UnReal World forums

UnReal World => Suggestions => Topic started by: Utumno on May 06, 2019, 10:24:51 PM

Title: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: Utumno on May 06, 2019, 10:24:51 PM
Hi everybody,

I would like to propose a set of simple rules for making the interaction between the player and adventurers or hunters found in the wild more realistic and less prone to exploitation. Sami has said that next version is all about NPCs, so I wonder if there is still time for a simple fix regarding this aspect of NPC-player interaction.

As you know, when the player stumbles upon a pacific NPC in the wild, said NPC basically acts as if nothing interesting is happening. A completetely unknown person appears from nowhere, pointing a broadhead arrow to the NPC head. Nobody says anything, not even "hello?" or "hi, I'm gonna murder you while you are all alone here!". The NPC walks around, bored, looking at the trees, turns his back to the player and bang!, free equipment/clothing and food. Not that realistic. Luckily it is easy to remedy, in my opinion.

Two basic considerations:

First, if the NPC sees the player for the first time, the NPC should be able to react.

Second, that first-time reaction should depend on the distance from the player. If the distance is outside the "personal space" of the NPC, the NPC talks, asking if the player is friend or foe. If the player is inside the "personal space" of the NPC, it will assume aggressive intent, and the NPC will attack at once.

If the player said "I'm a friend", can he treacherously attack later? I'll say either no, or give the player such bad karma that is almost suicidal. I prefer that the player be prohibited from attacking, so he can't exploit, again, a naive NPC.

The player still has the advantage here, as he can still zoom in with weapons ready and at range while the NPC won't have his weapons at the ready, and has the option of stalking the NPC and shoot it with impunity. But once discovered, it is either challenged about his intentions by the NPC (if far) or directly attacked if too near.

The logic is pretty simple. In pseudo-pseudo-pseudo code: ;)

if (player_not_detected)
      do nothing
else
      if (distance > NPC_personal_space)
         NPC asks if player is friend or foe
                if (answer is foe) NPC attacks; else nobody can attack,
      else
         NPC attacks
     endif
endif


As you can see, it is nothing particularly complicated and solves the naive adventurer NPC exploit.

What do you think?

Regards,
Utumno

   




 

 
Title: Re: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: PALU on May 06, 2019, 11:41:57 PM
It won't work because half the times you encounter an NPC in spruce infested forests it's going to be bloody, because you won't see them until your nose bumps into theirs as your round a tree, not to mention zooming in right beside the NPC from the overland map.
Title: Re: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: Dungeon Smash on May 06, 2019, 11:52:58 PM
I really like this idea but I don't think NPCs should automatically attack when somebody enters "Personal Space", and should instead simply ask intentions, or give a shout to the effect of "Halt!  Come no closer!" and then engage in combat if the warning is not heeded. perhaps there could be another case to prevent constant bloodbaths.  Like perhaps "Cautious" state, similar to animals "Alert" state, where NPC will wield their weapons and will watch the PC continually until a certain distance is established, friendly relations begin, or combat begins.
Title: Re: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: Utumno on May 07, 2019, 12:35:16 AM
Hi guys,

Thanks for the interest!

Regarding the issue of the starting distance (the distance between player and NPC right after the auto-zoom), I think it is realistic that most of the time you'll see/hear each other coming, so that distance will be well beyond personal space. BUT, in a few occasions, you will almost bump into each other, and yes, if within personal distance a freak-out can occur.

Let's establish this 2 extra rules:

1: probability of starting distance < personal space = 5%

And:

2: If player has any weapon ready while spawning withing personal space, the NPC WILL go into attack mode. Otherwise, the friend-or-foe dialog occurs.

This mitigates the advantage that player has zooming in fully armed: there is a small chance that it will provoke an attack by spawning too close to a startled NPC.

