[MRP] Forget who killed you.

[MatrixOne]

Let's revisit this proposition: When you die, forget who killed you.

There has been the idea that roleplaying and gimmicks on MRP are punished, and that antagonists are rewarded for round removing the target because they'll be snitched on as soon as the person is revived. I've been in these situations a bunch, a few times I even hauled back a person I had to kill to med, but every time without fail the person immediately yelled my name on revival. They have no reason not to.

We've had this thread come up many times before, but I think it's a good time to revisit the issue because MRP is hitting some turbulence and it might encourage antags to RR people less and operate more openly with gimmicks rather than play to win if they're awarded more leeway to operate. It also helps detectives actually do some deduction rather than just asking the revived guy "so uh, who killed you?."

We already have a mechanic that forces you to forget the names of your revolution leaders on deconversion, so it's not like we don't use the idea already.

There's a meme going around that "nothing ever happens" on MRP, and Kryson addressed why in a great post on TGcord, so I'll quote some of what they said:

most antags choose to go super stealth, friendly or inactive.

The problem with this is that these are very low friction options that don't create meaningful work for the more mechanical jobs like sec, med, engi, botany etc.

So if we want to help with this, we should encourage antags to operate a bit more openly and be less scared. Knowing that the witness they took out can't snitch on them could be a great step in that direction.

I realize though that some people think there are issues with enforcement of rules on MRP right now, and while I don't think that's the case, I'm mentioning their argument because I see it a lot. The argument is that making this kind of change might be meaningless if mrp rules are already not being enforced, and it might add to an already large stack of rules that are hard to enforce. So it could be needlessly complicating by adding to rules that are already too much to handle. Myself, I think it's worth a try, but what do you think?

[dragomagol]

I think this is an interesting idea that's worth trying.

I know this is the policy board but I think a code solution (even just adding a new config) to inform players in chat that they should forget who killed them would be more effective at communicating this change than ruling here or in discord.

Or I guess a change in the MOTD

[warbluke]

Is there sufficient admin staffing to support this?

[MGO]

I agree that adding this would make more risky antag gameing worthwhile. I've seen my fair share of revived people immediately spill the beans on who killed them or some other funny thing like immediately name-calling headrevs in a revolution. I believe that's fine in LRP but in MRP this would be a good boon to not take drastic measures to ensure your target doesn't expose your fake J's over the radio. Heretic already enforces this after a sacrifice so they don't immediately get focused by the AI and Security, so I don't believe enforcement of this new proposition is impossible or even hard to enact. I believe it will also help Traitors justify why they felt the need to take out several witnesses if they encounter a chain of them without going into boning territory.

[Ghostplayer]

I like this because I don't like RR'ing witnesses to preserve myself. Less round removal of random people might make MRP feel slightly more MRP. Heretic sacrifice victims almost never break the "you forgot who sacrificed you" rule, so I think people will be capable of also forget who killed them

[RaveRadbury]

I like the idea but I think that executing it via administration is a tall order. It's always seemed like something we should encourage in the community rather than enforce and punish for failing. It seems similar to antag ignorance which I've heard gets stale.

If people think that we can pull it off I'd be excited to see it happen.

[Kassori]

I like the idea but I think that executing it via administration is a tall order. It's always seemed like something we should encourage in the community rather than enforce and punish for failing. It seems similar to antag ignorance which I've heard gets stale.

If people think that we can pull it off I'd be excited to see it happen.

It's anecdotal, but death policy was codified on The Ultra High Pop downstream when I adminned there, we're not the same community and I'm sure there would be issues with people not being on the same page to start, but it was rarely an issue, less than a handful of tickets in 600ish hours IIRC.

[NecromancerAnne]

I think this is a case similar to the enforcement of 'knowledge from a previous life'. So, a bit reliant on player reports or observant admins to enforce. Not easy, but not impossible. Takes a bit from everyone to contribute enforcing it.

For a workable timeframe, you'd probably want somewhere around a minute or so, or for easier player reference 'the situation that resulted in your death'.

Like, as an example;

John Security, security officer, is in the brig and eating donuts and is told an assistant is breaking into the brig. < Remembers this.

John Security goes out to deal with the assistant. Is promptly riddled with .357 and bleeds out. < Doesn't remember this. And probably the killer's identity.

If they were informed about the identity of that assistant before going out, that's information he'd retain. If he engaged the assistant from behind a door for a bit, that's probably reasonable information to retain (so he remembers talking to the assistant, maybe even going out to deal with them). The moment he's being killed is the situation that he can't quite remember. Honestly, if the player wants to forget more, I think that's reasonable too. It'd just be a matter of minimum forgotten information.

