Feedback on one particular pvp rule

[Curve]

Well, you just proved the point we're making.

I am not really trying to prove or disprove anyone's point. Rather, I am trying to bring some nuance to the conversation. I detest the idea of places with NPCs being safe of PvP. I agree with you that far. Where we seem to differ is that you see the PCs as being on top of the food chain, and I see the setting to be. When I think of several of the settlements of Arelith I think of the empires that back them. I think of Amn, of Evermeet, of the powers that back Andunor. I do not think too deeply about it, but it is always in the back of my mind that we are characters in a larger setting, a setting of nations with armies, navies, colleges of wizards and all that stuff. I find Arelith stories much more compelling when the heroes and villians are not the supreme beings, when they fit into the power structures of the world rather than reign over them or ignore them.

[Arigard]

Well, you just proved the point we're making.

I am not really trying to prove or disprove anyone's point. Rather, I am trying to bring some nuance to the conversation. I detest the idea of places with NPCs being safe of PvP. I agree with you that far. Where we seem to differ is that you see the PCs as being on top of the food chain, and I see the setting to be. When I think of several of the settlements of Arelith I think of the empires that back them. I think of Amn, of Evermeet, of the powers that back Andunor. I do not think too deeply about it, but it is always in the back of my mind that we are characters in a larger setting, a setting of nations with armies, navies, colleges of wizards and all that stuff. I find Arelith stories much more compelling when the heroes and villians are not the supreme beings, when they fit into the power structures of the world rather than reign over them or ignore them.

The thing is I don't disagree with you. There should be some powerful NPC faction out there in the world. My point is more that that shouldn't be handled by players. Too often things are used either OOC or in RP to simply shut down things characters might look to do and rather that letting the RP plan out and those consequences come to light, things get completely shut down before they begin.

It may be true that Claddeth, Freth, Cordor, or these big insitutions have some weight to call on that could threaten PCs. That's a DM call though to make as far as I'm concerned. If a group is pushing too far in one direction, then the consequences of their actions should be handled in RP by a representation of those powers. It shouldn't be used as a stick to beat people with to entirely stop things from happening that people don't like.

The hub is a good example. I've lost count of the amount of times when I've been told in RP (And OOC) that "it is illegal to fight in the hub" even when there are confirmed surfacers in front of my character, even though the announcement itself clearly states that the Peacekeepers have no issue with characters defending Andunor against spies, or enemies.

Does this mean entire wars should be had inside of the hub? No, but it also doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to act and then see through the consequences of their actions IC. If someone wants to break a RP rule, it should be dealt with through RP and if they push too far, then there should be in character consequences for that, like what has happened before, people have been banned from using the hub portal for example for excessive disruptive violence in the hub.

But when you have a surface elf walking through the hub, that was attacking Andunorians a few days before openly stating "You can't do this because of this rule" or "The Peacekeers wouldn't like you doing this, so you can't" and then that is OOC being messaged also, these NPC discussions simply become get out of jail free cards to remove all consequence from the game. - Note there was never an announcement saying the hub is 100% totally safe for all races/creeds etc. The city still has enemies, it still has spies. Those characters are still undermining trade if they're going there solely to gather intelligence to screw over residents of the city that use Andunor on a daily basis. Etc.

If this stuff is handled by players then we get into the realm of what I was speaking about in a previous post, hypotheticals, opinions, subjective interpretations on rulings etc. Let RP rule. Let consequences occur. Allow people to roleplay their characters and as long as its within the rules deal with it IC (And if DMs need to step in because something is occurring too much and push the RP gently back into a more central point, or punish characters through role-play, fine!). Just give people options, otherwise if you take those away and stifle what people think they can do, we all suffer and end up in an environment where nothing really ever happens because people feel they're being hamstrung before they've even tried.

Most of this thread is about very extreme situations that almost never occur. When was the last time a group of players raided Cordor and marched into the streets? This stuff is hyper-sensationalized. For all intents and purposes these areas and hubs of the server are safe for players 95% of the time anyway. It does no good to up that to 100%, except remove consequence from the game entirely.

[Curve]

I was not thinking of this from the perspective of player's using it that way to shut down RP, but now that you mention it I do get it. I suppose I have also encountered pretty often when hunting characters who hide out in cities or in front of the Nomad with the idea that they can't be attacked there because of the NPCs. I tend towards ignoring this or choosing different people to play conflict with because it seems like a maturity issue that I don't really want to deal with. So, I definitely agree with you there.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

The thing is I don't disagree with you. There should be some powerful NPC faction out there in the world. My point is more that that shouldn't be handled by players.

I think most people who posted here think the same on so many levels, and I'm glad this got to a place where its going how it is. But this line stood out to me, because it touches on the point I was trying to make. Marching in to an obvious enemy territory without a dm is the players handling this. They chose to ignore the npcs.

