Forgetting the person who killed you

[Ghostplayer]

heyo, I come across this issue a lot as an antag where I need to round remove a witness or risk them instantly snitching on me after being revived in medbay (which they usually always do, understandably). I like how heretic sacrafices work and how the person sent to the shadow relm isn't allowed to shout out over comms the heretic who did it, because they "dont remember". I think at the very least it would be great for MRP.

[Jacquerel]

This was proposed almost six months ago and didn't prove very popular then, although I suppose enough time has passed to talk about it again.
I suspect most opinions from this post won't have changed... but some people who were in support are headmin now and weren't then (although don't get your hopes too high, a different current headmin said they really don't like it).

viewtopic.php?f=85&t=35344

[dendydoom]

im still in support the spirit of this, in that i believe (on manuel) it leads to better dramatic stakes and better investigation from sec. it is something ive always done as a polite token of appreciation for when an antag actually lets me be recovered and doesn't hard delete me from the universe in the name of the greentext.

i think the only way to approach it in a way that's enforceable is to just say "you don't remember your killer's NAME after you die" which would allow them to remember details and rp that side of it, and allows sec to try and point out the perp from the crowd if they were sloppy and didn't cover their tracks or use a disguise. on the admin side, all it would take is a ctrl+f of the name of the antag and see what context it appears in after they've died. outside of the name, using all other details (it happened in sci maint, they were wearing a paramed coat, i think they had pink hair) would be a good thing, and would let players actually try to remember details instead of scrolling up in the chat log and seeing what big red name stabbed them.

as for the point raised in the previous thread about this as a design issue, in all honesty, respecting the presence of a meta and not leveraging it in an unfair way has been a design decision for every ttrpg forever since man first discovered how to carve polyhedrons. until we're able to flash players with a neuralyzer through their screen whenever they die, i think this will always remain an unsolved problem.

[Higgin]

Still against it. Doesn't gel here and will invite a lot of deaths with "but how did they know?" while creating an asymmetry around round removal (RR) that doesn't feel good.

The only angle I think for this would be on MRP where

5. Antagonism and roleplaying as an antagonist.
The goal of antagonists on MRP is to create stories and make rounds interesting, for both antagonist players and crew-sided players alike. Antagonists are expected to put in at least some effort towards playing their designated role, though may break with it given sufficient in character reason. Some antagonists are restricted in the ways and quantities they may lend themselves to visiting death and destruction upon the crew.

Part of the bargain of our setup is that restricted antagonists get a license to act as unrestricted in the service of their objectives which may frequently involve RRing people.

This concession is with the idea that those RRs generate a larger story than for the victim who often does not experience the death as anything but arbitrary and without buildup - and the other people who get involved have some degree of choice about how to conduct themselves by actively foiling you as an antag or happening to be in your way. The target - and anyone might be a target - does not necessarily get that.

After that death, if somehow recovered, this policy asks the player to play stupid - potentially walking right back into a supposedly "good faith" appeal from their killer at threat of being seen as too suspicious to have actually forgotten dying if they say no.

It shifts the drama from "will they come back and kill me this time? can I get out alive?" to "will I walk to my death again and play dumb or risk copping an ahelp/ban?" The policy of forgetting does not give targets and victims a good way to deal with the people who actually wanted them dead after getting saved by other players' effort.

Unfortunately, people you treat with mercy when you don't have to also don't have to reciprocate right now, and that creates the bind you want to get out of - feeling like you have to RR people in order to not end your story (or your part in the overall story.)

Heretic is probably a good example of how this can be done by making RR not the starting stakes of any antag activity. Until that's the case more broadly, though, I would not support this policy.

Imagine applying this to antags. It invites the abuse of good faith and a laudable desire to keep people in the game by enforcing conditions that make it so much easier to subsequently remove them if that was the goal all along.

I have not seen a new-life policy work and yield anything but bad feelings or rote "hey who killed me?" conversations after cloning/revival on places where RR is so normalized or required by the format.

[Higgin]

[snip]

100% agreed on it being better storytelling and good courtesy.

I'd be interested in trying it with the NAME forgetting. That creates an interesting puzzle of what you can say without the name - even if the person is disguised and you know damn well who it is - and gives people more room to work to connect the dots.