The pseudo code needs to be changed for that possibility. Your homework, dudes :-)


 
Title: Re: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: Saiko Kila on May 07, 2019, 12:51:50 PM
Why just don't give "negative karma" to PC attacking non-aggressive people (except maybe robbers, I always shoot the robbers on the spot and consider it justified)? The effects of negative karma can be for example bad luck (penalty to rolls) or inability to sleep (which already sometimes happen even if you are in good standing with spirits, though this can be alleviated by some beverages).
Title: Re: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: Utumno on May 07, 2019, 01:17:47 PM
Hi Saiko,

I think robbers should always be considered aggresive. It simplifies things, and the player needs some righteous targets for his innate violence  ;D.

I think in this game karma is not a strong enough deterrent. You can weather a lot of bad luck, and still be alive, especially knowing that you will have bad luck and prepare accordingly. Players will just continue to kill pacific NPC all the same. That's why I'll like to see an enforced peace, if that's the decision of the player.

Regards,
Utumno.
Title: Re: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: Ara D. on May 07, 2019, 08:37:05 PM
More difficult on the coding side I'm sure but what if tribal NPCs go missing/murdered their villages become more suspicious of strangers, or items are given a taken tag, for example you try and sell an axe to the wrong village old man and he like why do have my son's axe? And is that blood stained coat his too? Hey this guy killed my son get him!
Title: Re: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: Utumno on May 07, 2019, 08:53:54 PM
Ara, that's an excellent addition, and not that hard to implement either.

You just need a field for "taken with violence" in the items' inventory data structure, plus another field for "from which tribe?". Then, if you try to sell it to said tribe, there will be some probability that it is will be recognized, with instant (and letal) consequences. 

How big the probability? Well, no idea. Let's say 50%, to have it be really dangerous. Also, don't show any indication/mark in the inventory about the "taken with violence" and "from where" fields to the player. The fun is facing the consequences of remembering (or not!) where your nice masterwork northern bow came from!


You know, the more I think about all this, the more I'm convinced these changes can be done relatively easy, and would really make the game more challenging and realistic without becoming too hard or boring. So Sami, if you happen to read this, please give it a whirl in your brain! 



Title: Re: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: PALU on May 07, 2019, 11:36:31 PM
So:
- The PC hires Jurkka to help out with the the village's quest to get rid of a robber band.
- Jurkka drops his axe during the battle and gets killed a bit later (possibly by Osmo, who made a pin cushion out of Jurkka's back during the fight, as the player was too careless/inexperienced to realize ranged NPCs are bad for the group's health).
- The PC pick up all the stuff laying around after the fight and gives Jurkka a fire burial.
- The PC returns to the village and reports that the robbers are all dead, but unfortunately, Jurkka was lost as well (that part is not available in the game).
- The PC tries to get rid of the junk collected, and gets lynched by the villagers for murdering Jurkka.

or:

The PC encounters the dead body of a hunter in the forest (which ought to be a possible outcome of the hunting the more active NPCs are going to engage in), takes farewell of him through a funeral pyre, picks up the items dropped by the body and goes to the nearest village, tries to get rid of the items he's got no use for, and gets a summary execution.
Title: Re: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: Utumno on May 08, 2019, 01:30:30 AM
So:
- The PC hires Jurkka to help out with the the village's quest to get rid of a robber band.
- Jurkka drops his axe during the battle and gets killed a bit later (possibly by Osmo, who made a pin cushion out of Jurkka's back during the fight, as the player was too careless/inexperienced to realize ranged NPCs are bad for the group's health).
- The PC pick up all the stuff laying around after the fight and gives Jurkka a fire burial.
- The PC returns to the village and reports that the robbers are all dead, but unfortunately, Jurkka was lost as well (that part is not available in the game).
- The PC tries to get rid of the junk collected, and gets lynched by the villagers for murdering Jurkka.

or:

The PC encounters the dead body of a hunter in the forest (which ought to be a possible outcome of the hunting the more active NPCs are going to engage in), takes farewell of him through a funeral pyre, picks up the items dropped by the body and goes to the nearest village, tries to get rid of the items he's got no use for, and gets a summary execution.

Well, that's solved if the "taken with violence" flag is only activated if the PC does the killing. That is, all items of the victim get that flag if killed by the PC. No biggie.

