PvP Rules Clarification

[Harroghty]

You have the right to decline PvP from an OOC perspective. No one is forced into PvP here.

That being said, you should not use your OOC preference as a shield upon your IC actions. If you don't want to PvP then the other player should give you a chance to leave; your preference does not allow you to continue the IC behavior provoking PvP as if there is no consequence. Not taking an IC escape route is not only bad role-playing, but it is rude to other players. No one is forced into PvP and no one should be forced into bad RP.

For example, if your elf is in the orc camp for training (I wish such examples were more rare) and is confronted by an orc who threatens PvP. If you choose to decline PvP you cannot then continue to wander around the orc camp typing list, train because you don't want to fight. If you don't want to fight then you should take an IC opportunity to flee the scene because otherwise it is unfair to that other player and it is not good role-playing.

Please post any questions about this here. If I haven't explained this clearly enough then I would be glad to go into more detail or discuss specific examples about which there may be questions.

[Telk]

I agree completely Harroghty and thanks for the clarification.

The only thing I would like to add is the old saying "IC actions have IC consequences". If your character is mouthing off or insulting another person's faith or anything like that I find it extremely poor RP to say OOC, nope, not Pking, and then continue that behavior. From what I've seen there is almost always an IC method of escaping from another player and the purpose of declining a PvP OOC is for character consideration but that isn't an excuse to do whatever you want to other players without consequence. Simply put, don't just decline PvP from a purely OOC perspective, it's important to also decline it ICly by removing yourself from the dangerous situation through IC means.

[Beskytter]

I have a question, and this is asked for the general audience's benefit not my own.

If we are RPing and one party does oocly opt out of PvP but continues on with their bad role-playing, is it considered within rights for the other character to adopt a lesser killmode, like stun, to handle the situation in a considerably fair IC manner?

I would say yes, personally, and then provide accurate logs to justify the stunning. However, I'd like to know how staff view it and if they'd rather be the ones to handle the situation instead.

[Harroghty]

Every case being different, I would begin with these two guiding principles:

• First, we all should be friendly OOC (even if we're not all friends OOC, we should be friendly).
• Two, this is a role-playing game.

So something that would be effective maybe would be to attack on killmode spar to convey the point, but allow the other person still an opportunity to retreat. Again, every case is different, but if you orient yourself along those two principles shown above then I believe you can satisfy both.

[Althasizor]

The discussion in the other PvP thread prompts me to give this one a bump, since it does offer some insight to anyone curious about the current state of PvP. More on-topic, I do have a question about the OOC warning, though.

More often than not, in my experience, players of an opposing ideology(To use an example, Cyric v Mystra) are quite happy to play antagonistic with you -until- the OOC warning, stepping quite far beyond "the line" in the process. But once you OSAY that warning, they'll take that moment to eke out one long, still-antagonistic smote, then walk away as fast as code can move them. It's not that I have a problem with people extricating themselves from PvP situations in realistic ways, but there -does- seem to be a sense of an invisible, protective barrier until something is said in OSAY. It does not seem to make much sense to me that you could antagonize a powerful wizard to such an extent, then be allowed to just walk away with your head held high.

I guess my question is, are there/should there be situations where antagonistic roleplay prior to engagement justifies PvP without the OOC warning that, "This is where you get to walk away with the last word" as seems a widely accepted interpretation(In my experience)? It might just be my opinion, but threatening death on someone's faithful, swearing eternal pain for some public slight, or bragging about how you'll one day murder them feel like actions that should be treated just as aggressively as casting a spell, from an RP standpoint, without the sense of "immunity" that comes with a clunky OOC requirement.

I can only speak for myself here but in full honesty, the requirement for OOC warning outright deters me from engaging in hostile RP with fellow players for the reasons given above and more, rather than streamlining the process.

[Yemin]

I apologize for derailing the other thread as I thought it would be acceptable to keep everything in one thread as Beskytter said.

However, as a player, I feel the osay requirement while a good attempt at civility becomes a half way measure to break the emersion and defines an unrealistic marker for a point at which ICly a number of Pk situations end with a disatisfactory result.

