Feedback on one particular pvp rule

[The GrumpyCat]

To stress, I really do not think your points are stupid. I think they're good and interesting. And I even dare say for some streight on 'raid' situations your suggestion is excellent. But I think it would need to be carefully implemented because ultimatly there's a lot of factors to keep in mind.

[Good Character]

what is stopping the guards from being prepared?

Advance knowledge. Usually that can be alleviated by some manner of subterfuge, but players aren't online 24/7 and the prevalence of Discord has made it harder to collect information.

[Zavandar]

what is stopping the guards from being prepared?

Advance knowledge. Usually that can be alleviated by some manner of subterfuge, but players aren't online 24/7 and the prevalence of Discord has made it harder to collect information.

I don't understand. What is stopping them from drinking zoo pots

[Good Character]

I don't understand. What is stopping them from drinking zoo pots

Dying as you do it.
Cost as you preemptively do it yet try to actively be a poorly paid guard and not an adventurer.
More than zoo spells were mentioned in that post.

[Zavandar]

I don't understand. What is stopping them from drinking zoo pots

Dying as you do it.
Cost as you preemptively do it yet try to actively be a poorly paid guard and not an adventurer.
More than zoo spells were mentioned in that post.

what are taxes for? If the guard is poorly paid then that is on the settlement and success shouldn't be expected

[Drowboy]

Unionize

[Watchful Glare]

Something to consider is Arelith has an overabundance of convenient portals that take you from everywhere to within 3~5 maps of the next destination.

Most of which are settlements with NPCs in it. If you want to ambush someone that's going from Brogedestein to Cordor you can't just lie in wait by the road, it doesn't work. They take a portal to Cordor and they are within sight of the guards. They're going from Myon to Guldorand, same thing. The only times you can catch someone 'on the wild' this way is when they are out dungeoning, or in rarer cases, casual RP somewhere else.

Most of the time, people RP in hubs, settlements, or even outskirts where there are NPCs present. And I don't think Arelith is built in such a manner that many things happen where there are no NPCs present in one way or another anyways (Discounting dungeons).

[The GrumpyCat]

I mean - honestly the raid situation is kinda difficult for Dms too.

If people will forgive me pushing aside the 'mysterious curtain' a little bit (and if you don't want to be vaugly spoiled about NWN DM mechanics, stop reading now...)

So there's a few things to keep in mind that become problematic when it comes to dms 'Running' raids in perhaps the way people kinda would like them run.

*Most settlment npcs are in no way on par with players. The power of the NPCs is in other factors. Speaking /very strictly mechanically/ could a level 30 player could probably easily murder all the npcs in Cordor. We'd Have Words with them after. But they could. We sort of presume though that there are more - but honestly spawning can lead to a double edge sword.

* The double edged sword for one is this - If you don't spawn npcs to 'defend' a place - folk can get upset with you because they say you really should have. If you DO spawn npcs to defend a place- and as inevitably the hostile force cuts down scores and scores of t hem - the hostile force then has a very strong winning position that can also upset the defenders. 'Yes will were driven off from Cordor! But we slew hundreds of their soldiers! MWAHAHA!'

* The other mechanical issue we have is that we can't spawn npcs that are hostile to one group, but not to another. Especialy in the intricacies of pvp. Even in a streight up Drow Attacks Bendir sitauation - if we spawned any defenders for them to automatically attack the underdarkers... they'd attack Bendiirans too.

*The answer to the above point is to put the 'defenders' away from the 'civilised' area and try to get the raiders as they're approaching. But this can backfire too. A while ago a collegue of mine helped me with a raid event - which was a double pronged attack. And NPC attack against Bendir by bloodmoon orcs (which the raiding party had carefully orgnaized before hand , and which I ran) and an attack against Myon itself. My collegue decided to put down some Angry Trees and such outside of Myon - hoping to catch the attackers as they approached. To be 'Myon defenders'. Unfortunatly another large group of pcs - elf and druid pcs - ran across them and thought it was an entirely seperate DM event... which the underdarkers had so rudely interrupted! We got a few complaints about that- they didn't realize that the npcs were their for their defence! And this shows how messy it is.

*The main way that Dms can and do help 'defenders' in raids is a) trying to make sure no rules are broken, or at least being present if they are there, and b) trying to ensure that the 'raiders' (in clear cut cases of raids) don't overstay their welcome. The insinuation done that if they hang around an area past their origional goal intent - hoards and hoards of npcs will kill them.

In fact honestly - the presence of a DM, at least wherein a DM is giving out NPC reactions, is often more for the benefit of the attackers than the defenders. The reaction to most NPCs we have at the presence of a strong attacking force is *becomes a smear of blood on the cobblestones*.

