Hostile Interactions, Mass PvP, Transition Abuse and Bad Blood

[Watchful Glare]

Still it makes sense not to traumatize the other player as you might lose someone to play with. Then again, the rating is T, meaning many of the horrible things that could happen to them, do not.

I mean I don't really see how anything in Arelith (that is within the rules) could "traumatize" anyone. That's why they exist. We're playing in a system where there's all kinds of nefarious lore - Take a look at any of the DnD books for undead/demonology and you come themes and concepts that are infinitely worse than anything that is allowed on Arelith. Just doing a background search for a character concept especially on the evil spectrum will instantly delve into concepts that far outweigh anything Arelith should be providing day to day.

Likewise - again, anything that is going to potentially upset someone is against the rules. If we're going into RP thinking "Oh maybe this person is going to break the rules so I'm not going to engage with them just in case" - Is the height of sensationalizing your play time & honestly, it's disingenuous to take that approach. Sometimes it feels like the justification of RP outcomes that aren't beneficial to a players character and something that is just a bad outcome for the player's character is being muddied behind the concept of "Trauma" (even if that RP is within the rules entirely) and then used as an excuse to always keep control at all times.

Someone not liking the outcome of an event that is wholly within the rules is not traumatic - unless that 'trauma' is the inability to deal with the idea of their character not always being the sole focus and hero of the story - or even having to show weakness/fear/loss etc. If that is the case - then that is an issue for the player, not the server & should not be extended into the server culture to try and change/manipulate it to suit that individual.

RP is RP. Rule breaks are rule breaks. To conflate one with the other is entirely hyperbolic. The control to simply just log off and say "Nope!" is always at your disposal and you are able to walk away from the screen if rules are being broken.

Tldr play the game with other people - realize your character is not you - deal with rule breaks as they happen and don't go into every engagement thinking the worst of everyone at all times.

The more I read anything from Arigard the more I'm convinced he's a mountain sage. So far I've agreed with everything he's said, it's been very well put.

[MissEvelyn]

Still it makes sense not to traumatize the other player as you might lose someone to play with. Then again, the rating is T, meaning many of the horrible things that could happen to them, do not.

I mean I don't really see how anything in Arelith (that is within the rules) could "traumatize" anyone. That's why they exist. We're playing in a system where there's all kinds of nefarious lore - Take a look at any of the DnD books for undead/demonology and you come themes and concepts that are infinitely worse than anything that is allowed on Arelith. Just doing a background search for a character concept especially on the evil spectrum will instantly delve into concepts that far outweigh anything Arelith should be providing day to day.

Likewise - again, anything that is going to potentially upset someone is against the rules. If we're going into RP thinking "Oh maybe this person is going to break the rules so I'm not going to engage with them just in case" - Is the height of sensationalizing your play time & honestly, it's disingenuous to take that approach. Sometimes it feels like the justification of RP outcomes that aren't beneficial to a players character and something that is just a bad outcome for the player's character is being muddied behind the concept of "Trauma" (even if that RP is within the rules entirely) and then used as an excuse to always keep control at all times.

Someone not liking the outcome of an event that is wholly within the rules is not traumatic - unless that 'trauma' is the inability to deal with the idea of their character not always being the sole focus and hero of the story - or even having to show weakness/fear/loss etc. If that is the case - then that is an issue for the player, not the server & should not be extended into the server culture to try and change/manipulate it to suit that individual.

RP is RP. Rule breaks are rule breaks. To conflate one with the other is entirely hyperbolic. The control to simply just log off and say "Nope!" is always at your disposal and you are able to walk away from the screen if rules are being broken.

Tldr play the game with other people - realize your character is not you - deal with rule breaks as they happen and don't go into every engagement thinking the worst of everyone at all times.

The more I read anything from Arigard the more I'm convinced he's a mountain sage. So far I've agreed with everything he's said, it's been very well put.