The difference between "John McGriff killed me" and "somebody wearing an engineering MOD with an assistant ID saying 'Mike Arumba' pulled a gun on me" might be a material one if people accept the challenge.

Even if it doesn't exorcise the design demons or deal with antags always having RR or as-good-as on the table even on MRP.

[Vekter]

My opinion on this hasn't changed much so I'll just quote myself and expand on it.

I like this idea, but as Misdoubtful points out, it's kind of a bitch to moderate. We already have plenty of trouble with people not understanding "Don't tell people who the Heretic that sacrificed you is", so I'm not sure our players could handle this.

Do and always have liked it though. It makes things a lot more interesting and removes focus on having to round remove people that aren't your target since they could come back and blow your cover.

I really don't think this kind of rule would work on LRP and it's almost impossible to effectively moderate without some kind of code changes to inform you of when you can or can't remember your murderer.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

I still really just feel that if you want to be casually killing people you should be disguising yourself to carry out nefarious activities. SS13 is a game where disguises are a really powerful and creative tool, from the simple (gas mask on + PDA in pocket) to the complex (chameleon outfit, keeping a change of clothes in your backpack, stolen IDs from corpses, changing outfits after doing something bad so people don't visually clock you, etc).

[TheRex9001]

You can disguise yourself, as dorsi points out but my main opinion is that this would be very hard to enforce. I've personally never loved the concept to begin with as it feels remarkably cheap over using all the tools you have at hand for disguising yourself and enforcing this is as said going to be a nightmare, we can't really be expected to supervise every single murdered person throughout the whole shift.

[DrAmazing343]

Unfortunately, people you treat with mercy when you don't have to also don't have to reciprocate right now, and that creates the bind you want to get out of - feeling like you have to RR people in order to not end your story (or your part in the overall story.)

Ran into this personally several times as an antagonist, giving mercy to the good guys as a villain should, and then being fully RR'd for it. It's genuinely been the reason I've taken a break for the night because it feels fucking awful, but I do think you have very excellent points about the whole "walking into your own death again or copping to an ahelp/ban." That feels doubly nasty, since in a sense, it'd be a double punch down on some prospective victims. Not a fun time.

I do enjoy the idea of not remembering the specific name, however, since oftentimes if someone takes the effort to fully disguise and all, they tend to at least want to barebones play the part a little bit, and having more push/pull there would be nice. This is, however, highly anecdotal and still flawed insofar as folks getting around it/figuring out ways to not play nice, which is a shame.

I'd be far more interested in more alternative solutions such as this, but I really am not sure if this policy thread will result in much more than the last did.

[dendydoom]

straight away, any implementation of this would be an mrp rule. it wouldn't be compatible with the expectations of lrp and the way the rules are set up.

my implementation of "you only forget the NAME and remember all other details" would address a few things:

firstly, while disguises are fantastic, your voice is much more difficult to disguise. unless you have a voice changer, then the vast majority of disguised murders boil down to someone taking their ID off, putting on a gas mask and wordlessly chopping someone into hamburger meat. there is no gimmick, no evil speech, no back and forth to engage with the victim, and it can be often disappointing. if the killer gives you a story before killing you, then oftentimes you don't even care because you got RP out of it.

it would solve some of the dreaded prisoner's dilemma and allow enough wiggle room in the game strategy side of things to make antags comfortable to do gimmicks with their victims. it would massively improve the ability for stealth gimmicks from traitors and spies who could actually rely on quiet tools as a viable strategy long term.

secondly, it would add much more depth to sec procedure and investigation. you would still remember enough to say things like "it was the RD" if they didn't use a disguise, which is what lots of people say anyway, but also things like a physical description which would allow people like the warden to feed sec intel by checking sec records and their attached photos. it would also bring the detective back into the fore if the killer didn't clean up the crime scene even if they did disguise their identity.

finally, while there would definitely be some growing pains as the culture shifts to accommodate the new rule, ultimately it would not be difficult to admin. it would be obvious in logs of you see the revival message, then them saying the name of the antag. the victim could still do things like he shown a picture matching the description and say "was it Vince McRobust?" and they could say yes, because now they've learned the name again.

finally, if coders were to support it with a code solution, it could just do something simple like only give you the message after revive if you were killed by a player.

other antags would still be unaffected because they are rarely identified by name. "the ling/dragon/lone op/ninja/blobbernaut/evil santa clause killed me." would still be entirely allowed.

any thoughts on this kind of implementation?