There may be some way around this of course, and I look forward on reading any suggestions folks might have. But I'd be against anything too automated as that can just put blocker on all sorts of rp (e.g. making all settlment areas no pvp zones) and I'll be a little wary of anything too strong that is entirely player run, if it is too powerful and too full of consequence (e.g. Guards can permadeath folks once per day!)

[Nevrus]

If the problem is that defender NPCs have difficulty distinguishing friend from foe...

How about making a few henchmen NPCs that can only be DM spawned and controlled by defending players, for free and regardless of Leadership ranks, but still Leadership benefitting?

That way you bolster up the defending force and these NPCs have somewhat more intelligent AI (due to players controlling them) and there's no factional issues for party-to-party conflict.

The same could be done for attackers by creating monstrous summon-type henchmen, when appropriate.

Considering the development we've put into the Henchmen system already, throwing these in the DM toolbox could help run these things while off-loading NPC control to players. A DM NPC could 'speak for the group' as it were when they show up as well.

[Arigard]

Been reading through the thread. Some good suggestions on many fronts.

One thing I'd say on this issue and to be honest, any issue where RP is restricted. If you are overly gate keeping things like conflict, or mechanics, it always ends up in removing possibility from players.

I've played on other worlds where NPCs were mega-godtier like creatures that could just steamroll any PCs and areas that were effectively meant to be "Anti PvP" and like Garrbear said, it just ended up removing RP and creating a mess.

If PCs are supposed to be the heros and villains of the world, then why would an NPC guard be suddenly so strong for those character to fear? My villainous, or heroic character has gone to literal hell, to fight the demons and godlike creatures that live below, but for some reason fears to step into the city, even hidden because of Mr Tom the guard? It makes zero sense. They would fear the other heros (and villains) in the world and moderate their risk accordingly to them.

Removing agency from players is never positive IMO:

1. It removes cause and effect from players (I.e no combat should happen in these areas ever) and you're actually removing RP options from people. Players lose roles, jobs, things that give them meaning in the world (i.e if there's never anything to guard against, what's the actual point of playing a guard?). This really boils down to the heart of creating a world. Without evil there's no heros, without conflict, there's no warriors etc. Remove mechanics and possibility and you'll quickly remove RP and players won't feel like their roles actually impact the world, or have relevance.

Think of it this way. Look at how much natural and dynamic RP actually having a crafting system brings. People go out to gather materials, they stockpile, they trade, they need to search for crafters. It defines roles in the world that brings RP and makes characters cross paths dynamically. Now take that all away and have everyone RP trades instead. Suddenly being a tailor, or a smith means absolutely nothing, because there is no actual point to doing it, other than standing by a forge and emoting. It's no different for conflict.

2. To the question of people being prepared IC. Surely that boils down to the job of a guard? if they are say on duty, should it not be part of the RP behind their patrols that they are always prepared? If an attack happens and part of the reason it succeeds is because the guards were not prepared, then have an inquest? Berate the guards for not being professional etc. Create roleplay around it etc etc. The issue with a lot of these discussions about situations is that most of the consequences for these things (conflict RP) generates more roleplay naturally. If the guards are successful great! They can laud it up and congratulate each other, if they aren't? Perhaps role-play goes towards whether they are well stationed enough, perhaps they need more funding, perhaps they need more drills etc etc. The majority of these situations, good or bad, generate RP naturally in a way that if they didn't exist, simply ends in everyone playing pretend.

3. We were given the example of a wedding, or RP events that had a lot of effort put into them. That goes both ways though. Why shouldn't someone interrupt a wedding? What of all the subterfuge, the intelligence gathering, the planning of the opposite side? I understand that people put a lot of effort into RP events, but at the same time, suggesting something is off limits sets a dangerous precedent that reacting to surprise and preparing for things is no longer necessary. All of this creates role-play for both sides, guards, infiltrators, double agents, information gatherers etc etc. The way you build better RP situations and players that can contribute 'fun' is not by locking things down saying "This is illegal" or "That is off limits". It's by allowing these situations to play out and as experienced players, providing good examples of RP etiquette so that the whole community benefits from these good examples. Policing the game OOC by saying "You can't do this, or you can't do that" is never fun, you're taking peoples agency away from them. It's supposed to be an IC world. If my Underdarker sees a surface Elf in the Hub, standing in his face insulting him saying "Nanana you can't kill me Peacekeepers, I'm a spy but it's a trade city lol". You can guarantee, he's going to do it, consequences be damned, because it's simply too in his face to ignore against his principles. If that gets him exiled out of the Hub? Fine. That's an IC consequence he's willing to deal with & he would push back against that heavily in role play, if it happened. The risks of providing safe zones and the impact it has on RP far outweighs the risks of letting players have common sense and have freedom to not be hamstrung by OOC shackles.