I'm also sympathetic about what you wrote in regards to the endless debate, but there has to be a line somewhere. In theory, I could gather up 10 of the best pvpers, set up camp outside the cordor government building with placibles and claim I am the king of arelith. As soon as you say "But the king of Cordor's palace is right over there" I could kill you for your infidelity. And all of that would be within the rules as they stand now.

Now, that example is ridiculous and obviously way past the line, but I also think that marching into a obviously hostile place and relying solely on your pvp prowess to kill whomever you want is going pretty far too. So here I was, trying to move the line. I realize its not going to happen at this point, but hey, I tried.

[Watchful Glare]

The thing is I don't disagree with you. There should be some powerful NPC faction out there in the world. My point is more that that shouldn't be handled by players.

I think most people who posted here think the same on so many levels, and I'm glad this got to a place where its going how it is. But this line stood out to me, because it touches on the point I was trying to make. Marching in to an obvious enemy territory without a dm is the players handling this. They chose to ignore the npcs.

I'm also sympathetic about what you wrote in regards to the endless debate, but there has to be a line somewhere. In theory, I could gather up 10 of the best pvpers, set up camp outside the cordor government building with placibles and claim I am the king of arelith. As soon as you say "But the king of Cordor's palace is right over there" I could kill you for your infidelity. And all of that would be within the rules as they stand now.

Now, that example is ridiculous and obviously way past the line, but I also think that marching into a obviously hostile place and relying solely on your pvp prowess to kill whomever you want is going pretty far too. So here I was, trying to move the line. I realize its not going to happen at this point, but hey, I tried.

While I don't disagree with the concept of what you are describing, there are some problems with this in general in it's implementation. That being DM oversight. Let me tell you about a different experience. On another server I played in it is against the rules to ignore NPCs, and to have PvP within sight of NPCs or in their proximity. You need a DM present before you can do that, so they can handle that.

What happens then however is that some players will use NPCs as a shield. They will run to NPCs when their characters are in danger because they are aware of the rules, and perhaps even proceed to taunt their pursuers from the limits of their rule guaranteed safety. That is because DMs are not available as often, and for everyone, equally. And most PvP happened sporadically. You would have had to be really lucky (or to have been in favorable terms) for one to log in on command to prevent that. Sometimes it was the case. Sometimes it wasn't. As you might imagine, this wasn't pleasant.

From what I have seen, Arelith is a place that builds with the assumption that if something can be gamed, misused, or exploited, it will be. Therefore the possibility of it is removed entirely, there is no 'honor system'.

[Shadowy Reality]

The biggest issue seems to be folk ignoring NPCs, and seems to be the main point the OP is trying to make.

I think some common sense should be had here, but no actual rules need to be changed, they are fine as they are. The first rule is to roleplay. This includes acknowledging NPCs as part of the world, ignore them at your own risk.

You think you can attack someone in front of any NPC because they wouldn't step in, or aren't strong enough to stop you? This might be true for some, but not all of them. I think you should rethink your course of action, specially if you are in a densely populated or heavily guarded area.

I get where the OP is going. I have played a Cordorian guard in the past, and I was just killed in the middle of Cordor for calling out someone sneaking around, with 4 Elite Guards in sight. It sucks but just report and carry on.

[Red Ropes]

I just kill people when it makes sense to do so and am down to embrace the consequences that come from that narratively. I've sent reports before to the team when doing that in places like the Shadovar Outpost when no one was around. I sold a faction member into slavery because of it.

I haven't done that in the modern Shadovar Outpost yet. But I still would if it made sense to do so.

But I actually don't really support automated NPCs and think that should be left to DM fiat. Shadovar Outpost already has people trying to do the Ye Olde Cordor in the age of the Triple J thing where folks trying to make you trigger the NPCs without actually having fought.

The Shadovar are also an mortal ethnic group of humanity and despite their origins and hardships are not really super saiyan 3 goku on an individual basis.

What I'd actually like to see for settlements with mechanics attached is that NPCs in the city that are guards are tagged to their government faction and are made less powerful but can be used as a henchmen by government officials authorized to do so.

Maybe some sort of light "shadovar like" system if government officials who are part of a government faction get attacked those NPCs defend them automatically but they'd only be token reinforcements and not as strong as PCs. (But also with this its at your own peril and you won't be considered some sort of NPC griefer for actually trying to assassinate someone / commit murder / resist tyranny.)

But I'd never want to see anything that was completely autonomous again. I want to interact with players. Not NPCs.

[Hazard]

I just kill people when it makes sense to do so and am down to embrace the consequences that come from that narratively. I've sent reports before to the team when doing that in places like the Shadovar Outpost when no one was around. I sold a faction member into slavery because of it.

I haven't done that in the modern Shadovar Outpost yet. But I still would if it made sense to do so.

But I actually don't really support automated NPCs and think that should be left to DM fiat. Shadovar Outpost already has people trying to do the Ye Olde Cordor in the age of the Triple J thing where folks trying to make you trigger the NPCs without actually having fought.