To quote an example from my own experience where this has been so. My Kelemvorite has in the past been outright ignored after I offered a Pk warning, via osay with the potential opponent simply osaying the equivalent of no, ignoring him Ic For one emote then walking away after offering threats, deadly insults what have you.

In that particular cenario, If I was being true to my character's personality, he would've followed and engaged him anyway since socially, the point of no return had been breached but because of the clunky ambiguity involved and a recent punishing of a fellow player involving PK at the time for something lesser. I judged it not worth the trouble of following a line of roleplay true to my character.

Idealy, i would prefer a line of rules surrounding Pk that were more clear cut, Without OOC interruption and still allowed a method of proper extrication from a hostile situation in a suitable manner with the minimum of IMM involvement.

I felt a flag did this. I'll beg pardon and say I don't see how it exempts people from pvp since I felt it clear enough in the example that most of the time it is turned off and its sudden appearance was an unintrusive way of letting everyone in the room know of aplayer's OOC intent within a clear cut set time period during which the flags seen attached to emotes would lead the level of violence about to occur or not occur ICly.

From my perspective. it no more exempts anyone from the cenario less or more than the current situation of an osay requirement.

I can see how it wouldn't solv the problem of one last emote and walking away but I felt it was a good base to work from because the game now defined what is an appropriate time and length allowed to extract yourself without breaking roleplay. As with all my ideas, i hoped others would fill in the gaps and improve upon it rather than the stern if polite dismissal I felt it recieved.

[Harroghty]

I don't want to get into the business of classifying every type of potential PvP. That's exhaustive, frustrating for players, and has not worked in the past. If we make a ton of rules then they will never cover every situation and, as people bicker over them, they will spawn tons of complaints. I can say this with confidence because the statistics of complaints under our older, more prescriptive rules make my point.

You could have submitted a complaint in the case which you described. No one has the right to ignore PvP, but one may avoid it.

[Yemin]

Well. No clue how this happened but

viewtopic.php?f=1&p=136182#p136182

[Harroghty]

I split off your post.

In those cases, Althasizor, why not just OSAY immediately? When so-and-so of Cyric shows up, OSAY There might be PVP, and go from there? The OSAY doesn't mean that there WILL be PVP; it means that there might be, and it makes everyone aware of the stakes from square one.

Believe me, if there is a better way that is both fair and IC then I would be glad to discuss it, but right now this has decreased the number of PvP complaints by about half.

[Althasizor]

Is that the case? According to the numbers offered here, the impression I got from an outside perspective is that it's increased the number of complaints related to PvP, at least for a time it did. If that number's dipped back down, I would think that could be attested more to an unwillingness to engage in PvP by a larger percentage of the playerbase, as alluded to by a few other people in that thread.

As for why to just not OSAY immediately, while that does sound like a reasonable suggestion from a remote point-of-view, in practice you would be hurting your chances of other roleplays as you gain a reputation for being the shoot-first type among the playerbase, whether or not it's true. It's also not immediately obvious that something is going to spiral into hostile territory from the moment two people encounter eachother.

My question then would be, why is it considered inherently unfair to initiate properly roleplayed PvP without the OOC warning? Most people know, or quickly become aware, that antagonizing powerful men is a bad idea, and that would apply to both sides. That seems to be the best way to handle it ICly, by allowing players to police themselves - As already happens on top of the looming threat of punishment, when the defeated player tells their friends in-character about the occurence. IC actions should have IC consequences.

I guess I just disagree that the rule -is- actually effective at what it's designed for. It summarily fails at regulating negativity between players, since it so often leaves one or both sides frustrated in an unsatisfactory, and un-IC interaction with their characters, leads to OOC arguments, and more than anything discourages people from participating in PvP at all, while still also, seemingly, contributing to the lion's share of complaints about PvP.

