Antagonist-Optional Design

[YaraaraY]

RDT_20260706_222810.1.mp4

[taydeo]

no notes

[Dusty-Plant]

I think this design doc is great, there is just one element I think might need proper clarification, and that is character background.

Characters in SS14 don't just appear and start existing when the round starts, most players actually imagine a background for them, which inevitably affects their behaviour during the round.

As you stated in the document, there should be better methods for admins to differentiate between IC and OOC misconduct and I feel like players will be able to justify improper cause for conflict as being a result of their character's background.

That is to say, should we set concrete limits for backgrounds, such that a character may not start a round with intent to attack/murder/start a conflict with other characters from the get go (e.g. John Human the chef who got his partner killed by a secoff starts the round poisoning food intended for security)?
If we do add such limitations, it might also encroach on the class struggle themes this document mentions (e.g. assistants forming a gang in maints at round start to mug engineers for scrip).

I'm not sure if this comment makes sense but I think it is important to stress the fact that rules may become harder to interpret both for players and for admins if these changes go through.
Apart from that concern, I think this is the direction Funky should be going and it's great to see maintainers working together towards that goal.

[Joaco545]

(Copying my feedback from discord)
I like what this doc proposes. Taking the things Tay has been talking about, where they want to take funky and placing it into one cohesive doc, is good, but I don't know how I feel about removing the escalation rules

Maybe it's just me, but having them gives me a guide on how to properly escalate. Without it, I would have felt kinda lost; What is too much escalation? What is too little? Am I adding to the round or detracting from everyone's fun?

I want to hear other people's opinions on the subject, maybe making a poll or adding it as an Admin Hours topic to gauge the player-base sentiment towards the escalation rules, what they provide, or if they feel it detracts from their RP

[Chedd-Error]

guide on how to properly escalate

More discussion on discord seems to be that escalation guidelines should still be provided even if the escalation rules themselves are removed. This doesn't fully encompass all of the issues with the removal of escalation rules but it would be a valuable resource for players to know when they should try to escalate and intensify a situation.

[Joaco545]

As Chedd said, we would like to propose downgrading the Escalation Rules to Escalation Guidelines, keeping the resource in the game so players can reference it as an example of how good escalation can be conducted

[pirakaplant]

@Dusty-Plant

I think this design doc is great, there is just one element I think might need proper clarification, and that is character background.

Characters in SS14 don't just appear and start existing when the round starts, most players actually imagine a background for them, which inevitably affects their behaviour during the round.

As you stated in the document, there should be better methods for admins to differentiate between IC and OOC misconduct and I feel like players will be able to justify improper cause for conflict as being a result of their character's background.

That is to say, should we set concrete limits for backgrounds, such that a character may not start a round with intent to attack/murder/start a conflict with other characters from the get go (e.g. John Human the chef who got his partner killed by a secoff starts the round poisoning food intended for security)? If we do add such limitations, it might also encroach on the class struggle themes this document mentions (e.g. assistants forming a gang in maints at round start to mug engineers for scrip).

I'm not sure if this comment makes sense but I think it is important to stress the fact that rules may become harder to interpret both for players and for admins if these changes go through. Apart from that concern, I think this is the direction Funky should be going and it's great to see maintainers working together towards that goal.

Tay once proposed some sort of backstory system (I think almost like a Mad Libs type thing where there are templates you can modify). If that was implemented it would help control the kinds of backstories people are going into the round with and how they can authentically act.

[radape]

I think this could be a pretty nice game changer, explicitly encouraging character friction is good and making things more "ambiguous" on who can be aligned with who will probably lead to a bunch more fun RP scenarios.

One big issue I have though, is that at the moment security is balanced around the existence of both antagonists AND a hostile crew, which I feel makes them a bit too strong a force against any sort of crew-related "antagonizing" without the help of proper antags to distract the officers. A change like this should come with some changes to "buff" the crew's ability to organize and defend themselves, beyond just the future existence of Unions, as well as stopgaps to block security from just rolling out phoron rifles and uranium rounds the second the clown gets a bit too socialist. Something beyond just having Cap and the CCVIPs telling them "they can't do it" or "it's against SOP" in an angry tone, I mean.
Perhaps arming up isn't as easy as opening the armory and they need to buy or craft stronger weapons, encouraging them to keep good relations with other departments.

I know people are probably tired of the same old Sec tirade, but it does feel important to keep in mind that the more pressure is removed from Security, the more pressure Security can put on everything else.

On a different note, backgrounds sound pretty cool as an idea!

[Joaco545]

One big issue I have though, is that at the moment security is balanced around the existence of both antagonists AND a hostile crew, which I feel makes them a bit too strong a force against any sort of crew-related "antagonizing" without the help of proper antags to distract the officers. A change like this should come with some changes to "buff" the crew's ability to organize and defend themselves, beyond just the future existence of Unions, as well as stopgaps to block security from just rolling out phoron rifles and uranium rounds the second the clown gets a bit too socialist. Something beyond just having Cap and the CCVIPs telling them "they can't do it" or "it's against SOP" in an angry tone, I mean. Perhaps arming up isn't as easy as opening the armory and they need to buy or craft stronger weapons, encouraging them to keep good relations with other departments.

This is not a design flaw, but actually an intended feature. Security should be overwhelming to the crew if they don't get organized, and even then, heavy losses from the crew are to be expected by the time security is dead or surrenders. Security (and the Captain as their contractor) has the guns, the monopoly on violence, and the authorization to bring down that force on anyone rebelling against their or NTs authority

[radape]

This is not a design flaw, but actually an intended feature. Security should be overwhelming to the crew if they don't get organized, and even then, heavy losses from the crew are to be expected by the time security is dead or surrenders. Security (and the Captain as their contractor) has the guns, the monopoly on violence, and the authorization to bring down that force on anyone rebelling against their or NTs authority

Of course, I'm not advocating for the nerfing of security period, just that this may be something to keep in mind as all these changes move forward and there's less proper threats around to act as a distraction and open up opportunities for these crew conflicts to develop. My worry isn't that security is an oppressive force, but whether the desired RP outcomes will be able to flourish.

[Ratsmageddon]

My only real problem on this (as I think reinforcing non-antag systems to foster interaction is good) is how... different this would make Funky, if it came to be.

Removing the need for antags is a great idea, I think it would serve better without largely influencing funky and how it currently works.

I think this idea would better serve as a server under funky, but not be the main server, like a HRP server funky can have, as this concept leans heavily into RP focus and not mechanics and "antag must antag right" thoughts.

My concern is that when you do remove the driving force of antags that kill, destroy, steal, and create a growing narrative each shift, what would replace it is a system that isn't the same, which is not bad, but should be it's own section instead of replacing what we have.

Making antags a "able to be done quietly" also removes some of the story funky currently portrays with these different antagonistic influences straining against the stone structure of NanoTrasen in its pursuit of menial science work. Where agents sent to kill workers, cults of gods corrupt to bring their form of annihilation, abominations feast on the workings of the station, and where maddening things can occur like wizards.

This system nullifies all of those concepts in the pursuit of a new one, which I think is good, but should not kill the original idea, but be utilized in its own, perhaps even see if a server run on antag influence and a server run on RP escalation is more popular, and arguably more importantly, the fun each bring.

So, in simple, I think the idea is good, but should be its own server, either as a fork or another server under forky, either as a new option for players, or for the beginning, to see which is done better for players.