Jump to content
Server time: 2017-08-17, 11:49

Sign in to follow this  
TheGlassSpider

Alternative to the New Hostage Rule

Recommended Posts

It has been proposed that allowing hostages to be killed for other people's actions is a way to encourage RP over PvP. I disagree with this suggestion. Adding options for additional violence and killing AND removing the autonomy of any single game player (particularly one as disadvantaged as the one playing the hostage) is NOT an appropriate way to encourage RP over PvP in a server where we value the individual's ability to NOT be powergamed, and to choose whether or not to permadeath.

As such, I would like to suggest an alternative - a clarification and expansion of the No Value for Life rule as follows: 

Write out the rule regarding NVFL (since very little is actually in the rules about it), and expand it to include the ability to have value for others’ lives in relation to the IC history one has with them, and such that killing an avatar should always be a last resort after other RP avenues have been explored. 

Otherwise, it’s Bad RP and reportable.

If you want to add value to hostages lives and encourage RP overall,  then enforce VALUE FOR LIFE - do not increase justifications for killing IG within the rules.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

See I like the new rule because before hand If the hostage complied you couldn't kill him unless you had good reason or he didn't comply.

So there has been times where I've had a hostage his friends have came to "rescue" him and have gone straight for the attack so its become a massive long firefight. After both sides have lost people obviously we are more angrier then we was beforehand but couldn't do anything apart from talk (which doesn't get far) even threatening killing the hostage doesn't work as you just couldn't kill him if he's complying and you don't have execution rights.

Now when something like this happens the hostage rescue team has to care for the hostage inside aswell as the actions they do can effect the hostages life.

So if they attack and the Hostage takers tell em to back off and they don't then Boom hostage can get shot.. obviously after some RP and I think killing the hostage should ALWAYS be the last resort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn    121

Completely in agreement with the OP in this situation. Killing another player should only be a last resort or if there is an OOC permission given. The actions of other people should not necessarily dictate the health and survival of another. Especially, ESPECIALLY, if it is another group that isn't affiliated trying to save him/her.

+1 Point made again Dean Morgan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Volke    132

It has been proposed that allowing hostages to be killed for other people's actions is a way to encourage RP over PvP. I disagree with this suggestion. Adding options for additional violence and killing AND removing the autonomy of any single game player (particularly one as disadvantaged as the one playing the hostage) is NOT an appropriate way to encourage RP over PvP in a server where we value the individual's ability to NOT be powergamed, and to choose whether or not to permadeath.

As such, I would like to suggest an alternative - a clarification and expansion of the No Value for Life rule as follows: 

Write out the rule regarding NVFL (since very little is actually in the rules about it), and expand it to include the ability to have value for others’ lives in relation to the IC history one has with them, and such that killing an avatar should always be a last resort after other RP avenues have been explored. 

Otherwise, it’s Bad RP and reportable.

If you want to add value to hostages lives and encourage RP overall,  then enforce VALUE FOR LIFE - do not increase justifications for killing IG within the rules.  

Completely in agreement with the OP in this situation. Killing another player should only be a last resort or if there is an OOC permission given. The actions of other people should not necessarily dictate the health and survival of another. Especially, ESPECIALLY, if it is another group that isn't affiliated trying to save him/her.

+1 Point made again Dean Morgan

Agreed with all above you have all my beans :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Doug Quade   
Guest Doug Quade

Something that I think would help immensely is for people to actually understand how hostage RP works. 

http://www.policeone.com/standoff/articles/1247470-Hostage-negotiations-Psychological-strategies-for-resolving-crises/

The above link is exceptionally handy and will help direct people in a general direction on how to resolve hostage situations etc....    Firefight should always be the last resort. 