The Shadovar are also an mortal ethnic group of humanity and despite their origins and hardships are not really super saiyan 3 goku on an individual basis.

What I'd actually like to see for settlements with mechanics attached is that NPCs in the city that are guards are tagged to their government faction and are made less powerful but can be used as a henchmen by government officials authorized to do so.

Maybe some sort of light "shadovar like" system if government officials who are part of a government faction get attacked those NPCs defend them automatically but they'd only be token reinforcements and not as strong as PCs. (But also with this its at your own peril and you won't be considered some sort of NPC griefer for actually trying to assassinate someone / commit murder / resist tyranny.)

But I'd never want to see anything that was completely autonomous again. I want to interact with players. Not NPCs.

This is how I feel about it too. +1

[The GrumpyCat]

I was not thinking of this from the perspective of player's using it that way to shut down RP, but now that you mention it I do get it. I suppose I have also encountered pretty often when hunting characters who hide out in cities or in front of the Nomad with the idea that they can't be attacked there because of the NPCs. I tend towards ignoring this or choosing different people to play conflict with because it seems like a maturity issue that I don't really want to deal with. So, I definitely agree with you there.

I know this is really random - but I just wanna say I adore the back and forth between Curve and Arigard here. It's really really nice to see such a civilised and back and forth discussion. You both pretty much brought up fantastic points, and it's just so super rare and really, really nice to see any conversation on the internet that ends with some amount of 'I think X' 'I think Y' 'Oh well this is why X' 'Oh this is why Y' 'Oh wait, yeah I see your point' it's just loverly. Made me really happy.

[Hazard]

I was not thinking of this from the perspective of player's using it that way to shut down RP, but now that you mention it I do get it. I suppose I have also encountered pretty often when hunting characters who hide out in cities or in front of the Nomad with the idea that they can't be attacked there because of the NPCs. I tend towards ignoring this or choosing different people to play conflict with because it seems like a maturity issue that I don't really want to deal with. So, I definitely agree with you there.

I know this is really random - but I just wanna say I adore the back and forth between Curve and Arigard here. It's really really nice to see such a civilised and back and forth discussion. You both pretty much brought up fantastic points, and it's just so super rare and really, really nice to see any conversation on the internet that ends with some amount of 'I think X' 'I think Y' 'Oh well this is why X' 'Oh this is why Y' 'Oh wait, yeah I see your point' it's just loverly. Made me really happy.

I know this is really random but I just wanna say I adore the compliment given here. It's really really nice to see such an encouraging comment. You brought up fantastic points and it's just so super rare and really, really nice to see any conversation on the internet that ends with some amount of 'I think X is nice'. It's just lovely. Made me really happy.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

What happens then however is that some players will use NPCs as a shield. They will run to NPCs when their characters are in danger because they are aware of the rules, and perhaps even proceed to taunt their pursuers from the limits of their rule guaranteed safety. That is because DMs are not available as often, and for everyone, equally. And most PvP happened sporadically. You would have had to be really lucky (or to have been in favorable terms) for one to log in on command to prevent that. Sometimes it was the case. Sometimes it wasn't. As you might imagine, this wasn't pleasant.

From what I have seen, Arelith is a place that builds with the assumption that if something can be gamed, misused, or exploited, it will be. Therefore the possibility of it is removed entirely, there is no 'honor system'.

I think this gets to the root of why I see this differently then just about everyone else that has posted in the thread, baring maybe a few that didn't really get into their opinions on this. I don't see this as a big deal. Sure, if someone is being a moron about it then that's one thing, and a report should be sent to the dms just like you would if someone was being a moron about pvp. But not only do I not mind the bad/good guy getting away sometimes, I actually think it makes a better story. "I fought Tom the Devil guy and had him on teh ropes, but he got away" is much better then "I killed Tom the devil guy for the 15th time today, this rounds on me". I get the second part is part of the game we play and will never cease to exist, but it would be nice to see a lot more of the first.

[Marsi]

2) There is too many players that are addicted to the "thrill" of pvp on Arelith, and they aren't going to care about the nuance in the statement above by dio, because really...20 rpr, 40 rpr, they are still going to be level 30 in two weeks and fully geared for murder in a month. And I wouldn't be surprised if I overstated the time it takes them. That doesn't make them bad people, that's just the way they like to play. I tend to level pretty fast myself.

It's worth keeping in mind that this isn't felt to be true by a lot of people, myself included. In fact, I would say that there are too many players on Arelith who create and take advantage of safe spaces.

I agree that "oh no! Tom got away! drats" is how conflict ought to end a lot of the time. But it's a problem when that happens again and again and it becomes "oh no! Tom is throwing stones at us and then immediately retreating into the safety of DM fiat/NPC area/dense bureaucracy" or "oh no! Tom is working to perpetuate a status quo where any conflict maker or mover and shaker is tarred and feathered ASAP". It's hard to countenance the idea of no PVP zones when this has been the reality for quite a lot of people.