I guess what I'm trying to say is. There are plenty of times when people look at conflict and go "We need OOC rules to address what is in effect a role-play situation because it might get abused". Sure it might get abused by a small contingent of people who don't take the role-play seriously, or aren't playing ball, but those people should be spoken to and dealt with in an isolated manner so that the majority has options open to them to play in a living, breathing world & learn the good ways to do it. Otherwise everyone has options taken away for them simply because of a minority. Things get stale, options close and characters that should have actual roles, end up just going through the motions and doing patrols, or roles that actually don't even have an actual tangible purpose.

Tldr - Focus on the good, not the bad. Let people react and live in a world. It's all just pixels at the end of the day, someone running through Cordor trolling people and ganking them will be forgotten within a few weeks. Good RP that inspires people will be remembered for much longer.

[Cybren]

I’ve played on servers with consensual pvp, and it’s awful. People will get away with a lot more because they know there are zero repercussions. It’s a big detriment to good rp. Having consequences to your action is necessary to make good conflict rp work. It doesn’t always have to end in pvp, but the risk of it helps make your characters choices rooted somewhere in reality. Even one safe space is too much. With that said, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here.

What’s the consequence you’re suggesting having pvp creates?

[Flower Power]

I feel like the reminder would read a lot better if it instead boiled down to:

1) A requirement, rather than an encouragement, that you ping the DM channel in advance of premediated PvP in a city (e.g., a gank squad or individual going in to murder several specific (or random) people, or your brave ninja rescue team heading in to spring someone from jail,) still lacking a requirement for the DM team to actually respond - just so that it shows up in the logs and that you're giving any present DMs the option of stepping in. Instead of just the 'expectation' that it be done.

2) The expectation of handling all of this tastefully was more firmly laid out, with a more strongly worded emphasis on the fact that players who are abusive of this level of trust being put in them by the team will get slapped if they go ahead and be an utter cheeseball about all of it.

Because I've seen a fair bit of fun and enjoyable PvP happen inside of settlements - but I've seen a lot more stupid dickery happen too.

These suggestions arn't bad. Especialy the last one. I want to be a bit gentle with the first because I know that often PvP happens not because folk have entered a settlment seeking it - but because it just /happens/ and I don't want to give the suggestion that if it's sprung on someone they'll end up punished for it... Though I will say if we have groups/folk that are repeatedly pvping in settlments without even trying to warn the DM team - they will get slapped.

That's partially why I prefaced it with 'premediated PvP' - if it's something that just kind of evolves organically, that's one thing, but if players are going in knowing that they're going to kill someone/things are probably going to get heated, then they should be required to make the minimum amount of effort to give the DMs fair advanced warning.

Most reasonable individuals should be able to determine for themselves which situations fall into which categories - it's the difference between two drunks at a bar getting into a fight/someone being challenged to a duel for being aggressively intolerant or rude/responding to an egregious situation like definitely-not-T-for-Teen-depictions-of-spousal-abuse/a spy getting caught after a stroke of bad luck vs. a group of people going in to deliberately target someone/to try to break someone out of jail or some other form of detention/a gang of elves wandering fully buffed into another town to demand an apology after someone wronged one of them.

The first group are all examples of situations where PvP wasn't guaranteed, it's just something that happened organically as a result of the story unfolding. The second group are examples of situations where the players heading into the other settlement clearly knew that they were probably going to end up fighting someone.

[Watchful Glare]

In fact honestly - the presence of a DM, at least wherein a DM is giving out NPC reactions, is often more for the benefit of the attackers than the defenders. The reaction to most NPCs we have at the presence of a strong attacking force is *becomes a smear of blood on the cobblestones*.

Made me spit my coffee and chuckle, you do have a way with words. Those were interesting insights on what it's like on the DM side.

The only think I can think of is, again, from a builder perspective to give players a token of identification upon creation much like it happens with PrCs. Add a script that checks if any given character has that thing. If they don't they turn hostile to them.

Another thing I can think of is to create a monster template that mimics some of the tougher fellows. Like for instance Mekaron of the Cut in the Slave Arena of Andunor would shred a lot of people effortlessly. That guy is ripped. Mekaron's cut, he's a beefcake.

And he is still a humanoid enemy. Name them "Elite soldiers". Maybe try them out in a raid to see what is the realistic amount that players can handle to the point where it's a challenge and they require some effort to beat, but it's not them getting rolled over. Certainly you would not be able to defeat 100 of these guys.

Slaughtering hundreds of nameless soldiers NPCs is very satisfying for the attacker. From where I see it, it's like a consolation prize that you know you can't take the city even if you win or have a brilliant strategy, but it was a 'glorious battle' anyways. And the defenders have the consolation prize that even if they got stomped they still 'drove them back in the end'.