To expound on Morgan's suggestion, perhaps there should be an addition to the rule to ensure that the initial steps of negotiation are performed, or if it goes into a straight out firefight scenario (where there is no reasonable chance of success) that the assault group (potential rescuers) get a BadRP report filed on them for not attempting to RP the scenario out ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

I disagree with this completely. If anything, hostages have the advantage, because if they comply fully they are fully taken care of and usually provided great RP. On the side of the people who take hostages though, they have to keep their eyes open at all times while still providing good RP, and make sure you are fully taken care of. Then, if the hostages friends find the culprits and begin opening fire, there was this magical rule that we all had to follow IC that let the hostage simply be irrelevant in the situation unless he/she becomes a threat. Now the people who take hostages actually have some leverage if the people trying to rescue the hostages actually value their friends life, which we all know is realistic. 

hos·tage

ˈhästij/

noun

  1. a person seized or held as security for the fulfillment of a condition

Literally the definition of the word hostage further shows that this rule change is perfect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tewudin    44

I'd agree completely but I'm not. I think that killing hostages for other people action isn't wrong or at least that's my own opinion. In real life, in situations like this, hostages often end up dead if they captors see that said rescuers aren't steping back despite the fact that hostile group made demand to back off or they'll kill hostages. Though like I said, I'm not against ALL of your suggestions. I think it's a good idea for rescuers to value hostages life. They should at least try to consider an option to save them without fight and risking their life but... should it be mentioned in rules? I don't know. It should be obvious and it shouldn't need to be put in rules. If said rescuers value hostages life then they're supposed to consider all options but if they aren't then... well, to bad for hostages, I guess.

P.S Sorry if my post will seem to chaotic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn    121

[video=youtube]

Feeling as though this is relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Volke    132

I disagree with this completely. If anything, hostages have the advantage, because if they comply fully they are fully taken care of and usually provided great RP. On the side of the people who take hostages though, they have to keep their eyes open at all times while still providing good RP, and make sure you are fully taken care of. Then, if the hostages friends find the culprits and begin opening fire, there was this magical rule that we all had to follow IC that let the hostage simply be irrelevant in the situation unless he/she becomes a threat. Now the people who take hostages actually have some leverage if the people trying to rescue the hostages actually value their friends life, which we all know is realistic. 

hos·tage

ˈhästij/

noun

  1. a person seized or held as security for the fulfillment of a condition

Literally the definition of the word hostage further shows that this rule change is perfect. 

The reason they are being taken care of is like you said, they are trying to fulfill a condition. How does killing a hostage get them what they want? If their friends don't comply and they die, what have you as the hostage taker received from the situation? If you continually push them to have them do something that can be done after hours of torture rp, I think it would be fair to say that if they didn't comply with your demands after hours of torture it could be bad rp ,as that's not realistic.

You take a hostage to get something from it such as the information on your enemies base camp, and they continue to deny afters a great deal of torture, and then their friends come, and begin shooting, how does killing the hostage change the situation?

___

If anything, hostages have the advantage, because if they comply fully they are fully taken care of and usually provided great RP.

- That's an advantage to be given good rp and to be taken care of? The only reason they are being taken care of us so you can continue to torture them until you get what they want, so how does taking a hostage and killing them change the situation? You at the point if your unable to get what you want from your hostage have failed at completing your objective. Why should the hostage who has done everything you've asked be killed because his friends are coming to save him? If they don't comply to your demands, then they should be killed for non-compliance not because the enemy begins to firefight and it is an excuse to get a free kill. If after a certain amount of time a person did not break, after torture I would feel that it is NVFL & Bad RP.


Something that I think would help immensely is for people to actually understand how hostage RP works. 

http://www.policeone.com/standoff/articles/1247470-Hostage-negotiations-Psychological-strategies-for-resolving-crises/

The above link is exceptionally handy and will help direct people in a general direction on how to resolve hostage situations etc....    Firefight should always be the last resort. 

To expound on Morgan's suggestion, perhaps there should be an addition to the rule to ensure that the initial steps of negotiation are performed, or if it goes into a straight out firefight scenario (where there is no reasonable chance of success) that the assault group (potential rescuers) get a BadRP report filed on them for not attempting to RP the scenario out ?

On a side note, that is an excellent link, thank you for linking it Doug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brad    155

Can't it be both?

