Existing players used to logging in with their character name and moo password must signup for a website account.
- Slyter 3m
- Veleth 30s
- cata 58s
- Dale 10m
- xXShadowSlayerXx 4s
- BubbleKangaroo 6m
- spungkbubble 26s
- JanekSembilan 19s
- meero619 2m
- SmokePotion 2m Right or wrong, I'm getting high.
- Rillem 3m Make it personal.
- LadyLogic 14m
- Vanashis 4h
- Sivartas 18s
- zxq 1m Blackcastle was no ordinary prison.
- NightHollow 10m
And 29 more hiding and/or disguised
Sindomedome logo
a cyberpunk roleplaying game
banner art by Michal Lisowski
Connect to Sindome @ moo.sindome.org:5555 or just Play Now

@trust to execute

Login to post. Membership required.
Jump To
Newest Post
@trust to execute so you can be dramatically and definitively killed without having to go into combat scroll when the situation would benefit from it. Probably make it so the @trust is removed after death, or after 5-10 minutes, just to avoid abuse.
By Wonderland at Apr 11, 2022, 9:51 PM | 0
I've thought about this before, makes sense for those dramatic death scenes.
By batko at Apr 11, 2022, 9:52 PM | 0
Had the same thought, would be much more realistic and fitting for certain scenarios.
By Nymphali at Apr 11, 2022, 9:53 PM | 0
This has come up a few times in the past, the most recent thread of significant response, I think, being this one:

https://www.sindome.org/bgbb/game-discussion/ideas/coup-de-gras–-trust-to-kill-1301/

By crashdown at Apr 12, 2022, 2:03 AM | 0
I think that the only tidbit is that giving full trust to someone should chiefly exclude execution trust. Giving someone execution trust should require a specific @trust name to execute, and also come with a nice fat warning when you do it.
By batko at Apr 12, 2022, 2:08 AM | 0
Batko, thinking exactly the same thing and was about to raise this point when I refreshed to see you had done so.

@trust 'player'

Which includes exicute would kill the useage of @trust 'player' almost instantly, meaning the leborious task of micromanaging @trust.

By fopsy at Apr 12, 2022, 3:00 AM | 0
Yes. I would agree that a command like this would be wonderful. While it may not seem completely normal, fighting back is something you don't always want to do for a number of reasons.

Would love this trust.

By DancingRoo at Apr 13, 2022, 8:52 AM | 0
maybe instead of a trust, have a command that makes you not fight any attackers for the next couple of minutes.
By Sulfurado at Apr 13, 2022, 8:54 AM | 0
I don't think players should have to telegraph their OOC intentions one way or another, and possibly give themselves away by providing or not providing @trusts to attackers. I think combat is best left to the mechanics to determine the outcome, and players shouldn't be responsible on either side for colluding to create a specific result.

I especially don't think characters should have any way of getting themselves killed instantly by another character, which is controlled from the victim's side. That seems ripe for abuse.

By 0x1mm at Apr 13, 2022, 9:45 AM | 0
Then a command to say that you are not going to fight back and accept whatever outcome would be nice. Maybe it doesn't have to be an @trust, but again, this would be nice.
By DancingRoo at Apr 13, 2022, 1:02 PM | 0
Having a hardcoded surrender state might clean up some pre-planned execution scenes for posterity but I also think it runs a serious risk of encouraging characters into using it as a OOC tool to suss out player intentions and lock down otherwise risky situations.

To say nothing of characters wanting to die as a default reaction to everything.

I think this sort of mechanic makes more sense in a game where players are collaborating OOC to make scenes play out in a specific way, but makes less sense when players are competing with one another and are not really supposed to know one another's true OOC intentions.

By 0x1mm at Apr 13, 2022, 1:51 PM | 0
Can you be clearer, 0x1mm? I genuinely don't understand how you think this could be used for meta.

By beandip at Apr 13, 2022, 1:53 PM | 0
If a player doesn't use a hardcoded surrender but acts IC as though they are surrendering, this may communicate information to other players about their OOC intentions. In this case they may be compelled into compromising their agency by 'actually' surrendering.

I can think of a lot more past situations where apparently vulnerable characters turned out to be anything, and there is at least one famous instance of a character escaping a planned execution when they were notionally 'going along with it' thanks to clutch combat rolls at the last second.

By 0x1mm at Apr 13, 2022, 2:07 PM | 0
In that case, have it be a hidden thing instead of telling people they're ready to die. There won't be any confirmation until the executor takes his shot
By Sulfurado at Apr 13, 2022, 2:18 PM | 0
Why I also mentioned all the situations in which players want to kill their characters as fast as possible, despite what anyone else is trying to do in a scene. Being in combat and spontaneously instant killing another character robs agency from the attacker, let alone the idea that characters can will themselves to have eggshell skulls.

I think both signalling and non-signalling versions of a mechanic like this have different negatives. I get the thinking here but I personally think the situations in which players might use it to dubious purposes outnumber those where it salvages pre-planned guillotine scenes.

By 0x1mm at Apr 13, 2022, 2:39 PM | 0
I don't know about you, but I have a hard time believing that the situations where someone kills themselves in order to make things awkward for someone who already has reasons to attack will outnumber in usage the times where clean executions are something that is wanted.

And if your problem is with instant death and eggshell skulls, well… Let's not have it be instant death. Let's have it be that you make no attempt to dodge, that you make no attempt to fight back or parry, that attacks have a greater chance to hit the face, head and chest, and that damage is multiplied, maybe by three.

Hell, that would even work as a power move, allowing someone a free hit that does triple damage. A weak immy with his fists wouldn't be able to kill a hardened badass even with triple damage, whereas a gun user would fare much better at doing a proper execution (and if you're using guns then you should be okay with killing).

By Sulfurado at Apr 13, 2022, 4:22 PM | 0
It may be that I've been disproportionately exposed to suicidal captives, or possibly that I'm just boring them into praying for the sweet release of death.

I feel like @holdback 60, sit, and stop attacking allows for a very submissive roleplaying posture without any potential for shenanigans, but it may be that the need for cooperative executions is far greater than I've experienced.

By 0x1mm at Apr 13, 2022, 7:25 PM | 0
I think your concerns can easily remedied by creating a new command 'execute' that only works ouside of combat.

If the player has @trusted to execute, his character will be executed, if not, it will just start combat scroll as if he had typed 'attack', or 'kill'.

By Loreley at Apr 14, 2022, 1:11 AM | 0
@trust notifies a baka when they get trusted.

@trust does not send such notifications when that trust is removed.

By beandip at Apr 14, 2022, 11:03 AM | 0
Jump To Oldest Post