The best spot to put this ruling? A RR Rule 7 precedent.

[Kassori]

Aren't the lion's share of rule breaks reliant on player reports and complaints unless they effect the greater server as a whole?

I agree with "the situation that resulted in your death", I was actually writing up my thoughts on when death policy should start, but you worded it better. Something like, the death should wipe memory starts on first contact with the killer in that engagement. I do wonder about chases or where contact is broken and re-established in shorter timespans, though. I can see some inevitable rules lawyering around that without a clear definition in place.

[RedBaronFlyer]

I like this because I don't like RR'ing witnesses to preserve myself. Less round removal of random people might make MRP feel slightly more MRP. Heretic sacrifice victims almost never break the "you forgot who sacrificed you" rule, so I think people will be capable of also forget who killed them

This is precisely why I never spill the beans on who or what killed my guy. It's to allow an antag to cook a bit more, and a thank you for not turning my guys suit sensor off and shoving them in a locker deep in maints.

[DaydreamIQ]

I think it'd be worth it to try at the very least. Sure the enforcement part might be a bit rough but we did the same with heretic sacrifices without too much issue.

[dendydoom]

I think this could work and ive wanted to give it a try the other times it was suggested.

obviously it can be supported via code with policy text when you die, but what would be ultra slick is if code tracked who gave you the killing blow then printed to the admin log if they say that name afterwards.

there are some grey areas we'd need to hammer out surely. like what if you die in a bombing? is that direct enough? things like that.

[TheBibleMelts]

this was easy to enforce when we had cloning as the revival method since we treated it like a round start mindwipe. i think if we did this, the only way to ensure this wouldn't become an administrative headache to draw the line on and an anxiety inducing line to toe for the players would be to keep it the same way. you die, you get revived, you suffered enough brain damage to make you forget anything that happened during the shift.

[DATAxPUNGED]

A little bit of code support would be enough to help us in moderating this imo, pretty much what dendy said. making you forget everything since the start of the round feels like the nuclear option.

The cut-off point, for me, should be pretty much just "events leading to your death" like heretics are, I don't think we get much ahelps about those anyways

[NoxVS]

I'm not really a fan of this. I think it's real frustrating to be forced to be ignorant about stuff like this, and I think it's also incredibly difficult to enforce. We already run into issues with enforcing the whole forced ignorance of stuff like abductions or heresy.

We have tools to obfuscate your identity, I'd rather more focus on stuff like that then encourage people to just kill any witnesses to guarantee secrecy.

[JupiterJaeden]

We already have a mechanic that forces you to forget the names of your revolution leaders on deconversion, so it's not like we don't use the idea already.

Just gonna point out that this is not in fact the case, you ARE allowed to remember who converted you, and it is in fact one of the main ways that headrevs are discovered. CULT is the conversion antag where you forget everything after being deconverted.

On the topic of the proposal in general... I dunno if I love it. Seems difficult to enforce and also just kinda unfun to be unable to get revenge on the guy who killed you. A lot of the time you end up getting revived because your killer didn't have TIME to properly RR you, not because they were showing mercy. Having to jump through the headache of "who killed me guys" on radio just seems annoying. As others have pointed out, there are already plenty of ways to conceal your identity as antag. I'd be fine with trialing it for a bit though.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

I hate pretending to not know stuff. It's very unfun. Tell the antags to wear a gas mask and take off their IDs, instead.

[tttruancy]

If players are not utilizing the existing tools for obscuring your identity while antagging, we should look into why those options are not being selected and make them more convenient, user friendly, and powerful at the level of the codebase.

This enriches the sandbox, deepens roleplay, and avoids messy administrative solutions which can only result in salty ahelps.

[Maxipat]

Not a fan of administrative solution to the issue, moderating people forgetting about heretics after sac is already a pain in the ass, and its basically unverifiable unless someone is blatantly immediately going after them. We should just make concealment stronger and user friendly (like post above says), but its code area.

[dendydoom]

this would also be good, big agree with above posts. i have a big essay post somewhere about how difficult disguises are and how little payoff there is in the long run to doing so, seeing this supported more so we can get more actual spy gameplay for spies would be so cool!!

[TheBibleMelts]

If players are not utilizing the existing tools for obscuring your identity while antagging, we should look into why those options are not being selected and make them more convenient, user friendly, and powerful at the level of the codebase.

