One player. Your identity.
Discord identifies the player. Each participating character has its own Hardcore 64 agreement and active status.

A PLAYER-LED CHALLENGE.
You can win a gunfight.
Can you make losing mean something?
64 characters. One city. Put your character on the line, under an agreement you choose.
A character is temporary.
A good story stays.
Hardcore characters share the city with everyone else. Their contract can make an encounter the start of a permanent ending.
Proposed participation limits, not live counts. A cap on simultaneously active characters—not a separate 64-slot server or a lifetime enrollment limit.
Put what you have built on the line: money, influence, relationships, and a character with a future. Make a public commitment to create opportunities for others and accept meaningful consequences yourself.
More crime. More time. More responsibility. Give the city something to play, whether you win or lose. Voluntary character turnover can open space for new stories; it does not require a server wipe or a scheduled death.
Build your player profileDiscord identifies the player. Each participating character has its own Hardcore 64 agreement and active status.
The accepted contract defines qualifying downs, rolls, and outcomes. Its exact version and scope matter.
Give PD, EMS, witnesses, and rivals a story with an aftermath. Their own characters gain no extra death obligations without an agreement.
02 / THE PLAYER CONTRACT
Put your character on the line. Give the other player a scene. Honor the outcome you agreed to risk.
The value is the story you create in 4.0 now. This challenge does not replace server rules or promise a 5.0 card. Exact triggers, odds, PD scope, and dispute terms are still open.
Each player explicitly accepts a versioned agreement for their participating character. It defines eligible opponents, encounters, and outcomes. Discussing the idea is not enrollment. A public pledge, permission to observe a stream, and permission to publish an interpretation are distinct choices; none implies the others.
These examples illustrate the proposed standard. They are not automatic rulings.
The ending can be sudden and unfair to the character. If the encounter falls within the accepted terms, losing control of it does not by itself erase the stakes.
Look at motive, prior escalation, who participated, and who can trigger the agreement. A staged handoff cannot manufacture eligibility. New faces alone are not evidence of abuse.
Respond to the person’s effort and give them something to work with. Inexperience alone should not close the door to RP. Any character stakes still depend on explicit acceptance.