(MRP) Antags actively going counter to their IC objectives

[Vekter]

Okay, stay with me here, this is probably going to be confusing.

As it stands right now, antags have freedom to ignore their objectives on MRP. I don't think that should necessarily change, but I do think that letting antags do things that directly contradict their objectives without a valid IC reason is unhealthy for the state of RP on the server.

Example: A heretic decides they will kill people who are trying to stop a blob from expanding and consuming the station. They have little to no actual IC justification for doing this aside from "The crew wants me dead, so I'm helping the blob so it'll kill all of us". The issue here is that their justification feels weak considering that the blob will, upon winning, kill them. You can't ascend if you're dead, so It's my opinion that if you're going to help another antagonist that is undoubtedly going to kill you and prevent you from your stated IC goals, you better have a really good reason.

For the record, I would be perfectly fine with something like "A flesh heretic thinks the blob is the return of their god and that it wants to consume everyone". That's cool! I love that idea! I'm fine with it! It's just that the reasoning shouldn't be something like "I felt like it" or "I don't like the crew". You have an IC reason to be an antag. For this example, it's ascending. Why would you act directly counter to that objective without a valid reason for doing so?

This isn't meant to mandate the requirement that antags be always trying to push towards greentext. I still think that's unhealthy for the game and shuts out a lot of very interesting situations. I just think that actively working against your interests as an antag shouldn't be something you do lightly.

For example's sake:

* A traitor helping nukies kill people to blow up the station, with their justification being "They're also Syndicate members, I feel like it'd be logical for me to assist them" - This fits well within their IC reasoning.
* A heretic helping nukies kill people to blow up the station, with their justification being "I hate them and want them to die" - Kind of flimsy, but assuming there's RP to be had between the nuke ops about letting them live/escape with them, this could be acceptable.
* A changeling refusing to absorb anyone because they're vegan - Silly, but okay, I guess I could see it.
* A traitor helping defend a malfunctioning AI that just pulled delta because they were nice to them or helped them earlier - This is fine.
* A traitor helping defend a malfunctioning AI that just pulled delta for literally no justifiable IC reason - This is not.

Keep in mind that none of this is meant to punish players for playing sub-optimally or doing things that don't help them greentext, it's meant to encourage people to have a good IC reason if they intend to prevent themselves from being able to do their goals for the sake of helping another antag.

E: Also none of this applies to team antags, there's already rulings against doing things that actively harm your team.

[iwishforducks]

if antags want to gimp themselves why should we OOCly punish them for their stupidity? they already live the IC consequences of their stupidity (in your example, they die to the blob)

i remember a traitor with a holoparasite outed themselves to fight me, the space dragon, when i was already losing the fight against the 10+ crew members attacking me. i made a conscious effort to punish them for their stupidity and killed them, dusting them.

if they’re consistently a petty bitch, like your blob example, then i don’t see how rule 1 doesn’t come to play here.

as an aside blobs are designed to take the action away from antags and give them a distraction to do evil things. they, of course, have to balance it out so that at the end of the day the blob doesn’t consume them. sorry hopefully i didnt tunnel too much on the blob example but in my eyes there are plenty of IC punishment for these kind of scenarios

[Vekter]

if antags want to gimp themselves why should we OOCly punish them for their stupidity? they already live the IC consequences of their stupidity (in your example, they die to the blob)

That's out of scope here; it's not a matter of punishing people for making mistakes or doing things that are sub-optimal, it's to encourage people to have a good RP justification for doing something that's going to be detrimental to their goals. The bar for that RP justification can be really, really low, but it should still be there.

[zxaber]

For the record, blob only kills you if you're on the station (or possibly Z-level for Icebox). So you can bounce at the last second to avoid death.

A traitor helping defend a malfunctioning AI that just pulled delta for literally no justifiable IC reason - This is not.

Also for the record, Traitors will accomplish their Escape objective if the round ends without the shuttle involved and they're still alive. So even if they don't have IC reasoning to like the AI, guaranteeing a successful Doomsday (or Blob victory, or Nuke Ops victory) may save themselves a potentially risky evac, assuming their other objectives are complete or will be completed by the event.

[vect0r]

Ewwwwww. As a player, I don’t want to be bwoinked because I did something that doesn’t relate to the magical huh. I like making my own stories and objectives not related to greentext, and I hate only being able to do stuff like murder if it relates to objectives.
But think of a new player: they are a “heretic” and does bad things! WOAH! Is that AI also doing a bad thing? That’s cool, and it would be kind of dickish to stop them, what if I helped em out a bit? “Hey AI, the captain is in left maints”
Bwoink: “got a second?”
Can I ask what your goal is here?

[Cheshify]

IC objectives are usually "go do X minor thing that effects absolutely nobody" or "round remove one guy silently". I don't know why they even exist on MRP.

[Vekter]

IC objectives are usually "go do X minor thing that effects absolutely nobody" or "round remove one guy silently". I don't know why they even exist on MRP.

It's important to draw a distinction between "OOC greentext objectives" and "IC objectives". A Changeling's OOC objective is to absorb a certain number of people and complete a few cursory tasks. Their IC objective is to consume members of the crew to grow their power. A traitor's OOC objective is to get a certain number of rep points. Their IC objective is to do the bidding of whoever has hired or brainwashed them into helping them, eventually culminating in some major form of sabotage.