And if the PC accidentally kills the NPC in a group fight, well, you can say that the relatives will get mighty pissed off anyway if PC tries to sell something from the dear deceased by the side, no?

Regards,
Utumno



Title: Re: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: Utumno on May 08, 2019, 01:53:35 AM
So, to resume, we have two suggestions:

1. Rules of engagement for NPC, as described above, and
2. Possibility of discovery if trying to sell goods, obtained by killing, to the same tribe as the victim, implemented via a new flag.

Title: Re: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: Sami on May 08, 2019, 11:40:12 AM
All this assumes that most of the time human <> human encounters in the wild are hostile. They are not, in our opinion, and in (our) NPCs opinion too - though it seems to be many play the game differently. So, to me, this is a wrong point of view to start with.

Back in the day, as people still want to play the game the hostile way, we had a system where villagers would react to player characters entering the villages with wielded weapons. Coming too close, the villagers would attack. Nobody really wants this system, and we removed it too, as it's so burdensome to constantly answer to NPCs if you are friend or a foe.
And you make mistakes too, and get attacked even though you would want to play really peacefully.

Title: Re: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: Utumno on May 08, 2019, 02:15:02 PM
Hi Sami, nice to hear from you!

The rules of engagement I am proposing are limited to one-on-one encounters in the wild, not to villages, where they would indeed be quite tedious.

The rules I'm proposing don't assume hostility or peacefulness. That's the whole point. They assume that you don't know what are the intentions of the other guy, because this is the first time you see him. And besides, you are in the wilderness, meeting someone completely unknown, miles and miles from help if something goes wrong. It is natural to be careful (more so in tribal times!). And that's the idea: to be careful, and have some interaction to determine intention. And also, to give a fighting chance to the NPC, if it is the PC  the one not that peaceful, otherwise it is open to an obvious exploit.



All this assumes that most of the time human <> human encounters in the wild are hostile. They are not, in our opinion, and in (our) NPCs opinion too - though it seems to be many play the game differently. So, to me, this is a wrong point of view to start with.

Back in the day, as people still want to play the game the hostile way, we had a system where villagers would react to player characters entering the villages with wielded weapons. Coming too close, the villagers would attack. Nobody really wants this system, and we removed it too, as it's so burdensome to constantly answer to NPCs if you are friend or a foe.
And you make mistakes too, and get attacked even though you would want to play really peacefully.
Title: Re: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: Sami on May 08, 2019, 09:16:23 PM
Hi Sami, nice to hear from you!

The rules of engagement I am proposing are limited to one-on-one encounters in the wild, not to villages, where they would indeed be quite tedious.

The rules I'm proposing don't assume hostility or peacefulness. That's the whole point. They assume that you don't know what are the intentions of the other guy, because this is the first time you see him. And besides, you are in the wilderness, meeting someone completely unknown, miles and miles from help if something goes wrong. It is natural to be careful (more so in tribal times!). And that's the idea: to be careful, and have some interaction to determine intention. And also, to give a fighting chance to the NPC, if it is the PC  the one not that peaceful, otherwise it is open to an obvious exploit.

Yes, I understand you talked about wild encounters, but we like to think that when two woodsmen meet in the wild they are by default more friendly than suspicious.
This is the cultural basis we are building on. (Things would be naturally different if there were known hostilities like tribal wars etc.)
The problem also is that if the same woodsmen keeps circling at your area you would basically have to define your good intention every time you meet him.
Or, if you would have to say it only once, and then could later approach the same NPC with wielded sword or readied bow the exploit would be right back.
Believe me, people would get bored to constant "friend or foe?" questions and they would sometimes forget to unwield their weapons, and unexpected mistakenly initiated troubles would arise.

There will be people to exploit, the innocents to attack, for those who are into it and as it's not (hopefully) the leading playstyle it's not even all that worthwhile to start cutting it down with laborous mechanics. As we've noticed of this thread already that exploit-proof intention declaration towards NPCs is hardly going to be exploit-proof at all.

