Jump to content

Change/Remove Thralls


Nantei

Recommended Posts

Every time I play vampire I refuse to use thralls unless someone explicitly asks for it in LOOC. Why? It's generally the least fun thing in the kit for either player. It is abused 99% of the time with very little buildup or roleplay after. I don't usually like to use this to describe RP, but I find thrall RP to be especially cringey too. 

On top of this, Vampires already have a very strong ability similar to Thrall that is far more compelling both mechanically and roleplay wise. Dominate. Vampires do not need to be able to take permanent control over another person. I cannot think of much that thralling positively adds to a round, and honestly have never actually seen it positively impact a round. 

 

Alternatively, have the thrall option actually be used, and let people who have it off get a prompt similar to cult. If they deny, refund the blood and stun the victim to give the vampire breathing room.

 

Edited by Nantei
Link to comment

 

excuse me for sounding like a big company tech support here but for what it's worth, I'm sorry to hear that you (presumably) had to go through a crappy experience just recently (and over time) with enthralling.

Indeed, enthralling doesn't seem to give anyone an option and this can lead to similar situations as, actually, to instances of cult rounds reported in the past where someone is essentially forcefully placed in the position of an antagonist. That in itself may be a whole can of worms that's worth looking at from different perspectives with upsides and downsides and maybe even certain expectations that certain people believe everyone else should follow with those.

Now, being enthralled differs slightly from dominate in the sense that as far as the game's concerned, you've officially been given antagonist status. What that actually does I can't really say for sure, though I'd imagine there would be some room for chaplain involvement (though I don't think there's anything in the code related to dethralling a thrall outside of making them a fully fledged vampire).

This may not really be considered a major factor, though, I imagine, against what you have in mind.

1 hour ago, Nantei said:

It is abused 99% of the time with very little buildup or roleplay after. I don't usually like to use this to describe RP, but I find thrall RP to be especially cringey too. 

OH  MISTUH  J   WHAT WOULD'YA HAVE ME DO, MY SWEET PUDDIN' 
and then you get a shirtless  super gothic long hair  vampire lord/lady/dog/whatever just sat on the throne, thralls by their sides, reciting edgar allan poe

I'm guessing it's probably something along those lines. Or like,
AOOC: ok lets kill em

Or whatever it is.
But, I do want to say — and I know how easy it is to say this so  sorry if i piss you off
But I want to bring into consideration that it might have to do with how we communally view what a thrall 'is meant to do', if we even ever expect anything of them.

There are quite a few things in the game which can be 'abused' or have 'poor form' but for one reason or another we (arguably) succeed in avoiding them, on the most part. I take it by 'abuse', you get vampires just running up and straight-off-the-bat opting to use this as the best option to minimise resistance to their goals?

Could it be said that MAYBE we aren't really thinking in different directions to how we can use a thrall to create a narrative piece, and as such a (hopefully) compelling round?
I mean, I don't know about you, but there are fun things to be had in a lot of things that are usually considered unfun — but I'm just an individual.

1 hour ago, Nantei said:

I cannot think of much that thralling positively adds to a round, and honestly have never actually seen it positively impact a round. 

So, for example, some people would absolutely KILL to be put in an antagonist position when they haven't at roundstart. Make of that what you will.

I think the idea of having thralls is that it revolves around this idea of total domination and occult influence over another being. It's often seen in fiction, though of course you have cited how other abilities can still reflect this theme.

HOWEVER: being forced into a position of antagonist so suddenly can indeed throw so many people off, and may not be a pleasurable. I do, firstly, implore one to consider how you'd be selectively picking out what moments you want to engage in and perhaps consider trying a "Yes, and..." way of thinking — you would be surprised at how something shitty can turn out to be pretty great if you give it a shot.
BUT, I understand that not everyone will want to do that  what with how this is a game and all that, and if you don't really want to do that at all period then okay, no-one should force you. I do want to express how it's admirable of you to ask people on LOOC first, so kudos to you and anyone who does that.