Been reading through the thread. Some good suggestions on many fronts.

One thing I'd say on this issue and to be honest, any issue where RP is restricted. If you are overly gate keeping things like conflict, or mechanics, it always ends up in removing possibility from players.

I've played on other worlds where NPCs were mega-godtier like creatures that could just steamroll any PCs and areas that were effectively meant to be "Anti PvP" and like Garrbear said, it just ended up removing RP and creating a mess.

If PCs are supposed to be the heros and villains of the world, then why would an NPC guard be suddenly so strong for those character to fear? My villainous, or heroic character has gone to literal hell, to fight the demons and godlike creatures that live below, but for some reason fears to step into the city, even hidden because of Mr Tom the guard? It makes zero sense. They would fear the other heros (and villains) in the world and moderate their risk accordingly to them.

Removing agency from players is never positive IMO:

1. It removes cause and effect from players (I.e no combat should happen in these areas ever) and you're actually removing RP options from people. Players lose roles, jobs, things that give them meaning in the world (i.e if there's never anything to guard against, what's the actual point of playing a guard?). This really boils down to the heart of creating a world. Without evil there's no heros, without conflict, there's no warriors etc. Remove mechanics and possibility and you'll quickly remove RP and players won't feel like their roles actually impact the world, or have relevance.

Think of it this way. Look at how much natural and dynamic RP actually having a crafting system brings. People go out to gather materials, they stockpile, they trade, they need to search for crafters. It defines roles in the world that brings RP and makes characters cross paths dynamically. Now take that all away and have everyone RP trades instead. Suddenly being a tailor, or a smith means absolutely nothing, because there is no actual point to doing it, other than standing by a forge and emoting. It's no different for conflict.

2. To the question of people being prepared IC. Surely that boils down to the job of a guard? if they are say on duty, should it not be part of the RP behind their patrols that they are always prepared? If an attack happens and part of the reason it succeeds is because the guards were not prepared, then have an inquest? Berate the guards for not being professional etc. Create roleplay around it etc etc. The issue with a lot of these discussions about situations is that most of the consequences for these things (conflict RP) generates more roleplay naturally. If the guards are successful great! They can laud it up and congratulate each other, if they aren't? Perhaps role-play goes towards whether they are well stationed enough, perhaps they need more funding, perhaps they need more drills etc etc. The majority of these situations, good or bad, generate RP naturally in a way that if they didn't exist, simply ends in everyone playing pretend.

3. We were given the example of a wedding, or RP events that had a lot of effort put into them. That goes both ways though. Why shouldn't someone interrupt a wedding? What of all the subterfuge, the intelligence gathering, the planning of the opposite side? I understand that people put a lot of effort into RP events, but at the same time, suggesting something is off limits sets a dangerous precedent that reacting to surprise and preparing for things is no longer necessary. All of this creates role-play for both sides, guards, infiltrators, double agents, information gatherers etc etc. The way you build better RP situations and players that can contribute 'fun' is not by locking things down saying "This is illegal" or "That is off limits". It's by allowing these situations to play out and as experienced players, providing good examples of RP etiquette so that the whole community benefits from these good examples. Policing the game OOC by saying "You can't do this, or you can't do that" is never fun, you're taking peoples agency away from them. It's supposed to be an IC world. If my Underdarker sees a surface Elf in the Hub, standing in his face insulting him saying "Nanana you can't kill me Peacekeepers, I'm a spy but it's a trade city lol". You can guarantee, he's going to do it, consequences be damned, because it's simply too in his face to ignore against his principles. If that gets him exiled out of the Hub? Fine. That's an IC consequence he's willing to deal with & he would push back against that heavily in role play, if it happened. The risks of providing safe zones and the impact it has on RP far outweighs the risks of letting players have common sense and have freedom to not be hamstrung by OOC shackles.

I guess what I'm trying to say is. There are plenty of times when people look at conflict and go "We need OOC rules to address what is in effect a role-play situation because it might get abused". Sure it might get abused by a small contingent of people who don't take the role-play seriously, or aren't playing ball, but those people should be spoken to and dealt with in an isolated manner so that the majority has options open to them to play in a living, breathing world & learn the good ways to do it. Otherwise everyone has options taken away for them simply because of a minority. Things get stale, options close and characters that should have actual roles, end up just going through the motions and doing patrols, or roles that actually don't even have an actual tangible purpose.

Tldr - Focus on the good, not the bad. Let people react and live in a world. It's all just pixels at the end of the day, someone running through Cordor trolling people and ganking them will be forgotten within a few weeks. Good RP that inspires people will be remembered for much longer.

This is a very wise and enlightened post

[Aren]

Been reading through the thread. Some good suggestions on many fronts.

