Add the ability to resist thralling and embracing

[DronzTheWolf]

I would like thralling and embracing to have a menu prompt similar to that of Cult. It would make the experience of Vamp a lot better because thralling someone is a salty landmine field, so giving the ability to decline it is always a good idea. It'll help prevent salty passive-aggression thralls and allow some more freedom in the players.

My idea for Embracing, though, is that if you decline it you just stay dead and the Vampire keeps your blood. That makes the most sense to me, at least. You're free to add other ideas below. 

After all, if by lore the cult rune is Nar-Sie himself trying to gain control of your mind/soul, and you can resist that, you ought to be able to resist a Vampire. After all, they're just a minor pact with the veil.

[Carver]

Sounds good. Not much else to say, I 100% agree with this idea.

[Butterrobber202]

+1, sounds great as long as refusing a thralling has negative effects, besides you know. Getting SUCC'D

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Only if the other alternative is dying. You cant just let them go as a vampire.

I don't like it at all though.  It seems selfish to refuse opting in to the antag who wants you to stay in the round and be involved in the round type. Being able to die and leave seems fine though. Unfair to the vamp whos spending a lot of blood on you.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Marlon Phoenix

[Itanimulli]

Don't see a point to this. Thralls are somewhat important to a vamp late game, and the embrace is a "bittersweet gift" that causes issues as much as it doesn't.

 

Why doesn't a player get an option to opt out of getting succ'd grabbed by a ling? Or changed by the staff of change?

[DronzTheWolf]

22 minutes ago, Itanimulli said:

Don't see a point to this. Thralls are somewhat important to a vamp late game, and the embrace is a "bittersweet gift" that causes issues as much as it doesn't.

 

Why doesn't a player get an option to opt out of getting succ'd grabbed by a ling? Or changed by the staff of change?

Because in the latter two, there is actually little way to resist ICly or OOCly.
ICly, though, these are only side-effects of the veil, not even it's true power. Just like being able to resist cult, which is substantially more powerful, you could feasibly try to resist these. With appropriate drawbacks, such as death or injury. A player who is salty and passive-aggressive for being unwillingly antagged is worse than having them taken out of the round, because they will generally detract from the round because of this. Giving them an option to just be gone is better than wasting blood on them just for them to cryo and having admins refund you. 

[Zundy]

Shouldn't be able to resist cult imo either. I'd be ok with it if the alternative is death or something.

[Kaed]

Alternative idea: punish people who join secret rounds then throw tantrums at antagonist interaction.

It's always baffled me that people are allowed to join around where antagonist can appear but then expect that the antagonist aren't going to interact with him are using their antagonist abilities on them.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Kaed

[Evandorf]

I don't think everyone should be expected to interact with conversion antags, especially on secret where extended is an option.

[GreenBoi]

I don't like this. Becoming a Thrall or Vampire is something you metaphorically signed in the metaphorical contract by joining Secret. If you don't like the current antag, becoming an antag means you can try to at least make the round better for others. I don't see what's so bad about it, and it's not like Resist options do much. The Antagonist will either murder you or just shard you to become a construct, it's all a placebo to me.

[Kaed]

13 minutes ago, Evandorf said:

I don't think everyone should be expected to interact with conversion antags, especially on secret where extended is an option.

No.  Extended is not 'an option' it's in the secret rotation so that you can have rounds where there are not antagonists, to throw people off and prevent overt metagame.  People should not be joining secret on the vague hope that the 1 in , what, 16(?) chance occurs that it's extended.  That's like joining extended in the hope that the 'random antag' event occurs.  It's probably not going to.

If you join secret, you should be prepared for antagonists, They might not happen, but you should not be allowed to join under the expectation that you can throw tantrums and quit when it's not secret extended, forcing the antag to get an admin to refund their blood or find a ghost to put in the construct or soul gem.  If you can't hack being thralled or cult converted, then just don't join.  There's a low chance it's going to happen given the other game modes exist, and if it does, just deal with it like a mature adult.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Kaed

[Evandorf]

There's a difference between opting not to interact and throwing a tantrum. If I'm not feeling cult I'll usually just let them kill me. Sometimes I may let them know in looc that I don't  want to be converted.

There are also a lot of people who like to play simply to do their job or RP, research comes to mind. And I don't think it's unreasonable to allow for those players the ability to do what they enjoy. I'm completely OK with death being the alternative to conversion but we don't need to punish people who opt out. 