Likewise, it can be argued that split-second antagonist-status can negatively impact the narrative or flow of a round simply because one isn't quite, for one reason or another, prepared to jump in like that. Nor may they have the time to even soak in anything a vampire player had in mind.

But maybe that's also where fun can be had. Improvisation. It's a skill one develops and I can tell you first-hand that it's entirely possible for someone to find a lot more fun that way as you develop.

1 hour ago, Nantei said:

Alternatively, have the thrall option actually be used, and let people who have it off get a prompt similar to cult. If they deny, refund the blood and stun the victim to give the vampire breathing room.

In the meantime,
The feature where there's time to get away is pretty nifty, but there may or may not be some dead ringers towards how cult conversion is (currently?) implemented: if someone denies, what you now end up with (as it currently stands with people's general, 'typical' behaviours) is a Piper Perri situation where they're now surrounded by all these cultists (or just one cultist) who know their quarry has refused.

The feature is handy for a vampire who intends on being sh-sh and slinking away like Nosferatu, but what is our stance towards vampires who've managed/been allowed to achieve Underworld Viktor status where they're coyly sitting on a throne presiding over their new domain? i.e., aforementioned cultist situation where they don't run away.

In that instance, you might also get a few issues with people fighting about how X was a fool idiot bad sportsperson and didn't accept like the coward where they would've just believably buckled to the power of a dark lord being, and Y was a dumbpoopy pants because they tried to force something they didn't want on them (which is still what we would have now, I guess). But that's worst case scenario.

More but: I suppose that might help to maybe reduce that potentially perceived mindset where the antagonist player is always vying for the best thing, now that there's a potential chance for it failing? But of course, playing to win in a server designated as 'HRP' is/was arguably considered to be frowned upon by most; though of course, that sort of mindset can be hard to truly prove as well.

Edited by Mwahahahaha
sorry I realised I should probably elaborate a bit more
Link to comment

Absolutely in no circumstances ever would I endorse taking out the enthrallment mechanic from the game.  Contrary to your strong, salt-laced opinions on the matter, I find it a very entertaining and fun antagonist power that can add very much to the round, depending on how you use it. In fact, it adds far more to the game than Dominate ever does, due to how limited and vague the terms are of domination (generally, a single action, and they can immediately squeal afterward that they just felt compelled to do something fishy).  With thralls, you can have a secret man on the inside if you're subtle, or someone who can get you into areas you wouldn't normally be allowed into, or even, in a pinch, a bodyguard willing to die to protect you.

Being able to take permanent control over someone is not as horrible as you believe it is.  You are, I take it, in the crowd of people who feel that the most horrible thing that can possibly happen to your character is that they be forced to act out of character due to some outside influence, or that you be required to roleplay your character doing something that makes you in some way uncomfortable irl.  I absolutely do not subscribe to this mindset of character sanctity, and were I not making an attempt to be more polite as of late, I would probably have some more colorful words to say about this suggestion thread.

So, let's get back on the subject, though.  I can agree with a couple things in this thread, first of all that I'm not against there being some mechanical way to remove enthrallment, such as a chaplain ritual, because I can agree that completely uncounterable mechanics as strong as enthrallment is a bit bad.  However, this being a mechanic in the game will see a sharp rise in the metagame situation, where people will begin calling the chaplain to splash holy water or whatever at anyone suspicious, unless it can be closely watched.

Second, while I'm not exactly fond of the idea of people being able to refuse being enthralled, I can see where it would make things require less admin intervention - instead of them cryoing immediately in a tantrum, requiring an admin to adjust your blood total, they can refuse and allow themselves to be killed.

Because make no mistake here - adding this feature to the game will result in a sharp upswing of the number of characters being killed.  There are very few reasons to leave someone alive if you have become aggressive enough to try and enthrall them.  Even less so than with cultists, because the delicious blood in their body can provide you with the power to fight on farther, so if they won't be a thrall then you can succ them dry instead.  Maybe you might think you'd rather have your character die than be a thrall, but it means vampire antagonists like me will have to deal with an upswing in whiny players who looc-salt (or ahelp) at you over killing them because they didn't want to be a thrall.