I'm not at all interested in punishing players for not completing their OOC objectives, nor am I in doing so for not caring about their IC objectives. It's when someone takes a direct, major action that runs against their IC objective that I think we should be looking into it. Say, a traitor blatantly revealing themselves to the crew, or a paradox clone actively trying to work with the person they're supposed to replace. These things shouldn't be done for the sake of doing them, there should be a reason behind it.

[Thranos]

I wanted to reply here just to talk about the "A flesh heretic thinks the blob is the return of their god and that it wants to consume everyone" example-
This is the peak intersection of ARRPEE and also the core goofiness of SS13.
This is the kind of thing that makes deadchat laugh their ass off, the crew go "oh FUCK", and the overmind go "fucking what? okay this is happening I guess".

(IF this is expressed IC, and not just in the replies to the bwoink.)

[Vekter]

I wanted to reply here just to talk about the "A flesh heretic thinks the blob is the return of their god and that it wants to consume everyone" example-
This is the peak intersection of ARRPEE and also the core goofiness of SS13.
This is the kind of thing that makes deadchat laugh their ass off, the crew go "oh FUCK", and the overmind go "fucking what? okay this is happening I guess".

(IF this is expressed IC, and not just in the replies to the bwoink.)

Yeah no, stuff like that is SUPER GOOD and the last thing I want to do is stifle that kind of creativity. I just want people to think twice about doing it if they don't have a really clear reason for it.

[dendydoom]

Heretic has a very well defined scope that doesn't match well to other antag types. In the rare times I play traitor I will acquiesce to the randomly chosen objectives only until I can develop a more meaningful way to impact the narrative of the round in a way that's meant to be enjoyable. For me to give any weight to random objectives there must be some narrative thread that ties it to the greater story of the round: doing things only because the game told me to do them feels like it leads to rote, routine gameplay that in turn only accepts a rote, routine response from other players.

I agree that in regards to Manuel there should be some semblance of in-character thought behind a player's actions, however small that consideration may be, whether they are an antag or just a pencil pusher, only because it generally leads to more thoughtful, memorable and enjoyable rounds.

Antag gameplay on Manuel seems to ride a very, very fine line where on one side we have senseless destruction driven by thoughtless decisions and on the other side hesitant antags that are quiet and minimize their impact on the round because they are concerned they'll break a rule and be punished for it.

Also, dendydoom hot take hour: remove greentext from MRP.

[Constellado]

All the bad examples are examples of antags helping antags of different types. None of them apart from the help blob one really affects the round. Can we think of more examples that is not that?

There is one example I can think of that I really want changed:
Nightmares shouldn't be able to make a singulo without any ic reason. Why the fuck would a nightmare know how what a crystal is let alone make it go into a singularity. Pisses me off when I see it.

______________
How will said rule be written? The vibe that Vekter is proposing seems perfect for what I would like to see, but the wording may bring a bit too much restrictions.

What if the one round I want to do some crazy engineering gimmick that I have been thinking of for a while but I end up being curator? What will I have to do RP wise to be able to do this gimmick? (That is not you know, grabbing the tools and parts I need) Will I end up having to ahelp for it? The less ahelps I need to do the better in my opinion.

[vect0r]

I don’t think the best way to improve RP on Manuel is with more rules. I don’t think this is going to improve RP, just have people go though a list of things they have to do to be able to help, like “Thank the traitor for fixing my cam, then they can help me go delta”. Getting banned for reasons like this sucks; it’s a bit like naming policy: what IS enough to help a tot? It depends on the admins.
Again, think of the new players: they don’t go and look at every headmin ruling, looking for the edge cases they can and cannot help others, so either they will get banned, or be too scared to EVER help a different antag. And even in your examples, malf AIs are freed by SELF, so a tot helping them would be helping the syndicate. It just feels like it will not help RP, and just stress people and make them go though a checklist.
Sorry for grammar errors, writing on a phone.

[Vekter]

All the bad examples are examples of antags helping antags of different types. None of them apart from the help blob one really affects the round. Can we think of more examples that is not that?

This is kind of the main purpose I wrote the thread under - there's very few things in the game that can result in the round just ending that aren't directly tied to an antag doing something. I would like to hear examples from others as to what they think this would cover and we can discuss if it's in scope or not.

There is one example I can think of that I really want changed:
Nightmares shouldn't be able to make a singulo without any ic reason. Why the fuck would a nightmare know how what a crystal is let alone make it go into a singularity. Pisses me off when I see it.

This is less "antags going against their objective" and more "restrictions on IC knowledge", but it kind of fits here as well. For the record, I agree - making a singularity doesn't make a lot of sense, though blowing up the engine to impact power (and thus the lights) could be justified.

How will said rule be written? The vibe that Vekter is proposing seems perfect for what I would like to see, but the wording may bring a bit too much restrictions.

This is something I'm hoping to hammer out with the headmins for specifics, but it should err on the side of being permissive over restrictive.

What if the one round I want to do some crazy engineering gimmick that I have been thinking of for a while but I end up being curator? What will I have to do RP wise to be able to do this gimmick? (That is not you know, grabbing the tools and parts I need) Will I end up having to ahelp for it? The less ahelps I need to do the better in my opinion.