[Higgin]

[snip]

any thoughts on this kind of implementation?

on the code side, it'd just require setting a policy message to be sent on death with a possible toggle like Enforce Human Authority (so it can be configured per server)

I like it. I think it'd be worth a shot. People would also do well to remember that the chameleon kit mask includes a voice changer on the mask.

It doesn't strictly solve the problem behind all of this, but it might be a move in the right direction for a more desirable state of affairs on MRP.

[snip]

Ran into this personally several times as an antagonist, giving mercy to the good guys as a villain should, and then being fully RR'd for it. It's genuinely been the reason I've taken a break for the night because it feels fucking awful, but I do think you have very excellent points about the whole "walking into your own death again or copping to an ahelp/ban." That feels doubly nasty, since in a sense, it'd be a double punch down on some prospective victims. Not a fun time.

[snip]

It sucks, and I feel bad for any antag trying to string things along and give people chances only to get the harshest treatment in return.

In our current paradigm, it's a decidedly suboptimal choice to be merciful. On security's side, while RPR6 makes the ultimate punishment have a ceiling related to their actual crimes, there are much more and less merciful ways to kill people that an antag can employ - both are murder and can merit execution. Security also has an incentive against stringing things out most rounds because Dynamic is pretty much always setting up to run a train on you, and threats snowball. Even on MRP, and especially on MRP with its recent pops - God forbid you stop to do more than fight antags, and there's an incentive to only deal with the ones you encounter once.

The cost of this built-in mercilessness is one we try to make sting less with midrounds and ghost roles. These are also largely antags, the ones people go for, and rounds tend to get less merciful as they proceed through the round.

The price of constant stimulation, I suppose.

[DaydreamIQ]

I'd personally like a trial run of this at the very least. One job I feel gets kind of shafted by how easy it is to revive people is coroner. Autopsies are useless when you can just revive someone and ask what happened

[PapaMichael]

i dunno about the name thing

being able to remember literally everything but the name just feels kinda arbitrary, especially in situations where the assailant made zero efforts to conceal their identity
"x killed me!" → "hey, got a minute"
perfectly describes x's static to the extent that everyone save the intern janitor has no doubts you are talking about x → no bwoink

it also invites a number of edge cases that would need clarification.
so like, john doe the psychologist kills me, you previously said i'd be allowed to remember that the psychologist killed me? well that implies that i must forget that john doe is the psychologist. this feels kinda weird since it's readily available information that i can acquire just by clicking on my pda after which i would have an ooc alibi to know who he was should i get bwoinked

now imagine a shift with 3 cargo technicians, a lizard, a moth, and a plasmaman. the lizard (is-an-example) kills me. i am unable to remember that is-an-example killed me, but am able to remember that a lizard cargotech killed me. again, i glance at a manifest, see that 2 cargo technicians are obviously non-lizard, and again i have jumped through the ooc hoop to be able to say "is-an-example killed me!"

i guess my concern is that the derivation of someone's name from their appearance is too easy under most circumstances, and making players do homework so they're allowed to icly know something they oocly already know feels lame to me. is there any way this could be reworked to only apply if the person is disguised/has their face covered or whatever, without making the rule confusingly complex?

[warbluke]

It seems like it would be pretty immersion-breaking. Ideally we could just add more ways to disguise your voice like taping a universal translator to a gas mask but that requires code additions which is a non starter.

[warbluke]

Forgive my double-post but I just remembered a cool example of ways to disguise your voice:
https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/pull/81188

[TheRex9001]

I might be dumb here but doesnt wearing a gas mask without id mask your voice and mark it as unknown when you speak?

[Jacquerel]

I might be dumb here but doesnt wearing a gas mask without id mask your voice and mark it as unknown when you speak?

Wearing a gas mask hides your face but not your voice

[Timberpoes]

The kinds of deaths where you shouldn't be able to recall your killer or their name seem more limited in the context of SS13 and fights between players than where you should.

I dislike rules that punish players for roleplaying but not to a specific admin's script. I don't like this idea because that script is arbitrary. It will empower admins to punish players for playing in a way the admin dislikes with very limited recourse from the player, even where the player's memory actually makes roleplay sense and the admin is requiring the player to failRP.