One thing I'd say on this issue and to be honest, any issue where RP is restricted. If you are overly gate keeping things like conflict, or mechanics, it always ends up in removing possibility from players.

I've played on other worlds where NPCs were mega-godtier like creatures that could just steamroll any PCs and areas that were effectively meant to be "Anti PvP" and like Garrbear said, it just ended up removing RP and creating a mess.

If PCs are supposed to be the heros and villains of the world, then why would an NPC guard be suddenly so strong for those character to fear? My villainous, or heroic character has gone to literal hell, to fight the demons and godlike creatures that live below, but for some reason fears to step into the city, even hidden because of Mr Tom the guard? It makes zero sense. They would fear the other heros (and villains) in the world and moderate their risk accordingly to them.

Removing agency from players is never positive IMO:

1. It removes cause and effect from players (I.e no combat should happen in these areas ever) and you're actually removing RP options from people. Players lose roles, jobs, things that give them meaning in the world (i.e if there's never anything to guard against, what's the actual point of playing a guard?). This really boils down to the heart of creating a world. Without evil there's no heros, without conflict, there's no warriors etc. Remove mechanics and possibility and you'll quickly remove RP and players won't feel like their roles actually impact the world, or have relevance.

Think of it this way. Look at how much natural and dynamic RP actually having a crafting system brings. People go out to gather materials, they stockpile, they trade, they need to search for crafters. It defines roles in the world that brings RP and makes characters cross paths dynamically. Now take that all away and have everyone RP trades instead. Suddenly being a tailor, or a smith means absolutely nothing, because there is no actual point to doing it, other than standing by a forge and emoting. It's no different for conflict.

2. To the question of people being prepared IC. Surely that boils down to the job of a guard? if they are say on duty, should it not be part of the RP behind their patrols that they are always prepared? If an attack happens and part of the reason it succeeds is because the guards were not prepared, then have an inquest? Berate the guards for not being professional etc. Create roleplay around it etc etc. The issue with a lot of these discussions about situations is that most of the consequences for these things (conflict RP) generates more roleplay naturally. If the guards are successful great! They can laud it up and congratulate each other, if they aren't? Perhaps role-play goes towards whether they are well stationed enough, perhaps they need more funding, perhaps they need more drills etc etc. The majority of these situations, good or bad, generate RP naturally in a way that if they didn't exist, simply ends in everyone playing pretend.

3. We were given the example of a wedding, or RP events that had a lot of effort put into them. That goes both ways though. Why shouldn't someone interrupt a wedding? What of all the subterfuge, the intelligence gathering, the planning of the opposite side? I understand that people put a lot of effort into RP events, but at the same time, suggesting something is off limits sets a dangerous precedent that reacting to surprise and preparing for things is no longer necessary. All of this creates role-play for both sides, guards, infiltrators, double agents, information gatherers etc etc. The way you build better RP situations and players that can contribute 'fun' is not by locking things down saying "This is illegal" or "That is off limits". It's by allowing these situations to play out and as experienced players, providing good examples of RP etiquette so that the whole community benefits from these good examples. Policing the game OOC by saying "You can't do this, or you can't do that" is never fun, you're taking peoples agency away from them. It's supposed to be an IC world. If my Underdarker sees a surface Elf in the Hub, standing in his face insulting him saying "Nanana you can't kill me Peacekeepers, I'm a spy but it's a trade city lol". You can guarantee, he's going to do it, consequences be damned, because it's simply too in his face to ignore against his principles. If that gets him exiled out of the Hub? Fine. That's an IC consequence he's willing to deal with & he would push back against that heavily in role play, if it happened. The risks of providing safe zones and the impact it has on RP far outweighs the risks of letting players have common sense and have freedom to not be hamstrung by OOC shackles.

I guess what I'm trying to say is. There are plenty of times when people look at conflict and go "We need OOC rules to address what is in effect a role-play situation because it might get abused". Sure it might get abused by a small contingent of people who don't take the role-play seriously, or aren't playing ball, but those people should be spoken to and dealt with in an isolated manner so that the majority has options open to them to play in a living, breathing world & learn the good ways to do it. Otherwise everyone has options taken away for them simply because of a minority. Things get stale, options close and characters that should have actual roles, end up just going through the motions and doing patrols, or roles that actually don't even have an actual tangible purpose.

Tldr - Focus on the good, not the bad. Let people react and live in a world. It's all just pixels at the end of the day, someone running through Cordor trolling people and ganking them will be forgotten within a few weeks. Good RP that inspires people will be remembered for much longer.

I could not have said it better. Great post Arigard.