This is out of scope for the thread and fits more into a discussion about RPR 9. To answer your question, your best bet would be to get a job change to Engineer.

I don’t think the best way to improve RP on Manuel is with more rules. I don’t think this is going to improve RP, just have people go though a list of things they have to do to be able to help, like “Thank the traitor for fixing my cam, then they can help me go delta”. Getting banned for reasons like this sucks; it’s a bit like naming policy: what IS enough to help a tot? It depends on the admins.
Again, think of the new players: they don’t go and look at every headmin ruling, looking for the edge cases they can and cannot help others, so either they will get banned, or be too scared to EVER help a different antag. And even in your examples, malf AIs are freed by SELF, so a tot helping them would be helping the syndicate. It just feels like it will not help RP, and just stress people and make them go though a checklist.
Sorry for grammar errors, writing on a phone.

I feel like people always see "rules" and "being banned" as a zero sum thing. Breaking the rules isn't always automatically going to be met with a ban, and this isn't something I would ever want to see an outright hard ban for the first time it happens. The rule is there to guide RP first and function as a method through which we can handle specific matters second. If someone continuously breaks the rule, that's one thing and would be handled appropriately, but this isn't something where the goal is to ban anyone who breaks it once, twice, or even three times.

[BrolyButterfingers]

So what about players like me that don't even read their objectives when they roll traitor

Because I don't give a shit about my objectives whatsoever, I use my antag roll purely to Cause Problems On Purpose. I've never ascended as heretic, I've never even TRIED, I just use it to get the abilities I need to do whatever gimmick I'm doing

EDIT: I'm serious, I straight-up do not check my objectives when I roll traitor. I generally don't even open the secondary objectives tab at any point, I only open the info window to grab my PDA code.

[Vekter]

So what about players like me that don't even read their objectives when they roll traitor

Because I don't give a shit about my objectives whatsoever, I use my antag roll purely to Cause Problems On Purpose. I've never ascended as heretic, I've never even TRIED, I just use it to get the abilities I need to do whatever gimmick I'm doing

EDIT: I'm serious, I straight-up do not check my objectives when I roll traitor. I generally don't even open the secondary objectives tab at any point, I only open the info window to grab my PDA code.

Read up to where I was talking about the difference between IC and OOC objectives. Your gimmicks are probably safe but some of them might require more IC justification for doing them under these rules.

[dessysalta]

IC objectives are usually "go do X minor thing that effects absolutely nobody" or "round remove one guy silently". I don't know why they even exist on MRP.

I agree wish Cheshify. Antagonists were designed to be an opposing force to the crew initially, but over the years I feel as though it should be much less antagonize the crew and much more make the round interesting.

Friend-tagging is looked down upon without good reason because it's (generally speaking) not fair to other antagonists who are playing the game, the whole "I did everything right but this jerkass with a desword decided I'm more worth his time than his antagonist status/objectives/etc." shebang that has been overstated and argued to death. In this, we can agree, I don't think that it's interesting for some antagonist (traitor, heretic, whatever) to walk up to the HoS and say, "I'll be your protector, because I know I'm incredibly strong in a one-on-one fight!", but at the same time this could reasonably be accomplished if, say, the HoS in this hypothetical is in a relationship with the antagonistic individual.

On the other hand, if IC justifications were a requirement for why players/characters choose to do what they do, antagonist or not, that could create far more in-character moments with deep talks and interactions rather than just eswording a guy until he goes horizontal because you're an antagonist and it makes sense for you to chop their head off at a remark like that. Generally speaking, I think IC justification as antagonists regarding what they do or don't accomplish could go either way. I just don't want two lines of text that are almost always "round remove this guy" or "kill this person" or "steal this item" barring me from accomplishing interesting gimmicks I have. If I wanna challenge people to a wrestling match after I get Sleeping Carp and trade for some gorilla gloves, I'm gonna body-slam the first assistant I see into next week, because it's a fun change of pace from the traditional antagonist archetype. I'm still driving the round, and that alone opens up more opportunities for traditional antagonistic gameplay later on--if people refuse to humor my wrestling gimmick, that might mean I start drop-kicking passerbys until someone gives me the time of day.

I think an interesting policy discussion could be "Should antagonists be allowed to disregard their antagonistic goals for the sake of making the round interesting", but that could be exactly what we're talking about here. Either way, I don't like seeing antagonists as no-nonsense beings of pure hostility that need reasons to go against what they do. Antagonists are given tools to drive the round and create conflict or interesting narratives, trying to limit them to only one of those things feels wrong.

[BrolyButterfingers]

IC objectives are usually "go do X minor thing that effects absolutely nobody" or "round remove one guy silently". I don't know why they even exist on MRP.

On the other hand, if IC justifications were a requirement for why players/characters choose to do what they do, antagonist or not, that could create far more in-character moments with deep talks and interactions rather than just eswording a guy until he goes horizontal because you're an antagonist and it makes sense for you to chop their head off at a remark like that.

This kind of dynamic emerging would require a major shift in how Manuelsec engages antagonists, and won't play out this way until that happens.

[Constellado]

There is one example I can think of that I really want changed:
Nightmares shouldn't be able to make a singulo without any ic reason. Why the fuck would a nightmare know how what a crystal is let alone make it go into a singularity. Pisses me off when I see it.

