PvP Rules Clarification

[Yemin]

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

I remember you said in the other topic that the flags or my *idea exempts people from pvp, or fails to mediate the mutual understanding surrounding pvp. if you could clarify how I would put my energy into coming up with an alternate suggestion.

It may not be to everyone, but to me and I believe to most people it's plain as day if someone's emotes /smotes start being headed with an * or ^ to signify when their character is intending hostile action in the near future. With the added time allowance, I fail to see how this is any different from osay in function. Sure, you won't be able to say stop at some obscure condition but most of the time most pvp is to stun or death. Two conditions that can be easily covered with a * or ^ with the added benefit of not needing to pull out of IC.

But as you defined above, this Idea is mostly just cosmetic to grant smoother transition from one type of rp to another without a break. I now see through this discussion that most likely the bigger problem is the undefined appropriate time between the start of hostile smotes / osay to when murder is typed.

I'd still say 2 minutes.

[Beskytter]

Perhaps the blanket rule for PvP should simply be that it cannot go beyond stunning for any reason. If a PC is left bleeding out, aid must be applied to prevent death but the situation is considered handled. This same rule applies to minions with the exception of undead as they cannot be stunned.

PvP is then open to full RP without needing ooc of any kind /but/ requiring a minimum of at least 5 poses (smotes/emotes/says/tells/etc) per character before hostile action can take place. A repeat on that, 5 per /CHARACTER/ meaning that you cannot be evil -- walk in, spam five smotes of exclaiming "I'm going to kill you!" and then attack. Everyone in that room must be given the opportunity to make their own 5 poses (list above) /before/ any PvP occurs. Poses are a room by room non-cumulative count, if you change rooms you start at 0 poses. If someone leaves that room and you follow them, 0 poses have occurred. Each time you start is considered an isolated moment in RP.

Now, is this a perfect system? Doubtful. Will it help alleviate some obscurity with how PvP is handled in game? Yes. You get five poses, if you pose out of the situation then leave that situation. If they follow you, same rule applies this time. This will hopefully provide the chance for someone to walk away while RPing through it without letting them walk away once the ooc notice is dropped, with no RP at all. As well, it still keeps assassinations off the table by eliminating the possibility of stealthy kills.

[Mattrik]

I am new, but as a follower of Tempus, it stands to reason that I may be participating in PVP sparring. Only natural as we are actually encouraged to settle disputes this way. However, not everyone knows this about my RP - and not everyone would welcome it. I think that stepping out of character a bit and acknowledging our stance on the subject as soon as possible is a good deterrent. As for me, I am learning about honorable play in game, and so far I have not faced any real opposition, so forgive me if I am naïve.

I do not know all about the Forgotten Realms - and so in my character's RP is an awe about the world, because really he is a country bumpkin sheltered from most of what is common knowledge. Therefore, as we all begin to interact, I would appreciate an OOC statement that would alert me to any misgivings about my stance in character or such.

This said, I will gladly spar (and lose) to anyone in the realms. I would do it barehanded. For Matt, its all part of his experience.

[Hrosskell]

To get a few things out of the way: I have participated in a number of PvP situations. I have filed a complaint before; I have similarly been complained about. I have won, and I have lost. All of that still in mind, my recommendation is as follows:

Make PvP open season with very few, very strict caveats.
- Waterdeep is "safe." Initiating MURDER there is disabled.
- Kills are logged. Old players trouncing new players will be policed.
- Looting of players by other players is logged, more than 1 item is not permitted.
- Everything else is fair game, with as much or little RP as the players see fit. This includes calling allies (the proliferation of wizards and clerics made this pointless a long time ago), ambush (stop thief discrimination now) and crashing events (those things are boring anyway, might as well strike while the iron's hot and bump up security details).



Complaints will go to friends, bullies will be met by anti-bullies, and the world will continue to be the unspoken but certainly present arms race it currently is. If people don't want to die, they'll stay safe and secure much as they do now, or they will form alliances to keep themselves safe. If people want to dare adventure, they'll dare getting good at escape or confrontation as well.