Edited by Kaed
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Nantei said:

Why? It's generally the least fun thing in the kit for either player.

This lets me wonder about the different ways a player could approach a round. I understand it can be a bit disappointing when you have something in mind for yout shift, and suddenly an antag appears and change your plans. But I think the real big thing about SS13 is the concept that every round is different, that there's always a new story, and that great things can take place out of an accident, a misfortune or even another player breaking your eggs. I do understand that not all players are the same, but for me, when I join a round with actual goals in mind, and during the round something or someone forces me to act in a different way rather than following my fixed goals, I do not get mad or disappointed. I witness several players leaving the round and heading cryo the very moment someone steps in in their experience during a round and make it so things go in a different way. I can only hope this is a marginal behaviour and not something widespread across all of the community.

 

Now, about your suggestion about removing Thralls.

I did not had the chance to play as a thrall yet, (while I interacted with several vampire characters, that acted by the rules and did not cause any hassle) so I can only tell one side of the story, but I think thralls makes sense for a vampire, it is not a decision to take without taking into account the situation and the player you are thralling, of course, because that is a major change in their rounds that results in them becoming antagonists themselves. A responsible player should not go ahead and jump at their victims thralling them at the first chance, as, according to the rules, one should not powergame or just focus on winning the round without providing a solid roleplay story and contributing to the round. But I do not think removing them is a good idea, they are part of what a vampire can do, it would be like removing cultist their ability to convert someone into the cult. The victim should have the chance to decide to be or not to be a thrall, maybe that, but removing them, I am against that. I want new features added, not removed.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Kaed said:

However, this being a mechanic in the game will see a sharp rise in the metagame situation, where people will begin calling the chaplain to splash holy water or whatever at anyone suspicious, unless it can be closely watched.

I can definitely see that being a concern and I can see that happening as with many OTHER things.

Just out of mild curiosity, though: regarding the chaplain's CURRENT advantages over vampires (and cultists and wizards), how often do you find one being played up in response to such a type of antagonist, particularly as a countermeasure against their tactics? Assuming you consider their current advantages to be powerful enough to begin with.

hopefully people won't now catch onto that potential revelation and create aforementioned metagame situations

Edited by Mwahahahaha
Link to comment

For what it is worth, I have not been enthralled without my prior looc consent for awhile, months actually. I am not 'salty', I genuinely just don't like that people can forcefully enthrall you with little roleplay. There are a few particular players that abuse the mechanic  regularly (Of whom I will not name and shame) and I think it negatively affects the round quality. I'll have a more in-depth response later, because you made a lot of good points I'd like to address.

 

I also will mention I would be absolutely fine with just going with my other suggestion of making it require consent from the player similar to Cult. I think that's a fair compromise that still lets people who want to use thralling, but doesn't let certain players abuse it mechanically to create a bunch of slaves with very little roleplay. Being essentially borged against your will should require a lot of roleplay IMO, which is why I don't mind cults using soul crystals since it has the usual standards that come from killing someone.

Link to comment
Just now, Mwahahahaha said:

I can definitely see that being a concern and I can see that happening as with many OTHER things.

Just out of mild curiosity, though: regarding the chaplain's CURRENT advantages over vampires (and cultists and wizards), how often do you find one being played up in response to such a type of antagonist, particularly as a countermeasure against their tactics? Assuming you consider their current advantages to be powerful enough to begin with.

hopefully people won't now catch onto that potential revelation and create aforementioned metagame situations

It's actually fairly rare, and the way I have always seen it is that there are sharply limited reasons why the chaplain should be involved with security, such as:

  • There is a clear occult presence on the station, people chanting and doing blood rituals and shit, and the chaplain is summoned for their expertise in religion to help the security team understand what is happening (this is a valid thing, but very rarely happens, because people often think that 'not metagaming' means 'always refuse to acknowledge that the supernatural exists even when it's in front of your face, making exploding blood runes')
  • There is an individual (wizard/vampire) who has openly claimed to be a supernatural entity and is displaying supernatural tendencies (this is also valid but rarely happens, because see above notation)
  • The chaplain themselves takes the initiative, offering their spiritual assistance in these increasingly dark times. (also rarely works because security usually dismisses the chaplain as a civilian and tells them to fuck off so they can get back to validhunting)