Also, the risk vs. reward. The risk of potentially having your account striked, your character temporarily removed from play, or barred outright from avenues of roleplay; or the alternative, left in a frustrating position after a quality scene is interrupted by an OOC warning putting your enemy in flight mode, far outweigh the reward of a potentially satisfying roleplay for me, and I would assume(at least some!) others.

I'm largely curious about the necessity for such a clunky rule, since as of the last time(I recall) the playerbase saw the numbers on this(the above linked post), "The OOC requirement has not really affected the situation from a purely quantifiable stand point.", so it -also- seems to have failed at having an impact on poorly RPed PvP.

(This looks longer than I meant it to be, I am so sorry)

[Harroghty]

The complaints are half of what they were prior to 2010, the complaints since 2010 are fairly steady with one outlier year (2015) in which there were other circumstances to consider.

That being said, I'm not sure what is the right answer. From my perspective, the goal is that there is something which fosters a common understanding among players because hurt feelings OOC are what cause players to stop playing. And no one really leaves alone. PvP itself is fine, but it is the largest cause of hurt feelings OOC.

I refute the argument that one or two OOC lines break immersion because I see how much unnecessary OOC is rampant in this game day-to-day. If it does not break immersion to use osay to ask about the coded properties of objects, the weather, or carry on social conversations which could be just as easily played out IC then I wonder how a couple of lines are a nuisance.

I see the strongest argument against the OOC disclaimer as being that it provides an OOC advantage of knowledge. Some players are not mature enough to separate that knowledge from their IC actions. Some players use outside OOC channels to summon rescue or advantage at the very outset of potential conflict. Is that enough cause to unleash ambush PvP on the unwitting others who have no desire to live under a constant threat? Such a threat extends to even those who seek to play a non-confrontational role because they become they prey of aggressive others.

[Yemin]

So...., should I be using this thread or the split off one?

I feel the data is somewhat misrepresented as well. The osay is a reasonable attempt at civility but it has, in my perspective also fostered an environment where there is less pvp overall because of the awkwardness involved. I admit as a younger player here I used to have a lot more OOC conversations but my tastes I feel have grown and changed to where I actively avoid them unless helping someone outside the ASK channel.

[Harroghty]

I think what I find frustrating about these kinds of debates is that the debate always focuses on what's wrong with the current system, regardless of what that system might be. I welcome other suggestions on how this might be done; there is therefore no reason to establish the need for other suggestions ad nauseum because they are welcomed.

As you make suggestions, I recommend that you seek to explain them fully, but I wonder if it would not be more useful to just see how many ideas we can accumulate rather than trying to wade into discussion about each one. Many people have different opinions but have no interest in forum debates. The value that each player brings to these kinds of debates is his or her opinion, and the answer lies somewhere amid the synthesis of those opinions. The staff can see how things work or don't work, but they cannot see how each player feels.

[Althasizor]

That isn't actually what's happened here at all, and I think the frustration is somewhat misaimed. Neither post above is a simple complaint about the current system, and my last post to this thread provided both a suggestion and reason to back it up. I won't lay them all out again in full detail, since they're still there, and this post doesn't need to be very long.

In the interest of brevity then, the suggestion in my last post, and (if I'm not misrepresenting you, here)in Yemin's, was that the rule could be removed. It's unnecessary, it serves no benefit to the playerbase, its effect on alleviating work for the staff seems(again, as of this post) indeterminable at best, and more often than anything is a main source of OOC arguments and negativity between players engaging in hostile RP which is something that - and I reiterate, I can only speak for myself, here, but it does not take long to find similar posts from other players - discourages me from attempting RPs like that again, particularly since it's just not worth running the risk participating in one of the few purely IC actions one can take that come with the looming threat of OOC punishment. Ideally, as well, the rule should justify itself in some tangible way, not need pages of justification and alternative rulesets for it to -not- exist.

I'd be interested to see what other people think about this though. This is only one opinion. I just wanted to lay the suggestion out once more, more clearly. Back to lurking!

[Yemin]

A fair point.

If there is any confusion or clearing up over my own input where pvp is concerned. I'm happy to answer them at request on the thread.

