A conundrum of PVP on a RP server

[Anomandaris]

Okay so first of all! My other server was absolutely fantastic! Thanks for asking! I can't recommend it enough!

JordenK, I really hope to have fun with you in game sometime myself as well . I hope you don't dislike our disagreement about this. But I'll just remind everyone reading one more time...it wasn't salty made up things. The evidence is not in doubt. That is my judgement on it. Everyone else can make their own.

So to use another example which I think might help, let's say we actually did play tabletop dnd. We were all happy and it was going great on an adventure with a party of divine do gooders. Paladin, Invoker, Clerics, Avenger. Then when we are playing dnd, the DM in this tabletop example says "Okay, you all are just killed by a rampaging Bugbear. You are all in the fugue plane, and we all have to wait a bit, and then go back to what we were doing before which takes up more time. *After waiting* Okay, what do you do?"
I think people might begin to see why people might start to gripe about this.

This is pretty comparable to what I am saying is happening on Arelith. Again, you can make you own judgements as to the validity of it.
Saying that we create a second problem when we get angry or we should expect our in game desires to be altered when it's the out of game desires not matching up I think is obfuscating the issue.

The way I understand this all is you decided to argue against the rule change of agreeing to play the same games by bringing up an aspect of faction play - evildoers and gooddoers - and saying that had to be dealt with as a part of the game.

I disagree. I do not think that drow need to be wandering around the outskirts of Cordor trying to get some rest at the inn, and then being quickly exiled. Just as many people would agree that a 4 person party of tabletop dnd does not have to be 2 drow and 2 paladins.
I'm not saying it's not a valid game. What I am saying is that the retorts to the rule change were an aspect of faction play that many do not consider to be necessary as their experience on Arelith.
It's okay to have all of this play separated, as we do with talking in the inn and going out to do writs.
But what I've been seeing and saying here is, that it is not separated. It interferes with each other.
On Arelith!

No hard feelings at all just a difference of opinions. I DM PNP as well, and I agree, having an aligned party is usually the best way to go. Internal tension, but not major existential alignment differences for the most part. However, I'm as the DM bringing that dynamic element of conflict rp as the "world" around them. In a videogame it's just static NPCs. Only reason I think it's a bit different.

I also don't mean to disparage anyone's personal experience, especially those sharing stories in this thread. I just know human nature and have caught myself doing this as well. Sometimes we get frustrated just because we don't like something. Rolling with it and making an opportunity out of it can be hard to do.

I also agree that the described scenario is just silly. It's uninspired and doesn't really add anything to the experience. Really the bottom line is don't take away a fundamental element of realism (you can get kilt for screwing around with the wrong people) because there are some idiots that don't go about it right. That's what I'd call throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Thanks for civil the discussion either way though, and I as well hope we have a chance to RP sometime

[JustMonika]

If there's one 'crazy hypothetical element' I'd ever put on Arelith, it would be locking PvP and hostile actions behind a 30 RPR gate just to see what would happen.

I don't think anything tarkus said is wrong.

The "bad guy" in the OP's scenario sounds like a complete and utter tool. This kind of roleplay gets a pass by a lot of people because people think its a) setting appropriate, b) risky and c) instigating conflict.

I'd just roll my eyes and say, "What's the point?"

If character actions and PvP isn't meaningful, it dilutes the whole conversation. And brings us to these discussions we're having now.

Tbh, I'd probably report this 'bad guy.'

What a radical and crazy soultion.
I like it. +1.

[Nitro]

If there's one 'crazy hypothetical element' I'd ever put on Arelith, it would be locking PvP and hostile actions behind a 30 RPR gate just to see what would happen.

Discord ping: "Hey we got any 30's that can log on? We got a bunch of necromancers causing problems but none of us can do anything because we're all 20's."

[The GrumpyCat]

So first to Jorden...I didn't write those other posts. Tarkus, Grench, Righ, etc. I think that you are basically ignoring the evidence right above you about what is happening. I have seen it occur often in game myself. An "enemy force" or "deadly opponent" is on the move when I've wanted to do something else, and has affected others in game in a way they didn't really want to have happen.

With all due respect - one of the things Arelith prides itself most on has always been its immersivness. We don't allow open OOC talk, there's few fully 'OOC' aspects to the game, we try to make it so that you can enjoy it fully by being immersed in the rp and situations around you.

I'm not sure your pen and paper example is very good.

Another example your bring up is PnP. PNP isn't always a great analogy for arleith, if I'm honest, but I am unsure that you example really works, especially if you just change one or two tiny words of it. (Bold is my Alteration)

Then when we are playing dnd, the DM in this tabletop example says "OK you meet a rampaging Bugbear' Combat then ensues and your group roll badly and die. The DM Says'You are all in the fugue plane, and we all have to wait a bit, and then go back to what we were doing before which takes up more time. *After waiting* Okay, what do you do?"

Is this example, in any meaningful way, that much different to the isses you said before? IT still ruins your game, its just that I've added in the natural element of chaos that exists - yes even in PvP. You were unlucky with rolls. You were Unlucky Bob the Goblin was there. You were maybe even unlucky you lost to Bob the Goblin, but it's still has an element of luck.

If what you object to is the idea that such events could 'ruin your story' or 'ruin your game' then I ask how? It's mostly just an ammount of happenstance - indeed if anything it's happenstance in your favour. You can't argue with a die roll, you can argue with a hostile PC in theory.

[BoredGM]

Realism is sacrificed a bunch for the sake of higher quality games. For example, traps are usually meant to be one and done and deadly. Those rocks fall from the sky sort of traps have usually been dismissed for other types of traps that are more fun in game, even though it isn't real.

I myself was wondering about I believe what you are saying, which is why is it different when a DM and a player does it? But I do think it has been recognized as different in other games. Working together in Call of Cthulu type games is a bit different than playing diplomacy or munchkin, etc.

