PvP Rules Change?

[Kaaurk]

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

I've played this game quite a few years and never have I come across anyone like that. There have been more aggressive players but no ones ever gone out looking to stomp people. That being said I think everyone involved in a PK should grow thicker skin. You lost? Big deal train more and get over it.

I agree that the OOC bit is a redundant.

[Algon]

My take on it is this...if you do not wish to be involved in a possible PVP situation, leave. It is easy to tell when things are going that way, if you don't want to, just walk out.

I have been here like 12 years and have been involved in exactly two pvp situations. It is not something I enjoy doing, so I just don't. PVP is not mandatory, nor should it ever be.

So I am of the opinion, if you cast/do anything to the other player, expect it to start a PVP situation. Plain and simple.

And do not be one of those jerks who takes their level 50 ubertwinked character to the howling peaks and hangs around to kill level 15 characters. You can seriously turn away new players with things like that. It's not fun for anyone involved.

[Korwin]

I did not read the entirety of the post but I would like to bring up something.

Being faithed is a HUGE advantage. But people sometimes forget that devoting yourself to a faith usually comes with the cost of have IC reasons for someone of an opposing faith to KILL or MAIM you.

Thats about all I have to contribute, thought it was worth saying

[Dranso]

I have not been in any pvp situations outside of sparring in over a year mostly because it turns into a back and forth of the two parties and their friends wanting revenge and hunting each other down. Unless the other player is opposed to it, in spars I normally say the first spell, no matter what it is, starts the combat.

I think a lot of this problem could be solved with more use of the killmode spar. Spell casters don't tend to use this killmode too often... why? Because we are afraid of our buffs timing out. It doesn't really matter, you are going to get dispelled anyway. I love using spar in pvps for two reasons. Rping spells is awesome and I always try to come up with unique smotes for them. Also I get time to think about the next spell I am going to cast. This also gives the opponent the chance to smote fleeing if they do not wish to be a part of the action.

It doesn't really matter if you change whether or not you have to tell someone that a pvp is possible. I believe if you want some quality role play have a quick ooc chat about the ooc rules you want to follow such as killmode.

To sum up:
*Use more rp friendly killmodes
*First cast should start combat
*For a more enjoyable pvp, discuss oocly the rules you wish to follow.

[Zorinar]

When a spell is cast in a tense situation, you as the non caster have no idea what is being cast. If it is a buff, you just gave up a good chance to attack someone that now is "Preparing" to beat on you while you just stand there and let it happen. It is like letting someone get out a gun, then get out their bullets and load them one at a time, knowing that when they are done they will shoot you. Thus, when any spell is cast, I attack immediately in such situations. I will attack often before their first spell even completes. If they are silly enough to let me buff up all the way in front of them, they just handed me the keys to the kingdom. Additionally, many of us that are comfortable with each other don't use a lot of OSAY because we know exactly what is happening and everything is conveyed IC and OSAY just gets in the way. If the situation is a grey area, then usually everyone feels it out, but as soon as the buff spells are cast in that grey situation: it is a green light for most of us to fight.

[Beskytter]

I had a thought about PvP and OOC, and the things involved with it that surround PvP consent along with other sorts of consent. This doesn't fully coincide with the original question about spells cast being hostile, but in the long run it might ultimately save us large discussions like this one. I'm posting this here because I feel like we don't really need another thread to discuss PvP Rules and Changing them.

Here's the thought: Consent included as a changeable blurb at the end of a PC's description and/or short description. Examples:

look Besky
"Blah-blah-massive muscles-blah-blah-tall human-blah-blah-germanic stereotypical fighter build-blah-blah-blah.

OOC: Consent given for PvP situations, this character can be involved in PK without prior warning given.

"
and/or

> look

Room description about all the things...

A well-built male human is standing here. (OOC: PvP OK)
Beskytter is standing here picking his nose like a dwarf mining for mithril. (OOC: PvP OK)
in the Help file we designate how to activate this, code it up so it's easy to turn off/on and ultimately if it's set and someone jumps out at you and begins to engage you in combat... well, now you know why.

If you're not into PvP, don't set the consent. No one can force you to set it, it must be absolutely voluntary. To keep it from being abused (in the sense of turning it off in the middle of RP with a faith enemy to deny them the chance or to 'get back at them' by complaining that you didn't have it set) log the command use by character. If a player sets the consent, then turns it off again -- perhaps it echoes an:

OOC: Warning, turning off PvP consent during on going RP is considered bad role-playing and subject to review by staff. Abuse of this option can result in a strike against the account, if you wish to continue with this action activate the command again.

What does staff think about this? Player community? I've seen this in other games, thought it was great, played around with it and felt that it ultimately allowed a little more flexibility to the game in terms of sudden situations that got the blood pumping.

[Aishe]

Regarding a pvp flag, I like the idea, but not sure how well it would work out with the multiple modes of pvp used, such as stun and spar. Would the flag mean that they are up for going to such extremes as PK, or just that they are ok with pvp combat in rounds or to stun? These details would still have to be sorted out Ooc at the time of the event, negating the full use of the flag.