This is less "antags going against their objective" and more "restrictions on IC knowledge", but it kind of fits here as well. For the record, I agree - making a singularity doesn't make a lot of sense, though blowing up the engine to impact power (and thus the lights) could be justified.

I will state that this is usually done by ordering a shard from cargo then doing something with it and a crate. (I am not well versed in making singulos in cheesy ways but yeah) It is probably already stopped by a rule somewhere.

From what I can see so far, his new proposed rule is only applied to a very small subsect of situations: and that is helping blobs, helping delta AIs, etcetera. This is only for a small situation that will happen near the end of the shift. Infact, most of the things I said that I thought would apply here did not and would have worked for another rule. This rule should be small and concise due to how it is designed for such limited situations. So limited infact, is it worth it? We will need more bad examples.

[Vekter]

I think an interesting policy discussion could be "Should antagonists be allowed to disregard their antagonistic goals for the sake of making the round interesting", but that could be exactly what we're talking about here.

I don't want this to be that discussion or rule. Look at the specific situations I outlined up top - I'm not talking about doing things that aren't your objectives, I'm talking about doing things that run counter to them. Stuff like helping another antag destroy the station despite this meaning you also die, or choosing to kill someone you're meant to kidnap or sacrifice. Stuff that wouldn't normally make sense for you to do, but in the context of the events of that round, it does.

From what I can see so far, his new proposed rule is only applied to a very small subsect of situations: and that is helping blobs, helping delta AIs, etcetera. This is only for a small situation that will happen near the end of the shift. Infact, most of the things I said that I thought would apply here did not and would have worked for another rule. This rule should be small and concise due to how it is designed for such limited situations. So limited infact, is it worth it? We will need more bad examples.

It's definitely limited and therefore might not require a rule, but I think it's something that would be healthy for us to have codified in case it comes up again.

[dessysalta]

It's also worth mentioning that most all of the issues that arise from needing IC justification can be any sort of personal nonsense someone comes up with. For instance, maybe they're not a traitor, maybe they're just an unlucky assistant with an uplink from Central Command who told them "go do whatever". Maybe the changeling is on-station not to absorb people, but as a political activist arguing that changelings aren't just monsters. You can slice this so, so many ways, and that's where the slope gets slippery. If this was ever enforced as a regular rule might, there's going to be a lot of bwoinks and a lot of players forced to stop and explain themselves over what might be harmless fun or spins.

[Vekter]

It's also worth mentioning that most all of the issues that arise from needing IC justification can be any sort of personal nonsense someone comes up with. For instance, maybe they're not a traitor, maybe they're just an unlucky assistant with an uplink from Central Command who told them "go do whatever". Maybe the changeling is on-station not to absorb people, but as a political activist arguing that changelings aren't just monsters. You can slice this so, so many ways, and that's where the slope gets slippery. If this was ever enforced as a regular rule might, there's going to be a lot of bwoinks and a lot of players forced to stop and explain themselves over what might be harmless fun or spins.

Those instances are out of scope - someone being given an uplink as an event doesn't necessarily make them an antagonist and admins giving antags different IC goals than they'd normally have would be classified as an event, in which case it'd be up to the admin doing the event as to what is and isn't allowed.

[dessysalta]

It's also worth mentioning that most all of the issues that arise from needing IC justification can be any sort of personal nonsense someone comes up with. For instance, maybe they're not a traitor, maybe they're just an unlucky assistant with an uplink from Central Command who told them "go do whatever". Maybe the changeling is on-station not to absorb people, but as a political activist arguing that changelings aren't just monsters. You can slice this so, so many ways, and that's where the slope gets slippery. If this was ever enforced as a regular rule might, there's going to be a lot of bwoinks and a lot of players forced to stop and explain themselves over what might be harmless fun or spins.

Those instances are out of scope - someone being given an uplink as an event doesn't necessarily make them an antagonist and admins giving antags different IC goals than they'd normally have would be classified as an event, in which case it'd be up to the admin doing the event as to what is and isn't allowed.

I'm more so referring to players doing this on their own. Are players allowed to accomplish gimmicks like that on their own? If not, why so?

[Vekter]

It's also worth mentioning that most all of the issues that arise from needing IC justification can be any sort of personal nonsense someone comes up with. For instance, maybe they're not a traitor, maybe they're just an unlucky assistant with an uplink from Central Command who told them "go do whatever". Maybe the changeling is on-station not to absorb people, but as a political activist arguing that changelings aren't just monsters. You can slice this so, so many ways, and that's where the slope gets slippery. If this was ever enforced as a regular rule might, there's going to be a lot of bwoinks and a lot of players forced to stop and explain themselves over what might be harmless fun or spins.

Those instances are out of scope - someone being given an uplink as an event doesn't necessarily make them an antagonist and admins giving antags different IC goals than they'd normally have would be classified as an event, in which case it'd be up to the admin doing the event as to what is and isn't allowed.

I'm more so referring to players doing this on their own. Are players allowed to accomplish gimmicks like that on their own? If not, why so?

Ah okay, I misread what you wrote. That's a good point and something we'd need to suss out.

[Constellado]

I just thought of another one. Nightmares plasma flooding, nightmares changing the AI laws to antimov... What else can a nightmare do that runs counter to their goals as being a spooky deadly monster?