The only thing I can think of right now is whether or not those people have agreed to play that game. If people start off doing a writ in Cordor, and are completely taken aback by an enemy player force there that slays them, I think it would be different than the same party going out with full agreement that the enemy player force might overwhelm them.
At the least, they'd probably be less aggravated.
Also, given this medium you can clearly see it's different when it might be monsters in PvE, in comparison to forces or deadly opponents which are also class builds, but leaps and bound ahead of them in level. That alone makes it an entirely different game.
One is sneaky with an ever present overwhelming threat, one is not. When people accept there is nothing they can do mechanically with their class features and accept that game, it might be different.


After submitting:
Well I still believe my example is fine for these reasons...
The first thing that I would like to point out is that you added die rolls. I did not. That was on purpose. It is not a choice the players made and they had no actions they could take which pertain to the situation. They were just handed a setback in such a way.
I also believe tabletop dnd would be a fine comparison to Arelith as it pertains to parties undergoing writs. I don't really see a difference. I'd be happy to discuss that more.

[Righ]

Tarkus, Grench, Righ, etc. I think that you are basically ignoring the evidence right above you about what is happening. I have seen it occur often in game myself. An "enemy force" or "deadly opponent" is on the move when I've wanted to do something else, and has affected others in game in a way they didn't really want to have happen.

Apologies if I am missing your point. I'm trying to address the questions at hand but I think there are couple different conversations happening at once in this thread. I'm also writing while at work, so I'm a bit distracted.

My overall point was that there isn't much that can be done about the issue without further restricting PvP. One suggestion so far has been to move PvP onto a separate server altogether, but while that may squash some of the bad PvP that pops up in the game, it also severely drags down the authenticity and immersiveness of PvP. When you get into a big kerfuffle with your enemy and a beautiful, dramatic encounter begins to unfold, you don't want to suddenly halt that and try to arrange for a fight to happen elsewhere or at a different time. It breaks immersion and tends to ruin the momentum that may have been building up during the RP before the fight.

On the same note, this is why I'd agree with Grumpycat that you can't really compare Arelith to Pen & Paper gaming, despite them both being D&D-based. In a Pen & Paper scenario, you're typically in a very small, close-knit group of people that meet regularly at scheduled times to work toward the same, or at least similar, goals (ideally). To add to that, you have a DM/GM that is always present, and acts as a referee for all actions taken. In Arelith, you have sometimes over 100 people running around a large world at various times, all with different goals and aspirations, some of which may conflict, and you have only the game's built-in mechanics and any server-based previously established rules to dictate what can and cannot be done.

Believe me when I say I understand the frustration. I maintain (and it seems I'm echoing a lot of already stated sentiments) that I think the core problem with PvP on an RP-heavy server like this is lack of awareness, experience, and/or maturity in the individual's roleplaying, and it's why I still think there should be a friendly, constructive way to give feedback on RP performance. If you have 1 person who enjoys just killing indiscriminately while *technically* acting within the rules, but not bringing satisfying Roleplay to the table, and 99 others who find it to be distinctly UNenjoyable, I think it's fair to expect the 1 person to work on improving their RP skills, even if that means they enjoy their experience slightly less.

[Grench02]

From the responses above it appears some of you have misinterpreted my 'conundrum' as being an argument against PVP itself. I'm fine with PVP in essentially random encounters as we're all about doing our things. I have been both the winner and the looser in PVP on Arelith many times, and have usually thanked the person who killed me for the RP.

I do, however, see a distinction between RP interaction PVP encounters and deciding that your character's role in the world is to hunt and extort and or kill every random lower level character encountered. Effectively, there are (very few) players who have decided that they are the big bad wolf and are hunting the sheep. Yes, there is a smattering of one sided 'your money or your life' role play to 'justify' the encounter.

If I were to take my level 30 character and mercilessly hunt the same 12th level character every 24 hours that would be griefing.

If I were to take my level 30 character and hunt the writ routes (above or below) and kill 6 or more distinct level 12 characters inside of 30 minutes then log so nothing can be done about it, is that just a 'bad guy having a good day'? Or is that six people having a bad day? If this 'bad guy' does the same thing once or twice a week? If they keep doing it for multiple real time months? At what point does it cross over from 'she had her fun' to something else?

Where the conundrum actually comes into play is not whether or not there should be PVP, but what, if anything, can those, who are being systematically hunted and slaughtered, do against or to avoid or to 'opt out of interacting with' an overpowering foe who's apparent objective is to get a good laugh by getting just enough RP excuse in prior to the slaughter?

Any single incident of the above is likely 'within the rules'. I get that and I'm not opposed to it happening. But when someone decides to be an uber-predator and systematically, repeatedly, hunt lower level characters on the writ routes? In my humble opinion, that isn't PVP as a result of good RP anymore. At some point it crosses over from 'RP fun resulting in PVP' to something else where the 'fun' becomes very one sided and the RP is window dressing.

The only solutions I have been able to come up with are:
A 'bag limit' type system mechanic that would be annoying to have to implement.
A 'soft rule' to the effect that it is generally impolite to make your character's story, "I stalk & kill lowbie sheep!"

[godhand-]

distinct level 12 characters .......... "I stalk & kill lowbie sheep!"

Forgive my ignorance, but generally i have no idea the level range of people i come across in the middle of nowhere, and even less so when its near major settlments.
In a game where you can customise every single part of your armor and weapon appearance, there is no visibly unique "oh thats 30 gear, they're epics" beyond the old cage belt.
I remember playing a lvl 5 bandit in the bramble, and assuming the person walking through bramble was of similiar level because their appearance was garbage, so i attempted to mug them. i got woffle stomped by a level 30 going for a walk.

Unfortunately if your near a major settlement, in my eyes it gives rise to the possibility of being a group of epics, and given what i've read of the circumstances; if i were the bad guy in question, i would assume a raiding party preparing to hunt me.