[Hazard]

I don't know, I see a lot of PvP-obsessed people, but in my 14+ years of playing here I've personally never had anyone hide in a safe zone to escape consequences.

Then again maybe we have a different perspective on safe areas. I don't consider all of a settlement a safe area.
I think it's fine to murder someone in a settlement, if you do it smart and out of the way.. or even in the middle of town square if you do it quickly and escape. Just don't do it right next to any guard NPCs, and I've not seen people hiding next to NPCs.. and if I did see that, I wouldn't be frustrated as a 'want-to-be villain' I'd be pleased. Imagine that scenario... you chased the paladin or whatever back to their city and now they're literally hiding behind a guard? That's hilarious and so much more humiliating than any simple slaying. My character would probably commission a song to be written about it.

It's when fights are prolonged or when people hang around after committing a murder that I think the situation requires reporting. If someone killed someone and then fled like a fugitive? I think that's fine, and even kind of cool. They're taking it upon themselves to RP consequences to their own actions, already pretending that they're wanted/being chased. I like to see that. I don't like to see when someone just kills someone and then just chills hanging out.

Again, certain areas like the tradepost and Dis are a different story. I don't think realistically anyone would be able to simply escape a place like the concourse/tradepost after murdering or assaulting in plain view and if they do I'd hope a DM follows them up with some IC consequences, which hopefully everyone would enjoy and be on board with.

[lordgaist]

The only thing i'm a little bothered by is that all the "safe" no pvp zones are all evil alignment areas where good guys generally aren't tolerated or generally aren't very immersive for a good guy to be in. Its okay for a drow to kill a paladin in the hub but not okay for a paladin to kill a drow in the hub. But there is absolutely no reverse side of that. A drow can kill a paladin in Cordor square as well. And then you have shadowvar where sure a good guy could go to. Personally? My paladins dont hang out there. So it just seems the bad guys have safe places to go to but even Cordor square can be locked down by a strong pvp squad infront of npc guards (as long as they dont hit the npc) and just butcher everyone that comes through without a dm. So in reality the evil players have settlements they can go to and have a safe rp environment withou the fear of pvp but according to the rules a strong group can easily lock down the good settlements for hours at a time and the players they kill are forced to either go onto different characters or leave their settlements (even as a Cordor Guard this can happen. If group mega evil gets 15 dudes and sits in the square and wipes everyone, the guards cant go back into the city and the mega evil can just sit there and drink tea infront of the npc guards) And this is actually perfectly allowed by the rules. I personally just find it weird that a guard can be killed infront of six npc guards and the killers can just sit down infront of said npc guards and have a nice chat. Certainly not how it goes down in most any other situation real life or fantasy lol.

[Watchful Glare]

What happens then however is that some players will use NPCs as a shield. They will run to NPCs when their characters are in danger because they are aware of the rules, and perhaps even proceed to taunt their pursuers from the limits of their rule guaranteed safety. That is because DMs are not available as often, and for everyone, equally. And most PvP happened sporadically. You would have had to be really lucky (or to have been in favorable terms) for one to log in on command to prevent that. Sometimes it was the case. Sometimes it wasn't. As you might imagine, this wasn't pleasant.

From what I have seen, Arelith is a place that builds with the assumption that if something can be gamed, misused, or exploited, it will be. Therefore the possibility of it is removed entirely, there is no 'honor system'.

I think this gets to the root of why I see this differently then just about everyone else that has posted in the thread, baring maybe a few that didn't really get into their opinions on this. I don't see this as a big deal. Sure, if someone is being a moron about it then that's one thing, and a report should be sent to the dms just like you would if someone was being a moron about pvp. But not only do I not mind the bad/good guy getting away sometimes, I actually think it makes a better story. "I fought Tom the Devil guy and had him on teh ropes, but he got away" is much better then "I killed Tom the devil guy for the 15th time today, this rounds on me". I get the second part is part of the game we play and will never cease to exist, but it would be nice to see a lot more of the first.

You're not wrong and I agree with you. It is something I have experienced when playing over time. I notice those who are actively against someone or attack a settlement are often killed in the doing of so. Only to try again or enter the conflict again sometime in the future. And be killed again. It's not like they break the 24hs rule, they respect it by all means. But at first it's "Oh, they killed that person, damn." That is impactful. When it's the 27th time you have seen their head or corpse lying about since you're playing it reaches a point where you just have to ignore it In-character because there's no way your character can reason this guy keeps just coming back from the grave what is even the point of killing him? I can sympathise with characters who just go "Again...?"

Not like we have a plague of this, but it vexes me at times.

(I also have a pet peeve. This is not wrong by any measure, it's just a pet peeve of mine. About when an invading force loses and rather than do prisoner RP, or RP of any kind they prefer death to inconvenience. If they were on mark of destiny, or risking permadeath, then the "I shall die a glorious death rather!" speech is actually remarkable and ballsy, it has weight and makes you think. When it's not it just reads disinterested and dismissive.)