More often, however I see things like:

  • This vampire bit someone and was dragged into security and put in a cell, and one of the security officers orders the chaplain in and tells them to forcefeed the neck-biter holy water, or to wave their null rod over them, or whatever mechanical process they think is the counter to this.
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Kaed said:

It's actually fairly rare, and the way I have always seen it is that there are sharply limited reasons why the chaplain should be involved with security, such as:

  • There is a clear occult presence on the station, people chanting and doing blood rituals and shit, and the chaplain is summoned for their expertise in religion to help the security team understand what is happening (this is a valid thing, but very rarely happens, because people often think that 'not metagaming' means 'always refuse to acknowledge that the supernatural exists even when it's in front of your face, making exploding blood runes')
  • There is an individual (wizard/vampire) who has openly claimed to be a supernatural entity and is displaying supernatural tendencies (this is also valid but rarely happens, because see above notation)
  • The chaplain themselves takes the initiative, offering their spiritual assistance in these increasingly dark times. (also rarely works because security usually dismisses the chaplain as a civilian and tells them to fuck off so they can get back to validhunting)

More often, however I see things like:

  • This vampire bit someone and was dragged into security and put in a cell, and one of the security officers orders the chaplain in and tells them to forcefeed the neck-biter holy water, or to wave their null rod over them, or whatever mechanical process they think is the counter to this.

Okay, so, with this in mind, do you still feel that adding some sort of mechanical ability for a chaplain to dethrall someone will lead to a sharp increase in metagaming situations revolving around the chaplain getting involved?
Mind you, I'm not asking because you have to change your stance now or anything.

Link to comment
Just now, Mwahahahaha said:

Okay, so, with this in mind, do you still feel that adding some sort of mechanical ability for a chaplain to dethrall someone will lead to a sharp increase in metagaming situations revolving around the chaplain getting involved?
Mind you, I'm not asking because you have to change your stance now or anything.

As with any new mechanic, people will tend to try and find reasons to use it when it comes out, even if the mechanic logically shouldn't be a common circumstances.  As an example, there was a period after the telescience changes that make you explode if you phase into an object or wall, where people were deliberately trying to create a Bluespace Echo (an intentionally rare occurrence that causes a person to die and become a sort of bluespace ghost thing if they are teleported so deep into solid matter that they can't be shunted out)

So initially, I feel like there will be an upswing in people who suddenly are interested in chaplains during vampire rounds even though they normally would have told them to go back to their chapel and bible thump alone, and not all of them will necessarily follow logical progression to get to that.

Edited by Kaed
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Kaed said:

As with any new mechanic, people will tend to try and find reasons to use it when it comes out, even if the mechanic logically shouldn't be a common circumstances.  As an example, there was a period after the telescience changes that make you explode if you phase into an object or wall, where people were deliberately trying to create a Bluespace Echo (an intentionally rare occurrence that causes a person to die and become a sort of bluespace ghost thing if they are teleported so deep into solid matter that they can't be shunted out)

So initially, I feel like there will be an upswing in people who suddenly are interested in chaplains during vampire rounds even though they normally would have told them to go back to their chapel and bible thump alone, and not all of them will necessarily follow logical progression to get to that.

oh I know that one

Yeah. New thing comes out and then everyone flocks.

Indeed, initially there may more people coming for it. But will it stick in the long run? We had things like integrated electronics, telescience itself, telecomms, mecha, mecha crashing, new cargo, barista, corporate reporters, contractors, offworlders, IPCs/shells, null rods, on and on and on.
Perhaps some might have stuck 'better' more than others, but, that's perhaps getting quite subjective.

I could ask you about how you'd see this going once the novelty dies down a bit, if you will, but I imagine one at this point could feel that this wouldn't really be going anywhere if I did. By all means feel free to indulge, though.