[BoredGM]

Whoo! Well that's been a good discussion for me so far!

Of course I know that Arelith as a large server of multiplayer NWN is different. My example was a comparison to what I believe I've seen happening both in posts on the forums and in game playing, and only that.
I've seen some responses similar to what Royal Blood, Drams, White 935 and others have posted here in this thread, I think made by many other people. However I as an individual also thought some things that I didn't see mentioned as much about these types of things. So I decided to post my opinions, and I have no idea if they are going to be important or not. I didn't see if anyone like Grench or Aradin might've appreciated my thoughts or my posts. I just felt I could contribute to maybe giving another point of view on it, and maybe giving voice to Irongron's sour taste in his mouth every time it happened.

I am one player - new player - to a server of many people. I'm not sure if the suggestion Righ wrote about was a suggestion given to staff or by a staff member, but the staff and the devs are the ones who make it all anyway. We just play the game by signing on and enjoying ourselves.
In my previous server, if the dev was busy, that was it. I respect that the devs and staff are people too, and that the server is a huge massive undertaking with a lot of history behind it which I am completely uninformed about.

It might look like I just started signing on and bashing this or that, but that was not my intention. My intention was to many give another point of view in the process in the hopes of clearing things up. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe nothing needs to be done. It's always possible.

Since I maybe haven't posted positive things, I'd like to give Kudos to Arelith! Please feel free to times this by 100!
Thanks devs and staff and moderators for letting me express my thoughts. Some might not have done that.
Arelith is one of the most populated servers among all of NWN, if not the most. Having survived and thrived is huge.
Arelith is massive, a huge undertaking that anyone who has fooled around with the nwn toolset can appreciate. Servers and computer setup must be huge.
Having transferred to EE and NWNX alongside with it is no small feat. Huge Kudos!
The writs and adventures, settlements, areas, and most of the other play that I've seen has been top quality. All of the custom systems added to Arelith is also a massive undertaking, and has really added to the game.
Yay for auto loot! Thank you!

That's all I can think of for right now. Honestly having played for just a bit, I can see there is much more.

I totally intend for this to be my parting post on this thread, as I think I've established maybe another coherent point of view on the matter. I've been sort of going at it each post for a day or so. With that, maybe the question has become what might you all want to do as a server? That is another subject which I don't have an answer now either.

For example, my first point about the PvP seemingly being directly opposed to the entire delete character system is pretty hard for me to wrangle together right now. So I have no suggestions about what to do really, considering all that the devs and staff can see and I can't. I also have no idea if they are taking this at all seriously haha.
But anyway! So far so fun!

[Righ]

If I were to take my level 30 character and hunt the writ routes (above or below) and kill 6 or more distinct level 12 characters inside of 30 minutes then log so nothing can be done about it, is that just a 'bad guy having a good day'? Or is that six people having a bad day? If this 'bad guy' does the same thing once or twice a week? If they keep doing it for multiple real time months? At what point does it cross over from 'she had her fun' to something else?

I think this is a good point to focus on.

If a level 30 spends their sessions in the game simply hunting and killing other players with no real motivation outside of "I like killing" or "I'm evil," I think that warrants DM intervention.

But yes, I'd like to see PvP rules a bit more defined. I haven't had any bad encounters yet, but I would be just as frustrated if that was something I had to deal with even semi-regularly. Antagonists should be ready to justify hostile actions that result in character death, and if they can't, there should be repercussions.

[Anomandaris]

If I were to take my level 30 character and hunt the writ routes (above or below) and kill 6 or more distinct level 12 characters inside of 30 minutes then log so nothing can be done about it, is that just a 'bad guy having a good day'? Or is that six people having a bad day? If this 'bad guy' does the same thing once or twice a week? If they keep doing it for multiple real time months? At what point does it cross over from 'she had her fun' to something else?

I think this is a good point to focus on.

If a level 30 spends their sessions in the game simply hunting and killing other players with no real motivation outside of "I like killing" or "I'm evil," I think that warrants DM intervention.

But yes, I'd like to see PvP rules a bit more defined. I haven't had any bad encounters yet, but I would be just as frustrated if that was something I had to deal with even semi-regularly. Antagonists should be ready to justify hostile actions that result in character death, and if they can't, there should be repercussions.

How much of everyone's playtime involves PvP? How many character deaths are a result of PvP vs. PvE? I wonder how many PvP deaths occur per day on average.

Seriously, the way we talk about this the surface sounds like an apocalyptic wasteland with roaming bands of murderous PCs that may kill you at any moment for no other reason than "muahahahah I am a villain." I just don't see it. I've been accosted on the roads before but most of the unsavory, arbitrary conflict I've had is around writs and people stealing boss kills w/ no rp or some other silliness (these aren't epic villains, just other players wanting the writ). It's got to be fractions of a single digit of my experience and total playtime here. I think we are drastically mis-characterizing the pervasiveness of this problem through anecdotal hyperbole. I've been playing PCs in every corner of this server for years, and yes, I've had unsavory experiences, but they are VERY rare. More so, the situations where I did not contribute somehow to my own demise are even RARER. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's the exception not the rule. We could quantify this... Start a game clock when you play. When you run into a situation where you're like, "this person sucks, this guys a jerk, he's ruining my experience etc" start a second timer. I would be AMAZED if the ratio is anything noteworthy.

I play mostly in UD now but have surface PCs. I think statistically the Hub in Andunor HAS to be the most likely place to get murdered on the server at any given point hahah. Even there it's rare and almost ALWAYS a result of someone mouthing off/insulting a PC or there is historical conflict RP that bubbles up into violence somehow. Now, that doesn't mean it "should" result in PvP, so don't say I'm advocating for this being the solution to conflict RP, it's not. There should absolutely be the possibility that it "could" and that adds a certain edge to the situation. Bottom line is that if someone wanted to RPa PC in Andunor of all places and NEVER have any PvP interactions, I believe that would be 100% possible.

