Would you play a permadeath/hardcore server?

[Halloween]

I would, but not on GTAWorld. It'll be like the Purge.

[DLimit]

I'd play a perma-death server amongst high-quality RPers that actually value RP over OOC thrill-based interactions and baseless provocations.

[Aqua.]

I personally wouldn't play on a perma death server. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a really cool idea and all but I feel like giving people the choice to play one life characters is better. That way they can have some control over it.

[NickyW]

Yes, as long as there was some sort of system to appeal/prevent DM.

 

I personally believe if you’re killed in a way that makes sense logically and no rules are broken; it’s borderline poor RP if you don’t CK.

 

Why? Roleplay is storytelling, and if you aren’t willing to kill off a character when it makes sense to do so, you’re a bad story teller.

 

I don’t necessarily think CK’s should occur every time someone dies, but I do think CK apps should be accepted on a “shall-issue” basis where all the applicant has to do is provide a valid reason for killing the person—at which point an admin should need a reason *not to accept* it, instead of the current system where it seems like the default answer is “deny” unless convinced otherwise.

 

Basically: if an admin decides a murder is not DM, it shouldn’t immediately be a CK, but it should be almost always accepted if a CK app is posted. And as a result, make all 1st degree murder convictions life imprisonment or death:

 

Watch how far the crime rate will plummet when killing someone has actual consequences—and how little fear RP reports there’ll be.

Edited July 28, 2023 by NickyW

[Fabulous]

I would.

[eTaylor]

I'd never leave the compound. 

[Mecovy]

Nah, until people truly recognize what's actually a valid reason to end a life, fuck no. Even among killers, taking a life is still a SERIOUS deal, not just a case of grab ya gat and pop three into your neighbors noggin.

 

I don't believe there is anything staff could do to make that work, it has to come from the whole community to begin to shift how they're handling conflicts.

Edited July 28, 2023 by Mecovy

[Paddy]

On 7/28/2023 at 9:32 PM, NickyW said:

Why? Roleplay is storytelling, and if you aren’t willing to kill off a character when it makes sense to do so, you’re a bad story teller.

This is an interesting point, but I'm not sure I am totally on board with this rationale. Keep in mind that if you're writing a novel or a story, you have complete and utter control over the narrative. Being CKd in dubious situations (and yes, I do believe that a death can be dubious even if no rules are broken) is the analogical equivalent of somebody coming over your shoulder, taking your pen off you and scribbling on the page "AND THEN THEY DIED". I'm not convinced this is the peak of intriguing storytelling.

 

I personally would avoid a permadeath style RP server due to the level of ambiguity that can surround any situation in the game. That said, in singleplayer games I do typically have permadeath on if it's available. But I don't think it would be enjoyable here.

Edited July 30, 2023 by Paddy
Typo lol

[NickyW]

57 minutes ago, Paddy said:

This is an interesting point, but I'm not sure I am totally on board with this rationale. Keep in mind that if you're writing a novel or a story, you have complete and utter control over the narrative. Being CKd in dubious situations (and yes, I do believe that a death can be dubious even if no rules are broken) is the analogical equivalent of somebody coming over your shoulder, taking your pen off you and scribbling on the page "AND THEN THEY DIED". I'm not convinced this is the peak of intriguing storytelling.

 

I personally would avoid a permadeath style RP server due to the level of ambiguity that can surround any situation in the game. That said, in singleplayer games I do typically have permadeath on if it's available. But I don't think it would be enjoyable here.

 

I think the issue with your objection primarily lies in the unstated assumption that your character is the protagonist of the story--in which case, it'd be an injustice for the reader if their story were to end in an abrupt or dubious manner.