19 minutes ago, Kaed said:

and not all of them will necessarily follow logical progression to get to that.

and perhaps so, but... forgive me if I might've misunderstood here, it's just that couldn't you also say that such a variance from that normality could be welcomed?

I mean, a lot of people right now feel like having those "RP-heavy roles" (I mean, personally, I feel like all roles should technically be RP (however that's even defined, at this stage) no matter what given the server tag, but...) are "pointless" and would love to see there being more mechanical implementation to make them "more useful".

Edited by Mwahahahaha
sorry i have a tendency of thinking of even more stuff just after i finish something
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Nantei said:

Alternatively, have the thrall option actually be used, and let people who have it off get a prompt similar to cult. If they deny, refund the blood and stun the victim to give the vampire breathing room.

 

I agree with this. If I get thralled I often feel compelled to just leave the round, and I'd rather just deny and die. For those who say 'But the vampire put in the effort bla bla bla', consider that having someone who really doesn't want to be a thrall is often worse than having no thrall at all.

Link to comment

I'm writing the code for this now, but looking over it, I have one major concern - the choice dialogue doesn't force you to make a choice.  It is entirely possible for someone to refuse to make a selection and instead wait for whatever stun the vampire put on it to wear off then try to escape, or to scream for help over the radio.  I can very much see this being abused, much like how people abuse a cult conversion by not making a selection and just sitting on the rune.

So, I have caused the player to be hit with an abnormally massive 'paralyzed and muted' debuff the moment the dialog box comes up, preventing them from abusing this mechanic and never making a choice, which is removed/replaced upon a choice being made.  There is a single flaw to this, in that they will probably remain paralyzed and muted for a very long time if someone drags them away from the vampire without them making a decision, but with the way dialog boxes work there is no other way besides their feedback for them to free themselves from this, and tbh that's kind of their own fault if they refuse to make a choice.  I would consider such a small margin situation like this to be ahelpable if it is abused.

Link to comment

I would say that's a step in the right direction. I often find people will accept far more often if you build up to a conversion/thrall than just force it on them mechanically, which is really the yucky feeling I want to avoid. We don't allow that kind of behavior with embracing, so why should we allow it with enthralling? I think if they deny the vampire should absolutely be refunded, or have the code change so it only takes the blood upon success, and have the similar roleplay things we have for bites where you remember nothing of it other than a positive experience so the vampire isn't immediately forced to murder you to stay incognito. 

 

Also my issue isn't character sanctity, it's being forced into a subservient role with little to no roleplay. I am quite fine with my character being forced to act differently if there is roleplay that makes it make sense. Just enthralling me with no buildup after a feeding is pretty crappy, but I have seen people do it quite frequently because the mechanics enable it.

TL;DR: I think this will subtly encourage vampires to roleplay with their thralled victim more so it is more fun for the thralled victim, and similarly mean that people who are thralled, want to be in that position.

Edited by Nantei
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Marlon Phoenix said:

I love being a thrall! -1

I entirely agree. One of the few Antags that can engage the whole crew in interesting ways. Pitting co-workers against each other has made some of the best moments for me. Keep it in. But give a choice as proposed.  

Link to comment

In the meantime, do you think some sort of mechanic to allow dethralling should be added in?

Just trying to think around with different angles for a moment: adding a prompt may still be out of a situation where one is essentially forced to accept, only now they've officially given their consent.
How much choice should a player really have when we're talking about a process called enthralling, committed by (what may be; someone might have a different narrative, of course) occult being?
How does this choice compare with other things that a player may be 'forced' to do, such as being borged, debrained, infected with a (deadly and unnerfed) disease, or even killed?

Would dethralling help if it comes to someone feeling like they would be forced to accept anyways, prompt or no prompt?
Do you think the potential consequences of adding such a mechanic (e.g., metaknowledge behaviour) could be handled (e.g., moderator advising) if they weigh up against adding it?

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Nantei said:

Also my issue isn't character sanctity, it's being forced into a subservient role with little to no roleplay. I am quite fine with my character being forced to act differently if there is roleplay that makes it make sense. Just enthralling me with no buildup after a feeding is pretty crappy, but I have seen people do it quite frequently because the mechanics enable it.

