New rules feedback

New rules dropped, I’ve been told feedback is wanted. I’ve got a lot of things that I’d like to feed back.

First up generally, the new rules are way too long, nobody is reading all these, nor could reasonably be expected to on joining. Copypaste into a word processor tells me it’s 9143 words long. If the idea is that a new player will scan the subsection titles then move on, the contents of those subsections, often unintuitive, make that an ineffective way to learn the actual rules.

Conceptually it’s a poor idea to try to account for every edge case in rules, in practise this length will make sure most people only have the vaguest idea of what is and isn’t allowed, and probably find out via a ban once they’ve fucked up on a subclause. The other major issue is that this is rules lawyers heaven; trying to pre-litigate every single scenario is going to mean the only people who read the entire rules are either admins, the type of people who wouldn’t break rules anyway, or snotty rules lawyers looking for loopholes. Rule 0 or no, this is what a long rules list communicates. I don’t understand why we don’t simply have 6-8 fairly broad rules with tolerances, and then some examples of what constitutes breaking them.

However, since we’re clearly committed to this philosophy, I’ll take it as given for the next stuff.

Secondly, specific things:

Do not threaten to ahelp other players or argue with them about rules’ rule is entirely about talking about admins IC - clarification over whether this also applies to LOOC would be good

Use realistic character names, and do not use names of famous people’ rule doesn’t specify how enforced the naming conventions are; a human named ‘Joe Biden’ is put on the same nono list as any lizard name other than Uses-The-Format. Needs clarification on the line between conventions and rule-restrictions.

The categories in ‘Roleplay Rules’ as far as I know are not always communicated ingame - a player won’t know where they fall as, for example, a monkey full of cogni, a shipbound ghost role, or a mouse.

'Do not metagame, obey the Metashield’ restricting sec’s ability to investigate stealth items is fundamentally opposed to the social deduction core of the game. This rule is genuinely anathema to the SS1*; the idea that roleplay means you’re not allowed to partake in a central game mechanic is mind boggling and solves no issue; stealth items are not supposed to be impossible to detect, they’re supposed to be harder to detect than non-stealth weapons and having to pretend you don’t know a thing that you can determine using in-round information is probably the single most jarring instance of rules butting up against design. This is my biggest single issue with the rules currently.

'As an antagonist, only be friendly to your team and don’t work against your team’ isn’t clear how it applies to random ship ghostroles. Do they count as a team?

A lot has been said about ‘As an antagonist, do not cause excessive death, damage, or destruction beyond your objectives’; it seems worded that you’re unable to kill witnesses (above a certain number?) unless they’re a direct threat. This is going to make anything other than stealth antag be rolling the dice on a ban, which I don’t like.

Follow reasonable escalation’ is WAY too long. The rules themselves seem fine, but it needs a merciless edit pass.

Stick to your role’ seems muddled; it frames itself as broad but boils down to ‘dont validhunt’.

‘Set an example if playing command or security’ has a clause about sec/command not using confiscated syndie gear. I don’t see the point of this; if the issue is sec trading for gear with syndies, ban that instead. Granting access/roles to crew being against rules also seems like a overreach. These issues aren’t usually round-impacting, I don’t see the need to make them admin issues.

‘Command and Security must follow Space Law’ the lack of an ‘enemy corporation’ rule meaning sec have to release confirmed antags falls into the same issue as the metashield; fundamentally at odds with the design of the roundtype.

Hello, I’ll be mostly responding with my own opinions as an admin instead of the entire admin team’s but here it goes.

We do not expect players to read all the rules, we mostly expect them to skim through them. Large parts of the rules only apply to certain individuals(E.g. security, command, etc.) which they only need to know when they want to play those roles which have higher expectations. It is why by default they are all by default collapsed. However this expectation could probably be communicated better.

Having vague rules has led to the awful state of rule clarifications. A game such as ss14, especially in the unfinished state it is right now requires a complex rule system. We do not expect players to be certified lawyers and to know every single edge case in the rules as that is mostly for the admins to worry about. Under most circumstances, if a player is caught up in an edge case they’ll just be given a warning.

It does.

Unfortunately naming rules are one of the areas we can’t make fully clear rules for, and only apply guidelines. Naming conventions are just that, conventions. We do not strictly enforce them. If a name seems plausible in any way we will most likely allow it. This rule is mostly intended for people that name themselves “Joe Biden”, or any other absurd names that completely disrupt any immersion.

We are working on making sure this is all included in the ghost role text.

This was one of the most experimental parts of the rewrite. It is true that having metashields is extremely unusual and may take away agency from players. This is an experiment for us to get rid of the billion edge cases around metagaming, and in order for it to work admins will need to keep the list updated constantly and otherwise resort to rule 0 where a perfectly plausible explanation is not accounted for. Ideally it would not be required, but due to the way certain game mechanics are implemented we need to have specific rules on metagaming for rounds to not completely break. If this experiment does not work out we’ll remove the metashields list and see if we can find a better solution. If not then probably just to the old rule.