+1. Echoing Arigard being a wise mountain sage.

[Tabby]

Here is what I realized, Arigard, and I think it is good advice for your position. You're not wrong, but imagine we are all on a continuum of maturity, writing and interest in roleplay. While the pinnacle of these things certainly uses all situations of roleplay to add to their character's development, not everyone is there. Here's the hard-pill: that's okay!

I've spent a lot of time trying to police players, being disappointed in other's roleplay and all the inbetweens. It's exhausting. I don't know if you've felt exhausted by other's roleplay before but it drains. I played on Skal for awhile. The roleplay there isn't what I'd call 50RPR, but I had fun! I had fun interacting with a character named "human zombie", I had fun playing with an elf named Steve. I had fun because I lowered my expectations for others but increased my expectations for myself.

We can't control other's, and no amount of forum posts can make people fear drow more. I recommend just letting go, make your roleplay your sole focus, and if other's join in that's cool.

Now this is good advice! Well put. +1

[fulminea]

Here is what I realized, Arigard, and I think it is good advice for your position. You're not wrong, but imagine we are all on a continuum of maturity, writing and interest in roleplay. While the pinnacle of these things certainly uses all situations of roleplay to add to their character's development, not everyone is there. Here's the hard-pill: that's okay!

I've spent a lot of time trying to police players, being disappointed in other's roleplay and all the inbetweens. It's exhausting. I don't know if you've felt exhausted by other's roleplay before but it drains. I played on Skal for awhile. The roleplay there isn't what I'd call 50RPR, but I had fun! I had fun interacting with a character named "human zombie", I had fun playing with an elf named Steve. I had fun because I lowered my expectations for others but increased my expectations for myself.

We can't control other's, and no amount of forum posts can make people fear drow more. I recommend just letting go, make your roleplay your sole focus, and if other's join in that's cool.

Now this is good advice! Well put. +1

I like this.

[Richrd]

The "transition immunity" is the single best change done to Arelith in recent years.

[fulminea]

The "transition immunity" is the single best change done to Arelith in recent years.

Didn't you use to play Bertram Stodow?

[Richrd]

The "transition immunity" is the single best change done to Arelith in recent years.

Didn't you use to play Bertram Stodow?

Yep! Surprising anyone remembers my username in combination with that character.

[AskRyze]

I can't count on both hands and feet how many times the new transition changes have stopped me from getting pushed back in through a transition by mummies. I can count exactly twice where I felt the "Oh shit wrong zone I gotta wait AH GOD THEY'RE EATING ME".

This change I unilaterally get behind. +5.

[Darkstorn42]

I can't count on both hands and feet how many times the new transition changes have stopped me from getting pushed back in through a transition by mummies. I can count exactly twice where I felt the "Oh shit wrong zone I gotta wait AH GOD THEY'RE EATING ME".

This change I unilaterally get behind. +5.

Such a huge quality of life improvement! It has prevented transition 'bumps' 5x more than it has been obnoxious with 'oopsies'.

[Alpine Fresh]

Never again will my overzealous use of the 'W' key send me back to where I do not belong! What a thing of beauty.

Unfortunately, 3 seconds of immunity still won't save me from my own staggering ineptitude at PvP though :')

[Kaeldre]

Unfortunately, 3 seconds of immunity still won't save me from my own staggering ineptitude at PvP though :')

It's 7 seconds of immunity, and the fact that it can be used effectively in pvp is bad.

[Ork]

I do think the immunity timer should be brought down to 3 seconds.

[WJLIII3]

My objection to subdual is, remains, and will continue to be:

I am a wizard. A subdual fireball is silly. A subdual Power Word: Kill, even more so. There's not a special kind of "non-lethal" fire, lightning, or acid (or combo of all three!) to summon. Necromancy isn't for knocking people unconscious. Subdual should not be default- when you hit someone with an axe, the default thing that happens is they die. It takes a proactive effort to use a weapon non-lethally, it is not how they are intended to be used. And a non-lethal fireball is just not a thing.