This enriches the sandbox, deepens roleplay, and avoids messy administrative solutions which can only result in salty ahelps.

the neon green tail poking out of my jumpsuit while I'm trying to be low-key:

[britgrenadier1]

If players are not utilizing the existing tools for obscuring your identity while antagging, we should look into why those options are not being selected and make them more convenient, user friendly, and powerful at the level of the codebase.

This enriches the sandbox, deepens roleplay, and avoids messy administrative solutions which can only result in salty ahelps.

the neon green tail poking out of my jumpsuit while I'm trying to be low-key:

The soon to be 4 telecrystal infiltrator suit:

[tttruancy]

the neon green tail poking out of my jumpsuit while I'm trying to be low-key:

We simply add a new 1tc tail amputation shear for lizard traitors.

(You could also recolor yourself any number of ways)

[TheLoLSwat]

this is beautiful on paper, but its just impossible to enforce as hard policy. I dont see this doing anything other than irritating the players that feel like they must follow it (while everyone else intentionally/unintentionally loopholes to bypass it), and irritating admins by overloading them with tickets if this becomes codified policy.

[Kassori]

this is beautiful on paper, but its just impossible to enforce as hard policy. I dont see this doing anything other than irritating the players that feel like they must follow it (while everyone else intentionally/unintentionally loopholes to bypass it), and irritating admins by overloading them with tickets if this becomes codified policy.

It's perfectly enforceable, we already do it by default with several antags and multiple other servers do this. Why would it be impossible?

[tttruancy]

this is beautiful on paper, but its just impossible to enforce as hard policy. I dont see this doing anything other than irritating the players that feel like they must follow it (while everyone else intentionally/unintentionally loopholes to bypass it), and irritating admins by overloading them with tickets if this becomes codified policy.

It's perfectly enforceable, we already do it by default with several antags and multiple other servers do this. Why would it be impossible?

There's a solid handful of admins in this thread talking about the challenges of fairly and consistently enforcing this proposal and analogous rules for other antags.

[Cobby]

It's perfectly enforceable, we already do it by default with several antags and multiple other servers do this. Why would it be impossible?

Having the rule and actually enforcing it consistently in a way that isnt synonymous with you cant ever kill the guy who killed you is a bit different

I think they meant impossible as a hyperbolic equivalent to "be difficult", not literally have 0% success rate on enforcing the rule.

[Timberpoes]

I think this kind of suggestion strays a lot into the realm of HRP. Not that our RP ruleset can't cherry pick some nice HRP ideas, but that this specific type of rule intended to force higher roleplay tends to be very artificial. That artificial nature of increasing roleplay can almost paradoxically stifle roleplay. There's that key difference between a character's natural reaction and a character's reaction that is mandated by the rules. A different quality of flavour to the roleplay that manifests where people are sort of breaking character to be forced to play dumb, versus a character just being dumb.

So I view this as more of a metarule, since it also applies when it does make sense to remember your killer. It also potentially applies when you should be able to infer who your killer was, and even if it didn't that won't prevent players from erring on the side of caution to not get dinged based on awho roulette. Did you forget your killer? And also the 5 minute chase through maints by your killer where you would be able to reasonably imply the person chasing you was your killer? And the 3 revolver shots they put into you before that chase where you would be able to reasonably imply they would be your killer? And them saying they were going to kill you before all that too?

It sure involves a lot of thought about what your character could or could not or should or should not remember based on OOC factors and not IC factors, which is a very difficult line to draw in our culture and RP environment. That thought process keeps the player's head in the rule books more than in the game and shift. Players aren't thinking about what their character might or might not know, but about what the rules permit their character to know or do.

And I think it's very similar to pre-planning roleplay. Antags don't need to worry if the player they killed knew their identity or not, because of that pre-agreed contract outside of the shift in the realm of OOCland that mandates all players must roleplay not knowing who killed them.

On that tone, I believe antags who don't want their identities discovered could and should hide their identities using the full breadth of the SS13 sandbox instead.

Right now you remember everything you know and saw up until the point you actually died. Game-mechanic-wise, being closer to death hides more and more information from you as your screen fades to black. I find this more intuitive as an antag player and more intuitive as a non-antag player. You remember what you saw and what you experienced.

To counter this from the antag side, they can and should take advantage of all the tools available in the sandbox to ensure their true identity remains shrouded. And the cost of not taking steps towards hiding your identity is that it's easier for your identity to be discovered. Which sounds really obvious, but is genuinely a meaningful choice antags get to make that risks being meta'd away if players aren't allowed to remember the identity of that antag that just brazenly came up and killed them without any attempt to hide their identity at all.

[Projectzomboidfan]

We need to make people more aware of identity hiding mechanics, or just allow murdering random schmucks to loot their ID as a disguise.