[Haroshia]

Personally I think having more guards be both beefy and react like the Shadovar guards isn't a terrible idea. PCs having to RP as day to day guards is not fun for most folks. It still doesn't make cities "Safe" areas or anything, but it would make people perhaps feel like spending in time in settlements provides more safety than going into their quarters or out into the wilds.

[Zavandar]

a lot of people enjoy playing guards and military and it can be as fun as you make it. I thing beefing up guards and making them react like shadovar npc's will just stifle rp even more (and as aforementioned, these npc's dont discriminate or account for nuance). If you want people to feel safer in settlements, incentivize people to be guards rather than filling a whole city with only social characters. Moreover, nobody is entitled to "feel safe" out of character.

Again, people are trying to mold the server into something it isnt. They lament the "must win" mentality of certain players while attempting to remove avenues for themselves to lose in the same breath.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

No need to quote your entire post a third time

I actually agree with 99% of your post, and while I certainly made a few mistakes in wording (always happens) I think nothing I suggested personally stops any of that from still happening, even if some of it would now need a dm. The 1% I don't agree with, and its probably just a bad choice of words as well but several have done it, is equating PvP to RP. It's not, its something that can happen because of RP. I'm totally for in game consequences, feel fine about you attacking someone's wedding or whatever because a lot of people will be there, ect. But I think there are very small situations where the setting should be more important then PvPing at whim. Someone does something that pisses you off icly then runs off to sencliff to hide, or something similar, why do you need to go get them right now at the expense of the realism of the setting? Why is that a better story then waiting until it makes sense to catch him, even if that means he gets away with a few more things before you actually do? The answer to both should be a resounding "It's not" especially since that sort of thing is what leads to the endless cycles of got killed respawned got killed again the next day respawned got killed again two days later respawned... I've tended to blame the mass respawner here for making a joke of their character, but I am starting to slowly see the other side of it.

As for the reasons this would be hard to implement, I see the points being made. Perhaps it doesn't need a rule, but instead a blanket "use common sense when fighting in front of npcs" could work. In my experience most of the best pvpers (and as a result the most aggressive pvpers) tend to be really good roleplayers as well, people who understand the setting, so it might be as simple as walking them back from the ledge of arena status and giving a friendly nudge to newer players who don't know any better before there are any real consequences. Its hard to say it would work for certain though, since just by reading this thread you can see there are people who seem to believe them killing you when they want to kill you is more important then anything else.

[Zavandar]

just by reading this thread you can see there are people who seem to believe them killing you when they want to kill you is more important then anything else.

I think this kind of reductionist thinking is probably why you're not going to sway many people.

It isnt about "killing you when they want", it is about player agency and less of the server being automated. The server isnt on the verge of arena status. There isnt something terribly wrong. The setting itself isnt at risk here. You present these things as facts when they are your opinion. You attempt to make these an accepted truth to justify your arguments when they're just how you feel about things

And it's okay to feel that way about things (even if I disagree with them), but addressing/presenting your opinions as facts and other people's opinions as detrimental to the server is extremely dismissive and belittling

Back on track, I think the rules as they stand are pretty reasonable. There has just been a growing, loud minority of players that are more interested in the social scene and want that kind of rp accommodated. I dont think that is what arelith is. It is a whole package and still far and above more realistic than a lot of other servers, settings, and mediums. You can create a ton on this server, and shutting things down with NPCs is a step away from that. I don't even like the shadovar NPCs as they are (I much prefer when DMs take control over them and enforce consequences on people that breach the peace bond), and I think especially egregious, careless and tasteless pvpers should just be reprimanded instead of automating entire systems that wont actually deter them

[Haroshia]

I think especially egregious, careless and tasteless pvpers should just be reprimanded instead of automating entire systems that wont actually deter them

Agreed.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

just by reading this thread you can see there are people who seem to believe them killing you when they want to kill you is more important then anything else.

I think this kind of reductionist thinking is probably why you're not going to sway many people.

It isnt about "killing you when they want", it is about player agency and less of the server being automated. The server isnt on the verge of arena status. There isnt something terribly wrong. The setting itself isnt at risk here. You present these things as facts when they are your opinion. You attempt to make these an accepted truth to justify your arguments when they're just how you feel about things

And it's okay to feel that way about things (even if I disagree with them), but addressing/presenting your opinions as facts and other people's opinions as detrimental to the server is extremely dismissive and belittling

Back on track, I think the rules as they stand are pretty reasonable. There has just been a growing, loud minority of players that are more interested in the social scene and want that kind of rp accommodated. I dont think that is what arelith is. It is a whole package and still far and above more realistic than a lot of other servers, settings, and mediums. You can create a ton on this server, and shutting things down with NPCs is a step away from that. I don't even like the shadovar NPCs as they are (I much prefer when DMs take control over them and enforce consequences on people that breach the peace bond), and I think especially egregious, careless and tasteless pvpers should just be reprimanded instead of automating entire systems that wont actually deter them

As to your reductionist point, you are right. Its easy to slip into it when people (you included) do it to you instead of trying to understand the point someone is making by claiming they just don't like pvp, but two wrongs don't make a right.