The only thing i'm a little bothered by is that all the "safe" no pvp zones are all evil alignment areas where good guys generally aren't tolerated or generally aren't very immersive for a good guy to be in. Its okay for a drow to kill a paladin in the hub but not okay for a paladin to kill a drow in the hub. But there is absolutely no reverse side of that. A drow can kill a paladin in Cordor square as well. And then you have shadowvar where sure a good guy could go to. Personally? My paladins dont hang out there. So it just seems the bad guys have safe places to go to but even Cordor square can be locked down by a strong pvp squad infront of npc guards (as long as they dont hit the npc) and just butcher everyone that comes through without a dm. So in reality the evil players have settlements they can go to and have a safe rp environment withou the fear of pvp but according to the rules a strong group can easily lock down the good settlements for hours at a time and the players they kill are forced to either go onto different characters or leave their settlements (even as a Cordor Guard this can happen. If group mega evil gets 15 dudes and sits in the square and wipes everyone, the guards cant go back into the city and the mega evil can just sit there and drink tea infront of the npc guards) And this is actually perfectly allowed by the rules. I personally just find it weird that a guard can be killed infront of six npc guards and the killers can just sit down infront of said npc guards and have a nice chat. Certainly not how it goes down in most any other situation real life or fantasy lol.

I disagree with this. As a Paladin, you can go to the hub and you are fine. So long as you have not been hostile previously to the inhabitants of the underdark, you are fine. They do not have an anti-Paladin rule, but an anti-enemy rule. If you go to any place where you have killed them, to meet them and their allies again, where they live, with no real safe passage granted... Then yes, I don't know what else could anyone expect.

On the flip side, you cannot go as a drow to Cordor. Or Guldorand. Or Brogedestein. Or Sibayad. Or Myon. Not even to shop. You will be told immediately to leave if they are feeling merciful. If they are not, you will be killed where you stand, class and RP be damned.

There are also other factors. As a surfacer, you can go to Guldorand. If Guldorand isn't safe for you? You can go to Brogedestein. It isn't safe? Well there is Cordor. You are -also- wanted in Cordor? Holy hell. Well you can go to Sencliff. They also hate you in Sencliff? Well you can go to Sibayad! And on, and on, and on.

As a drow, if the Andunor is not safe, where else are you going to go? It's either Andunor or Shadovar. There is no place for Andunor exiles if you are playing a drow. If Andunor is not safe for you and you keep getting killed, because obviously where else are you going to be as a drow, then you might as well roll the character.

[Hazard]

I notice those who are actively against someone or attack a settlement are often killed in the doing of so. Only to try again or enter the conflict again sometime in the future. And be killed again. It's not like they break the 24hs rule, they respect it by all means. But at first it's "Oh, they killed that person, damn." That is impactful. When it's the 27th time you have seen their head or corpse lying about since you're playing it reaches a point where you just have to ignore it In-character because there's no way your character can reason this guy keeps just coming back from the grave what is even the point of killing him? I can sympathise with characters who just go "Again...?"

This is the thing about PvP that bothers me most and the transgression I experience most often. Not a lot, but chances are if something is going wrong it's probably this exact scenario.

Defeating the same enemy over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over..
I really respect those villains/heroes that take a break from their routine after losing and change things up.

It isn't against the rules to just come back for another PvP-fest day after day, but .. Heck. Maybe it should be. Maybe 24 hours is just too short in some cases, or maybe we need a second rule where if you've pvp'd 3 times in a row with the same people (24 hours, 24 hours, 24 hours) then a DM tells you to cut it out for like a week or something. Give it a break. RP defeat and not only victories. Try not raiding the surface/underdark/whatever for just a little bit.

[The GrumpyCat]

It isn't against the rules to just come back for another PvP-fest day after day, but .. Heck. Maybe it should be. Maybe 24 hours is just too short in some cases, or maybe we need a second rule where if you've pvp'd 3 times in a row with the same people (24 hours, 24 hours, 24 hours) then a DM tells you to cut it out for like a week or something. Give it a break. RP defeat and not only victories. Try not raiding the surface/underdark/whatever for just a little bit.

If this is happening you probably should be reporting it, because it is kinda breaking the spirit of the rules.

With that being said - consider (especialy if you are a reactionary pc) that said pc may not be attacing the same target.

E.g. Yes, Bob the Drow attacking Cordor week is bad.
But Bob the Drow going to the surface once a week, mostly to gather wood, or to attack seperate targets - with you happening to be one of the quick responders to speedies - is not neccesarly bad. There's a LOT of players on the surface, It's hardly Bob's fault you happen to be the one that always shows up.#

And I do very much get the frustration about people returning from pvp over and over and over again. In some ways it would be nice if there were more consequences. But when desinging such things, we have to make in accordance with some of the worst of our player base.

If you want more penalities for your enemies (e.g. enforced MoD) then you have to be willing to accept it for yourselves too.

[Party in the forest at midnight]

Whenever people say they want more consequences, they mean they want more consequences for everyone but themself.