Unless the surface has degenerated to some crazy extent since I spent more time up there, I don't see the problem. One of these days you'll be doing something and someone's gonna totally screw with that. It may result in your death, an unsavory interaction or just a certain amount of inconvenience; they could be a total jerk about it too. Sorry to say it but no rule will eliminate this behavior 100%. Here's the good thing, it will be less than .025% of your cumulative play time. And if its not and someone is continuously harassing you, there is a team of devoted DM's ready to intervene on your behalf.

If the above is not true I argue that you (the hypothetical you, not anyone specific) are in fact a part of the problem, or the unluckiest person on the server. Either that or I am the luckiest person on the server and have been graced for years by almost universally good times, with only the odd sprinkling of jerkface. Possible, but unlikely.

[Eters]

On the question of PvP in an RP server, the rules will always feel like they aren't enough. And they won't be. Because the rules represent the bare minimum of what one ought to do to make something fair (legally fair, by those very same set of rules.) , yet what would make a moment truly memorable is the amount of effort a player gives above the minimum of the rules, their own initiative and drive to write a beautiful / immersive story for all those involved.

There will be a lot of debate, and the question of "How much RP is needed before PvP" is as old as "Is the big bang even real?" question, but there is really no true answer to that inquiry. In the end it all comes down to one thing : Courtesy.

How much courtesy are we offering our opponent, and how much of our mechanical advantage/Stealth advantage/ Ambush advantage we're willing to sacrifice in order to offer the opposing person, a memorable moment. Some are willing to give it all away for the purpose of a wonderful narrative, others unfortunately seem to focus only on their own story, and wish to enforce their own narrative by doing the bare minimum the rules demand before leaping to action. Such situations usually end up sour for both parties and what is supposed to be a RP server leads both parties into a simulation of Ace Attorney where each claims that the other did/did not break the rules.

My advice is simple, the server offer various escape tools (They can be countered, as can all things), but keep them close, don't live in terror of a hostile encounter. But also keep an eye on the feel of the narrative and see if you find yourself enjoying it, thrilled by it or not. If the encounter causes you a headache (It may sound like an overstatement, but we all know it isn't, some encounters do cause headaches) , I'd personally suggest to bail using one of many ways the system has in place for escapes.

My second advice is to plan your every story and plot with two endings in mind at least, the one you favor, and the one you least favor, and seek to create a story from both outcomes. If you're an evil character planning a raid, then plan for both your victory AND YOUR DEFEAT. If you're a good doer going to smite some evil, plan for what you'll do if you succeed and also, when you won't. If you're headed to deliver a package, if you're going on a dungeon run, if you're simply going to restock on Coffee in Bendir, always keep in mind that the narrative you have have in place, and the one the world will bring to you, may not be the same. Expand your view on your story and it's range, and I promise you that you will enjoy most situations you'll come across.

My last advice is to keep in mind the consequences for your actions, to make too much noise and create too much enemies will naturally increase the amount of hostility you'll be subjugated to, keep in mind that retaliation may come, and in times you won't always expect it.

[Arigard]

There's two sides to every coin and this debate is no different:

There's always been a lot of talk about PvP and RP like they are two distinct different things. In my mind, they aren't. PvP, unless it is skewed to the extreme levels (i.e I walk up and grief you effectively) is just as much a part of RP as typing is. PvP represents the mechanical part of your character being enacted and your mechanical character is ultimately what your character is, his skills and how that shapes his personality.

The original scenario in this post sounds lame on the surface, there is no doubt about it, but then let's play devils advocate for a second. How many 'good' 'surface' chars act like they have absolutely no fear of death and basically one line evil back the second people try to engage with them. The amount of times I've seen someone being given an out, or multiple outs and no effort is made on the part of the good/surface player. It happens all the time.

An example:

Evil group turns up and runs into lower level good character. In a purist world, their characters might just enslave/murder/pillage etc. There's no RP reason why they wouldn't, if that is your characters background/race etc. But it's Arelith and they understand they are OOC lower level. So you engage, talk, offer an out, either "grovel for your life" "pay me what's in your coin purse" "pray to your god for forgiveness" "kiss my feet etc" "be my informant, maybe we can come to a deal" - whatever it is, a handful of ways that encounter could give both a way out, or at least offer the thread of the beginning of a narrative that is more than just, fine - hostile. The good character might not even mean what they are saying, but it's enough to appease the person in front of them .

The amount of times I've seen a surfacer just flatly go "Well, just kill me then, I'm not afraid of death, you big oaf!" or, even worse, simply ignore the RP completely and try to run, blanking everything that's going on around him without even engaging the encounter because they simply don't want their own OOC ambitions for that moment in time to be changed. Rpwise, you've been given more than enough leeway to come up with interesting RP in that situation, but instead the choice is to shut it down entirely, or worse simply just pretend that because you know death means nothing to you OOC, it means nothing to your char.

This puts evil-er players in a bind if this is happening consistently. They are basically being frozen out and so one result of this is they go to more and more lengths to try and become involved and get more aggressive when doing so and before long this can become a downward spiral where context is lost entirely and they are effectively forced into bad habits to try and make an impact.

I'm not trying to say this situation was this, or that it's anyone's fault, but In my short year or so playing here, I've definitely seen a lot of very self centric "I want to be the hero and never be put in a bad spot ever unless it's my own decision" entitlement on Arelith. There are some great RPers here, but there is also a lot of flexibility in how people are allowed to RP their characters, even if that flies in the face of their character sheet, or the context lore. "But I'm just a misunderstood monster" or "I'm actually a beautiful char with 6 cha", or "super genius with 6 int" is a good example of this. No, you're inherently evil by alignment, or you're butt ugly, or you're just not very clever. Play your character sheet. That's how the setting lore & traditional character sheet works.

