Goonhub
05-10-2025, 01:25 PM
It's something worth discussing for sure, and not just with me. For now, I feel like the idea in its current shape still doesn't quite escape the same problems we have now. People are still going to have a wide field of interpretation of what "help" means. Mindhacks work well enough because the language is very, very clear cut about your motivations and even there plenty of edge cases seem to crop up. This idea as it currently stands is a fair bit looser: You don't know who is an antagonist, you don't have a single potential target of loyalty.
Those could create some fun situations but I'm also leery on the basis of people being lead up a garden path by someone who isn't actually a bad guy. If you see some dweeb self-antagging it's possible in the moment you just go "Ah well, that's clearly my guy" and jump in, and we get some snowball effect that understandably you didn't know about, but accidentally assisted.
There too is something I didn't cover before, but theoretically right now security is balanced around handling a certain number of players doing bad things. Now I know, sometimes that's hilariously not going to be the case, some players cause more chaos than others, some rounds are going to have a more or less organised security team. People get mindhacked, admins add a little spice so on. I accept it'll vary. But an accomplice system would have to bear in mind it's another person security will be theoretically processing. That's probably doable, but then you've got to counterbalance it with the fact accomplices might not actually find their antagonists. Or what if antagonists die? Are they bringing them back from the dead in the hopes they were real antagonists or is it going to be a "only help people you have confirmed are bad guys" which opens up another can of worms about how we handle identifying people (unless we use a codeword system or something like some other codebases)
This is a personal thing, and it definitely shouldn't be taken as the norm, but bear in mind some players actually don't tend to team up with antagonists. I don't: I'll certainly happily do it if things come together that way in the round, but I never go out looking for it: I like running my own show. Now, there might be some value in having some random guy come up to me for no reason looking to help me out with my evil, because I might be second-guessing if they're really an accomplice or some kind of patsy for security and that might lead to some fun RP, but just bear in mind not everyone is going to actually utilise accomplices, and without a fallback plan for "what do I do if the bad guys don't ever make contact?" You're just sort of doing your normal round while potentially just fretting you should be doing more.
As for breaking the rules, I don't want to get sidetracked too much as I feel like it's a whole other discussion from your idea and that's the focus here. So I'll just say I don't think you need to break the rules to organically react to antagonism and that misunderstanding probably has its roots in this very idea and why I'm hesitant in its current shape I think the conceptual problem it's trying to solve isn't a bad one to try and solve.
Those could create some fun situations but I'm also leery on the basis of people being lead up a garden path by someone who isn't actually a bad guy. If you see some dweeb self-antagging it's possible in the moment you just go "Ah well, that's clearly my guy" and jump in, and we get some snowball effect that understandably you didn't know about, but accidentally assisted.
There too is something I didn't cover before, but theoretically right now security is balanced around handling a certain number of players doing bad things. Now I know, sometimes that's hilariously not going to be the case, some players cause more chaos than others, some rounds are going to have a more or less organised security team. People get mindhacked, admins add a little spice so on. I accept it'll vary. But an accomplice system would have to bear in mind it's another person security will be theoretically processing. That's probably doable, but then you've got to counterbalance it with the fact accomplices might not actually find their antagonists. Or what if antagonists die? Are they bringing them back from the dead in the hopes they were real antagonists or is it going to be a "only help people you have confirmed are bad guys" which opens up another can of worms about how we handle identifying people (unless we use a codeword system or something like some other codebases)
This is a personal thing, and it definitely shouldn't be taken as the norm, but bear in mind some players actually don't tend to team up with antagonists. I don't: I'll certainly happily do it if things come together that way in the round, but I never go out looking for it: I like running my own show. Now, there might be some value in having some random guy come up to me for no reason looking to help me out with my evil, because I might be second-guessing if they're really an accomplice or some kind of patsy for security and that might lead to some fun RP, but just bear in mind not everyone is going to actually utilise accomplices, and without a fallback plan for "what do I do if the bad guys don't ever make contact?" You're just sort of doing your normal round while potentially just fretting you should be doing more.
As for breaking the rules, I don't want to get sidetracked too much as I feel like it's a whole other discussion from your idea and that's the focus here. So I'll just say I don't think you need to break the rules to organically react to antagonism and that misunderstanding probably has its roots in this very idea and why I'm hesitant in its current shape I think the conceptual problem it's trying to solve isn't a bad one to try and solve.