Recently I haven't seen any of that from a nightmare, it has all be flavorful. Maybe players are doing this *gasp* already without any rule changes?

Wow thinking about nightmares not doing nightmare things makes me mad for no reason.

[BrolyButterfingers]

I'll be real:

This area of policy seems so edge-case that I don't see it needing its own ruling. This could probably be addressed using RP rule 1 or rule 8 or just a kick in the ass to do a more interesting bit without a specific ruling than trying to define an extremely edge-case interaction of antagonists

[BrolyButterfingers]

I just thought of another one. Nightmares plasma flooding, nightmares changing the AI laws to antimov... What else can a nightmare do that runs counter to their goals as being a spooky deadly monster?

Recently I haven't seen any of that from a nightmare, it has all be flavorful. Maybe players are doing this *gasp* already without any rule changes?

Wow thinking about nightmares not doing nightmare things makes me mad for no reason.

There was a person who was hard-rolling for nightmare for about a week and then scrungo'd 3-4 times before being told to fuck off

[Constellado]

There was a person who was hard-rolling for nightmare for about a week and then scrungo'd 3-4 times before being told to fuck off

And I haven't seen that exact situation since... I'm so glad I missed those rounds I'd be pissed. (Only got to saw it in observe)

Do AI players like having their law changed to antimov by traitors? I am curious. It can change a round very drastically.

[sinfulbliss]

I’ve seen traitors that have teamed up with malf AI to help them create borgs and then have the AI doomsday, it’s pretty intensely cringe.

That said I also find it very cringe when changelings and tots fight alongside the crew against nukeops and other threats. It’s massive failRP to be crew aligned as an antagonist without really good reason, and antags like to jump at the first excuse to throw stealth out the window and give themselves free passes to do their objectives without any resistance from crew (since why not, they’re helping!).

It sort of falls under friendtagging which people can agree is cringe. Blob about to win? Sure, but even then sometimes it makes for a more interesting story to be sabotaging the crew’s efforts in stopping it. I know someone who said all they did during a blob round as paramed was take injured people out and then throw them down the tram, which honestly is pretty hilarious and exactly what you’d expect a traitor to do. The blob lost regardless.

[dessysalta]

It sort of falls under friendtagging which people can agree is cringe.

Friendtagging is bad when there isn't a good reason to do so. If you're Syndicate-aligned, it makes sense to help out the nukies. If you don't like being blown up but you're still Syndicate-aligned, it makes sense that you'd do objectives to get gear that's on-par with them. Not a very good example imo.

[sinfulbliss]

It sort of falls under friendtagging which people can agree is cringe.

Friendtagging is bad when there isn't a good reason to do so. If you're Syndicate-aligned, it makes sense to help out the nukies. If you don't like being blown up but you're still Syndicate-aligned, it makes sense that you'd do objectives to get gear that's on-par with them. Not a very good example imo.

I don’t really believe traitors, from an RP standpoint, care at all about the station blowing up. Their final objectives include summoning nukies in order to blow up the station and creating a cascade which destroys the station.

I agree it can make sense for traitors to want to escape on the shuttle though, and that gives them reason to fight against nukies. But it’s an incredibly boring, safe, conflict-free way to play traitor to ONLY do this, and policy that encourages it would be bad in my opinion. You’re just a crewmember with bigger toys.

A good way to play traitor on nukie IMO if you don’t want the station exploding is to play both sides. Help kill the nukies but maybe randomly cap the sec officer that’s fighting alongside you. After nukies are dead maybe assassinate the cap and steal the disk for yourself. Things like this retain your status as an active threat without self-sabotaging into a roundending threat.

[Constellado]

I’ve seen traitors that have teamed up with malf AI to help them create borgs and then have the AI doomsday, it’s pretty intensely cringe.

I think that is actually based. I'd do this as a traitor roboticist myself if the opportunity arose. (While hoping the AI doesn't doomsday)

[kinnebian]

Im all for discouraging the issue that has been discussed here, such as heretics/tots/lings helping blobs or other similarly round ending threats for no IC reason, but beyond that specific example; things like these just end up being vague rules that only stand to confuse and muddle the line of what antags can and cant do.

[BrianBackslide]

Blatant friendtagging is already covered by MRP rule 5, so what is this policy supposed to actually accomplish? I already feel like I have to look over my shoulder when I'm antag, with the anxiety getting to the point that I tend to have it turned off most of the time. Do we need RP audits that badly? Should I just be one of those "friendly never antag statics" that Manuel has too many of already?

* A heretic helping nukies kill people to blow up the station, with their justification being "I hate them and want them to die" - Kind of flimsy, but assuming there's RP to be had between the nuke ops about letting them live/escape with them, this could be acceptable.
* A traitor helping defend a malfunctioning AI that just pulled delta for literally no justifiable IC reason - This is not.

A Heretic taking advantage of the carnage and helping the nukies by thinning out the crew/sec for risky but easy sacrifices.
A Traitor wanting to help the AI because completed delta = assassinations. E to the Zee. They could even launch the escape pods early to ensure it. Is that not antagging we would want?

Friendtagging is bad when there isn't a good reason to do so. If you're Syndicate-aligned, it makes sense to help out the nukies. If you don't like being blown up but you're still Syndicate-aligned, it makes sense that you'd do objectives to get gear that's on-par with them. Not a very good example imo.

