Change to FearRP (negotiations)

[Eliza]

Who is the suggestion for?
This suggestion is targeted mostly toward players that take another player hostage, and the allies of the player taken hostage.

Why is the suggestion being made?
During my time playing, I've noticed countless instances of hostage situations, where the RP gets cut short, as a result of the hostage taker being gunned down. I am suggesting a rework of FearRP (or an entirely separate rule) to extend to players that your character would realistically value the safety of. Examples being that gang members would realistically value their allies' lives, and that the LSPD or LSSD would realistically value the lives of civilians and fellow officers. As an example, if Jim is the leader of his gang, and Bobby's gang decides to kidnap Jim and keep him as a hostage, I believe that Jim's gang should have to first try and negotiate for the safety of Jim, rather than immediately open fire to free Jim. The same should apply if Jim decides to take an officer of the LSPD hostage. Of course, if all else fails and negotiations break down, then a gunfight could still happen. The main idea is to prioritize RP and make negotiations the first step instead of going straight to violence.

What are the pros and/or cons of the suggestion?
Some PROS of this suggestion would be:

1. It would allow for more fluid RP scenarios to take place.
2. It would allow better RP development to occur.
3. It would be a better RP experience for the hostage takers by allowing their scenario to fully play out.
4. It would encourage teamwork, and communication during negotiations rather than resorting to immediate gunfights.

Some CONS for this suggestion would be:

1. It may slow down scenarios, and "drag out" certain scenes.
2. It could be hard to truly determine when a negotiation would fail.

How should the suggestion be implemented?
The rework could include guidelines, something like:

• Players must make a reasonable effort to negotiate for the safety of individuals their character cares about before engaging in violence.
• Clear criteria could be set to specify when negotiation is considered to be failed, or if communication is refused. 

 

PLEASE KEEP THIS ON TOPIC, I DON'T WANT TO START A COP V CRIM THREAD XOXO

Edited January 21, 2025 by Eliza

[Ctrl]

Huge +1 for this! I have had so many situations shut down because we just don't have to care about our friends and leaders? Both from crims and cops, not having to worry about anyone's life but yours doesn't much sense at all. 

[Requiem]

I can understand and agree with some of the intent of this suggestion, but I feel the overall implementation or execution of this would not work out well. I have two primary concerns: natural flow of roleplay scenarios and enforcement of this rule. 

To expand on the natural flow of roleplay portion, I believe that forcing individuals to act a certain way or perform certain actions In-Character feels forced and can create immersion breaking or less fun situations for certain players. Yes, some people will probably enjoy the outcome of this and would be happy with more negotiations and the type of roleplay this would force into situations, but others would not like this as much. An example might be that one gang has one of their members kidnapped and taken hostage by another gang as retaliation for some previous hostile actions. The other gang now moves to rescue their ally and they go into a standoff trying to get their ally back. Lets say in this scenario that the gang that had their member taken hostage actually has found out the kidnapped ally was a snitch or betrayed them, so they no longer actually care about that person and were planning on getting rid of them anyways later on. Now they are forced to roleplay a negotiation situation that unnatural and are forced to "care" about this person that they don't actually care about. Alternatively, take that same scenario where one gang member has been kidnapped by another gang, but the kidnapping was simply a tactic used to bait the other gang in and they already have hostile intentions. They aren't interested in negotiating in the first place, but now the rules dictate that they have to. Again, this forces an unnatural situation that people don't want to be involved in, just to give some examples.

As for the enforcement issue I mentioned, how do staff members or players involved in the IC hostage situation know where the line is drawn where its clear that no side is willing to come to an agreement, or one side purposely doesn't want to agree to the negotiations in the interest of "checking some boxes" so they are allowed to shoot. One set of players in that situation will likely be fine with the result of the shooting, the other side will likely say "wtf you didn't negotiate as long as we wanted" and will likely report the other players immediately. 

Overall, I do not feel that adding additional rules to force direction on IC scenarios is good for the server or its players. I also believe that if someone is going into a scenario and doing something unrealistic such as putting their own ally at risk by immediately shooting or degrading the quality of RP in a situation by instantly shooting, this would either fall under the DM rules or NRP rules for poor RP. I also feel this kind of rule expansion could lead to ruleplaying, where the players that have the hostage will make unrealistic demands or feel they are essentially invincible to any threat because if someone shoots at them regardless of their unrealistic demands, they will just report for it. 

[HobGoblin]

The rule would be open to interpretation as what one person sees as a "reasonable effort to negotiate for the safety of individuals" will not be seen the same by someone else. I dont think a rule like this should be added as each situation will turn into a forum report because the other player doesn't agree there was a reasonable effort.

[David Coast]

I think adding this could bring some cool RP, but honestly, I don’t see it outweighing the issues. People would probably use it to drag out situations with PD/SD. I’ve seen both PD and SD handle negotiations really well, and other times just push in or take out the threat, which is how it should be. The IC rules for LEOs are already enough, and adding more rules will just lead to more reports, which isn’t really going to help anyone.

Onto the crim to crim aspect, there is already a lot of speculating on when, who and what can I shoot with what escalation I have I feel like adding more rules and steps I have to look out for before opening fire on a guy who just kidnapped one of my guys is just going to create more reports. 

[Arnis]

I think the server would just be in a better state not just cops taking out a sniper and shoting the hostage taker as i have seen in it recently in the end the crim would still lose but yet they like to shorten it 

[Quietthecutie]

The biggest issue i have with what is otherwise a very well thought out suggestion, is how this could be abused and or metagamed.

example: 

John and Jim are friends privately, but not in the same gang. John plans to rob a bank with his gang, Jim isnt doing anything but get a call from john asking him to come to x location. Johns friends then take jim hostage extensively organically but in reality this was all part of a bigger plan. you see where this is going...

Frankly I think Fear RP rules should stay as they are, the consideration to a third party is entirely an IC thing to be handled within PD, Sd, and gangs internally. Hostage bank robberies can already take WAYYYYY longer than they need to and i believe theres already a recent post regarding this which went nowhere.

Even if the hostage isnt aware of any intent, this still allows the agressor party to add another layer of shackles onto the responding party. which would create more confusion, more reports, more disputes. it would not be handled in a positive manner.

And also from my experience, hostage negotiators already give hostage takers a fair amount of rope when it comes to demands. the most common outcome is you leave the hostage and get like a 5 second head start on the chase, which is reasonable. its only when hostage takers do not accept that, that alternatives are looked at.

Again, I understand WHERE this suggestion is coming from, but I see no way to implement it in a way that wont be abused.

Edited January 23, 2025 by Quietthecutie

[Diligo]

If my faction is not in F4 and someone took my guy as a hostage, where is the proof that it is my guy not just a random with the same clothing/colors?