I would say that the statement "when on a roleplay server, you should do what your character would do not what you would do and you should respect the setting" is a fact. If you disagree that its a fact, I look forward to hearing what you think a roleplay server is.

The social player thing is a completely different conversation. While I see room for both as long as both the social players and the movers and shakers realize that they both need and will hate each other (icly that is), if social was all the server was I wouldn't play here either. But its a different conversation.

and I think especially egregious, careless and tasteless pvpers should just be reprimanded instead of automating entire systems that wont actually deter them

Perfect. But understand that the entire point I am trying to make here is that marching into a settlement that would naturally be hostile toward your character and killing pcs is egregious, careless, and tasteless pvp.

Sorry for being a reductionist.

[Zavandar]

Its easy to slip into it when people (you included) do it to you instead of trying to understand the point someone is making by claiming they just don't like pvp, but two wrongs don't make a right.

I dont see where I've done this in this thread but you are correct

I would say that the statement "when on a roleplay server, you should do what your character would do not what you would do and you should respect the setting" is a fact. If you disagree that its a fact, I look forward to hearing what you think a roleplay server is.

I dont think this was in debate. the debate was what "the setting" means in this context

Let us not be presumptuous and claim to know what would "naturally be hostile". There are plenty of reasons for NPC guards to not care about things. Cordor's royal guard dont care unless things pertain to the king and other NPCs (hence why raids require notifying DMs if NPCs are the target). Guldorand watchmen are armed with sticks.

At the risk of potentially making a false dichotomy, if I had to pick between players being the guard force and responding to other players versus "now all of china knows you're here" NPCs, I'll pick the former every time. Automated NPC reaction has its own drawbacks (some even detrimental to the setting too, as noted throughout the thread), and I would prefer to interact with players.

[Curve]

If PCs are supposed to be the heros and villains of the world, then why would an NPC guard be suddenly so strong for those character to fear? My villainous, or heroic character has gone to literal hell, to fight the demons and godlike creatures that live below, but for some reason fears to step into the city, even hidden because of Mr Tom the guard? It makes zero sense. They would fear the other heros (and villains) in the world and moderate their risk accordingly to them.

The problem with this is that Tom the guard if a PC also has gone to literal hell, Tammy the quiet librarian has gone to literal hell. Every PC on the server has similar experiences in killing big bad monsters. So, while I agree that cities and other places with NPCs should not be safe of PVP I also think that there must be a limit to what we OOC think our PC are capable of. We have to create reasonable limits for what our characters can do. And marching into Cordor/Andunor cities of tens of thousands of people and being a bad Snuggybear is unreasonable. To me this works with the ruling quoted in the beginning of this thread. I would just hope that it is reflected in RPR how players engage with this, that they show some trepidation and fear and hesitance to push things too far. I would ask myself what would you think if R. A. Salvatore wrote the companions of mithral hall thwarting all of menzoberanzan or waterdeep through their big bad swords and muscles. I'd find it silly.

EDIT* I also want to say that this is not a one way street of respect. While the aggressor should show respect for the city, the defender needs to show respect for the aggressor. Let them have a win without dismissing it, give some concessions, be willing to eat a L without excusing it with calls of pride gaming and calling the other players bad, both ic and OOC.

Again, people are trying to mold the server into something it isnt. They lament the "must win" mentality of certain players while attempting to remove avenues for themselves to lose in the same breath.

I think is real too.

[Arigard]

The problem with this is that Tom the guard if a PC also has gone to literal hell, Tammy the quiet librarian has gone to literal hell. Every PC on the server has similar experiences in killing big bad monsters. So, while I agree that cities and other places with NPCs should not be safe of PVP I also think that there must be a limit to what we OOC think our PC are capable of. We have to create reasonable limits for what our characters can do. And marching into Cordor/Andunor cities of tens of thousands of people and being a bad Snuggybear is unreasonable. To me this works with the ruling quoted in the beginning of this thread. I would just hope that it is reflected in RPR how players engage with this, that they show some trepidation and fear and hesitance to push things too far. I would ask myself what would you think if R. A. Salvatore wrote the companions of mithral hall thwarting all of menzoberanzan or waterdeep through their big bad swords and muscles. I'd find it silly.

Well, you just proved the point we're making. The PC heroes have done the equivalent things to the PC villains, that's mutually assured destruction. Your everyday watchman that has never left the region definitely has not done those things, nor is in anyway powerful enough to.