If the exploit itself really is the problem then kind of "negative karma" is the best way to fight it. There are several folklore based means that include for example the restless dead souls haunting their murderers, but it could be also made so that one day, when murderous player character happened to turn their back at random seemingly peaceful woodman they got attacked instead. Now that would be karma. And probably also encourage to be polite towards fellow woodsmen. 
Title: Re: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: Utumno on May 08, 2019, 10:42:36 PM
Hi Sami,

I see what you mean, that you prefer encounters to be peaceful by default. I can't agree that it is realistic, or that there aren't solutions to the "repeated encounters" issue, but anyway it is your game, not mine ;). So ok, let's keep it in the gentle, unsuspicious side.

I like your idea of bad karma for murder expressed as meeting, sooner or later, a "pacific" NPC that suddenly attacks by surprise, preferable in a very unfair way (attacking from behind, as you suggested). As a player if that happens I would like it to be clear why: for example, a message saying something like : "Aha! Last night the spirits revealed to me in a dream who murdered my cousin! IT WAS YOU!!!", and bang, hit to the head from behind  ;D. If karma is the solution, it needs to be made clear why, otherwise it would appear arbitrary, not funny at all, and the player won't learn not to murder vagabounds on a whim, at least not without consequences.

Another variation: if the "karmic dream" NPC recognizes the PC as a murderer in a village (of the same tribe as the victim, of course), it shouts out the "killer!" message and the whole village attacks. Either death or a good mauling plus robbery of most items follows, as in an encounter with robbers.

So, let me change my first suggestion for dealing with the adventurer's exploit, and keep the second. That is:

1. Allow the killing of the NPC, but with clear and terrible karmic consequences (pacific NPC turning violent and attacking treacherously)
2. Possibility of discovery if trying to sell goods (obtained by killing) to the same tribe as the victim, implemented via a new flag.

How about it?

Regards,
U.
 

Hi Sami, nice to hear from you!

The rules of engagement I am proposing are limited to one-on-one encounters in the wild, not to villages, where they would indeed be quite tedious.

The rules I'm proposing don't assume hostility or peacefulness. That's the whole point. They assume that you don't know what are the intentions of the other guy, because this is the first time you see him. And besides, you are in the wilderness, meeting someone completely unknown, miles and miles from help if something goes wrong. It is natural to be careful (more so in tribal times!). And that's the idea: to be careful, and have some interaction to determine intention. And also, to give a fighting chance to the NPC, if it is the PC  the one not that peaceful, otherwise it is open to an obvious exploit.

Yes, I understand you talked about wild encounters, but we like to think that when two woodsmen meet in the wild they are by default more friendly than suspicious.
This is the cultural basis we are building on. (Things would be naturally different if there were known hostilities like tribal wars etc.)
The problem also is that if the same woodsmen keeps circling at your area you would basically have to define your good intention every time you meet him.
Or, if you would have to say it only once, and then could later approach the same NPC with wielded sword or readied bow the exploit would be right back.
Believe me, people would get bored to constant "friend or foe?" questions and they would sometimes forget to unwield their weapons, and unexpected mistakenly initiated troubles would arise.

There will be people to exploit, the innocents to attack, for those who are into it and as it's not (hopefully) the leading playstyle it's not even all that worthwhile to start cutting it down with laborous mechanics. As we've noticed of this thread already that exploit-proof intention declaration towards NPCs is hardly going to be exploit-proof at all.

If the exploit itself really is the problem then kind of "negative karma" is the best way to fight it. There are several folklore based means that include for example the restless dead souls haunting their murderers, but it could be also made so that one day, when murderous player character happened to turn their back at random seemingly peaceful woodman they got attacked instead. Now that would be karma. And probably also encourage to be polite towards fellow woodsmen.
Title: Re: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: MigrantWorker on May 13, 2019, 02:10:00 PM
If I may chime in:

An encounter may surprise a lone NPC, and the surprise can potentially be interpreted as a threat - more likely so if the PC wields a weapon already. But I would imagine that a threatened NPC would rather escape than fight, except if he feels he has a good chance to win - for example if he has a high skill with the weapons he possesses, and/or if his weapon is better than yours. Perhaps having them swear at you (so as to warn you away) is a reasonable default behavior when a PC surprises them at close quarters. Then they can become more trusting once you unwield your weapons.