TL;DR: I think this will subtly encourage vampires to roleplay with their thralled victim more so it is more fun for the thralled victim, and similarly mean that people who are thralled, want to be in that position.

"How much roleplay is enough" is extremely subjective between people, and your desire to make people meet whatever standards you think are acceptable (maybe take you out to dinner and tell you about the benefits of being their blood slave and spending about ten minutes getting to know you, idk, some extreme hyperbolic example here, all the while while the prospective thrall can alert security at literally any time, shutting down the antagonist) aren't going to be the same as another persons.  It can be very difficult to please everyone, especially when people like to be the center of attention.

The way I see things, the antagonists attempts to drive forward the plot of a round are far more important than your desire to have them roleplay enough with you to satisfy you BEFORE they use an ability on you that prevents you from opposing them.  You can get your roleplay after you are a thrall if you stick around instead of instantly cryoing in a tantrum that your round or character was derailed.  Sometimes enthrallment is just used as an alternative to killing an inconvenient witness who walked in on you murdering someone, and you don't have time to stand around and chat with them as a prisoner for 5-10 minutes, because you've gotta go.

tl;dr version: Your standards are too high and it makes it seem like you feel you are entitled to more than people are required to provide you with.

Edited by Kaed
Link to comment

I have no idea how you expect that to be productive in any way. More than a few times this thread you've just focused on ad hominem attacks. If you aren't going to argue in good faith I would rather you didn't at all. I don't think it's absurd to expect an antagonist to spend more than 30 seconds speaking to me before they enslave me, which I have presented as a common example several times.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Nantei said:

I have no idea how you expect that to be productive in any way. More than a few times this thread you've just focused on ad hominem attacks. If you aren't going to argue in good faith I would rather you didn't at all. I don't think it's absurd to expect an antagonist to spend more than 30 seconds speaking to me before they enslave me, which I have presented as a common example several times.

Don't start hiding behind claims of ad hominem to avoid this argument. I haven't attacked your person, just the unreasonable standards you are holding people to.  And I'm saying that under some circumstances that's not feasible.  I can understand if they walked up to you out of nowhere and flasheyed-hypnoed you and wordlessly enthralled you before telling you to go kill all sec officers, that's a gank, and is against server rules, worthy of ahelp.

If you walk in on a murder scene though, or them doing something obviously illegal, an antagonist is well within their means to immediately destroy you before you can squeal on them.  Vampires just have the option to enslave you instead of killing you on the spot.  The fact that you would rather die than be enslaved in such a situation is a personal issue, not something that affects the quality of the game itself for everyone.  I'm fine giving you the option, but don't try and tell me that it was necessary to make vampires work properly.  There are people here in evidence in this thread that clearly don't have your qualms about being a thrall (though I will grant that Carver seems to agree with you, so it's not like you're wrong or anything, just not the only opinion in evidence)

Edited by Kaed
Link to comment

To retarget the discussion a bit.

I am not a fan of any prompt which directly asks, "Are you willing to be subjugated to Y antag?" On principle, the game's mechanics should reinforce the progression of the round. This is to allow us to actually implement game modes with progression mechanics. And a part of this is forcing players to do things that the antags want them to do: be it literally dying, becoming a cult abomination, a thrall, or so forth. There is an unwritten agreement that by playing on this server, you agree to be subject to such events.

From a more balance and "fairness" oriented manner, giving players an opt out on matters like this would end up largely punishing the antags. Even if you stun the player, so the vampire can escape fine, he still has basically betrayed himself. And wasted a large amount of time on a matter which has basically fucked him. The only agreeable way, IMO, to implement this, is by having the victim die if they refuse, much like it works in Cult. This would basically punish the victim for not going along with the game.

Now, I will acknowledge one thing about the last sentence: "fairness" goes both ways and for there to be severe enough consequences for ignorance, there should be some level of effort required from the antag as well. So my proposal is to move the mechanics a step closer to how they work in the source material, and make thralling not an explicit ability, but something the vampire can Just Do:tm:. So basically, make vampire blood an item which enthralls. Make it initially start off as an addiction, eg. "I want more of whatever I just drank!" and eventually make it result in full enthrallment. That is, if the subject has consumed enough vampire blood.