The new hostage rule adds some fun to the hostage situation.  People need to be careful if one of their buddies has been captured.  (let's be frank here this DOESN'T give hostage takers auto KOS rights, alot has to happen to get to the point of no return)

but it does make the rescuers need to think logically.

So while I agree with the new rule, I also agree an addition to the value for life would be excellent, giving the rescuers even more responsibility towards the hostage is a great idea.  It makes ALL parties involved (hostage, hostage takers, and rescue) value the life of the hostage.  Everyone is accounted for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't it be both?

The new hostage rule adds some fun to the hostage situation.  People need to be careful if one of their buddies has been captured.  (let's be frank here this DOESN'T give hostage takers auto KOS rights, alot has to happen to get to the point of no return)

but it does make the rescuers need to think logically.

So while I agree with the new rule, I also agree an addition to the value for life would be excellent, giving the rescuers even more responsibility towards the hostage is a great idea.  It makes ALL parties involved (hostage, hostage takers, and rescue) value the life of the hostage.  Everyone is accounted for.

I completely agree with this and wish I played a more hostile character so I could see the new rule in action. I think that in both theory and application, this should create a nice balancing act of tense rp and care/responsibility to the hostage by both parties and super excited to see how it affects hostage rp in the future.

Although I respect the sentiment of GlassSpider's original post, one of the things I feel that I am learning about DayZ players in general is that they often value their own interactions and potential interactions above others, generally speaking. As a game designer, I can tell you fostering in game collaboration and consideration of others needs is incredibly difficult and there is tons of research out there that doesn't really answer a very tough question. I think this rule is as close to realistic and enjoyable as we are going to get, at least, until using it shows us if there are any glaring holes. 

Right now, I say we iterate on it and see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

I disagree with this completely. If anything, hostages have the advantage, because if they comply fully they are fully taken care of and usually provided great RP. On the side of the people who take hostages though, they have to keep their eyes open at all times while still providing good RP, and make sure you are fully taken care of. Then, if the hostages friends find the culprits and begin opening fire, there was this magical rule that we all had to follow IC that let the hostage simply be irrelevant in the situation unless he/she becomes a threat. Now the people who take hostages actually have some leverage if the people trying to rescue the hostages actually value their friends life, which we all know is realistic. 

hos·tage

ˈhästij/

noun

  1. a person seized or held as security for the fulfillment of a condition

Literally the definition of the word hostage further shows that this rule change is perfect. 

The reason they are being taken care of is like you said, they are trying to fulfill a condition.  How does killing a hostage get them what they want? If their friends don't comply and they die, what have you as the hostage taker received from the situation? If you continually push them to have them do something that can be done after hours of torture rp, I think it would be fair to say that if they didn't comply with your demands after hours of torture it could be bad rp ,as that's not realistic.

You take a hostage to get something from it such as the information on your enemies base camp, and they continue to deny afters a great deal of torture, and then their friends come, and begin shooting, how does killing the hostage change the situation?

It's simple really. The conditions change when bullets are being fired at you. If the hostages friends actually value the lives of those they are trying to rescue, it opens up a whole new avenue of negotiation RP. Not just "Oh our friends have been taken, let's just try and take as many as we can out and if our friends die oh well."

Before this rule, the hostage literally had a protective bubble around them which could only be popped by their non-compliance. This made it so the people trying to attempt a rescue could have no consequences for opening fire. In most situations Iv'e been in that involved the old rule, what happens next is that both the rescuers and the hostage-takers then become fully engaged in PvP, and the hostage is just told to be quiet, don't move, ect. The RP pretty much stops to an extent. Now, the rescuers either have to negotiate, come up with a proper tactic to swiftly take out the enemies, or simply back off. It's not like the hostage-takers can kill the hostage as soon as shots are fired. 

"You may only kill the hostage when they refuse to stop shooting after demanded within a reasonable timeframe."

says it right there in the rules (they being the rescuers)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See I like the new rule because before hand If the hostage complied you couldn't kill him unless you had good reason or he didn't comply.