There is criticism of almost any system but I feel in this case it is because the system doesn't achieve what some players want and perhaps there is some confusion there as to what each player wants and the staff wants overall for the game.

To clarify my own. I like roleplay whether it leads to pvp or not. I don't play this game for pvp but because of the setting and the lore there are times where it is natural for the roleplay to lead into it and it is at this point where the current rules have at some point broken down. It may be the osay requirement, it may be some other part of the process but what has happened in my case specifically is that for a time it was simply less trouble to avoid it at all costs regardless of if it made sense IC or not.

I don't mind sharing I had some anxiety towards it because seemingly there was a period last year where more than one character was persecuted for persecuting a faith or some other IC initiative that involved pvp and the ripple effect has grown a caution culture around pvp instead of allowing pvp to be a natural part of the roleplay.

Now, with that said, whether that was the case in truth or just how I percieved it at the time is oranges and apples. I don't suggest that or view the staff in a malicious manner where this kind of roleplay is concerned. I simply feel that osay is too open ended and allows for digression and confusion of the matter in general.

I will, however for the mean time take one of your suggestions to heart and simply osay pvp as a one word warning whenever I feel the possibility and see if that works out better in the future.

I'm far more interested in having my characters behave in a consistent and true manner to their personality than making waves since I think that what makes the most fun and sense for myself and everyone involved.

So to list all my concerns about pvp here, they are:
Death might be seen as too harsh result of pvp by some and that is what causes issues when osay is in play. I played a game where it was only possible to stun someone with pvp. That may or may not be appropriate here.

For my part, osay breaks emersion anytime it is used. I believe for my own part I use it less frequently than I used to and the only time i aim to use it nowadays is when something OOC can't be expressed in any other way, when an NPC bugs out or a seemingly logical series of events hits up against an irrational wall like a stall in qlog progression that isn't obvious to anyone involved. To this end I'd rather a passive more defined method handled by the game rather than players out of character.

Resurrection is a whole other kettle of fish. it means that the death of an enemy isn't the end of it for some. I differ to some where as once pvp has ended, the death or stunning of one opponent whatever, the matter is settled. There comes the roleplay with allies, the plans hatched and revenge perhaps spoken off in a vague nebulous manner but I or my enemy have died. That one matter is settled until a new event occurs. Said new event might simply be running into each other and new hostile roleplay being taken up but there is no intentional or seemingly accidental running into. there is no magic mirror hunting across the map for them. it's over.

And..., I believe that's it.

Thanks for reading

[Yemin]

and yes, got me pretty spot on Althasizor

[Harroghty]

The rules now require the OSAY and then that one role-plays "for what you believe to be a sufficient amount of time in order to allow all parties involved to decide upon their course of action before combat begins." The majority of complaints hinge upon differing opinions of what is a sufficient amount of role-play. OSAY helps because it is clearly defined: one used OSAY or one did not.

How is this okay? How could he possibly think that was okay to do?

This quote from a 2013 complaint pretty much sums up the trouble with the way the rules once were. No one agrees on what's an appropriate amount of RP; usually the person who lost has a vastly different opinion from the person who won. So what's the alternative to the OSAY?

[Yemin]

'I maintain my suggestion from the other thread. 3 smotes spaced over1 and a half or 2 rl minutes would signify significant enough roleplay once the osay is given in my opinion.

The game defines other forms of roleplay in a clear enough cut manner to avoid misconception by applying numbers as in with the 10 minute rule in teaching so I propose we do that hear as well.

[Althasizor]

Thanks, Harroghty. I do remember that report, having written it. Kind of the equivalent of a snappy post-it on the door. I also remember some context that's being left out to push a certain point of view on this topic, that had nothing to do with OSAYs. I'm sorry if this topic has you feeling defensive, wasn't my intention.

I'll just follow your earlier-suggested method, for now, and begin every character interaction with a quick OOC line, "PvP may be possible" or such.

[Harroghty]

I am all about better ideas. I understand that you don't like the OSAY requirement. What is the alternative?