[Wethrinea]

"I split his head in half with my axe... non-lethally"

[Irongron]

My objection to subdual is, remains, and will continue to be:

I am a wizard. A subdual fireball is silly. A subdual Power Word: Kill, even more so. There's not a special kind of "non-lethal" fire, lightning, or acid (or combo of all three!) to summon. Necromancy isn't for knocking people unconscious. Subdual should not be default- when you hit someone with an axe, the default thing that happens is they die. It takes a proactive effort to use a weapon non-lethally, it is not how they are intended to be used. And a non-lethal fireball is just not a thing.

This very much echoes my own position on subdual, and partly why I resisted its introduction for so very long.

The counter arguments were of course 'why can't magic be non-lethal? It's MAGIC' and 'making subdual a skill requiring special feats means nobody will take it.' , which in all fairness were both good points.

[Duchess Says]

There are hundreds of spells in the game and no restrictions on adding more. It's silly to say there's no possible way you could subdue with magic damage. The question is what magic and how. Any spell dealing battering damage maybe. One of the fist spells could subdue. IGMS could have a non-lethal option ("magic damage" isn't an element, it could mean anything). Negative could leave you a lifeless husk but still barely alive. Lightning could be an incapacitating shock... I mean, use your imagination.

I think it would be a nice option actually. I could also see a re-thinking of what subdual is. It doesn't have to be a means of capture, it could be a way to beat someone to a pulp and so they're unable to act but it doesn't completely kill them... Like what happens in every comic book or movie or fantasy show where they're not ready to kill off a character. Just my opinion.

[Drowble Oh Seven]

I'm right there with duchess. There's plenty of destructive forces that, while intended to be fatal often fail to kill instantly. A character burned, hurt, but still living enough to wheeze out some dialogue isn't unreasonable.

And, I'd argue, lets a bit more room for story to happen; which I'm always a fan of.

[Richrd]

I find some things in this thread to be strange and after reading them I just feel like adding my own opinion.

Consenting to being subdued was brought up. Why should specific consent be needed for that? If you got subdued and don't want to be part of that, just use the give up command in that situation and boom. There is your consent and you are free once again whenever you wish to be.

Next, non-lethal takedowns. Yes, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to survive a Hellball explosion by being thrown off by the force of impact from it's edge, not standing in the epicenter and be annihilated. All perfectly possible. But at the same time it's possible to give someone a brain hemorrhage by whacking them across the skull with a riot baton, resulting in their immediate death.
This point can go both ways and in the end "realism" should not be a factor here. This leads into the third thing ...

Roleplay. After having played in settings where every single PvP encounter could lead to your character's permanent death I have become a huge fan of subdual PvP instead of outright killing people. Even on Arelith where death ultimately matters only as much as you want it to. To subdue always results in more RP in one way or another. If you are not a fan of that? As I said, give up, go to the fugue. Otherwise sit back and enjoy the RP that's about to hit you.

I think there's often too much focus on killing and being killed. I would, if I were in charge, make subdual the default. Give players a clear message upon entering the K.O. state that they have the choice to give up and die properly (which is already the case anyways, is it not?).

[Royal Blood]

I like Subdual a lot. I believe it is a much, much better alternative to having to kill everyone all the time. I've used it a few times and it really is great for the narrative in my opinion. If you don't want to be subdued then give up no problem.

