factor of doing anything!- like if you could major some fella- all willy nilly like...- you undoubtedly should have KPS granted on your character!- fair is fair, like... My main concern is for less RP savvy gangrp's, easily abusing this, furthermore!- if you had a choice to not let your character die- why would you?! especially since a genuinely small community of Gangrp's actually take advantage of lore- plus, having the KPD be the only thing that can kill your character without question... is a bit unfair...- I believe if this is the case if someone was to kill your character/ a friend's character- that KPS should not be a choice.
w post
Lizalopod
Level 129
I don't think this would work honestly, it has the potential to create more looc arguing. Hebwigs solution seems more simple to implement and much more effective, as it would drive people away from senseless killing and into more.. creative ways of dealing with their enemies! It would discourage the pretty mindless and random gangrp we currently have at the moment, we don't need to add onto that by adding more randomization into KPS. People really seem to not understand that there are more possibilities to gangrp appart from just killing.
In my opinion, this suggestion is the first step to absolutely kill gangrp! This .. kind of gangrp anyways. Itll replace it with a much more roleplay based and character driven system.
The player didn't consent? Alright, well, you could torture them to hell and back, maybe do a ransom, keep them captive, etc etc. Roleplay shouldn't be about who wins... if you wanna win something you could always go play ca- ahem, excuse me.
Which is why I said there are more alternate paths to be taken. Sure there are positives but the negatives are high as well, as mentioned in my first suggestion, it would take from another side and give to another. In my opinion, I think both should be kept balanced, there should be a good amount of roleplay and a good amount of knowledge about the rules and what to do in order to achieve good roleplay. Torture would eventually get old, their character would just keep continuing and continuing. KPS adds more of a fear factor, in which people will react like "I don't want to lose my character" which is what we need. This will make people be wary about the rules, the rules just need to be implemented more and more stricter. People pull rules out of their pockets that aren't even true.
Lizalopod
Level 129
Your suggestion basically just keeps KPS with a randomized chance of it working or not. It won't change anything at all my guy, people will just see is at one last extra roll I gotta win.
The point is to drive gangrp away its super toxic and competitive nature by reforming it into something more flexible and fun. Yknow, make it actually be roleplaying instead of keybinds and rolling and arguing in looc.
+1: Finally I don't have to send this to people whenever they attempt to annihilate my boy
I used those examples to show that there could be a way to work around taking away KPS with just making it a consensual thing, to show that we could STILL do something without taking out something that's so vital. I agree, yes. GangRP in a lot of cases is super toxic and competitive, however I don't believe it should be changed completely, just a little alteration to it. I would GangRP to be a more roleplaying and inviting experience, but changing something that big for this community would change the community for better or for worse. I just think some more thought should be done for the suggestion itself before going ahead with it, that's the only reason I added the -1, as I still support it in some points.
Irrelevant SRP veteran's hot take;
GangRP has and always will be the lowest tier of RP you can get if not done correctly, the fact that this thread even exists means that there's been little to no 'decent' villainy roleplay taking place if you need to have people coping over illegitimate or lackluster RP murders. Typically I would support a system where the player can be attacked at any time and then decides if they'd like to PK or not (it is usually more respectable to PK on first death like many do). Still, it's evidently not an honor system that can work on SRP due to the free nature of the server.
The "kill permission" system, no matter how absolutely beta and virgin the system is to implement and actually use, it's, unfortunately, the only solution I see to the problem unless better villainy RP is enforced. The KP system leaves it in the victim's hands to decide if the death has warranted enough RP from the killer, an issue I see is that this places a lot of power in the hands of the victim, and you have to put a lot of trust in them not just outright to deny every kill request that they get. But, if a person's receiving about 10 kill requests per week, maybe it is time for staff to look into the player's character.
That's what my interpretation is, I may be wrong because I did not bother reading the thread. Correct me if I am wrong.
GangRP has and always will be the lowest tier of RP you can get if not done correctly, the fact that this thread even exists means that there's been little to no 'decent' villainy roleplay taking place if you need to have people coping over illegitimate or lackluster RP murders. Typically I would support a system where the player can be attacked at any time and then decides if they'd like to PK or not (it is usually more respectable to PK on first death like many do). Still, it's evidently not an honor system that can work on SRP due to the free nature of the server.
The "kill permission" system, no matter how absolutely beta and virgin the system is to implement and actually use, it's, unfortunately, the only solution I see to the problem unless better villainy RP is enforced. The KP system leaves it in the victim's hands to decide if the death has warranted enough RP from the killer, an issue I see is that this places a lot of power in the hands of the victim, and you have to put a lot of trust in them not just outright to deny every kill request that they get. But, if a person's receiving about 10 kill requests per week, maybe it is time for staff to look into the player's character.
That's what my interpretation is, I may be wrong because I did not bother reading the thread. Correct me if I am wrong.
Lizalopod
Level 129
You got it about right. Though the thing about SRP is it's not necessarily supposed to be a combat centric server, gangrp is just rampant lol. There's no real need for players to be killing off others so carelessly, it just doesn't make sense.
Honestly the thing that baffles me about people to this day is why they're so insistent that they have to be able to kill, they have to be able to get kps. There's like a million other things you can do...
tbh this changed my perception of things. now im just having a mind fight
if they do end up removing kps people will care less cuz you can get replacement for any type of major- so it will just go down hill.. more gangrp but in a bad way.. people just wont care about their chars or consequences cuz they cant die..