 

Two things:

 

1. This simply isn't necessarily true. Two unarguably great stories, The Great Gatsby, and No Country for Old Men, for example, both use the unexpected and abrupt death of major characters to devastating dramatic effect. It can certainly be done well, and in fact is a great way to both subvert expectations and deliver a motif or theme from a narrative standpoint, and introduce new character development opportunities from a gaming standpoint. The idea here is that while you may not have control over your character's life, you still are in control of the narrative--your character's death can have a wide variety of second and third tier consequences, regardless of how or when they died--and by refusing to CK, you're robbing countless other players (friends, family, faction members) the opportunity to add trauma and grief to their character's stories.

 

2. Ultimately, you (nor I) are the main character of GTAW. Not everyone is Jon Snow; some people are Khal Drago. We aren't owed a grand, bookend fate for all of our characters. Stories often kill minor characters to serve the larger story, even at the expense of the minor character. While your death may be frivolous to you--it could serve as a stepping-stone in development for your murderer, the officer who investigates it, the attorney who takes the murderer's case, and all the other people who fall into those players' social-circles. All of this development is cheapened when the murder victim at the center of it all is "John Doe" who doesn't have any friends or family, and there's suddenly 50 OOC limitations on what can and can't be investigated/argued in court, not to mention, all of the stakes and consequences of the situation have been removed other than potentially putting somebody in jail.

 

I agree that there are some situations in which it benefits nobody for you to CK, and in those situations--you shouldn't. But I don't mind telling you that those cases are very far and few between. Far more often, somebody loses a situation because of poor judgement (in the short or long term) and don't want to give up their character; and in that case, I'll defer to this: actions should have consequences, and the in-world reinforcement of that universal maxim, in my opinion, is more than enough reason for someone to CK.

 

[Paddy]

1 hour ago, NickyW said:

 

I think the issue with your objection primarily lies in the unstated assumption that your character is the protagonist of the story--in which case, it'd be an injustice for the reader if their story were to end in an abrupt or dubious manner.

 

Two things:

 

1. This simply isn't necessarily true. Two unarguably great stories, The Great Gatsby, and No Country for Old Men, for example, both use the unexpected and abrupt death of major characters to devastating dramatic effect. It can certainly be done well, and in fact is a great way to both subvert expectations and deliver a motif or theme from a narrative standpoint, and introduce new character development opportunities from a gaming standpoint. The idea here is that while you may not have control over your character's life, you still are in control of the narrative--your character's death can have a wide variety of second and third tier consequences, regardless of how or when they died--and by refusing to CK, you're robbing countless other players (friends, family, faction members) the opportunity to add trauma and grief to their character's stories.

 

2. Ultimately, you (nor I) are the main character of GTAW. Not everyone is Jon Snow; some people are Khal Drago. We aren't owed a grand, bookend fate for all of our characters. Stories often kill minor characters to serve the larger story, even at the expense of the minor character. While your death may be frivolous to you--it could serve as a stepping-stone in development for your murderer, the officer who investigates it, the attorney who takes the murderer's case, and all the other people who fall into those players' social-circles. All of this development is cheapened when the murder victim at the center of it all is "John Doe" who doesn't have any friends or family, and there's suddenly 50 OOC limitations on what can and can't be investigated/argued in court, not to mention, all of the stakes and consequences of the situation have been removed other than potentially putting somebody in jail.

 

I agree that there are some situations in which it benefits nobody for you to CK, and in those situations--you shouldn't. But I don't mind telling you that those cases are very far and few between. Far more often, somebody loses a situation because of poor judgement (in the short or long term) and don't want to give up their character; and in that case, I'll defer to this: actions should have consequences, and the in-world reinforcement of that universal maxim, in my opinion, is more than enough reason for someone to CK.

 

I agree that by no stretch of the imagination is any one character the protagonist of GTAW (that thought actually made me laugh a touch). On the flip side of that however, can you truly take on the role of seco day entity when your perspective is so dominated by your own character? And I also feel I should state again that in examples such as The Great Gatsby, the author still had uncontested control. The decisions they made (which I won't go into for spoilers reasons) weren't fought over by somebody else trying to get their ideas onto the page. One author, one story, one creative decision. It isn't the same here on GTAW.