It's this disconnect between people not playing their character sheets and understanding that those mechanics are in fact RP elements, that I think is a big problem with PvP & the root cause of a lot of these issues. A character that has a background in combat, to fight, is not anti RP. It's part of their RP, it just has to be done in a way that isn't jarring to all involved. But the issue is, people get labelled as either RPers, or PvPers a lot of the time. I've seen it happen a lot on old worlds I played on. Honestly some of the people I played with who were the most adept at PvP were also those that were the best RPers, whilst those that constantly tried to complain about PvP constantly, were the ones crying the second something didn't go their way & were resistant to change, new ideas and just about anything that made their character look bad in their eyes.

Ultimately, I think, if there was more crackdown on people trying to push the limits on how far they can squeeze away from their lore based & character based restrictions and thinking less about "How do I get out of this situation" but "How would my -character" get out of this situation, then I think a lot of these good vs evil debates would go a lot more smoothly, because then it's black and white. It's not about you as an OOC person. Too often this debate is one player vs another player, rather than one character vs another character.

RP vs PvP shouldn't just be how good are you at building narratives, it should also be how good are you are actually playing your character sheet and sticking to the setting/flaws that are inherent in that on -both- sides. Are you playing an evil 6 int Orc? Then let yourself be outsmarted everyone now and again. Are you playing a good char that is super intelligent but has very low charisma? Try and build in something to your character that represents that lack of social grace/beauty. Playing to your character sheet isn't difficult & it's easy to differentiate that from you as a player. What is hard is to break down the sudo projection of yourself you put on your character and then seeing it getting metaphorically challenged and beaten, because then it's about you and not your roleplay & you will likely always react defensively regardless if you are an evil, or good character and I think this is ultimately the bottom line in this constant good vs evil debate. It's not about good vs evil, but a traditional video gamers idea of "I win" vs "I lose" and that doesn't mesh at all with an online immersive RP world. Nobody ever truly wins and nobody every truly loses, it's all simply about moments and stories that you can either choose to be a part of, or run away from because you only want to be part of the ones where you get kudos.

But ultimately, at the end of the day nobody cares if you get beaten or come out on top in an encounter. People love well rounded characters that deal with challenges more than those than one dimensional ones constantly succeed all the time. Because facing adversity is real and it's relatable. Turning up and hitting every shot perfectly every time gets boring and repetitive real quick.

So play your character sheet on both sides, let yourself have flaws, stop trying to constantly cover the weaknesses in your character and embrace them and let the story develop without thinking that the pixels on screen are actually you. They aren't & they aren't supposed to be.

[BoredGM]

Now, I really want to try to understand what you are saying. I'm not trying to be combative or "win" the conversation like in Calvin & Hobbes or something.

...There's always been a lot of talk about PvP and RP like they are two distinct different things. In my mind, they aren't. PvP, unless it is skewed to the extreme levels (i.e I walk up and grief you effectively) is just as much a part of RP as typing is...

Actually no, I'll disagree with just the blanket statement again. PvP is not RP, the same as slaying one goblin is not RP. There might RP outside the PvP, or added onto, but by default the PvP is not usually RP in my experience.

...
Evil group turns up and runs into lower level good character. In a purist world, their characters might just enslave/murder/pillage etc. There's no RP reason why they wouldn't, if that is your characters background/race etc. But it's Arelith and they understand they are OOC lower level. So you engage, talk, offer an out, either "grovel for your life" "pay me what's in your coin purse" "pray to your god for forgiveness" "kiss my feet etc" "be my informant, maybe we can come to a deal" - whatever it is, a handful of ways that encounter could give both a way out, or at least offer the thread of the beginning of a narrative that is more than just, fine - hostile. The good character might not even mean what they are saying, but it's enough to appease the person in front of them .

The amount of times I've seen a surfacer just flatly go "Well, just kill me then, I'm not afraid of death, you big oaf!" or, even worse, simply ignore the RP completely and try to run, blanking everything that's going on around him without even engaging the encounter because they simply don't want their own OOC ambitions for that moment in time to be changed. Rpwise, you've been given more than enough leeway to come up with interesting RP in that situation, but instead the choice is to shut it down entirely, or worse simply just pretend that because you know death means nothing to you OOC, it means nothing to your char...

Sure, some people might do things OOC because it doesn't lead to good gameplay, such as a DM looking at the first goblin mage mook in the dungeon and saying "Wow, this guy has wail of the banshee, I'm not going to use that."
So you've done that with your evil characters, and THEN you say to good characters "Hey, surrender to me or be attacked by my hands."
Honestly, the 2nd part seems like the first part to me. It might not be, but right now off the top of my head that's what it seems like. It seems to me you are complaining about them actually playing their characters, and actually RPing.
Ehhhh, the above seems to have so much wrapped up in it, I don't want to start thinking about it all myself. But to be short, the argument you are making seems to be "My actions are great, their actions are not!" I don't know what to do with that, and of course I don't agree. You'll have to provide more analysis.

This puts evil-er players in a bind if this is happening consistently. They are basically being frozen out and so one result of this is they go to more and more lengths to try and become involved and get more aggressive when doing so and before long this can become a downward spiral where context is lost entirely and they are effectively forced into bad habits to try and make an impact.

Welcome to pseudo dming on Arelith. Hard to do without just attacking everything and it ending in PvP? Gotta sit down and think?
Blast and bebother!
Or at least that's the way I see it so far haha. If anyone else wants to provide their own opinion feel free.

I'm not trying to say this situation was this, or that it's anyone's fault, but In my short year or so playing here, I've definitely seen a lot of very self centric "I want to be the hero and never be put in a bad spot ever unless it's my own decision" entitlement on Arelith.

That sounds awesome! You've correctly identified the player's agency, one of the main driving forces in games like this! Are you trying to say you would try to overtake another player's agency for this or for that?
There might have to be ooc warnings or statements made, and this is what DM's do in my experience. "Hey, your character knows that the aspect of Bane in front of you is too tough to handle at level 5."
"Trust me in this combat encounter, it will be okay."