It also makes sense for the Syndie tot to NOT help the nukies. Firstly that the Syndicate in lore is a bunch of various groups that barely get along, secondly that trigger happy nukies will gun you down anyway.
The only example I agree with is the Heretic helping the Blob as it means they lose out on their sacrifices. Even then, events in a round might lead one to have a total mental breakdown and do the "That's it, everybody dies" thing.

There's a million and one reasons why you would do something in a round. Are we really going to be banning/noting players for "deer in the headlights" moments where they freeze up and can't remember why they did X? How would you even go about creating a criteria or list thereof of what is "sufficient" IC reasoning for an antag doing something that is "counter" to their objectives? How would anyone even be qualified to enforce said criteria? What would a ban/note under this rule even look like and how would another admin see that and not immediately roll their eyes?

Maybe I'm being hyperbolic, but I don't think we need policy that encourages bans/notes based solely on "your RP isn't good enough." or any policy that comes anywhere near harming freeform antagging. It's their antag roll, not yours. They can do with it as they please as long as they antagonize in some form.

[Drag]

Punishing people for not chasing the green text is bad, and gimps creativity. Objectives are there to give antagonists some form of idea for what to do should they be lacking their own ideas.

[TheSmallBlue]

My main worry about this is how to differientiate between The Bad Stuff and The Good Stuff.

Like, let's say a changeling grabs the dna of a seccie, disposes of them, and acts like the seccie, helping catch criminals and defend against antags. This changeling might be doing it for a plan of his, which may involve backstabbing the sec department or stealing their equipment, or they might've just given up. How would an admin differ between the two mid-round? However you look at it, the antag seems to be killing other antags for no reason other than they wanted to be a seccie, which is bad, but do they deserved to be warned because of it if they have an IC reason to do so?

[Higgin]

I'll be real:

This area of policy seems so edge-case that I don't see it needing its own ruling. This could probably be addressed using RP rule 1 or rule 8 or just a kick in the ass to do a more interesting bit without a specific ruling than trying to define an extremely edge-case interaction of antagonists

R10 my newly beloved - seems like a great way to step in on the stuff that is, after the fifth or sixth or nth time, getting old.

As it stands right now, antags have freedom to ignore their objectives on MRP. I don't think that should necessarily change, but I do think that letting antags do things that directly contradict their objectives without a valid IC reason is unhealthy for the state of RP on the server.

(...) it's meant to encourage people to have a good IC reason if they intend to prevent themselves from being able to do their goals for the sake of helping another antag.

It's dangerous territory to get into the business of prescribing what does and doesn't amount to a good IC reason. The events and antagonists that you play with aren't designed to come from an internally-coherent IC background in the minds of their players; they're meant to provide the emergent challenges and tension of the game of Mafia (in space) [with robust click-and-hotkey-based mechanics] that SS13 in this paradigm has been made to be. The antagonist roles hand out targets randomly to 'spread the love,' but you also have past precedent that allows people to metagrudge as antags as long as they aren't rolling just for it, and massively relaxed escalation even for the antags MRP's rules want to keep in check.

It doesn't really matter to me as a non-antag why the antag wants me dead, or why any combination of antags might or might not come together to fuck up my day. They're there; they do or they don't. I have no guarantee of experiencing anything they do as a cohesive narrative where I understand why they did what they did, or it relates to anything I did, or my character is, or said, or expressed. The role I play as victim or target is arbitrary; the role they play as (would-be) killer or station-ending genocidaire is also, narratively, arbitrary.

The old Hemingway quote holds up: "There is nothing sweet or fitting in dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason."

Unless you're pulling up the deep structure of what qualifies someone to play an antag, specifying what they have to do, and putting in a bunch of new standards as to 'why' each antag does what they do, telling them to not work together when their objectives might be at odds isn't going to improve the RP - at least not any sense of narrative coherency or meaningfulness to anyone involved. At best, you're going to get the justifying 'RP' slapped on what people want to do with their antags anyway, and a lot more protracted roundends spent making the very subjective and qualitative judgment about whether or not it smells good enough to let fly.

So, really - and going off the examples you gave, mostly of people teaming up with more global antags that necessarily exclude or weaken their odds of victory - this seems a lot more like an issue about balance, and different antags working together, and snowballing in unlikely and potent combinations (it's a lot easier to third-party the crew when people are dropping mid-blob-fight, allowing a blob win, but even that is a matter of judgment and part of the design of disruptive midrounds - they make windows for antags, and the blob might still lose.)

In that case, I think it might be worth more talking about the different configurations dynamic can throw out and how antags are designed if you're not ready to throw them and their mandate to do objectives, cause problems out wholesale (like Skyrat and other servers have done.)

Would any of those examples of 'not fine' things you mentioned be a problem if the crew wasn't either stretched too thin or the round felt too otherwise quiet at the time?

► Show Spoiler

Bit of an aside, but wouldn't the first, second, and fifth one still be in violation of RP rule 5 anyway?

[CMDR_Gungnir]

It sort of falls under friendtagging which people can agree is cringe.

Friendtagging is bad when there isn't a good reason to do so. If you're Syndicate-aligned, it makes sense to help out the nukies. If you don't like being blown up but you're still Syndicate-aligned, it makes sense that you'd do objectives to get gear that's on-par with them. Not a very good example imo.