[Watchful Glare]

It isn't against the rules to just come back for another PvP-fest day after day, but .. Heck. Maybe it should be. Maybe 24 hours is just too short in some cases, or maybe we need a second rule where if you've pvp'd 3 times in a row with the same people (24 hours, 24 hours, 24 hours) then a DM tells you to cut it out for like a week or something. Give it a break. RP defeat and not only victories. Try not raiding the surface/underdark/whatever for just a little bit.

If this is happening you probably should be reporting it, because it is kinda breaking the spirit of the rules.

With that being said - consider (especialy if you are a reactionary pc) that said pc may not be attacing the same target.

E.g. Yes, Bob the Drow attacking Cordor week is bad.
But Bob the Drow going to the surface once a week, mostly to gather wood, or to attack seperate targets - with you happening to be one of the quick responders to speedies - is not neccesarly bad. There's a LOT of players on the surface, It's hardly Bob's fault you happen to be the one that always shows up.#

And I do very much get the frustration about people returning from pvp over and over and over again. In some ways it would be nice if there were more consequences. But when desinging such things, we have to make in accordance with some of the worst of our player base.

If you want more penalities for your enemies (e.g. enforced MoD) then you have to be willing to accept it for yourselves too.

I think anyone who would push for such a thing or give their approval understand it works both ways; I think (and just brainstorming, something off the top of my head) something could be done. Not this though, because it's something that just ocurred to me without much in-dept thought: A script that counts how many PvP deaths have you had and where they were. Every X amount of time it resets. If you start accumulating a certain amount of deaths over time (This person died 10 times in 30 days in the same area to PvP; basically going back there once every three days) then a system message tells you you're becoming eligible for MoD, or it simply shows up as a notification for a DM to look into it, automatizing the process of being able to notice which players are in the thick of it.

I'm not entirely convinced assigning MoD is the way to go (because it feels very final, rather than a corrective), but perhaps I'd be more liberal with that feeling if there was a way to get out of the MoD and it was just a thing that applies when you've been doing way too much PvP or way too much disregarding death, and after you take it easy for a while (A month, two?) it goes away on it's own.

[LovelyLightningWitch]

It isn't against the rules to just come back for another PvP-fest day after day, but .. Heck. Maybe it should be. Maybe 24 hours is just too short in some cases, or maybe we need a second rule where if you've pvp'd 3 times in a row with the same people (24 hours, 24 hours, 24 hours) then a DM tells you to cut it out for like a week or something. Give it a break. RP defeat and not only victories. Try not raiding the surface/underdark/whatever for just a little bit.

If this is happening you probably should be reporting it, because it is kinda breaking the spirit of the rules.

With that being said - consider (especialy if you are a reactionary pc) that said pc may not be attacing the same target.

E.g. Yes, Bob the Drow attacking Cordor week is bad.
But Bob the Drow going to the surface once a week, mostly to gather wood, or to attack seperate targets - with you happening to be one of the quick responders to speedies - is not neccesarly bad. There's a LOT of players on the surface, It's hardly Bob's fault you happen to be the one that always shows up.#

And I do very much get the frustration about people returning from pvp over and over and over again. In some ways it would be nice if there were more consequences. But when desinging such things, we have to make in accordance with some of the worst of our player base.

If you want more penalities for your enemies (e.g. enforced MoD) then you have to be willing to accept it for yourselves too.

I think anyone who would push for such a thing or give their approval understand it works both ways; I think (and just brainstorming, something off the top of my head) something could be done. Not this though, because it's something that just ocurred to me without much in-dept thought: A script that counts how many PvP deaths have you had and where they were. Every X amount of time it resets. If you start accumulating a certain amount of deaths over time (This person died 10 times in 30 days in the same area to PvP; basically going back there once every three days) then a system message tells you you're becoming eligible for MoD, or it simply shows up as a notification for a DM to look into it, automatizing the process of being able to notice which players are in the thick of it.

I'm not entirely convinced assigning MoD is the way to go (because it feels very final, rather than a corrective), but perhaps I'd be more liberal with that feeling if there was a way to get out of the MoD and it was just a thing that applies when you've been doing way too much PvP or way too much disregarding death, and after you take it easy for a while (A month, two?) it goes away on it's own.

One issue with "same area to pvp" is it could hit players who may not want anything to do with pvp or conflict RP, but happen to exist within a township that gets attacked with frequent raids or "not-DM requiring raid, just 2-3 attackers" and ending up punished just the same as the aggressor who seeks this thing.

Say for instance, since people mentioned Bendir before - I am playing some cozy halfling priestess of Yondalla focusing on immersive/simulationist RP as the township's cook & shoulder to lean on. A group of orc players come into Bendir to kill someone else and I get hit too due to being too close and not being able to react fast enough (or perhaps trying to heal the wounded as a priestess of yondalla would do).