Walking around a village while wielding weapons would similarly make the villagers much less trusting, which can perhaps be implemented by lowering your reputation. Maybe even your trading reputation could be affected, to simulate villagers becoming afraid of having a bad deal imposed on them by threat of violence. On the other hand, perhaps a well-armed PC with otherwise impeccable reputation could become something of a village champion, and be more likely to receive combat-related quests.

I think the idea of villagers recognising items belonging to their deceased relatives is brilliant! If you are seen carrying one, at the very least you should have a lot of explaining to do. Even if you are innocent (for example, you lost your hired hand to a bear attack), you still failed to protect them while they were in your service. I sense a potential here for a quest specifically designed to regain trust of an aggrieved villager, or of a village as a whole.
Title: Re: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: PALU on May 13, 2019, 02:56:42 PM
While the requirement to unwield weapons when entering villages makes logical sense, it's a pain in the posterior in practice, as shown by games that have such rules: it adds busywork and you're likely to forget either to remove the weapons before entering, or forget to reequip them while leaving (or both).

Having weapons at the ready while traveling makes sense, as you can easily stumble upon aggressive wildlife, so a traveler not being armed would probably be seen as somewhat reckless.
Title: Re: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: MigrantWorker on May 13, 2019, 10:58:23 PM
Yes... the tradeoff between realism and playability.

Perhaps a toned down version will be more practical. NPCs may still be wary of an armed PC character which has not built a good reputation with them yet. Instead of a full fight-or-flight response, they could make a comment along the lines of 'I'm uneasy about your weapons, put them aside so we can talk freely'. (And laying down your weapons when asked may be reputation-enhancing in its own right.) Then they could become more tolerant once your reputation is strong enough. For a more nuanced interaction, well skilled and/or well armed NPCs may even be more tolerant to begin with, since they are in a better position to defend themselves if necessary.
Title: Re: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: Labtop 215 on May 15, 2019, 03:35:06 AM
Maybe the death of an NPC should have the potential to spawn a new type of NPC somewhere off in the distance who is looking for the now dead NPC.  A list of gear that the NPC died with should also be created, excluding common items like arrows, and food.  And the cause of death should be recorded, as this would be important for determining the concequences of getting caught with that persons gear.  The hire status of the NPC should also probably be recorded.  Possible permutations could include:
-The tracking NPC spawns at a village associated with the now dead NPC and...

The idea being that if the tracking NPC finds your character with gear that the now dead NPC was carrying/using you should have to pass a suspicion check before your Scott-free.

Moderately common items that are just of average quality shouldn't raise much suspicion (handaxes for example), but items of either high or low quality (especially masterwork). rare  items (like hunting horns) should stand out more, cultural items from a culture you don't belong to should stand out more, and really value dense items like rings and bracelets should all stand out and create lots of suspicion if they where carried by the dead NPC (on the list).

The idea behind the list is that it doesn't tag the items directly as stolen, and hence give people a way to know that something is up, and it also leaves room for the possibility that the tracker who finds you may genuinely be wrong if or when they confront you.

So, when a tracker confronts you, they should compare each item they would know the deceased was carrying to the items you are carrying.  Each time an item matches, there should be a roll based on the characteristics of the item for them to become suspicious of that item.  If none of the items are suspicious, the NPC should still be willing to talk to you but wouldn't have much to go on.  (However you wouldn't want to give that away just yet.)

The NPC should ask you if you know about the whereabouts of the deceased person, if you have seen them before, or if you hired the deceased from a village they should ask you why the deceased is not with you (and should be suspicious if they wern't already).