We're talking strictly about fear of NPCs here and as players we can only roleplay with what's in front of us & what our characters experience. If you take out all the PCs from Cordor and threw Abazuur into the square, it would decimate every single NPC in Cordor. That's a creature that player characters face daily. Where is the fear coming from?

Let's examine why the hypothetical, simply does not work in these debates:

-How do we know there's tens of thousands of people in Cordor?
-What level are they?
-Tell me their saving throws?
-Is it ten thousand level 1-3 commoners?
-Would they all die to a single DC 42 wail of the banshee?
-How many out of 10k+ NPC civilians roll a 20 on their fortitude save when bad mr Necromancer pops out of the sewers and casts his wail of the banshee in the middle of a civilian area?
-How many of that 10k+ are guards?
-"I'm just going to poison the water and kill them all then." - "Oh no you wouldn't be able to do that, because our guards are trained to spot people poisoning the wells, with their special spotter birds!"
-There's just as many demons/devils in hell as there are guards in Cordor. You should no longer go to hell either out of fear of the thousands of NPCs not being respecting, or the Underdark. Etc etc.

I don't say any of the above to be flippant, but to point out how ridiculous this back and forth can get when you start to play this game of theory crafting. You might think I'm joking, but I've literally seen these debates and arguments happen on other NWN worlds I used to play on. It's a never ending mess that leads nowhere positive except pre-organized only RP and a 90/10 split between OOC arguing on behalf of invisible NPCs that do not exist in the physical world and actually playing the game.

Let's just play the game as it stands.

----------------------------------------------------------

Our player characters are the pinnacle of what exists in the world. That's how they're designed to be, otherwise the logic of the world makes no sense. Otherwise you can literally argue anything from an OOC hypothetical stand point to shut down RP you want.

There is only one fundamental truth to me at least, that makes sense in terms of the setting, of why player characters (That are powerful enough to wander where they please - This is of course relative to the character) take precaution and are hesitant to go places & it has nothing to do with NPCs and everything to do with the knowledge that other beings inhabit those places with equal power to them. Those places are the hubs of the world. My evil character is in no way threatened by the NPC guards in Cordor. He is threatened by the Heroes he knows resides there. That's a healthy place to be in, the way I see it.

[The GrumpyCat]

I just want to say I'm loving the points people are making. Curve says some excellent stuff, and I very much agree also with Arigard to.

I think there does need to be some level of 'stricture' by Dms. But the interesting question is where to place that?

I don't say any of the above to be flippant, but to point out how ridiculous this back and forth can get when you start to play this game of theory crafting. You might think I'm joking, but I've literally seen these debates and arguments happen on other NWN worlds I used to play on. It's a never ending mess that leads nowhere positive except pre-organized only RP and a 90/10 split between OOC arguing on behalf of invisible NPCs that do not exist in the physical world and actually playing the game.

I want to draw attention to this because it's one of the more interesting facets of the issue.

Basicaly it is - once more - one of those a conversation that in part has to do with Freedom vs Consequence.

On the one hand as players we all want the freedom to do awsome things.

On the other - if there is no consequence and/or boundries for that freedom, things get silly very fast.

On the one hand - I'm very happy for pvp and such to happen around npcs.

On the other - I don't want to see a full on underdark mass attack happening on a settlment every week.

(And to be fair, this is the sort of thing we would deal with via Dm intervention and regulation. And we're lucky because I think a lot of Underdark players kinda 'get' that just marching into a settlment and doing this- without contacting us first - is a no go. We actually do fairly well in that reguard, and kudos to UD players for being very well behaved in this aspect)

It's a balence between allowing you guys freedom to make your own stories, but keeping you in a rough framework where such things don't get out of hand and the verisimiliitude of the setting is broken.

Do we make that balence?

I... don't know?

I don't think we swing wildly far from it... I mean there may not even be an answer to that. I'm sure some folk love servers with a lot more DM intervention and a lot more of a heavily enforced setting... and yet others like games where you can pretty much do whatever!

It is a balence, and it's one worth looking at and discussing ocasionally. But I also think it's one that, to an extent, comes with personal taste.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

Reckless and wanton PvP over "disagreements" certainly dilutes the narrative impact of killing someone.

Good roleplayers will navigate turbulent waters to use PvP as a tool in the toolbox of storytelling. And too much of anything isn't a good story.

Simultaneously, good roleplayers will respect the setting and realize that there are "external forces" that "prevent us" from amassing an army and occupying Andunor.

Sometimes I feel like there's way too much literalism. The server is more than the PCs. There's definitely nothing more awesome to see DM's control NPCs and humble ego-centric PCs/players who think they know everything and are the most significant.

A good rule of thumb is that, in what ever conflict, there is always "more" than what is going on screen - not just from PvP, but how this could be interpreted in the server setting.