This repeats over and over again, and my choice is to either
A) Avoid RPing in Bendir during the playtime of the orc PCs
B) Avoid playing this character during the playtime of the orc PCs
C) Try to continue my simulationist approach to RP and end up with a MoD due to being at the wrong place at the wrong time (which may happen to be my only PC and only area to RP in).


Not sure how viable the above scenario is, but it has a non-zero chance of happening. And I admit, mainly due to my bad experiences over my history of roleplaying, I very much try to stay out of conflict RP beyond preaching for a random good aligned deity and low-scale conflict over inner-church beliefs or something similarly pvp-lacking. But with the above, I could see it potentially being done intentionally (to get rid of my character through an alt of someone maybe) or unintentionally (collateral).

[The GrumpyCat]

This has been in discussion on and off in DM circles- but... so the narrative dissencentive should be on the victim (dying) - and that makes sense.

On the other hand - 'dying' doesn't count for much. You can 'die' as the victim of an assassin attempt, or the assassin. Penalizing that isn't really what we want I don't think.

What we want - in this hypothetical sitation - is people not to return to pvp (won or lost!) with the same people over and over again in a short space of time.

Honestly - I'd rather like it if people were a llittle less PvP happy (especialy kill happy) in general. Just slow it down a little bit - allow narrative and interest to develop. This does happen mark you - I see it fairly regularly, but I also see the other way.

Reguardless - I think it's very difficult to create an intuative system that cannot be gamed - because players will game something- that accounts of PvP - a thing that is heavily competative. It's generally best (and you've no idea how much I hate saying this) when overlooked with a DM.

That said though! I'm absolutly up to be proved wrong! And always up for reading ideas that might work to prevent the same groups constantly hitting themselves in pvp - honstly reguardless of where they are.

[Watchful Glare]

If this is happening you probably should be reporting it, because it is kinda breaking the spirit of the rules.

With that being said - consider (especialy if you are a reactionary pc) that said pc may not be attacing the same target.

E.g. Yes, Bob the Drow attacking Cordor week is bad.
But Bob the Drow going to the surface once a week, mostly to gather wood, or to attack seperate targets - with you happening to be one of the quick responders to speedies - is not neccesarly bad. There's a LOT of players on the surface, It's hardly Bob's fault you happen to be the one that always shows up.#

And I do very much get the frustration about people returning from pvp over and over and over again. In some ways it would be nice if there were more consequences. But when desinging such things, we have to make in accordance with some of the worst of our player base.

If you want more penalities for your enemies (e.g. enforced MoD) then you have to be willing to accept it for yourselves too.

I think anyone who would push for such a thing or give their approval understand it works both ways; I think (and just brainstorming, something off the top of my head) something could be done. Not this though, because it's something that just ocurred to me without much in-dept thought: A script that counts how many PvP deaths have you had and where they were. Every X amount of time it resets. If you start accumulating a certain amount of deaths over time (This person died 10 times in 30 days in the same area to PvP; basically going back there once every three days) then a system message tells you you're becoming eligible for MoD, or it simply shows up as a notification for a DM to look into it, automatizing the process of being able to notice which players are in the thick of it.

I'm not entirely convinced assigning MoD is the way to go (because it feels very final, rather than a corrective), but perhaps I'd be more liberal with that feeling if there was a way to get out of the MoD and it was just a thing that applies when you've been doing way too much PvP or way too much disregarding death, and after you take it easy for a while (A month, two?) it goes away on it's own.

One issue with "same area to pvp" is it could hit players who may not want anything to do with pvp or conflict RP, but happen to exist within a township that gets attacked with frequent raids or "not-DM requiring raid, just 2-3 attackers" and ending up punished just the same as the aggressor who seeks this thing.

Say for instance, since people mentioned Bendir before - I am playing some cozy halfling priestess of Yondalla focusing on immersive/simulationist RP as the township's cook & shoulder to lean on. A group of orc players come into Bendir to kill someone else and I get hit too due to being too close and not being able to react fast enough (or perhaps trying to heal the wounded as a priestess of yondalla would do).

This repeats over and over again, and my choice is to either
A) Avoid RPing in Bendir during the playtime of the orc PCs
B) Avoid playing this character during the playtime of the orc PCs
C) Try to continue my simulationist approach to RP and end up with a MoD due to being at the wrong place at the wrong time (which may happen to be my only PC and only area to RP in).


Not sure how viable the above scenario is, but it has a non-zero chance of happening. And I admit, mainly due to my bad experiences over my history of roleplaying, I very much try to stay out of conflict RP beyond preaching for a random good aligned deity and low-scale conflict over inner-church beliefs or something similarly pvp-lacking. But with the above, I could see it potentially being done intentionally (to get rid of my character through an alt of someone maybe) or unintentionally (collateral).

Let me preface this to say that I don't think that is a realistic scenario, but I will address it still. If you simply happened to be at the same place, at the same time, and got attacked every day by raiders a DM attacking a settlement or coming in and killing people inside, a DM would deal with that because as Grumpy Cat has said that is a rules breach.