I don’t really believe traitors, from an RP standpoint, care at all about the station blowing up. Their final objectives include summoning nukies in order to blow up the station and creating a cascade which destroys the station.

"FUCK YOU, OPERATIVES, THIS WAS MY FUCKING ASSIGNMENT YOU SHITTERS, I'M NOT LETTING YOU TAKE THIS ONE FROM ME." - Cindy Kate, the Traitor, moments before suicide maxcapping the Nukie Shuttle.

It makes plenty of sense, you just need to think about it.

[Pandarsenic]

I am already uncomfortable with how we have varying expectations of antags to follow their fluff, their objectives, etc.

I have at least once, but I believe more, had to explain to people on Manuel that "Go postal and hijack the shuttle" is - by current policy - basically a codebase banbait to trick people who don't know the rulings into getting banned for following their fluff.

I would strongly prefer that we make the official rule for all antags, at all RP levels, "Follow your objectives, your fluff text, your antag intro, etc., as much or as little as you want to, so long as you make the round more interesting than if you were a nonantag crew member."

[Ryusenshu]

I dont see anything good come out of this

[TheRex9001]

It sort of falls under friendtagging which people can agree is cringe.

Friendtagging is bad when there isn't a good reason to do so. If you're Syndicate-aligned, it makes sense to help out the nukies. If you don't like being blown up but you're still Syndicate-aligned, it makes sense that you'd do objectives to get gear that's on-par with them. Not a very good example imo.

I don’t really believe traitors, from an RP standpoint, care at all about the station blowing up. Their final objectives include summoning nukies in order to blow up the station and creating a cascade which destroys the station.

I agree it can make sense for traitors to want to escape on the shuttle though, and that gives them reason to fight against nukies. But it’s an incredibly boring, safe, conflict-free way to play traitor to ONLY do this, and policy that encourages it would be bad in my opinion. You’re just a crewmember with bigger toys.

A good way to play traitor on nukie IMO if you don’t want the station exploding is to play both sides. Help kill the nukies but maybe randomly cap the sec officer that’s fighting alongside you. After nukies are dead maybe assassinate the cap and steal the disk for yourself. Things like this retain your status as an active threat without self-sabotaging into a roundending threat.

Traitors from an RP perspective come from a variation of different factions, it would make perfect sense if an ARC agent wants to stop the nukies to save animals or for a changeling to fight against the thing that might just oblitirate them from existence. The final objectives thing is not meant to reflect the lore nor RP its just mechanical good boy thing for doing prog tot. Not all factions want nukies, infact most dont when they are aboard

[BrianBackslide]

I have at least once, but I believe more, had to explain to people on Manuel that "Go postal and hijack the shuttle" is - by current policy - basically a codebase banbait to trick people who don't know the rulings into getting banned for following their fluff.

I agree that the "gone postal" traitor story needs to either be fully removed or fully embraced.
I think TheRex almost gets at another point that policy such as this could create in that choosing to do your final objective would "go counter to IC objectives." For instance, ARC terrorists wouldn't want to use Romerol, do a Cascade, call Nukies, etc. Because it would mean the animals would most likely die. I could definitely see admins noting for actions of that nature.

If you want players to follow their fluff, great, then don't ban me on MRP when I go on a murder spree as Gone Postal.

[Misdoubtful]

I am already uncomfortable with how we have varying expectations of antags to follow their fluff, their objectives, etc.

I have at least once, but I believe more, had to explain to people on Manuel that "Go postal and hijack the shuttle" is - by current policy - basically a codebase banbait to trick people who don't know the rulings into getting banned for following their fluff.

I would strongly prefer that we make the official rule for all antags, at all RP levels, "Follow your objectives, your fluff text, your antag intro, etc., as much or as little as you want to, so long as you make the round more interesting than if you were a nonantag crew member."

This is the sort of thing people need to keep in mind.

It's not about antag freedoms.

It's not about the rules.

It's about having interesting healthy rounds and stories. Thats it. This is a roleplaying game

People can have all the agency in the world to do something but it doesn't matter much if the environment and space to do those things in just ends up sucking.

People going on this back and forth thing might not be considering the most important pieces. Is XYZ going to make something interesting? Is it making things interesting already? Could it make things interesting? Does structure like an antags overall purpose having weight to it help to provide the vehicle for interesting things and stories to happen?

Would this sort of thing enable more interesting things and stories?

It doesn't have to be complicated. Just yes or no questions.

If someone is just doing something that makes the round just overall suck for everyone involved I have no problems with encouraging them to consider alternatives.

[Annihilite111]

I am already uncomfortable with how we have varying expectations of antags to follow their fluff, their objectives, etc.

I have at least once, but I believe more, had to explain to people on Manuel that "Go postal and hijack the shuttle" is - by current policy - basically a codebase banbait to trick people who don't know the rulings into getting banned for following their fluff.

I would strongly prefer that we make the official rule for all antags, at all RP levels, "Follow your objectives, your fluff text, your antag intro, etc., as much or as little as you want to, so long as you make the round more interesting than if you were a nonantag crew member."

This is the sort of thing people need to keep in mind.

It's not about antag freedoms.

It's not about the rules.