So there has been times where I've had a hostage his friends have came to "rescue" him and have gone straight for the attack so its become a massive long firefight. After both sides have lost people obviously we are more angrier then we was beforehand but couldn't do anything apart from talk (which doesn't get far) even threatening killing the hostage doesn't work as you just couldn't kill him if he's complying and you don't have execution rights.

Now when something like this happens the hostage rescue team has to care for the hostage inside aswell as the actions they do can effect the hostages life.

So if they attack and the Hostage takers tell em to back off and they don't then Boom hostage can get shot.. obviously after some RP and I think killing the hostage should ALWAYS be the last resort

I can understand your side of this, particularly ICly; however, my argument is that - in such a case - the hostage's allies are breaking NVFL. 

[As an aside, I also think that if the hostage's allies know your location, then cleaner & cleverer kidnappings are in order (because either they saw you take the hostage, or you didn't take their radio quickly ;-) ].

So anyway, my argument is that even if the hostage's allies know the location of the building legitimately, they probably do not know the location of the hostage and have very little way of controlling shots into the building - and so have NO WAY of knowing if they're hitting the hostage themselves - thus, they probably shouldn't be doing it, and should be reported for either Bad RP or (under this suggestion) NVFL. Unless, of course (like a hostage extraction team, or SWAT) they have the forces to have the eyes on you and their buddy, in which case them shooting you is a risk you took when you took a captive, I'd say. 

Why would you expect that if you're willing to hold someone against their will, whom others care about, that they will not 'see red' and do stupid, violent things? 

My further argument is that - OOCly - the New Hostage Rule removes an element of RP autonomy that no other rule before it has allowed. In the past, within the rules, only I am able to make decisions (or mistakes) that determine whether my character lives or dies. Now, that element has changed, taking the consequences of MY gameplay time, even if it is rarely, out of MY hands. I think there is a better way to achieve the desired goal. 

I suggest this as an alternative also because I think it increases value to life as a general rule, thus increasing RP over a wider range of situations, hostile or otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest K-Jack   
Guest K-Jack

I'm going to disagree with this suggestion on two grounds:

First, by making it a NVFL clause, rescuing a hostage becomes a punishable offense, which is something we dont want. The current rule states that if after attempting to negotiate for the hostage, the rescuers keep attacking, only then can the hostage be executed. If it gets made into a NVFL clause, how do you see this scenario playing out? The takers first execute the hostage THEN report the rescuers? Or the hostage reports his own teammates for not valuing his life? This creates more problems than the current rule. I believe the rule as it is now is the most fair and does not require being switched to NVFL. We will see the evidence during this trial period and get feedback from the community and tweak it if need be, or flat out remove it if it doesn't work.

Second, the point you make about the hostage not being in control of his own life even if he complies, is one I can't get behind. First of all, in a real life scenario wouldn't the same be true? We are promoting realism in this community and having rules which artificially protect hostages is not something that should be encouraged. This rule change eliminates the potential for ruleplay and allows for realistic hostage scenarios to play out, just like they would in a real life hostage situation. Secondly, isn't the same true for when you are part of a group and KOS rights are shared?

Let me give you an example:

You and your group are in Vybor but scattered around and are talking to another group that's scattered around town. If one of your teammates decides to initiate on a member of the opposing group without telling you, then their whole group gains KOS rights on your whole group. You pay the price for the actions of your teammates. Why should you being a hostage be any different? The rule states the rescuers MUST be able to get in radio contact with the hostage, ergo they are part of the same group (whether official, unofficial, or dynamic is irrelevant, you were using third party programs to communicate). If they decide not to value your life and keep attacking, then that's your fault for picking an unreliable group, not the fault of the hostage takers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It's simple really. The conditions change when bullets are being fired at you."

I agree with this, but I do not agree with your conclusion.

"If the hostages friends actually value the lives of those they are trying to rescue, it opens up a whole new avenue of negotiation RP. Not just "Oh our friends have been taken, let's just try and take as many as we can out and if our friends die oh well."

My suggested alternative does exactly the same, without removing the protection of compliance (and the ooc gameplay autonomy) for the hostage, and the ooc human playing the hostage - who, if killed b/c of another's decision or mistake is removed from the RP.