There are some great RPers here, but there is also a lot of flexibility in how people are allowed to RP their characters, even if that flies in the face of their character sheet, or the context lore. "But I'm just a misunderstood monster" or "I'm actually a beautiful char with 6 cha", or "super genius with 6 int" is a good example of this. No, you're inherently evil by alignment, or you're butt ugly, or you're just not very clever. Play your character sheet. That's how the setting lore & traditional character sheet works.

This is a whole other can of worms. I don't want to get into it. Suffice it to say it is physically impossible for a person to play a character of higher or lower intelligence than their own, if such a thing does exist. I'd open this up in another thread to be honest.

It's this disconnect between people not playing their character sheets and understanding that those mechanics are in fact RP elements, that I think is a big problem with PvP & the root cause of a lot of these issues.

I'm having trouble understanding anything from this. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean? How are the mechanics you might be talking about be RP elements again? How does that connect to everything else you've written?

None of what you say in the next paragraph imo changes or affects the idea that PvP and RP are not the same in most cases, without something being added onto it.

I feel that there is so much wrapped up in everything after that, but there are things wrapped up in what you are saying above as well. I think I've typed and thought about this too much already.
Clarify everything you've posted, please.
Sincerely.

I still respect you as a person Arigard.
We're just talking in a relaxed way now haha.

[The GrumpyCat]

PvP = Player Verses Player.

RP = Role Playing.

What you seem to mean by PvP is mechanically clicking the fighty fight buttons and having a fighty fight. In this case? Yes. It's not an aspect of roleplay. Nor is the raw crafting mechanic. Nor is PvE. These are all mechanics, but hopefully we build RP AROUND these mechanics. These mechanics exist for us to build rp on top of. To add an amount of chaos.


Player agency is important yes, but only to an extent.

The difference between roleplaying and say, writing a book - is that when my character enters in a book, I will likely have a good idea of where they end up and their journey is, for t he most part, under my complete controle.

When I bring a character to arelith, that journey is less so. There are some aspects of it I still controle of course, but for me the fun is seeing what happens to them, the chaos in never knowing quite what's around the corner.

[BoredGM]

I think that's what I said Grumpy. We agree right? Thanks for the support.

[Arigard]

Grumpycat, my belief has always been that the definition of what role play is: is to play a role. A mage actually using magic, whether it is to pick up a pencil, or blast someone with a fire ball is you playing that role, in the same way that a warrior swinging his sword is literally the definition of what it means to role play as a warrior. It's accurately portraying in the world the choices you made in the creation of your character and that means good/bad/abilities/alignment/beliefs etc. In the case in this thread, I completely agree with you, as I said before. It makes no sense to walk into a town and do what was done and perhaps I should have posted on a different thread (as it seems to come across that I was defending the OP, which I wasn't). I was trying to make a more general point about good vs evil debate. Playing that role correctly is about not just your mechanics, but then how they respond to the lore/setting etc and that includes social etiquette and fear/laws/context in the world too, which is why running up to a big settlement with no fear, weapon in hand makes little sense.

You can play a 6 int, stupid character though imo, you just need to be a bit more stringent with asking yourself "Could my character think his way out of this" or come up with your own system to do so. If it was me I'd simply do my own dice roll checks to see if he understood the situation and could react to it, or was just confused/out-thought. Ultimately, people can choose not to role play the negative social side of their character sheet because it's inconvenient, but then if they didn't have to walk around with 80 carry weight on a low str character they wouldn't either, if it wasn't enforced.

Whether it's you as a player policing yourself and asking "Would my character actually be able to deal with this situation", or coming up with a system to do so (i.e your own checks to see if they got confused/overwhelmed).

Anyway my original point was pretty simple and not intended to defend the situation the OP discussed etc. Playing as your character and not your player makes it easier to not view the game as "i win" vs "I lose" and it also allows you to give creative ways for people in all sorts of situations to have agency, especially if you are playing both your weaknesses and your strengths.

[The GrumpyCat]

Grumpycat, my belief has always been that the definition of what role play is: is to play a role. A mage actually using magic, whether it is to pick up a pencil, or blast someone with a fire ball is you playing that role, in the same way that a warrior swinging his sword is literally the definition of what it means to role play as a warrior. It's accurately portraying in the world the choices you made in the creation of your character and that means good/bad/abilities/alignment/beliefs etc.

Yeah, I basically agree with this.

Whether it's you as a player policing yourself and asking "Would my character actually be able to deal with this situation", or coming up with a system to do so (i.e your own checks to see if they got confused/overwhelmed).

Yes, I agree. I think someone wrote earlier that you can't rp play someone of higher or lower inteligence than yourself. This is entirely dissagree with. Especialy the 'lower' part. That's easy and, frankly, very rewarding. High inteligence is harder, but there are tricks you can use that at least make you seem more inteligent than you actually are.

I mean, I would not loose a lot of sleep about the difference between rping say, 14 Int score and 20 int score. But of your character is low in one area and high in another, you should at least make some effort to reflect that in your roleplay. And it can be reflected in a number of ways. A high Charisma CAN be roleplayed as devistatingly gorgeious, but it doesn't have to be. It can be rped as someone who's very social, or someone with inordinate amounts of self will and personality ect.

Anyway my original point was pretty simple and not intended to defend the situation the OP discussed etc. Playing as your character and not your player makes it easier to not view the game as "i win" vs "I lose" and it also allows you to give creative ways for people in all sorts of situations to have agency, especially if you are playing both your weaknesses and your strengths.

Very good advice.

There's a book in game called 'When Bad Things Happen to Good Adventurers.' It's a great one to read, and definatly worth keeping in mind.