It's about having interesting healthy rounds and stories. Thats it. This is a roleplaying game

People can have all the agency in the world to do something but it doesn't matter much if the environment and space to do those things in just ends up sucking.

People going on this back and forth thing might not be considering the most important pieces. Is XYZ going to make something interesting? Is it making things interesting already? Could it make things interesting? Does structure like an antags overall purpose having weight to it help to provide the vehicle for interesting things and stories to happen?

Would this sort of thing enable more interesting things and stories?

It doesn't have to be complicated. Just yes or no questions.

If someone is just doing something that makes the round just overall suck for everyone involved I have no problems with encouraging them to consider alternatives.

And yet progtots exist.

[NecromancerAnne]

I think the more you push broad rules about conduct, the more you stifle creativity. This is why we had the recent rule update to allow for more general freedom. When you are at the mercy of an admin over whether or not your behaviour is conducive to your role, or you have to not flub explaining to the admin your reasoning when you're already in a role that needs a lot of your attention, you're holding a gun up to their head whenever they may step vaguely out of line of their objectives. Nobody wants that level of scrutiny on them at all times. It is absolutely a toxic process that will bleed into the server itself and peoples enjoyment if taken too far.

We should not regress our ruleset with further constraints. The objectives should remain suggestions, as should the roles overall goals. If someone is being overly murdery for no reason, we have rules that exist to handle that.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

I think the more you push broad rules about conduct, the more you stifle creativity. This is why we had the recent rule update to allow for more general freedom. When you are at the mercy of an admin over whether or not your behaviour is conducive to your role, or you have to not flub explaining to the admin your reasoning when you're already in a role that needs a lot of your attention, you're holding a gun up to their head whenever they may step vaguely out of line of their objectives. Nobody wants that level of scrutiny on them at all times. It is absolutely a toxic process that will bleed into the server itself and peoples enjoyment if taken too far.

We should not regress our ruleset with further constraints. The objectives should remain suggestions, as should the roles overall goals. If someone is being overly murdery for no reason, we have rules that exist to handle that.

Hard agree here

[Vekter]

I think there's been a lot of good points here in general, but the more I think about it, I'm not certain this happens enough that we can't just cover it under the existing roleplay rules. I'm going to keep this up because I'm interested in what the headmins think, but I'm not going to cry if they decide we don't need this.

[nickup9]

I'm sounding off in support there not being an additional rule regarding this topic - just use the existing rules if need be, when specific cases get really bad. As is there's a degree of anxiety that comes from playing antag in general, and this certainly would not help.

If people are not happy because an antag going against the flow is going against their plans, be it their plans as another antag, as a gaming valid hunter, or as someone trying to RP somewhere out of the way, then frankly that's tough shit - things go wrong, don't go as planned, and people should adapt as situations change. Regular rule 10 is my primary citation here.

With that being said if it's a specific person causing issues for the population at large, then that is an issue that should be addressed - but the admin team should already have tools to address this, MRP rule 10 and Reg. rule 1. Unless an admin is able to reach out over the internet's series of tubes and read minds then there's no way to determine whether or not someone's justification for going against the grind in a single (or even a few) incident(s) is justified or mistaken at best, malicious at worse.

Keep in mind, too, that simply bwoinking an antag might kill motivation to be creative or cause conflict, or tilt them to the point of disconnecting, which reduces the overall fun in a round. Under the proposed rule I could see this happening if an admin sees someone doing something simply unusual. While I have personal views on people tilting it's probably wise overall to trust the process and assume good faith to prevent tilt from admin interaction, and save administrative tools to course correct trends or to stop more egregious violations.

[TheRex9001]

I’ll say what I said before. This is nearly impossible with how progression traitor and IC flavour/lore have such a large disconnect with a rule like this you would virtually eliminate final objectives since most of those are things your IC faction would not do. This would be a policy nightmare and Will not work until that disconnect is gone.

[Redrover1760]

I think the more you push broad rules about conduct, the more you stifle creativity. This is why we had the recent rule update to allow for more general freedom. When you are at the mercy of an admin over whether or not your behaviour is conducive to your role, or you have to not flub explaining to the admin your reasoning when you're already in a role that needs a lot of your attention, you're holding a gun up to their head whenever they may step vaguely out of line of their objectives. Nobody wants that level of scrutiny on them at all times. It is absolutely a toxic process that will bleed into the server itself and peoples enjoyment if taken too far.

We should not regress our ruleset with further constraints. The objectives should remain suggestions, as should the roles overall goals. If someone is being overly murdery for no reason, we have rules that exist to handle that.

This is why I've played on LRP for so long. Absolute, total, hard agree.

[dessysalta]

I think the more you push broad rules about conduct, the more you stifle creativity. This is why we had the recent rule update to allow for more general freedom. When you are at the mercy of an admin over whether or not your behaviour is conducive to your role, or you have to not flub explaining to the admin your reasoning when you're already in a role that needs a lot of your attention, you're holding a gun up to their head whenever they may step vaguely out of line of their objectives. Nobody wants that level of scrutiny on them at all times. It is absolutely a toxic process that will bleed into the server itself and peoples enjoyment if taken too far.

We should not regress our ruleset with further constraints. The objectives should remain suggestions, as should the roles overall goals. If someone is being overly murdery for no reason, we have rules that exist to handle that.

Extremely well-said, I agree.