If it kills the game, put "They asked for it" on its tombstone and walk away with a clean conscience.

[Gwain]

Please don't make Waterdeep a safe zone again! We tried for three years until 2005 and it sort of ruined the game for a lot of people. And please keep the theft policy of giving chars opportunities to recover their belongings.

Otherwise I'm fine with all the other suggestions from Hross. Personally I hate giving ooc warnings. Which is why I rarely, rarely initiate pk.

[Mattrik]

I understand sparring and stunning, but to me at least murder is a whole different set of RP. I think that should be a very well played in-depth RP by both parties deal. A murder is a big deal, IMHO.

I think I like Beskytter's ideas of giving both parties a chance to smote about 5 times, or so, before digging in and pursuing a fight. I think duels should be more swash less buckle!

[Harroghty]

So are people interested in counting smotes? Timing the length or a prelude?

[Hrosskell]

So are people interested in counting smotes? Timing the length or a prelude?

The problem with this method (and honestly, the OSAY method), is that it gives a disenfranchised party something to latch onto and complain about--and both parties something to try and game around or skimp on. The complaint I made was admittedly nothing but that: I got rocked, lost an item, and in my fury looked for even the most negligible thing to latch onto to explain how I lost. I imagine this accounts for a bulk of complaints.

Any method where you give a "decorum" for someone to adhere to, the complaints will arise from those who adhere to them against those who break them--so why not try removing all but the barest, most necessitated courtesies and really hammering home the policing on people who break those cows we consider most sacred? Don't take other people's stuff for yourself/just the sake of it, don't beat up/scare off the new, etc.

[Gwain]

What would happen if we just went back to doing a proper rp before a pkill situation and limiting pk to one on one combat? I'm fine with people issuing ooc warnings, but I don't see it as essential. I'm of the opinion that If you've earned a pk and can't tell ic then you may need to step back and see what's going on.

[Dranso]

I've been trying to think of a new way to exclude OOC interaction before a PvP bout even though I believe the current system works. However, I do believe that with current way that the intro to the game is set up that OOCless PvP is a possible. I haven't formed this idea for a long time but feel free to expand upon or tear it apart.

My idea is to add a mandatory emote onto the murder command. When typing the command "murder danny" the player initiating the pvp will get the following message, "You must add an emote to the murder command to initiate PvP" so the player would then type "murder danny 'raises his sword and charges towards $danny'" The opposing player would then receive the following message:

Timmy is about to ATTACK YOU
Timmy raises his sword and charges towards you.

There would then be a 5-10 second pause before Timmy would attack Danny. This pause would allow the opposing player to flee if he desired or ready himself for the impending battle. For spell casters this pause could be used to replace your first round with a spell. Then battle would proceed as normal depending on what combat mode the fight is set to.

In my opinion, this helps relieve some of the tension off of the "Well my character would have attacked him because of what he said when you turned and walked away" debate because you did try to attack but the opposing player had the option to flee before an actual strike. This option would also fit pretty well with group PvP as well, once the battle begins the group members will fall in line as per usual.

[Yemin]

So are people interested in counting smotes? Timing the length or a prelude?

The problem with this method (and honestly, the OSAY method), is that it gives a disenfranchised party something to latch onto and complain about--and both parties something to try and game around or skimp on. The complaint I made was admittedly nothing but that: I got rocked, lost an item, and in my fury looked for even the most negligible thing to latch onto to explain how I lost. I imagine this accounts for a bulk of complaints.

Any method where you give a "decorum" for someone to adhere to, the complaints will arise from those who adhere to them against those who break them--so why not try removing all but the barest, most necessitated courtesies and really hammering home the policing on people who break those cows we consider most sacred? Don't take other people's stuff for yourself/just the sake of it, don't beat up/scare off the new, etc.

