PvP Rules Change?

[Ungtar]

As a rule, I only get involved in PK with those players I enjoy playing with and as part of a long-going story arc.

Where are we going with this line of questioning? I feel like something happened that I missed.

[Harroghty]

For some perspective, there have been:

• 7 PvP complaints in 2015
• 4 PvP complaints in 2014
• 2 PvP complaints in 2013
• 3 PvP complaints in 2012
• 2 PvP complaints in 2011
• 3 PvP complaints in 2010

The current rule set originated in 2010. So complaints have actually increased, but three of the seven this year related specifically to no OOC warning; the actual number of complaints about poor RP preceding a combat has remained relatively constant 2-4 annually for six years. The OOC requirement has not really affected the situation from a purely quantifiable stand point.

[Ungtar]

Your next data metric ought to be how many of those involved the same player.

[Lirith]

In that case, I have no strong feeling either way if OOC should be compulsory or not. I don't need it, but other people may feel differently.

[Harroghty]

In the last two years, there were only two cases with the same aggressor/offender.

[Bronson]

I'm going to be very biased here, but here's my take on PvP.

I have been in 3 RP sessions that turned PVP, where groups were involved. Do you know what happened? Someone OOC'd that PVP was possible, and so the forces of light and dark then spend the next 10 minutes buffing eachother and RPing how they can't believe the other side can do this, and that they will pay for it, or be shown the proper way. And then, after 30 minutes, we have one group in a goodly city, talking, and the other group outside the city, presumably talking. The point is, nothing ever happened in any of these situations that I experienced.

I first said I am biased, because I came from a very very dominated PK/PVP mud. It was open, there were a good and bad side, and you could, and would be attacked at any moment. It's thrilling.

I bring up that point, because when you play a mud like that, you'll soon realize that real PK/PVP battles do not rely as much on equipment or spells, but instead, you will see that true skill comes from knowing the world you're in, places you can hide and choke points where you can stop your opponent as they flee for their life. Having "zone knowledge" is the single best skill you can have.

The PVP system in FK is hardly even considered PVP. The currently "OOC" method of basically asking your opponent for permission to attack them laughable, and completely removes the element of surprise, another very important part of skilled PVP.

Now I can already see someone pointing out that we aren't always at the PC, and someone attacking you while you're away and killing you would be horrible. You are correct in that. And that's where having civilized players with good sense comes into play. If I walk into a room and attack someone, and after a few rounds notice they're completely unresponsive, obviously something is wrong.

This is all just my 2cents. I've only had a couple experiences in PVP for FK, and to be honest, I have no interest in it at all because of the current ruleset for it.

[Yemin]

I'm on the it does side. Though if properly sorted out beforehand IN Mele's example through OOCs the insanity cast wouldn't be a surprise and would be the end of it too if both players agreed the level discrepency was too high and it wouldn't really be fun to pursue it all the way.

As its been said, one of the main disadvantages of playing a caster is that for wizards especially, your power comes from being prepared. Having the right tool for the right job and so on. It gives me a little chuckle and I actually enjoy the rp around characters that antagonize about why mine walks around with everything up nearly all the time.

As for the OOC warning..., I've been involved in 4 pvps total. Outside sparring at the field of triumph. Not all on my caster and as Zeth said..., It wouldn't make sense for a fighter, even if they did know what the caster was casting via spellcraft to wait unless it was a matter of IC code of honor / conduct.

So... to summarise. Yes casting after the OOC warning in any form begins pvp. What I recommend happen though is discussing how the pvp will actually begin, generals of whats going to be used i.e., killm stun? death spells or no? Hold spells or no? faith artifacts or no? then what marks its end in the discussion as well, e.g. When stunned, when the first soldier walks in, the first to get to 30% hp. Not just OOC, I'm going to slay thee for the honor of Trogdor.

This will likely result in a longer than usual prehand discussion. One that might seriously impact emersion but honestly If your not willing to take that time out to consider the other player, You shouldn't be pursuing pvp with them. If both parties end up not agreeing on something, then both should just walk away and submit a log or complaint of the offending action if its a widespread issue, i.e. Talosans came into waterdeep and destroyed / killed a wide swathe of NPCs / people for an IM to have blackstaff catch up to them at some point.

ditto for Manshoon and Zhentil for a Tyrran or something.

[Ungtar]

In the last two years, there were only two cases with the same aggressor/offender.

That would seem to indicate that you do not particularly have an ongoing problem here and that the OOC warning requirement either doesn't help or hinders things.

As to the rest, my gut tells me that there's going to be a couple of bad eggs which are going to mess things up. I have played entirely PK muds in the past and there's a reason I'm not there now. Frankly, if I wanted to play a PK mud ... there's better ones out there. This game code SUCKS for a pk mud. The only reason its feasible here is because pk is largely consensual. You remove that restriction and all hell is going to break loose.