Regarding PvP more broadly,

I think the angst that occurs is a lack of clarity in the rules. There are many things open to interpretation or positions that have changed. For example, I have always hated that a small group of players can fall under the player limit for a raid, yet, when powerbuilding, combining the right builds, they are capable of mass slaughtering everyone in an entire city. And the response to this is what? There isn't one. The NPCs aren't 'real characters' they're just cardboard cut outs that you can ignore. Except for, randomly, when they choose to enforce their will onto an issue with OOC reasons then go away once the OOC issue has been resolved ((Such as Cordor and Myon NPCs threatening to unseat the player elected leaders if they chose to go to war over the Arcane Tower))

I think this inconsistent behavior is what leads to issues. Because of things like what I mentioned above NPCs had always enforced a standard. Then, all of a sudden, a group of players is rampaging through a city slaughtering every PC they see and the DM response is "The guards aren't there to do anything"

Now, obviously, I don't expect a DM to control NPCs Everytime PvP happens but the idea is respecting the setting. That a drow wouldn't bypass the Mythal and begin pvping in the streets of Myon. Why? Because it's an entire city of eleven regardless of how many players are logged in .

TLDR I think there is not a clear standard for what the 'setting' is. Also, that too much narrative power is given to characters who are good at PvP. I was against power building when I started but I see it as essential now or else you character will, forever, be at the whims of whatever build is strong enough to PvP your story into submission.

[Morgy]

Of all the things I find most jarring to believe, it is the constant return from the dead of a number of PCs.. Subdual helps alleviate this a bit. I would say that death magic-type spells should perhaps be exempt from subdual though, if possible.

[Distant Relation]

...too much narrative power is given to characters who are good at PvP. I was against power building when I started but I see it as essential now or else you character will, forever, be at the whims of whatever build is strong enough to PvP your story into submission.

This.

A tuned, powerful pvp build is a hammer, and when you have that hammer, everything looks like a nail.

And unlike every other possible playstyle you could have in Arelith, the only way you're afforded to resist is to have a better hammer than the other guy.

[xanrael]

There is only the smallest amount of mechanics enforcing a narrative (beyond the 24 hour rule). No matter how many times Tom kills John they can't force them to type things or affect their RP/possessions/etc.

Tom has to convince John to stake something on the conflict and then win. This doesn't have to be some OOC agreement and instead can be something implicit. Generally this is done through engaging RP prior to the conflict but regardless skipping this step is probably just going to leave Tom and John both unhappy with the outcome if they wanted more than a fight.

[Hoodoo]

I do think the immunity timer should be brought down to 3 seconds.

When I was first implementing this change I experimented with a lot of different values. I started off with 3 seconds as was initially stated, but I found that it was effectively the same thing as without the immunity in the first place. At 3s up to 7s (Which I found to be the minimum where there was actually enough time to avoid transition camping spells), the person transitioning's only course of action was to basically wait a little longer before succumbing to the effects of whatever the assailant had in plan, with no course of avoidance.

That being said, I may bring down the timer slightly after seeing how it's been played out.

Unfortunately, 3 seconds of immunity still won't save me from my own staggering ineptitude at PvP though :')

It's 7 seconds of immunity, and the fact that it can be used effectively in pvp is bad.

Transition camping is basically PvP in bad form. Anything to prevent transition camping will have some (albeit hopefully minor) effects on PvP.

[Kaeldre]

Transition camping is basically PvP in bad form. Anything to prevent transition camping will have some (albeit hopefully minor) effects on PvP.

Transition camping is definitely bad form.

But so is transitioning to full heal with full immunity. Repeatedly.

[Hoodoo]

Transition camping is basically PvP in bad form. Anything to prevent transition camping will have some (albeit hopefully minor) effects on PvP.

Transition camping is definitely bad form.

But so is transitioning to full heal with full immunity. Repeatedly.

Don't sit at transitions waiting for somebody, find somewhere else to ambush them so they actually have a chance to fairly react and not give them a chance to prepare.

As for "repeated" transitioning, they can't transition back for a period after their immunity ends. And even if they do try to repeatedly transition... after the initial immunity and the transition timer cooldown expires, each transition will not grant them immunity for over 20s. At that point, not only are they not immune when they transition, but they also can't transition back at all. Basically making them a sitting duck for trying to transition abuse.