[Beskytter]

Regarding a pvp flag, I like the idea, but not sure how well it would work out with the multiple modes of pvp used, such as stun and spar. Would the flag mean that they are up for going to such extremes as PK, or just that they are ok with pvp combat in rounds or to stun? These details would still have to be sorted out Ooc at the time of the event, negating the full use of the flag.

This is a fair point, my idea is that the flag denotes willingness to go to Player Character Death but it doesn't preclude stun or spar. I don't personally see spar as an issue because its main use is currently just sparring, hence the name. However, the type of PvP should be based on character and not just situation. I'm talking more about faith enemies or alignment based reasons. Chaotic alignment characters are supposed to be bent towards killing anyone of the extreme opposite alignment, neutral and Lawful characters might stun and then detain their alignment enemies. Faith based RP is also opened up where Lovites might stun, capture, and then use spar to torture a faith enemy. All of this without having to hop to ooc to find out if they're okay with it. The fluidity of RP helps facilitate more RP'd adversity, which helps keep RP flowing.

If you have the flag set, then there's no getting butt hurt when RP turns into your character getting stunned or killed because you're agreeing that you're okay with either of those happening. What this flag doesn't do is allow for assassinations, those are still restricted to DON'T DO IT because there's no RP involved between the one killed and the one killing.

[Yemin]

I like the tags, but anyway of making it IC

I'm not a big fan of OOC messages anywhere.

[Areia]

I like this in part. In a few other games I've played there were PvP flags that, for example,

1. Often, newbies were forced to keep set to off until a certain level or number of hours accumulated to keep feelings from being hurt when tense situations come up between super low levels or new players and max level/veteran players who know how to twink up even their low-level PCs.

2. Had a limit such that once the flag is turned on, it can't be turned off for so many RL hours/days/whatever to help prevent the situation Besk mentioned where someone gets themselves into a possible PvP and goes to turn the flag off right away.

3. No one is ever forced to turn on if PvP isn't their thing, with the understanding that not turning it on will in a sense limit your RP, again to help defend against players who just want to be a pain to faith enemies and the like without any real threat of retaliation. IMO, this would include things like being restricted from using animate dead and certain other spells that would be super offensive to certain religions.

It seemed to work fairly well. If I remember correctly, a lot of the games would represent the flag like

The Fields of Triumph

<PvP> Areia is here, preparing for a fight.
Mers is watching the combatants from the stands.
<PvP> Lylena is here, speaking prayers to Tempus as she prepares.

So Pretty much the second method Besk posted. It's less noticeable than adding something to a player's desc, and we already have little bits of info available through this method (e.g., things like "magical" when detect magic is up, "black aura" for detect evil, and so forth). If the PvP flag is off, nothing is added to the PCs name in the room's desc.

One issue I foresee with adding this, however, is having the flag support its protection not only against the murder command, but also against things like AOE spells cast by PCs, which might be a little more difficult. I can imagine someone just wanting to be an a** for whatever reason and initiating PvP through use of an AOE to get past the flag. Maybe this actually wouldn't be a problem, I'm just not that familiar with how certain things work in coding terms.

[Zethanon]

I have once gamed on a mud where the PvP players were indicated by a red asterisk by their name.

Example:
< Unknown > *Areia the lady
< Unknown > Beskytter the dude
< Unknown > *Zethanon "Zeth"

It's less invasive to the immersion feeling when playing. Though the rules were similar to what was stated by Areia.

[Llanthyr]

There should not be a flag to prevent someone from engaging in PVP. IC actions, IC consequences. Hiding behind such OOC mechanic is poor play.

[Kinal]

As in most of my work meetings, my opinion is typically far end of the spectrum, harshest, and least-appreciated. That being said, I'm going to have to port that over to here and agree with Llanthyr.

IC actions should invoke IC consequences. In a campaign setting ruled by a vast pantheon of diverse deities that are constantly at odds with a host of rivals, being a devout follower might come with some feuds. As in real life, if you don't want to fight, don't put yourself in a situation where fighting is an option. Hiding behind an OOC wall allows for an easy out that shouldn't exist.

There are a multitude of RP paths that any PC can take, many of which are non-aggressive, and would likely be left out of many or all PvP situations. If those are more your style, stick with those. If a hack and slash mud is your style, there are still ways to avoid PvP. Options upon character creation such as alignment, race, starting city, etc., all allow for some pretty customizable RP experiences that will keep you away from RP that you don't find desirable. Expecting that you would be able to play as a militant follower of Selune that can avoid PvP with Sharrans would be silly, and as Llanthyr mentioned, poor play.

PvP is a very flavorful interaction that should be handled strictly ICly, which is also very avoidable ICly.

[Yemin]

There should not be a flag to prevent someone from engaging in PVP. IC actions, IC consequences. Hiding behind such OOC mechanic is poor play.

Hiding behind OOC mechanics is already possible and a prediscussed topic further up the thread.

As far as I'm on the same page, this is a cosmetic change only. it doesn't change any facet of the rules surrounding PK and just gives us a smoother way of roleplaying without the break of emersion.