[Harroghty]

I like Mask's perspective which can be summarized, loosely, by saying "make it impossible or don't worry about it". Mask feels that rather than having complex rules it is better to limit things by hard code in order to make things clear.

In general, I agree, but this is also a role-play MUD. I like the idea of requiring role-play prior to PvP and don't see any reason to remove that, but is the OOC communication something that we should require? I encourage it, obviously, because I think it minimizes hurt feelings. But...

• the OSAY requirement has had no effect on PvP numbers over the years (consistent amount of complaints since 2010)
  
  the OSAY requirement can be a detriment to RP (as Hrosskell pointed out)
  
  the OSAY requirement is not always followed (three complaints this year abt no OOC prior to PvP)

[dolifer]

I am of the opinion that "noncombat" spells certainly can and in most instances do mark PvP. In the past, I've had characters unfriendly to mine cast things like sleep, dispel magic, and so on at me, and many of those times, I would then see OOC, "That's not PvP because the code didn't force us into combat."

If a wizard just watched one of her faith enemies kill all her magical protections, or try to catch her in a web, I honestly couldn't think of any other response than to at the least try to get away and at most retaliate, because it's very hostile action she's facing, OOC warning or no. Of course, the same applies to all classes/races/etc. This is just an example.

This is also why I've gotten into the habbit of trying to ask before casting any spell at all on someone, whether it be friend, foe, or else, unless I'm *very* confident my char knows the other very well and knows that he/she wouldn't have a problem. Yes, even completely harmless protections like stone skin or helpful magics like heal, because one can never know the whole background of other characters and players and might inadvertently cause that character/player to feel in danger even if you're just trying to help. But this is especially true for spells like dispel magic, enlarge person, etc., which could sometimes be more helpful than hinderance, and other times, more hinderance than a help.


As for the OOC warning itself..., I have been in only two PK situations during my time here where it was very obvious from smotes and whatnot that PvP was coming and that all parties were aware of that fact. As Lirith and others note, though, everyone's different, and what might be obvious to me might not be obvious to someone else. The OOC can sometimes take a few minutes, in my experience, to come to agreement on killmode, legal spells, etc., and I feel this can at times interrupt the flow of what would otherwise be some very good and exciting RP. But I think I'd rather suffer a break in the story than suffer a death I had no idea was coming and had no way to defend against, and the subsequent corpse looting (something I feel is getting unnecessarily common... But eh, 'nother topic). From a purely IC standpoint, there's absolutely no reason why a Sharran couldn't (or shouldn't) start hurling spells the minute she catches sight of that puny looking Selunite standing all alone over there, but there are players behind these chars who put countless hours into getting them where they are, and it just kinda sucks when you suddenly die without warning.

[Yemin]

What were the pvp rules before 2010?

[dolifer]

I like Mask's perspective which can be summarized, loosely, by saying "make it impossible or don't worry about it". Mask feels that rather than having complex rules it is better to limit things by hard code in order to make things clear.

In general, I agree, but this is also a role-play MUD. I like the idea of requiring role-play prior to PvP and don't see any reason to remove that, but is the OOC communication something that we should require? I encourage it, obviously, because I think it minimizes hurt feelings. But...

• the OSAY requirement has had no effect on PvP numbers over the years (consistent amount of complaints since 2010)
  
  the OSAY requirement can be a detriment to RP (as Hrosskell pointed out)
  
  the OSAY requirement is not always followed (three complaints this year abt no OOC prior to PvP)

Well, if it seems to be ineffective, and in some cases breaks RP on top of that, maybe it shouldn't be a requirement. As others have said, if it's not obvious to the involved parties from IC info alone that PvP is possible, you or someone else probably isn't doing something right. But at that point, you're already in a PK you had no idea was coming, and it's too late to do much of anything to try to get out of it.

It's a difficult issue. I think I'd still appreciate a warning regardless, though, whether it be required or not, and myself do give warnings even when it's gotten to the point where I think others should be aware that its a possibility.

[Ungtar]

The Faerun universe is extremely theologically complex because it makes for good tabletop. That does not necessarily make for a good mud where you can essentially have a "good" tabletop going on over here which might run into an "evil" tabletop going on over there.

There are too many "kill on sight" religions in Faerun and people will metagame the crap out of you. "Detect evil but you cast a cure light? Can't see a holy symbol so that must mean you follow an evil god and I can kill you because ... roleplay."

Free PK and roleplay are not peanut butter and chocolate. They do not go well together.

I don't know whether we're discussing just removing the OOC requirement or allowing free pk based on the content of this thread.