There is no way you can draft this in a way that will both prevent players from remembering stuff they shouldn't remember, while also preventing admins from applying it against players remembering things they should remember, while also having it be clear and obvious what should be forgotten (2 seconds before a maxcap goes pop) versus what should be remembered (1 minute of life-or-death fighting with your killer followed by crit and a slow, drawn-out death).

[TheRex9001]

-Snip-

finally, while there would definitely be some growing pains as the culture shifts to accommodate the new rule, ultimately it would not be difficult to admin. it would be obvious in logs of you see the revival message, then them saying the name of the antag. the victim could still do things like he shown a picture matching the description and say "was it Vince McRobust?" and they could say yes, because now they've learned the name again.

I kind of think this is a bit dreamy of a scenario, because not knowing the name of who killed you but everything else around them is making it silly. So the player doesnt know their name but the second they see the person again they recall it? Same with general descriptions then I'd assume? I think that just makes it weird. You cannot recall the name but you can recall everything else about them? Doesnt sound easy to enforce to me.

Frankly this doesnt really "click" with me on a conceptual level and I think its gonna be hard to enforce and not for a lot of benefit.

[kayozz]

From a MRP point of view, this is something I support.

If the rules say don't RR someone, then what would be the point of killing someone, then bringing them to medbay/leaving them somewhere to be found, only for them to out you immediately upon revival. It makes it difficult to be an antag when your victim has the ability to come back into the round and snitch.

If someone is going to immediately snitch when they get revived, why shouldn't I throw them into the SM?

[britgrenadier1]

As in the previous thread: this sucks on downstreams and I don’t think it has a place in fun gameplay. Let people decide if they want to have post death amnesia or go on a revenge story. The whole point of antags is that they’re there to create stories for everyone else, if they kill someone and then they come back and get revenge then boom. Story created.

[kayozz]

As in the previous thread: this sucks on downstreams and I don’t think it has a place in fun gameplay. Let people decide if they want to have post death amnesia or go on a revenge story. The whole point of antags is that they’re there to create stories for everyone else, if they kill someone and then they come back and get revenge then boom. Story created.

A fair point. But If i know you're the type of person who is immediately going to snitch on me, then why should I then take the risk of leaving you somewhere that paramedics/detective find you? Why not just stuff you in a locker, hidden in maints?

EDIT: How about a timer? If someone is killed but is found and brought back to life within say... 15/20 minutes, the meta protection is gone? But if the body is found much later, then maybe something can flash up and say 'Due to passing of time, you do not remember the name of your killer'...

[britgrenadier1]

As in the previous thread: this sucks on downstreams and I don’t think it has a place in fun gameplay. Let people decide if they want to have post death amnesia or go on a revenge story. The whole point of antags is that they’re there to create stories for everyone else, if they kill someone and then they come back and get revenge then boom. Story created.

A fair point. But If i know you're the type of person who is immediately going to snitch on me, then why should I then take the risk of leaving you somewhere that paramedics/detective find you? Why not just stuff you in a locker, hidden in maints?

EDIT: How about a timer? If someone is killed but is found and brought back to life within say... 15/20 minutes, the meta protection is gone? But if the body is found much later, then maybe something can flash up and say 'Due to passing of time, you do not remember the name of your killer'...

Well, if you know that I’m a snitch then you shouldn’t let me get revived and I’m okay with that.

Also I’m preeeeeetty sure that removing suit sensors and shoving in a locker is generally okay as long as you have an RP reason to do that like removing witnesses to crimes. I like the loud play style so unless I need the jumpsuit I’m probably not stripping anyway but I would imagine that’s okay. Antags have more freedom on Manuel then people think.

Also no for me on the timer I don’t want to have to keep track of that while dead/have admins have to track that

[kayozz]

Actually since it's a very similar subject, what does constitute round removal / RR?

if I'm an antag engineer for example and I need to kill the CE, does throwing them into the crystal and dusting them count as RR? Or is that a perfectly valid assassination technique? Is spacing someone classed as RR? Despite it being a classic method of disposal since SS13 became a thing?

Just curious, not arguing with anyone.