At this point you would have 3 options.  You could tell the truth if your character knows what happened.  You could make something up.  Or you could simply say you don't know.  If you tell the truth, and the truth is that you killed the deceased, this would be a confession.  Otherwise, you would simply be telling the NPC what happened, basically listing the cause of death that was recorded by the game at the time the deceased passed on.  Examples could include "{They} fell through the ice and drowned.", "{They} where {mauled/clawed/biten} by a {hostile animal or pack of animals}", "{They} froze/burned to death.", "{They} where shot by {somebody other than you}." (if that person is your companion and is still with you, they should probably freak out and make things worse), "We where attacked by {a hostile foreigner/a pack of bandits or gang of foreigners} and {They} didn't make it.", "We ate something poisonous/tainted without knowing it, and {They} died." the list could go on depending on there being new ways for an NPC to die or not.  Some stories may still sound really bad though, even if they are truthful however.  Especially burning to death, or dying of illness/poison.

Lying would allow you to concoct something similar to something you may say truthfully, including passing off blame onto a companion who you previously hired who is no longer with you (perhaps also dead?), and this option may curry favor with somebody if they are accidentally at fault for killing somebody (most likely by accidentally shooting somebody else), but lying would have the potential to raise suspicion if your character fails either a willpower or intelligence check.

If you say you don't know, you could either say "I've never met {Them}." or "{They} went home already, didn't they?".

At this point, the NPC would start asking about the items they think are suspicious in your inventory, and you can say stuff like "I bought {this thing}", "{this thing} is a family heirloom.", "I found {this thing}.", "I made {this thing}", or "I was bringing {this thing} back. (Stating the item belonged to the deceased.)".

Alternatively, if you are confessing to killing the deceased you would be given a chance to explain why.  Reasons could include you really need something on {them} (admitting you took that item), {they} took your {thing(s)} off of your settlements, {they} killed your pet(s) or livestock (or both), {they} destroyed or where destroying your traps, {they} attacked you, {they} startled you by wandering into your cabin at night (perhaps while asleep?), is was an accident while hunting or fighting a hostile group of people, or perhaps you just don't like them.  Depending on your current condition, or the time of the conflict, you may or may not garner some sympathy.  For instance, you are starving and really needed their smoked badger cuts.  You where freezing and really needed their overcoat.  You where defending yourself (and still covered in nasty wounds).

If they version of events dosn't logically check out or is really callous, the NPC should automatically accuse you of murder and get angry.  This should be triggered by obvious stuff like "I've never met them, here's their stuff.", "{they} attacked me! (and had little to no combat skill, possibly an old man, a woman, or a child)", "I really needed that masterwork bronze brooch.", "{They} stole my leaky wooden cups!"... 

Anyways, if they accuse you of murder in a village, the locals should react with shock and refuse to deal with you.  If you previously run afoul of the village (say by stealing things, settings on fire, killing livestock, ect), the villagers should possibly get angry enough to attack you on sight. 

If they come to the conclusion that you murdered the deceased, while you both are in the wilderness, the tracker should either:

If you confess and successfully elicit sympathy, they may forgive you and possibly help you with your condition (starvation, injury, or illness/poison).  They may or may not still ask for the suspicious items back.

Otherwise, if they don't believe you did it or otherwise think the deceased is still alive, then you get off Scott-free.

Edit:

Since a fair chunk of murder is likely to happen in no-man's land, it might be a good idea to consider that you only think somebody is a "vagabond" because you don't know which village or culture the person actually belongs too.  This would mean that attacking vagabonds in the wilderness carries more risk if you decide you want to trade their goods away.  The risk is smaller overall, but it should be that much more suprising and scary if you are confronted, especially in a village.  And if you earn wealth by killing people all the time, you are more and more likely to get accused of murder over time unless the tracker finds the items at the point where the deceased person died, and brings them back to the village.
Title: Re: Rules of engagement for adventurers in the wild
Post by: Tom H on July 17, 2019, 01:15:33 PM
It would be nice if there were a 'good karma', too, for benevolent interactions. Suppose, for instance, the local villagers' attitude reflected your interaction with random NPCs, as though the NPC carried stories of the friendly meeting? Conversely, suppose the disappearance of NPCs resulted in stories about something deadly about in the forests, which resulted in a mistrust factor that would have to be overcome?