[Bronson]

I am very much on the side of what Mask said in regards to all things in FK, where basically, if you don't want it to happen, make it impossible to do so.

I agree that PVP just doesn't work well in this game, and while I personally enjoy an open-free pvp environment, I also know that most people here would not agree with me. In the end, a mud should go with what the majority of its playerbase wants, lest it loses that playerbase.

Since I went on a rant in my last post without really answering the root question of this topic, I would absolutely say that casting a spell is grounds for PVP beginning. The most obvious example of this would be using Dispel Magic, which quite literally would even turn the tides of a battle. Even casting something like Stone Skin should be considered it if there's even a remote possibility of PVP, as fighting through Stone Skin can be difficult.

[Harroghty]

So PvP is basically "open" already in this game; it always has been.

The only limits on when PvP can begin are that it must begin with role-play and, currently, must be preceded by an OOC statement.

This conversation began by discussing if spells cast on others which do not initiate coded combat should count as initiating PvP; the consensus appears to be that they should. I then posed the question of if that OOC statement needs to happen or not.

[Beskytter]

I have had a single character in a situation that could have turned into PK, he was woefully outmatched and definitely would have ended up dead in a field/ditch. There were several of us there at the time and numbers gave us strength but that was about it at the time.

The RP was solid, evil vs. good, and we did have a minor ooc warning about potential for PK. In my eyes, PvP/PK is an RP. There should be an understanding that if you act a certain way ICA = ICC and that's the end of it. New players ought to be encouraged (and I know they are by the entire playerbase) to take their time as they delve into the world and not piss off older players, but I think a lot of responsibility should also fall on the rest of us older more experienced players to handle those situations with the best of intentions.

If you know the situation could be hostile, Malarite vs. Mielikkian, then you're obviously in for PvP. However you don't have to take it entirely to a full kill if you want to stick with just RP, a popped in otell of "Hey, death could occur." is nice but again I go back to that ICA = ICC and if you truly kill the other character expect to have a price on your head for it. Otherwise, prove your point on killmode stun so that you've 'taught them a lesson' without inflicting actual harsh feelings. (We all have feelings, these are characters we put life into and a lot of newer players typically have even stronger feelings due to their wide eyed joy of making and playing their character.)

Back to the original question on spells -- I don't feel that any spell that isn't directly translated into attack spell should be automatic PvP. The case presented by Mele comes to mind, but so does the case I have. There was a Plague wizard here once and he infected one of my characters with disease after some RP. I didn't see it as a direct attack because his character is blighted and as a part of his RP he infects people. It's his IC belief structure not some ooc hostility bred out of a desire to play an incredibly murderous PC. If you are going to play a murderer hellbent on slaughter then I suppose there might need to be an app for that with Imm involvement because it can get out of hand quickly. Non-attack spells (non-combat is misleading in that a lot of spells can be combat related without doing direct damage.) have grand RP potential and shouldn't impose PvP restrictions on their use.

[Ungtar]

I guess the bottom line ought to be "don't hang around jerks who have just logged on to roflstomp someone."

None of anything said matters if I decide to interact with a friend of mine in a duel, spar, or pkill. It only matters if I want to randomly inflict myself on strangers.

And there's like 100,000 rooms in this mud. I don't have to stop and chat with everyone I see.

[Alitar]

A simple "osay pvp is possible" hardly breaks roleplay to me and I've seen first hand how upset someone can be when despite it seeming clear to one side it turns out the other side had been oblivious to the thought. The other party need not even oocly reply to it as far as I am concerned, unless they want to reply declining the chance for PvP. Silence in response ooc-side is consent from my perspective, unless there is a noticeable change of course ICly that is.

[Alitar]

I don't feel that any spell that isn't directly translated into attack spell should be automatic PvP. The case presented by Mele comes to mind, but so does the case I have.

I would consider both instances to be PvP, but that doesn't mean I would respond to them with combat. Mele's higher level adventurer gave the lower one an "out", they would be wise to use it rather than retaliate with full on combat. It's an even gentler method of engaging in a PvP circumstance without it ending in a character death.
That casting of disease is a PvP act as well, but you needn't respond with combat. If they wanted to roleplay being diseased they would carry a few diseases and allow the contagion code to do the work.

I suppose I should note, these are my interpretations of the rules as well as my opinion of how they should work. I may well be wrong, but this is how I've been applying things. (Last post and this one, I mean)

[Alitar]

Huh. Just did done reading. Apparently they are supposed to respond to the osay. I'll adjust my behaviour accordingly. I would say that with how people often respond to the warning with immediately buffing up instead of answering in osay maybe we should make the reply optional. It would additionally reduce the ooc chatter by 50% theoretically. If that other player intends to attack, they can issue the PvP is possible in return themselves.
I might just be making things more complicated now. Hmm.