One way or another, bad things are going to happen. One of the best things you can learn to do, is take the Bad Thing and try to turn it into a good thing,- or, rather a Fun thing.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

I'm not trying to say this situation was this, or that it's anyone's fault, but In my short year or so playing here, I've definitely seen a lot of very self centric "I want to be the hero and never be put in a bad spot ever unless it's my own decision" entitlement on Arelith.

That sounds awesome! You've correctly identified the player's agency, one of the main driving forces in games like this! Are you trying to say you would try to overtake another player's agency for this or for that?
There might have to be ooc warnings or statements made, and this is what DM's do in my experience. "Hey, your character knows that the aspect of Bane in front of you is too tough to handle at level 5."
"Trust me in this combat encounter, it will be okay."

I really want to address this combination of sentiments as they pertain to the thread title and my take on it. A little more specifically about this quoted section precisely, I'm of a mixed mind-set. I think you need a little of column A and a little of column B. I think there are some things some people aren't comfortable with, for whatever reason, and within reason, I have no problems accommodating that- however, if the list of things that makes someone uncomfortable reads like a three hundred dollar shopping list, that person might be generally uncomfortable playing in a high fantasy setting with villains in the first place, and I'm likely to seek others that are less work to find a narrative if I'm playing a villain.

As an example, there is no scenario in which I would justify my primary character telling any lies in his every day conversation on his own free will, no matter how much it helped someone else's narrative- not even if it was a vital piece of misinformation that could tip a war. He doesn't lie, and if that's what you need, you need it from someone else - or we could talk about you using a dominate spell on me successfully giving you the ability to force such an action. On the other hand, just because we talk about that, doesn't mean I'm not going to "break free," if you change the command to say, slaughtering an orphanage full of small children, or find some other way to save them.

But where this subject gets interesting is if a group of people are working together to bring negative repercussions on your character. You're entitled to your comfort and discomfort in RP, but what took place prior to that to bring them to this point? If you've inconvenienced their characters, their characters are certainly reacting appropriately seeking recompense through yours- if they come to you with an idea you don't like, it then becomes a necessary compromise- you weren't looking for consequences, but IC'ly your character deserves them- find something that doesn't make you uncomfortable, and go with it if the other side executes well.

I find the "I'm uncomfortable with this" approach to be very fraught - it is certainly someone's right to opt out of uncomfortable RP, but the line for where that is is very, very blurry in a server where atrocities are committed by beings like devils, demons, yugoloths, undead, and even humans on a daily basis, necessitating the need for heroes and adventurers in the first place. I almost feel like I've waived my right to be uncomfortable in most situations because to me the world we're playing in is a wondrous but terrifying place where I feel I should expect awful things to happen to my adventuring characters.



And now that I've gotten that out of the way, how it all ties into PvP being a conundrum on an RP server- which is to say, that in the context of the narrative, it isn't. Sure, you aren't typing walls of text while you're reducing someone's HP bar in a fight- but if there was RP leading up to that, the mechanical fight is the on-screen visualization of you saying "I cast fireball X feet behind my opponent," or "I charge the mage and use trip/grapple on him to keep him from casting." You're RP'ing the culmination of a conflict at that point, and while it would be AWESOME if we could voice to text, we can't.

People who are simply running up to others and clicking them to death to acquire the highest kill total and "win" at PvP are already breaking the rules, and they don't really apply to this sentiment. In my experience, the easiest way to make a scenario that involves PvP cooperative is to reach out to the other players involved politely seeking to make the experience a mutually satisfying one, with the understanding that on-screen satisfying for the player can't always mean winning.

[BoredGM]

I still don't agree and can support myself, but I am nervous about possible responses afterward to be honest. Both in the ability scores and that which I am saying about RP. I expected most people to disagree with me about the ability scores since that is on the wiki.

I think it's helpful to look at it through another point of view. That being the history of D&D and rpgs.
Quick and dirty example, another post somewhere I said something about traps not being "Rocks fall from the sky" anymore to be made more compelling. At one point in time in the rpg games though, this WAS acceptable. The usual perception on that has changed through the history of D&D, and it's own system changes AND what those traps were meant to do then.

What does that have to do with this?
Ah, what if the history of the RP itself may change?
Hmm....

[DM Wraith]

Full disclosure, I havent read all the comments, but did want to offer a brief DM's perspective on this.

PVP is an important part of Arelith when it is used properly. Arelith is not an arena server and should not be treated in that way. But PVP is a tool through which a collaborative narrative can be furthered. If it's the former rather than the latter that's when it should be reported to the Active DM team. This allows DM's a chance to see appropriate corrective actions emplaced if warranted.

As far as pvp in and around settlements goes, this is a case by case scenario. If you're in the woods near Myon , you can have level ranges from 5-30. Same applies for most of the server, and that's one of the many facets that make it great. A chance for a dynamic story building opportunity. Perhaps you are being mugged on the Crystal path by a bandit and while thats happening a Wandering patrol of Cordorian Knights come upon you and rescue you. Or a character in stealth runs to the nearest settlement and notifies the guards who respond/increase patrols in the area. The options really are limitless.

TLDR of this is to ensure that pvp is used as a tool to build narratives. If it's not report it and a member of the DM team will investigate it.

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

If there's one 'crazy hypothetical element' I'd ever put on Arelith, it would be locking PvP and hostile actions behind a 30 RPR gate just to see what would happen.

I don't think anything tarkus said is wrong.

The "bad guy" in the OP's scenario sounds like a complete and utter tool. This kind of roleplay gets a pass by a lot of people because people think its a) setting appropriate, b) risky and c) instigating conflict.

I'd just roll my eyes and say, "What's the point?"

If character actions and PvP isn't meaningful, it dilutes the whole conversation. And brings us to these discussions we're having now.

Tbh, I'd probably report this 'bad guy.'

Gating a basic in character reaction and ability to defend one's honour if someone literally spits on you for hours becuase you are arnt a pillar of the community RP 30. That would be crazy and you don't need much imagination to see what would happen.