[GPeckman]

Actually since it's a very similar subject, what does constitute round removal / RR?

if I'm an antag engineer for example and I need to kill the CE, does throwing them into the crystal and dusting them count as RR? Or is that a perfectly valid assassination technique? Is spacing someone classed as RR? Despite it being a classic method of disposal since SS13 became a thing?

Just curious, not arguing with anyone.

Throwing someone into the SM is like the epitomy of RR. Spacing someone depends. If you take their suit sensors off first, then yeah it's RR. In general, anything that makes it very difficult, unlikely, or outright impossible for someone to be revived counts as round removal.

That said, using the SM for assassination is very cool and I think it should be allowed for your targets even though it's RR.

[kayozz]

So, again it's either getting bwoinked by admins for RR'ing someone, or getting killed by sec/your victim because they were easily brought back to life and named you - because it was very easy to bring you back.

I know on MRP story-telling comes first, but still... employing certain methods of disposing of an antag's victim both have their downsides.

[iwishforducks]

the truest way to make this roleplay friendly is to make it so that if someone kills you, you're unable to tell anyone else about it, but you're allowed to hunt them down and get your revenge

► Show Spoiler

also, somewhat relevant (hopefully this gets some good chuckles)

on a serious note, this is highly arbitrary. round removal should just be a thing. antagonists should not feel bad for round removing people. that's literally their role.

[britgrenadier1]

I think anything that makes a person harder to find or put back together is round removal. I’m generally okay with round removal, I think spaceman fragility is important for the tension and paranoia of the game.

Also if someone is your target you can go ham. Crystal, gibber, death by a thousand vending machines, anything goes. It’s only when you are killing people randomly that you get in trouble.

[dendydoom]

In general, anything that makes it very difficult, unlikely, or outright impossible for someone to be revived counts as round removal.

this is 100% correct.

to also clarify: you can do whatever you want to get rid of your targets. hard RR them by atomizing them with the SM is perfectly acceptable. collateral is also accepted, in that if you use a bomb to take out your target, and it takes a few more out with it, then this is allowed. where it stops being allowed is where it intersects with restrictions on "maximizing death and destruction" or rpr10, where using a bomb every time to take out every target will end in a conversation where we ask you to come up with some new plans.

i would like to politely and gently ask to remember to stay on topic if this question has been answered.

the responses so far (both positive and negative) are very helpful, thank you to everyone who has shared their thoughts so far!

[Higgin]

Actually since it's a very similar subject, what does constitute round removal / RR?

if I'm an antag engineer for example and I need to kill the CE, does throwing them into the crystal and dusting them count as RR? Or is that a perfectly valid assassination technique? Is spacing someone classed as RR? Despite it being a classic method of disposal since SS13 became a thing?

Just curious, not arguing with anyone.

That's RR, but it's also entirely valid if it's your target or part of getting to your target. If you have the "Prevent your target from escaping alive," you will not find anyone saying otherwise for that CE; it gets murkier if it's another engineer trying to stop you from dusting the CE, but generally, it then depends on the strength of your reasoning as to killing them either in the context of your objectives or, with a higher bar, other IC reasons.

"The engineer was trying to kill me with a fire axe" might fly, just as the case "the engineer was screaming my name over comms, but I had my radio jammer on and they'd let people know if I let them get revived," just as "they were shoving me and probably about to toss me in too after I dusted the CE, so I got them first and did it before they could."

That's RR too, but it's justified in the scope of your objectives. I can't guarantee the ruling you'd get if asked about it in the moment, but,

Antagonist objectives are the core of what antagonists are allowed to directly do with no or limited roleplay reasoning. Actions taken to directly accomplish an objective do not have to be proportionate.
[...]

Edit: more relevant to this thread's discussion, people trying to directly stop or hinder you when you have an objective like "Escape alive and free" may also be understood as people you might RR to directly accomplish an objective as long as there is something concrete - not hypothetical - they've done or are trying to do to stop you.

[kayozz]

Thanks for the replies Higgin and Dendy and I'm sorry if I went off topic. Just thought it was partially relevant and you've both more or less explained it.
Genuinely didn't know the leniency on the RR, but you've both explained it well. Justified in the scope of objectives is a decent way of saying it.

Back on topic.
Now that I know I can reasonably RR someone, I now change my opinion to accepting the person I killed can name me if revived.