Honestly, I'm not sure of this notion. I do believe Harroghty when he posted above that bad experiences because of pvp are among the top causes of why people stop playing here which is what we're trying to avoid.

I've seen muds that completely sidestep the issue because frankly, they don't have FR's hostile lore to push them towards it and that is fine there but it definitely won't work here.

If the staff believes the player base won't be dessimated by less restrictions to pvp. And we have the significant core of mature players to start it off and handle it then i'd be all for it.

I'm not a fan of pvp being restricted to strictly one on one. the last pvp I was a part off looked like it was going to be 6 on 1 against me and ended up being 2 on one and arguably. I still held my own which was a nice challenge.

If we are to implement a delay upon murder, I'd say 5 seconds is too short for the intended purpose. I can easily typo away that time. Especially if I was mid emote though I'm not a fan of any delay where combat is concerned. I can already think of a way to gain an unfair advantage because of it.

[Althasizor]

Honestly, I'm not sure of this notion. I do believe Harroghty when he posted above that bad experiences because of pvp are among the top causes of why people stop playing here which is what we're trying to avoid.

I'm wondering if we can actually see the numbers on this? It's the sort of thing I just sort of assume is right, but when I think about it, it doesn't seem to have been the case since I've started playing here. The main reason most people give for leaving is a lack of things happening between players, that the playerbase is stagnant, or what-have-you. While I don't agree with that summation(Just head over to the Events board to see how many things players are setting up just recently), the restrictive rules placed on interaction between characters -does- put a lot of more hostile RP paths on ice, which could be a more satisfying way of wording what these unfortunately ex-players mean.

[Aticus]

I think more than a few lines of dialog or smote is imperative for PvP. Since everyone wants to enjoy the game and few want to die, it's only fair to everyone to be given sufficient wiggle room to extract. I agree also with the elf in orc training example; if you've been warned or challenged and don't want to fight, then you need to extricate yourself. Of course if your character wouldn't be there in the first place, that's a different matter.

Sometimes a well-timed threat is all that's necessary, but other times a tiny bit of blood is needed to get the point across. Every PvP interaction doesn't and shouldn't have to end in actual battle.

[Rordan]

Here is PvP as I have always understood it:

You can be killed anywhere, no where is 'safe' except inside temples of your diety as they can not be attacked.

There must be valid rp justification behind a PK, which includes rp leading up to the PK. No walk in and murder on the spot.

Don't murder newbies, it dissuades them from playing.

Don't pick fights with faith managers without a damned good reason.

Ask before you fight if the other player minds the situation turning hostile.

If the other player doesn't agree, most situations can be diffused or someone can disengage the from the situation.

If that player does not want PvP but continues to act like a knucklehead or tries the "I get the last word and I'm using it to mock or taunt you", pwn them anyway.

That's all of it! Maybe add a command that lets players log the reason for a PK in case staff wants to see it.

[Bellayana]

Latching onto this thread, just because I've been apart of many PvP's, if there is any sort of thought I would like to get across is, what's IC stays IC, osay is used to say "This could be a PvP." simply put, not saying it will be but could be. At that point all the knuckle-headed or soft hearts can leave the scene and not continue to RP. If they stick around, For instance in Aticus (Which I love your Master Shake avatar.) example, those that stay around are subjugated to AOE and all that. I never understood why people get upset over PvP, because it is apart of Role Play, not every character is going to like you or help you. In fact villains are there to pose as a threat, do not be afraid to call on aid, or anything like that.

I will not say who, but on a villain I had a band of adventurers came upon my character to confront him. Granted there was no PvP declaration, but I summoned a wyvern and many of them died. When you decide to do things in the game they can work for or against you. We all quit from time to time to step away from the game and clear our heads because it can be emotionally intense. We are writing books afterall

I just hope that everyone knows that we are all playing in this game and as a community we should respect each other at least as people. In character, screw it! Game on!