It would add more roleplay prompts to the matter. Would still allow for forceful conversion (inject or force feed them your blood), while making it perhaps a little less cheap than the ability currently is. And perhaps make it a bit more fleshed out.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Skull132 said:

To retarget the discussion a bit.

I am not a fan of any prompt which directly asks, "Are you willing to be subjugated to Y antag?" On principle, the game's mechanics should reinforce the progression of the round. This is to allow us to actually implement game modes with progression mechanics. And a part of this is forcing players to do things that the antags want them to do: be it literally dying, becoming a cult abomination, a thrall, or so forth. There is an unwritten agreement that by playing on this server, you agree to be subject to such events.

From a more balance and "fairness" oriented manner, giving players an opt out on matters like this would end up largely punishing the antags. Even if you stun the player, so the vampire can escape fine, he still has basically betrayed himself. And wasted a large amount of time on a matter which has basically fucked him. The only agreeable way, IMO, to implement this, is by having the victim die if they refuse, much like it works in Cult. This would basically punish the victim for not going along with the game.

Now, I will acknowledge one thing about the last sentence: "fairness" goes both ways and for there to be severe enough consequences for ignorance, there should be some level of effort required from the antag as well. So my proposal is to move the mechanics a step closer to how they work in the source material, and make thralling not an explicit ability, but something the vampire can Just Do:tm:. So basically, make vampire blood an item which enthralls. Make it initially start off as an addiction, eg. "I want more of whatever I just drank!" and eventually make it result in full enthrallment. That is, if the subject has consumed enough vampire blood.

It would add more roleplay prompts to the matter. Would still allow for forceful conversion (inject or force feed them your blood), while making it perhaps a little less cheap than the ability currently is. And perhaps make it a bit more fleshed out.

This is a cool resolution to the issue, imo.

Link to comment

 

2 hours ago, Skull132 said:

So my proposal is to move the mechanics a step closer to how they work in the source material, and make thralling not an explicit ability, but something the vampire can Just Do:tm:. So basically, make vampire blood an item which enthralls. Make it initially start off as an addiction, eg. "I want more of whatever I just drank!" and eventually make it result in full enthrallment. That is, if the subject has consumed enough vampire blood.

It would add more roleplay prompts to the matter. Would still allow for forceful conversion (inject or force feed them your blood), while making it perhaps a little less cheap than the ability currently is. And perhaps make it a bit more fleshed out.

While I like this concept a lot more than 'grab + strongrab + click enthrall", I also have 0 trust in the playerbase to regularly behave in a manner that facilitates this happening any other way than it being forced.  Maybe I'm wrong, but it's worth a try either way.

Link to comment
Just now, Kaed said:

 

While I like this concept a lot more than 'grab + strongrab + click enthrall", I also have 0 trust in the playerbase to regularly behave in a manner that facilitates this happening any other way than it being forced.  Maybe I'm wrong, but it's worth a try either way.

Ye I became stranded on a similar thought. It'd basically give folks a softer chance to ignore enthrallment. Even though it would be reasonable to implement mechanics which can result in character insanity if the addiction is not followed through on, it might just prompt the user to cryo. But then again, people can (and actually do) already ghost from things like being soul sharded. Policy exists, but policy is a sub-optimal tool. Unfortunately, there's none better.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Skull132 said:

Ye I became stranded on a similar thought. It'd basically give folks a softer chance to ignore enthrallment. Even though it would be reasonable to implement mechanics which can result in character insanity if the addiction is not followed through on, it might just prompt the user to cryo. But then again, people can (and actually do) already ghost from things like being soul sharded. Policy exists, but policy is a sub-optimal tool. Unfortunately, there's none better.

Given that this mechanic is not a grab and click mechanic anymore and requires you to feed people a mystical blood, I would like it both to cost far less blood investment and also be available earlier than current enthrall.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...