It's balanced and good.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Just want to voice my opposition to this. It feels "gamey" and immersion breaking to me, as well as being a crutch for antags to not have to disguise themselves.

And the "only forgetting their name" suggestion feels even worse, because it only punishes newer players who don't have everyone's static memorized.

I think that the status quo is best here. Snitching on antags who showed you mercy is, to be frank, a skill issue on the part of the snitch in regards to RP skill level, barring unusual circumstances.

[MooCow12]

Damage directly to brain should be what causes memory loss, not just blanket "death" so take a baseball bat and start hitting your dead victim in the head


(Atleast thats what we should make the code do)

We could also just make it so if you are dead and the damage your brain is at is high enough you lose memory, then it would just be a matter of directly causing brain damage or delaying revival long enough for decay.

[DATAxPUNGED]

I like this, It'd make antags feel less of a need to round remove certain people as to not have them expose their identity, while still encouraging some kind of disguise as the victim can still remember every detail of your physical appearance

[xzero314]

Strongly against this. I would rather we left forgetting your killer to good sportsmanship. There are infinite ways to disguise yourself. You don't need to be an expert to understand covering your tracks. I dont want to have people worried about just going back and doing their job at risk of breaking the "death meta rules" if their killer is still around.

[Constellado]

My opinion has solidified since last time.

I am against it.

From myself last time:

To me, it doesn't make sense on why a person would forget how they died. Would make for a weird thing, not knowing how you died every time you did die. Imagine a world where characters don't remember how they died when they did a mistake such as forgetting to put on internals in a spaced area. There were times I died in similar ways and people asked me who killed me once i get revived. I end up telling them it was a mistake. Imagine a world where you cannot remember how you died, and we end up having players thinking I ended up being murdered when it was a simple workplace accident?

I will repeat this again. It does not make sense aside from magic or some IC technology to make a character forget something as traumatic as how they died. Your character was conscious and mentally sharp before they died, so the memories would have been formed. A part of my character is that they IC remember every death that they ever had (minus the heretic sacrifices), which affects him negatively, and a rule like this would undermine it. (I don't actually remember every death I just say he does for effect)

Also, since when was it against the rules to RR a target??? It's within the rules I thought...
When was this change...
If it is within the rules then why are multiple players here saying it's not allowed in MRP. Did admins rule something incorrectly?

[Higgin]

[snip]

Also, since when was it against the rules to RR a target??? It's within the rules I thought...
When was this change...
If it is within the rules then why are multiple players here saying it's not allowed in MRP. Did admins rule something incorrectly?

It's not remotely against the rules - it's required by some objectives and perfectly justified on MRP even if it happens inadvertently in the course of getting to your objectives or by sufficient IC.

"RR" as a term has much more recently entered the mainstream currency of concepts on space, and I think people are using it and thinking it's prohibited here because it's being used more often on other servers/communities.

The closest thing we have to a provision for it is an extension of

Do not facilitate player deaths for poor IC reasoning. Distributing bombs or other similarly destructive items can leave you responsible for how they are used if not cleared with an admin first. Each unjustified kill is normally met with a 24-hour ban.

and

You may begin IC conflicts with another player if it does not excessively interfere with their ability to do their job. While you are allowed to escalate conflicts, if it leads to violence and you have poor IC reasoning for inciting it, you may face administrative action.

Killing a crewmate is a severe response, and requires severe justification to do, such as those in Rule 1's precedents, or Rule 4.

Critically wounded characters must be treated or taken to the medbay by the standing party where reasonable, and taking unnecessary action against a downed player opens you up to reprisal. If you are incapacitated in a fight and treated, or the conflict is otherwise meaningfully broken, you are expected to require an IC reason beyond 'bruised ego' to re-initiate it.

where synthetically, they boil down to "don't effectively take people out of the round or (in combination with RPR6, RPR9) make them unable to enjoy their jobs/play without compelling IC reason" - that's as close as we get to specifying "round removal" in the rules.

It's relevant here because RR sucks and people want to feel the need to RR non-targets less.

[kieth4]

Not a fan of this myself;

from dreary:

"i thought it was a good idea at the time but i don't think people are ready for it yet and i'm not sure we'd be able to enforce it fairly without some sort of overhaul to mrp, perhaps one day when goof's hrp server comes true, but for now i have to -1 it too despite liking the idea of it"