Hello. I would like to discuss an issue that has been prevalent for a bit that I feel is leading away from enjoyable cyberpunk roleplay.
I’ve seen some discussion recently about established characters “punching down” and how they should be creating more RP opportunities for weaker or newer characters rather than simply killing them. I understand the sentiment, and I don’t fundamentally disagree with encouraging players to create interesting RP instead of immediately resorting to violence. I mean I imagine it's how you also retain players and keep things in good spirits. However, I think there’s a disconnect between the ideal scenarios people envision and the practical realities of actually playing the game.
Capturing someone alive, humiliating them, stripping them of their possessions or chrome, teaching them some kind of lesson, and sending them on their way to continue the story sounds great on paper, but these scenarios require a fairly specific set of circumstances to work. You need the right skills, equipment, location, time, and often the cooperation of other players. We all know from playing here for some time that all of those things aligning at once can be nearly impossible for many. Some of the more elaborate examples aren’t even mechanically possible without access to particular facilities or professions. More importantly, they require a degree of willingness from the people involved to actually engage with the consequences, which I think is the main issue we run into here.
I’ve personally been involved in situations where stronger characters have deliberately shown restraint, offered alternatives, provided opportunities, or otherwise tried to create something more interesting than another trip to the vats. Sometimes that produces great RP. Other times, those opportunities are immediately dismissed, exploited, or thrown back in their faces, which hey, that’s fine! Characters are allowed to be stubborn, arrogant, confrontational, and self-destructive. They are allowed to reject mercy, ignore warnings, and make terrible decisions. That’s part of the game. That is also not saying the PLAYER is any of those things. That is an important distinction I'd like to make too.
One thing I think that is totally overlooked in this discussion is why is the responsibility for keeping that interaction interesting seemingly placed entirely on the stronger character?
At what point does the expectation to repeatedly show restraint become an obligation to overlook another character’s behavior simply because they’re weaker? A character who repeatedly antagonizes someone more powerful, rejects opportunities to resolve their differences, and continues escalating a conflict is exercising their agency. The more powerful character should be allowed to exercise theirs, too. Otherwise, why bother clawing your way up to that level or spending the time to make those contacts or resources?
There’s also a difference between creating opportunities for RP and guaranteeing that those opportunities will be accepted. I can offer someone a way out. I can give them a job, demand restitution, humiliate them, threaten them, or attempt to establish some kind of ongoing relationship. What I cannot do is force them to take any of it seriously and frankly, there comes a point where continuing to invent increasingly elaborate ways to spare someone who has demonstrated no interest in changing the interaction becomes exhausting rather than entertaining. It is how you get people not willing to even try anymore.
None of this means that killing should always be the first or preferred solution. I agree that a world where every conflict ends in a vat is less interesting than one where people have grudges, debts, obligations, and lasting consequences howeverthose outcomes have to develop organically. They cannot be sustained entirely through the patience and generosity of one side.
Encouraging creative alternatives to violence is reasonable. Expecting players to repeatedly absorb antagonism and manufacture elaborate consequences for people who reject those opportunities is not. I think If we want more nonlethal consequences, we should also be discussing whether we’re placing reasonable expectations on everyone involved rather than just the people with the power to win.
I’ve seen some discussion recently about established characters “punching down” and how they should be creating more RP opportunities for weaker or newer characters rather than simply killing them. I understand the sentiment, and I don’t fundamentally disagree with encouraging players to create interesting RP instead of immediately resorting to violence. I mean I imagine it's how you also retain players and keep things in good spirits. However, I think there’s a disconnect between the ideal scenarios people envision and the practical realities of actually playing the game.
Capturing someone alive, humiliating them, stripping them of their possessions or chrome, teaching them some kind of lesson, and sending them on their way to continue the story sounds great on paper, but these scenarios require a fairly specific set of circumstances to work. You need the right skills, equipment, location, time, and often the cooperation of other players. We all know from playing here for some time that all of those things aligning at once can be nearly impossible for many. Some of the more elaborate examples aren’t even mechanically possible without access to particular facilities or professions. More importantly, they require a degree of willingness from the people involved to actually engage with the consequences, which I think is the main issue we run into here.
I’ve personally been involved in situations where stronger characters have deliberately shown restraint, offered alternatives, provided opportunities, or otherwise tried to create something more interesting than another trip to the vats. Sometimes that produces great RP. Other times, those opportunities are immediately dismissed, exploited, or thrown back in their faces, which hey, that’s fine! Characters are allowed to be stubborn, arrogant, confrontational, and self-destructive. They are allowed to reject mercy, ignore warnings, and make terrible decisions. That’s part of the game. That is also not saying the PLAYER is any of those things. That is an important distinction I'd like to make too.
One thing I think that is totally overlooked in this discussion is why is the responsibility for keeping that interaction interesting seemingly placed entirely on the stronger character?
At what point does the expectation to repeatedly show restraint become an obligation to overlook another character’s behavior simply because they’re weaker? A character who repeatedly antagonizes someone more powerful, rejects opportunities to resolve their differences, and continues escalating a conflict is exercising their agency. The more powerful character should be allowed to exercise theirs, too. Otherwise, why bother clawing your way up to that level or spending the time to make those contacts or resources?
There’s also a difference between creating opportunities for RP and guaranteeing that those opportunities will be accepted. I can offer someone a way out. I can give them a job, demand restitution, humiliate them, threaten them, or attempt to establish some kind of ongoing relationship. What I cannot do is force them to take any of it seriously and frankly, there comes a point where continuing to invent increasingly elaborate ways to spare someone who has demonstrated no interest in changing the interaction becomes exhausting rather than entertaining. It is how you get people not willing to even try anymore.
None of this means that killing should always be the first or preferred solution. I agree that a world where every conflict ends in a vat is less interesting than one where people have grudges, debts, obligations, and lasting consequences howeverthose outcomes have to develop organically. They cannot be sustained entirely through the patience and generosity of one side.
Encouraging creative alternatives to violence is reasonable. Expecting players to repeatedly absorb antagonism and manufacture elaborate consequences for people who reject those opportunities is not. I think If we want more nonlethal consequences, we should also be discussing whether we’re placing reasonable expectations on everyone involved rather than just the people with the power to win.