Lots of people who are just as good as RPers as 30s along with newbies and just general mill rpr 20s who tend to do a good job of always being IC and never being a dick all being told the they "are not good enough and don't even ahve the rights to act fully in character".

But you already knew it was a crazy hypothetical, I just never seen something so crazy in my life.

[DM Dionysus]

The consequences for dying to another player are minimal. Try and focus on how you can productively use the experience of loss to fuel your narrative instead. Even better, try and develop social connections and strong friends to help protect you.

How your character chooses to handle the threat of conflict is a very defining personality trait. It's something to enjoy and it's important to be grateful to the person who is playing the antagonist to your character. More often than not, that requires you, as a person, to know how to lose gracefully.

The ability to accept losing and shrug it off for the better is one of the most important traits for an rp-pvp community. The other side of the coin is knowing how to win gracefully. It's fine to do a little bit of boasting and enjoy the victory, but you should really move on to not rub it in.

[monkeywithstick]

I've been holding off commenting, as I find these discussions quite fascinating personally.

The only analogue I have is fest LRP, a medium that is probably the closest analogue to a PW (certainly closer than PnP) that I am aware of.
In LRP, the default assumption is permadeath, I have yet to encounter a system that allowed resurrection spells in any context, I am sure they do exist if you look hard enough, but I haven’t. I have yet to encounter the attitude that permadeath (or it’s most likely cause: PvP) in any way impinge upon storytelling. My experience is that they enhance it, characters are never really untouchable, even if someone is an absolute badass, if they upset enough people, then there are very few ways to defend oneself from twenty motivated senators with knives.
The fact that a character’s goals *can* be interrupted, in a permanent fashion really, for me, actually adds meaning and value to the character’s achievements.

But I think there are a number of issues that prevent something like that working in the context of NWN.
1) Exponential levelling. There is, in most modern LRP systems a more linear progression, the loss of an established character is less of a *mechanical* blow. There are very few things one cannot do mechanically with a starting LRP character, you are reset to baseline as a player, but you do not need to spend X amount of time grinding to level cap to mechanically interact with the game world in a comparable manner.

2) Lack of nonlethal consequence. Modern LRP systems have many options for inter-personal conflict: nonlethal curses, savage nonlethal beatings, threats, muggings, political disenfranchisement, information warfare, religious sacrifices. Crucially they are all mechanically supported.
NWN and Arelith specifically has political disenfranchisement, pickpocketing and death supported. Anything past that requires co-ordination between players, which is great, but is always going to be patchy

3) Lack of conflict drivers. Touched upon in point 2. But characters stand to *gain* something from some of their oppositional status.
The only mechanical gains available in Arelith are monetary (I took his coins), temporary claim of an area (you cannot come here because 24hr rule, which in many cases requires a degree of OOC rudeness that may invite DM attention: I’d not encourage camping a dungeon entrance for area denial purposes), political position (which, in many cases does not really reward anything bar conflict and RP – which is fine), I have his head (Pure bragging rights, and often in kinda poor taste – how much does death really mean if you can have a collection of the same character’s severed heads).
Most of these are kinda irrelevant. Gold is easy to come by after a point, as is more RP/conflict, as are bragging rights. There are of course RPed benefits, which is great, but requires buy in, we know that doesn’t always happen as per point 2.
The main conflict driver for many people here is alignment. Which personally, I think is rubbish. If the only reason that a character has to oppose is another is “He is good/evil” then one side of that relationship has failed miserably at selling the conflict. I believe in antagonists not villains and most characters are antagonists in one way or another. This is let down a little by the lack of gain from antagonism on the whole, higher RPR players are expected to have been driving all of this via RP and RPed benefits, the rest of us to aspire to it.
It is also let down by the tendency of some to escalate rather rapidly. And this is a two way equation. I play a mage with a hefty CC arsenal, which I am hesitant to use in PvP because it’s a single –pray away from my character being turned into a smear whilst trying to RP, which whilst being win-focused is not everything, does not result in a satisfying RP experience for anyone. Likewise the experience of many pickpockets is that they get caught and then summarily murdered in the street. Likewise “you insulted my mum/Bane/Tyr/the City prepare to die.” I was gushing lyrical at Jack Oat yesterday because our characters had a minor IC headbut over who sat in the correct chair, and it was lovely to see the low key oppositional nature of it play out.
To be clear, it is perfectly valid for your character to want another character dead. I think it is also perfectly valid to hope they step on a proverbial lego, or that they are ashamed of themselves, or that they find that their reputation as an oathbreaker precedes them wherever they go.
What tends to drive the lower impact opposition in LRP is to an extent, fear of being caught and summarily executed which only really has meaning due to death being a) rarer and b) more permanent.

4) Lack of Buy in. Actually a positive for Arelith/NWN in many ways. A LRP character’s kit is often a few hundred pounds or many many hours of assembly time; it encourages a small degree of risk aversion in LRP but also an entry barrier (Which belongs in LRP, sewing costume is laborious and the people doing so deserve to be paid accordingly, LRP outfitters are not exactly gouging money from people). The main thing here is LRP doesn’t really suffer from low investment griefers.

Overall, modern LRP systems have a setting and mechanical system that is designed around these precepts because they drive meaningful story. Arelith and NWN does not, and as such we make concessions. Some of these concessions I agree with wholeheartedly, others I think could be done differently, and there are certainly systems that could improve other aspects.

However, Rp and PvP are not and never have been oppositional, they are complimentary, even, if not especially, when they do result in a story not playing out as expected or at all.

[BoredGM]

However, Rp and PvP are not and never have been oppositional, they are complimentary, even, if not especially, when they do result in a story not playing out as expected or at all.

I disagree. IMO, your example doesn't provide an argument for PvP being RP. It provides an argument for PvP furthering narratives or stories. Which is what I've also said.

But I think this entire thing started because the OP didn't really feel like they were roleplaying. In that case the PvP happened, but the roleplay seemingly did not.