The rule targeting those who die is the one that makes sense given that death is supposed to be impactful. If you had a MoD and you knew that say, Bendir is under constant attack every day due to an on-going war and you have died three times in three days (Regardless of DM involvement punishing the offensive player, and regardless of how far fetched that something like that would happen, or let alone be allowed to happen for as long) your character, in-character, should think "Bendir is in the middle of a war and is really dangerous. Perhaps I should avoid that city until things calm down." Rather than dying, respawning, and returning to the same area.

There are situations where this might not be as feasible (UD Races, if a war in Andunor happens. Where else are they going to go?) but as I say the situation in itself is not something that would realistically happen. Usually bystanders are not killed in such liberal terms. I've had people attack each other in my proximity, I've even walked along following their lengthy battle just out of curiosity and have not been attacked as a consequence.

This has been in discussion on and off in DM circles- but... so the narrative dissencentive should be on the victim (dying) - and that makes sense.

On the other hand - 'dying' doesn't count for much. You can 'die' as the victim of an assassin attempt, or the assassin. Penalizing that isn't really what we want I don't think.

What we want - in this hypothetical sitation - is people not to return to pvp (won or lost!) with the same people over and over again in a short space of time.

Honestly - I'd rather like it if people were a llittle less PvP happy (especialy kill happy) in general. Just slow it down a little bit - allow narrative and interest to develop. This does happen mark you - I see it fairly regularly, but I also see the other way.

Reguardless - I think it's very difficult to create an intuative system that cannot be gamed - because players will game something- that accounts of PvP - a thing that is heavily competative. It's generally best (and you've no idea how much I hate saying this) when overlooked with a DM.

That said though! I'm absolutly up to be proved wrong! And always up for reading ideas that might work to prevent the same groups constantly hitting themselves in pvp - honstly reguardless of where they are.

I don't think penalizing is right either. I think as it stands (the options being doing nothing or applying an MoD) may be a bit like going from 0 to 100 real quick. As I mentioned, beause MoD seems to be permanent.

If say there was another kind of it (You have 10 lives for PvP, but they refresh at the start of every month (?)) that would be more like it.

"But wouldn't there exist the possibility of me being griefed and have the character perma-killed?" Considering you'd have 10 lives, that count only for PvP deaths, you would be able to manage that. Getting purposely killed more than six times by the same individual in a short amount of time is already worth reviewing one way or another. It would give a player plenty of time to think "Hey, wait a minute, this isn't right.".

Either you would be getting griefed (And with that evidence, ridding the server of a griefer sounds alright) or you are really putting yourself in danger and ought to reconsider (Which you would naturally, since your character needs to lay low for a while). And RPing your character laying low for a while or seeking other means of conflict resolution other than repeated death sounds ideal if we are looking to avoid an overusage of death.

I agree with what you are saying however; this is just me trying to come up with something that perhaps could help.

[Curve]

I used to be a big proponent of more PvP and aggressive story telling. This was at a time on the server when it was pretty generally accepted things were complacent as a result of a lack of action, fear of PvP. It is easy for me to get stuck in the mindset of that time, that pushing with aggressive story lines and being willing to get into PvP at the drop of a hat is always a positive as long as I try to make it cool, fun, and able to be engaged with. But, I think the server has gone in the other direction and if I am looking at things from the angle of what is best for the server not just for my own desire to play that aggressive style then the best thing to do is walk it back in the other direction a bit. Invest in more long term story lines, be willing to let people get away, trust that making more long term conflict will also be fun for me like the faster paced play is.

[Haroshia]

I used to be a big proponent of more PvP and aggressive story telling. This was at a time on the server when it was pretty generally accepted things were complacent as a result of a lack of action, fear of PvP. It is easy for me to get stuck in the mindset of that time, that pushing with aggressive story lines and being willing to get into PvP at the drop of a hat is always a positive as long as I try to make it cool, fun, and able to be engaged with. But, I think the server has gone in the other direction and if I am looking at things from the angle of what is best for the server not just for my own desire to play that aggressive style then the best thing to do is walk it back in the other direction a bit. Invest in more long term story lines, be willing to let people get away, trust that making more long term conflict will also be fun for me like the faster paced play is.

More folks gotta type -subdual and be willing to make the point then yeet folks away. There's IC and OOC justifications for it.

[Curve]

Sure, subdual is a tool in the box. It is not the only one, though. I think people get caught up in some questionable rationalizations about realism sometimes. What realism can fail to account for is the back and forth of good conflict, where doing what your character would do is not always the coolest thing. I'd advocate for a lot of other tactics as often as I would subdual. There is something to be said for not running to combat every UD raid, making mistakes when chasing your enemies, letting your enemies out wit you, letting your fancy thing be stolen, your city to be overtaken, or even surrendering, turning spy/traitor against your friends.

I don't say any of this to refute you, Haroshia. Just that I have seen subdual used as an excuse to go wild PvPing as much or more often than I have used it as a gateway to fun roleplay.