If hostages are being unrealistically non-compliant after sufficient RP time they either: Value someone else's life MORE, do NOT value their own life, or are giving Bad RP. Two out of three of those are reportable under the suggestion. 

"Before this rule, the hostage literally had a protective bubble around them which could only be popped by their non-compliance."

Yes, that rule is like that PRECISELY to protect the ooc gameplayer's autonomy, to promote RP over PvP, and to provide for the MOST DEFENSELESS character in the situation. The hostage takers are FURTHER protected when they kill a non-compliant hostage by the NLR. 

"This made it so the people trying to attempt a rescue could have no consequences for opening fire."

Not at all so. Rescuers are, in fact, and always have been (even more so now that there are mechanics for ricochet and complete hit logs) at risk of hitting their own hostage (particularly if they use grenades to breach, as I've heard of in the past). They are also clearly at risk of being shot themselves by the hostage takers. Surely if the hostage takers are in range of the rescuers, then it's true vice versa as well. 

"In most situations Iv'e been in that involved the old rule, what happens next is that both the rescuers and the hostage-takers then become fully engaged in PvP, and the hostage is just told to be quiet, don't move, ect. The RP pretty much stops to an extent. Now, the rescuers either have to negotiate, come up with a proper tactic to swiftly take out the enemies, or simply back off. It's not like the hostage-takers can kill the hostage as soon as shots are fired. 

"You may only kill the hostage when they refuse to stop shooting after demanded within a reasonable timeframe."

says it right there in the rules (they being the rescuers)"

I understand the rule itself, as well as the motivation behind the rule. My argument is that this rule removes an element of RP autonomy from the OOC HUMAN BEING playing the hostage role that no other rule before it has ever allowed, and which is - in fact - antithetical to other rules whose spirit protects the same thing, like rules against powergaming and forcing people to permadeath. 

There is a way to achieve the same goal, on a wider scale, without removing anyone's autonomy - even in hostile situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

We haven't even had the proper amount time to see if the new changes are going to work. Let's give it time before we jump to conclusions and automatically think it's not going to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly find it an alarming rule change. And I honestly hope I'm wrong about it.

But for me, 2 + 2 = 4.

One more reason or rule that allows for killing people results in more people getting killed. And then, more people PvPing over said deaths.

Hostage negotiations as described were, in fact, possible under the old rules. Despite the fact that doing so is ALWAYS and HAS ALWAYS BEEN the more realistic and RP-rich option, many people choose otherwise because Bad RP & (under the suggestion) NVFL that goes unreported and thus unenforced.

Such negotiations would be even more possible under the suggested alternative without removing the element of OOC autonomy from the game player on the other side of the screen.

While I understand that we are aiming for realism, the simple fact is that we must already suspend disbelief to accept the very premise of the environment in which we play. We must, in that environment, find ways to encourage realism (which of course includes hostilities) that also provide a satisfying experience for the gameplayers as individuals. Removing the element of character control from the person playing the hostage is among my biggest worries regarding this change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

I disagree with your statement. We encourage roleplay. The problem is people used the rules for too long as a safety barrier to avoid being killed. They could say what they wanted, their friends spraying bullets around them, sometimes even hitting the person they are trying to save, all the while with their hands up saying "I was complying". The way this rule works does not in fact detract from the roleplay. It encourages people to attempt to barter for the lives of their friends before jumping straight in to the firefight mode.

Now the hostages friends will be forced to show more value to the hostages life, before attempting to "Rambo" a complex full of hostages and enemy combatants.

This by no means is an excuse to shoot a hostage at the first sight of a hostages friends, or an excuse to kill someone at all, but encourages roleplay for the release of the hostages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MadeInsane    11

The killing of a hostage or any character should be the last action of a person or group, not only because it ends all RP with that person but also once the hostage has fallen the hostage taker(s) no longer have any leverage over any outside parties, however the outside parties are only kept at bay by the fact that the hostage could be killed and so the hostage taker(s) need the ability to kill them or all of their threats will fall on deaf ears, and in that regard the rules works perfectly fine by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×