[Kaed]

8 minutes ago, Evandorf said:

There's a difference between opting not to interact and throwing a tantrum. If I'm not feeling cult I'll usually just let them kill me. Sometimes I may let them know in looc that I don't  want to be converted.

There are also a lot of people who like to play simply to do their job or RP, research comes to mind. And I don't think it's unreasonable to allow for those players the ability to do what they enjoy. I'm completely OK with death being the alternative to conversion but we don't need to punish people who opt out. 

I would consider dying a punishment for refusing to play along, but it's also got to refund the blood in the process.  Admins should not have to be called every time this happens, and people should not be cryoing because they got thralled.

It would be nice if you could tie the 'thrall' opt in option to this, and maybe allow vampires to see somehow in game viable targets.  This would cut down a lot on accidental resist murders and salt.  Like, a way to scan someone you can see and 'check if their mind is open to subversion'

 

Edited March 20, 2019 by Kaed

[Evandorf]

As far as turning someone into a vamp, you could require them to first be drained before you give them vamp blood. Bring them to crit. 

This would allow people to succumb and simply not survive the process. Which, depending on your vamp lore, would make sense. 

[Kaed]

2 minutes ago, Evandorf said:

As far as turning someone into a vamp, you could require them to first be drained before you give them vamp blood. Bring them to crit. 

This would allow people to succumb and simply not survive the process. Which, depending on your vamp lore, would make sense. 

There's no need for you to be able to resist The Embrace. You are under no obligation to follow the vampires orders at that point, and it costs them no blood to embrace you. You can just fuck off and do whatever if you want.  If they did not take the time to check if you are going to be a viable vampire ally, it's their fault.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Kaed

[Evandorf]

Once turned though you have to deal with the hunger and possibly going into a frenzy. And requiring vamps to first drain their victim would help alleviate the blood cost. 

[Kaed]

7 minutes ago, Evandorf said:

Once turned though you have to deal with the hunger and possibly going into a frenzy. And requiring vamps to first drain their victim would help alleviate the blood cost. 

That's not really viable, it's very hard to judge when someone is in crit from being drained, I've tried doing that before to get free blood, and it's really tricky, sometimes they die before you finish embracing them.  I don't think becoming embraced is something you need to be able to resist, you are a free willed entity after and can do what you want.  The thirst can be dealt with in a non murdery way if you want to, and you can snitch on them and go back to diddling around in science if you want.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Kaed
Though why you would want to die rather than get antagonist carte blanche I don't know...

[Carver]

7 hours ago, Kaed said:

It would be nice if you could tie the 'thrall' opt in option to this, and maybe allow vampires to see somehow in game viable targets.  This would cut down a lot on accidental resist murders and salt.  Like, a way to scan someone you can see and 'check if their mind is open to subversion'

I don't hate this idea. Having opt-ins to circumvent the issue entirely may be a fairly viable alternative to simply having resisting as an option.

[Kaed]

6 hours ago, Carver said:

I don't hate this idea. Having opt-ins to circumvent the issue entirely may be a fairly viable alternative to simply having resisting as an option.

We can't have opt-outs decide for the player, because most people forget to ever check their antag settings unless reminded, so it's not necessarily representative of fact.  It should only serve as a guideline, not an alternative to choosing to die in character.  What if you change your mind, too, because you're enjoying your roleplay with the vampire? OOC settings should not determine your IC decisions automatically.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Kaed

[Carver]

3 hours ago, Kaed said:

We can't have opt-outs decide for the player, because most people forget to ever check their antag settings unless reminded, so it's not necessarily representative of fact.  It should only serve as a guideline, not an alternative to choosing to die in character.  What if you change your mind, too, because you're enjoying your roleplay with the vampire? OOC settings should not determine your IC decisions automatically.

Then wouldn't resisting be an ideal solution? I don't quite understand, I was agreeing with what I'd quoted from you.

[Kaed]

2 hours ago, Carver said:

Then wouldn't resisting be an ideal solution? I don't quite understand, I was agreeing with what I'd quoted from you.

I'm saying I think both should be added in to try and help vampires judge how to best achieve their goals.  Just because you might want to resist and die rather than being a thrall doesn't mean that I as a vampire want to leave a corpse around for security to find if I can help it. Giving some kind of prior indication ICly how the interaction will go beyond LOOC would be nice, if you're going to take away irresistible thralls.

This is a compromise that doesn't screw over anyone particularly more than the other, by not being an overt nerf and also providing a way to deter vampires from bugging you if you don't like it. Though I should point out that I still think people should suck it up or be punished rather than be allowed to just die because being thralled rustles their jimmies.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Kaed