Once we have all the ghost role text updated, a person taking a ghost role will be told their status as laid out in the rules.

This is mostly against antags just deciding to send half the station to hell when all they need is the cmo’s hypospray, and also the problem of murderboning. Although yes, the wording could be improved and I will bring that up. Generally the latter part of the rule is meant to be against people that go on a murder spree for anyone who could have conceivably seen them regardless of if they actually seem to present a threat.

This is true, the escalation section is the longest rule in the rules and we’d rather not be this either. We’ll hopefully be able to amend it to be a little better in the future but we need to find an actual better way of defining it.

That’s basically it, as well as making it so something like the janitor breaking into chem to start making every chem in the game when there are 3 chemists doesn’t happen.

This mainly revolves around space law. If the captain of a station just decided to start hauling around extremely dangerous weaponry from an enemy corporation in the open, and used it against people for ordinary things then they would most likely get fired. Yes it is also because of command kept trading syndie gear with syndies, and obsessing over open uplinks to get as much gamer gear as possible.

I am not sure what you mean by this? If you mean that security should just imprison syndies forever or execute them because they tried to steal the hop’s id then that is just unfun for the syndie.

I won’t reply to every point for the sake of everyone’s sanity, just the stuff I think’s important. Appreciate the reply.

The rule makes no mention of LOOC, there are two example scenarios and both are explicitly situations where the accusation is made IC. It can be inferred that LOOC is included, but it refers to IC.

The issue I’m having is it conflates IC name recommendations with OOC rule guidelines; I think that distinction needs to be clearer.

If this is an issue, it’s a design issue. Personally I think it’s fine if stealth weapons aren’t 100% stealth, but if they’re supposed to be, this can be imeplemented mechanically, until they are I think it’s going to be very jarring to enforce it through rules.

The central premise of most gametypes is that antags need to achieve objectives, sec need to determine who they are and detain them. Sec being obliged to release confirmed antags, and having to pretend they aren’t 100% aware that they’ll go on to attempt their objectives (minus any confiscated items) conflicts hard with this and is an example of a really bad chafing between enforced roleplay and gameplay. Note that confirmed antag shouldn’t just mean ‘had a syndie item you can get from salv’ or ‘picked up a captains ID’.

The issue that’s being solved (its boring to be in perma) is significantly better solved by mappers designing perma to be imperfect, have means of escaping, and useful things that can be done while detained, and the already-enforced fule requiring captain approval for executions. There being a fail state for antags other than death isn’t a bad thing, that’s where a lot of tension in avoiding sec comes from.

As it stands, this rule really undermines the core dynamic of ‘catch and detain the antags’, because you literally can’t do that until they commit enough crimes.

Ah, the classic Human Alignment Problem. Who thought compiling all human values into 9143 words would actually work? We should have stopped at “Don’t Be a Dick”. You only get four words

Anyway, just skimming the headlines of the Roleplaying Rules (via github…), there are a few optimizations to be made:

I’m Minimally Sure Rule 2 “Familiars must obey their master” can be folded into the ghost role rules you’re given when you choose a ghost role (that would be a terrible idea and we shouldn’t do it. Still, Rule 2 sticks out like a sore thumb. Maybe we could fold it into antag rules?).

I’m Pretty Sure Rules 8 “As an antagonist, only be friendly to your team and don’t work against your team” and 9 “As an antagonist, do not cause excessive death, damage, or destruction beyond your objectives” can be folded under Rule 6 “Don’t act like an antagonist unless the game tells you that you are one”, as long as we rename it to something more general like ‘antagonist exemptions’.

I’m Kinda Slightly Sure Rules 10 “Listen to your team leader”, 12 “Do not abandon your role”, and 13 “Stick to your role” are either RP issues or are covered by Don’t Be a Dick.

but if that were true, we would have gotten rid of them already, so they’re probably there for a good reason, right?

my honest justification for getting rid of these rules is that when people break them, it’s actually kinda fun. The fourth word of the ss14 Steam description is ‘incompetence’, after all.
That said, definitely keep the No Validhunting bit somewhere.

I’m Pretty Sure Rules 14 “Set an example if playing command or security” and 15 “Command and Security must follow Space Law” can be folded into one “Be Good If You’re Command Or Security” rule.

So, if it turns out my reasoning is flawless and we do all that, we go from 15 rules to a more evenly balanced yet (mostly) equally broad 7 rules. Much better!

And if you want to respond to this, I’ll just say in advance – you’re all reasonable people, so whatever you say, you’re probably right.

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.