To be clear, having an * before your name just means you would be open to and are in the mood for a tense cenario moving into PK without the OOC statement and discussion.

Perhaps having a ^ would indicate yes on Pk but stun mode only.

Either way, If you don't toggle through config perhaps, these options on, then you shouldn't be engaging in roleplay that could lead to it. However the old rote would still stand that you are vulnerable to being PKed if you insist on it.

To be clear this is what I'm invisioning.

Random plains
Exits bla bla
room desc bla bla
Rhylee is here roleplaying with flowers
Levine is here, also roleplaying with pinker flowers
Ungtar is here, roleplaying questionably with the flowers.

At this point, there's some banter back and forth, No one is in a tense situation or has the flag toggled.

Ungtar mentions how he defiled his set of flowers
*Rhylee emotes displeasure and draws flowery weapons
Levine emotes taking her flowers and leaving because this is getting tense.
*Ungtar emotes more antagonistic action and pvp can begin.
OR
Ungtar emotes terror and runs away from Rhylee's flower power.

To be clear, I would like the tags to be attached to emotes so there's no need for a room echo letting everyone know someone switched over to rain of blood mode.

With this we can make the Pk rules even more specific by stating.
PVP cannot begin before 3 *ed emotes have been counted by at least one combatant involved with reasonable time of at least 40 seconds between emotes by the same player.

This makes it possible for Ungtar to have still be antagonistic and still gotten flower powered without any question that Rhylee gave him is 3 emotes.

Heck, code it so that you simply cannot enter another emote until 40 seconds have passed from the last one whilst this config is toggled on.

This makes assassinations possible from the sense that it isn't always clear ICly if someone is about to kill you. it could be the friendly guy you just met at the bar who then emotes

*Secret-assassin looks at you consideringly. A friendly smile 'pon his most knightly features.

This then gives you the chance to:
Victim emotes some smooth excuse and leaves.
OR
*Victim looks at secret-assassin with a smirk and moves over to table. A hand moving beneath his or her cloak to grip something.

You now have the chance to roleplay having met some nice guy down the friendly arm. The character never knowing anything. Or roleplaying a sudden encounter which can still be fun since its fairly abrupt yet gives the chance to back out if you want to.

[Harroghty]

I don't want this to get off track. The original question, which has been answered by a majority vote, is if casting spells initiates PvP. It does.

PvP is an essential part of role playing. The reason the rules demand some kind of OOC comment is because PvP invariably leads to complaints. Therefore it is far preferable that two players sort out their feelings on the matter, briefly OOC, beforehand than that one of the IMMs must later mediate the situation at length with the two involved parties. I have, in some other thread, broken down the ratio of PvP complaints relative to rules and I can tell you that this OOC requirement is working to produce fewer complaints.

A flag therefore does not meet the need. The flag either exempts people from PvP (which is not the goal here because, as its been said, PvP is part of RP) or it fails to create the explicit mutual understanding which obviates later problems.

So we're all clear: the requirement now is that both parties briefly acknowledge PvP OOC prior to it happening. If one PC does not wish to participate in PvP then that comment is their opportunity to break contact IC and leave, ceasing their behavior; their desire to not participate is not an invisible force field which protects them from harm.

If during such a situation, you cast a spell then the other PC can legitimately attack (as outlined in Player Killing, section 1. c.).

[Areia]

The flag either exempts people from PvP (which is not the goal here...

My own experiences seem in part contrary to this. I started play on FK with exactly the same thinking as Llanthyr and Kinal. I've been in five major PvP situations since I came here. One was between Diritas and the young and naïve Dolifer which I feel was very fun and went smoothly. Another was when a team of baddies agreed OOCly to be ambushed by a team of goodies and, despite most of the baddies having accidentally died when everyone was on stun, I think it was pretty fun. The other three also included very clear IC and OOC warnings from my side and an agreement by the other. But in two of those cases the losers ended up, well, losing, and found a way to get me twice warned by an IMM and temporarily banned from those sorts of RPs and the other ended in my IC death by the hand of a god himself because I killed a PC follower of his with a spell that I didn't realize wasn't allowed in PvP and which I'd used on countless NPCs of his faith.

Now I just really try not to bother anymore with PvP (a pretty difficult thing when Kelemvor's chosen is turning a blind eye to all those zombie makers XD), and twice since I've made that decision I've done what's asked of me in helpfiles and walked away ICly from a tense situation, and both times I was told OOCly from the other player(s) that it was poor form and a let down on their side.

Maybe I've just gotten pretty unlucky with these things or I'm the one doing something wrong, but I feel like something is missing to make the process go more smoothly for all involved players and to lessen the workload for the IMMs.

...or it fails to create the explicit mutual understanding that obviates future problems.

That's completely understandable. And indeed, if it's an explicit agreement at the time of the event, not beforehand, and for each different event that arises, that we want, then this idea's definitely not the way to go.

P.S., Complaint was not my intension in this post. I only thought it might be helpful to explain why I think the present rules aren't something we should be content in upholding. Sorry to slightly continue the off-topic part of this thread!