*Adding on, I would like to see some sort of command that would allow players to enter thoughts or RP crucial points that the IMM's can bring up to view over the character. It would be much easier than sending in logs and keeping the Imm's up to par on every character.*

Peace and Love

[Rycird]

Coming from someone who has been roleplaying since he was like twelve years old, uh. Player conflict drives character development. If there is none, the game becomes boring and stagnant. While yes, I support open (meaning it's enabled for everyone) player killing, I will also say this. You have to have significant reason to actually kill someone and even then, if you're a Paladin of Tyr or Ilmater, think about why you're killing them before you do it. Hostile situations don't necessarily need to end in deaths, the "killmode" command exists for a reason other than helping people do quests.

Reasoning should be handled on a case by case basis. For example, a Paladin killing someone because they caught them stealing coins from one of their buddies out in the wilds? Absolutely role-breaking because they're lawful good and should apprehend, not slaughter, but if you were stealing from, say, an evil Necromancer and the Necromancer caught wind of that? Expect to die painfully and be deposited somewhere.

Killing a horde of NPC goblins that were plaguing the roads out of greed is fine, but murdering a goblin PC you don't even know because you saw them out in the wilds? Not fine at all.

There's a rather large difference between constructive antagonism and just being an arse. Going by your alignment is also key to actually being competent. Would you immediately turn and kill the halfling that stole from you if you were lawful good? Would you kill them if you were lawful evil and could grant them a far more development worthy fate, such as forced labor? What if you were true neutral and what they stole wasn't important, thus you didn't really care either way?

As an end to this, I'll say that PK rules should bend to constrict immature players, not work against the mature ones playing their roles. Thus, killing the same person immediately after they get raised? That should be worthy of two strikes to a permanent ban depending on the severity. You don't HAVE to be an ass out of character to get your point across in character.

Slight addition: Newbies, on the other hand, shouldn't be capable of being killed by players or killing players mechanically until they're level ten, if that's not a thing already. There needs to be a certain span of learning time that all new characters get, but obviously if you abuse the fact that you can't be killed by players, you should lose that privilege.

[Yemin]

Just wanted to add upon seeing the last post.
If there is any newbie safety net, I'd rather it be based on accumulated kismet on the account rather than level. It is a better measure of a new comer's experience since a new player playing a fighter can get from 1 - 10 in a matter of 10 hours or less.

So yeah, discuss on. There's some good stuff here.

[Bellayana]

I really like the kismet idea in regards to PK situations, and I would even like to see that added to 25-50, as playing and learning to roleplay and the universe of Forgotten Realms is quite an arduous task in itself. Learning to roleplay and also communicate in the game/players is essential to understanding the community.

Kudos Yemin!

[Korwin]

I'm not up to speed on this whole conversation, been busy. My only issue has been people committing acts that require my character Zuldorrn to kill them, and then outright refusing to do a PKILL situation. If I'm stolen from, cheated, Patron Goddess insulted to his face. Expect a RP and then fight, If you run expect to just all the sudden be dead without warning in a surprise attack. If someone walks from a situation where it could be a nuanced pleasing experience for both. There is be no quarter.

Many hold a grudge against my wizard whom has shared so many spells with people of all alignments. Mostly over a staff run event designed for massive amounts of player vs. player deaths. It really makes playing my character whom it has a very deep personality and several important roles in events over the past few years.

Many of the truly evil acts committed were parts of echoes received from an outside source. I find that there is too much emphasis on GOOD or EVIL. Killing someone because rumors of their goodness or vileness usually makes for a disappointing roleplaying.
End of rant. Apologies if off topic.

[Areia]

I think this particular point is one of those that have been very clearly stated and are very reasonable. If PC A warns PC B that PvP might happen and PC B then takes that opportunity to cease its offenses and leave the scene, PC A has no right at all to pursue or show up at another time with a surprise killing of, attempted killing of , or otherwise hostile intent against PC B.

Just wanted to make sure that was plain.