24 Hour Rule

[Party in the forest at midnight]

Corpse hiding is an absolutely miserable mechanic. If you think PvP is stressful right now, wait until you add situations where your RP is on hold because now you need to go and find someone's corpse. If you think it'll fix whatever problem you perceive in your head, you're not thinking about how people who are good at PvP will absolutely dominate absolutely everything. The people who advocate for it the most are people who would suffer the most for it, it's insane.

"Oh but people wouldn't corpsehide all the time, that wouldn't be nice!" is incorrect. Corpsehiding is the most IC thing to do, because if you don't, they'll come and do the same to you once they get raised. It'll make shotgun PvP even worse because there's now real stakes at hand for not being first. And there'll be less build experimentation, people will hop from overpowered flavour of the month thing to the next.

[Wrips]

I think limited lives would encourage a very toxic style of play: people would cling into large groups as a deterrent, players would lock themselves in their guildhouses, increased potential of griefing, etc. These things already happen in a certain level, but I feel It would increase dramaticaly should a change like that happen.

If a player is not taking death seriously, report it.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

Corpse hiding is an absolutely miserable mechanic. If you think PvP is stressful right now, wait until you add situations where your RP is on hold because now you need to go and find someone's corpse. If you think it'll fix whatever problem you perceive in your head, you're not thinking about how people who are good at PvP will absolutely dominate absolutely everything. The people who advocate for it the most are people who would suffer the most for it, it's insane.

"Oh but people wouldn't corpsehide all the time, that wouldn't be nice!" is incorrect. Corpsehiding is the most IC thing to do, because if you don't, they'll come and do the same to you once they get raised. It'll make shotgun PvP even worse because there's now real stakes at hand for not being first. And there'll be less build experimentation, people will hop from overpowered flavour of the month thing to the next.

despite having every intention to say what i had to say and move on, you inspired me to bite.

1) I don't know what you are getting at by saying "whatever perceived problem I have in my head". This entire thread is almost three pages about a problem in the current system, and this is just one of dozens if not over 100 threads detailing peoples perceived problems. I tossed out a viable solution to it, and even admitted no one was going to like it.

2) A change this big would require a few new rules around it. Don't ask me to define what they would be, this is never going to happen anyways, just know that if it did people are smart enough to figure out how to operate under a new system.

3) Since I'm the only person I have ever heard advocating for this change, I assume I'm the one who stinks at pvp and would suffer the most in your estimation. All I can say is, we can throw down for giggles on the pgcc any time you want. I'm too rusty at high level pvp these days to call myself unbeatable, but good luck beating me the same way twice. And since so many of the tactics on Arelith are inbred, I feel pretty good wandering a more dangerous world.

4) I don't know what server you play on my man, but people already hop from one overpowered flavor of the month to the next. I'm not sure why you think this would be a drastic change.

5) Another thing that already exists is roaming death squads of pvp savvy players. Under the current system, getting a giant group to go after them only means they respawn and hunt you down one by one tomorrow. At least if there was even a little more finality to death, you could actually say "I'm tired of these bloodthirsty halflings riding out from bendir on their ponies and killing all the bad guys on the server as soon as they stick their head out" and get a group together to have a one-time victory before you go back to betraying each other because you are evil.

Just to conclude, this is never going to happen. Too many players would be upset with that sort of change no matter how good for the server it might actually be. But your arguments against fell a bit short in my estimation, so I felt a response was warranted.

[Kalthariam]

All that would do is even more so encourage that the people whom care less about RP and care more about PvP would get a massive sledge hammer to be able to completely distrupt more RP, and make it physically impossible not to build exactly to meta builds, because if you don't you're just dead and you can't do anything about it.

Which in my opinion already is a problem with the server, when you can ask for build advice for some silly for fun build, and everyone just immediately goes into explaining how you shouldn't do your silly build because it isn't the correct types of multi-classing to get the exact skills or benefits that only matter in PvP setting. Then you get ridiculed if you say you have no interest in PvP nor do you want to build this character with PvP in mind, because you have no interest in getting involved in such.

Your idea, is not infact good for the server in any way, in my opinion, and just ends up giving murder hobo's more power to disrupt.

While not everyone's ideas were great, I could at least see how people believed their ideas would stop rampant pvp from being done repeatedly. You're just seems to make it a player killer haven.

[-XXX-]

So we can check the obligatory "forced PvP MoD angle" box.

It'd only excerberate any PvP related issues rather than address them and we can quote members of the team stating that this was never going to happen.

We done here?

[MRFTW]

My thoughts on the 24 hour rule are that it's there to protect people like me who are PvP averse.

Sure, you can PvP me, and I'll just lay down and take it because I know you -have- to leave me alone for the rest of the day. It only costs me some gold, XP and time. I wish there were more ways to exchange gold, XP and time for such convenience.

[Curve]

The 24 hour rule protects everyone involved.

I know that my experiences are not the same as other peoples and that my style of rp affects how others interact with my characters. But, I am still astounded that people are unable to rp out of situations that feel oppressive. Every single time I have been in a spot where my character was being braced and I abased myself, or payed up or pleaded for my life the other characters have allowed mine to live. The inverse is true also, every time a character has been willing g to come up with some tiny fraction of a plea I have let them fly.

In my experience characters/players want to keep their lives and their pride. They don’t want to give anything in exchange for walking away.

Sure there are some players who are buck wild loons but I think that you can reason with the vast majority of players if you are willing to allow your characters to look weak while allowing the other party to look strong. Like, you know treating death seriously.

[Kaeldre]

I know that my experiences are not the same as other peoples and that my style of rp affects how others interact with my characters. But, I am still astounded that people are unable to rp out of situations that feel oppressive. Every single time I have been in a spot where my character was being braced and I abased myself, or payed up or pleaded for my life the other characters have allowed mine to live. The inverse is true also, every time a character has been willing to come up with some tiny fraction of a plea I have let them fly.

This has been my experience as well. Not once has it failed me so far, and I always extend the same courtesy to players I find in compromising situations if possible.

[TurningLeaf]

It's kinda like those extra differentiators, the extra elements that don't really have a right or wrong answer. Some things are simply a matter of taste or ability.

-how fast/slow you type
-are we walking or running once we get out of town
-your views on PvP, esp as regards narrative buildup and post-encounter behavior

Nothing above makes someone a better or worse role player IMHO. But gaming with people who share the same traits on those points can make for a far more enjoyable experience.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

Basically agree with where a lot of Ork is coming from.

Arelith must have winners and losers. It is a microcosm of racial, religious, political, and planar conflict. Characters must die. Stories must end. Eras must rise and fall.

I do, however, think -scry and -teleport and the proliferation of lenses and Speedy messengers pose extreme problems in Arelith's current conflict.

It is way too easy to move a large group of people very quickly. Where conflict before was more happenstance and "distant," the tools at the player's fingertips make reactions to PvP way too quick.

You couldn't mobilize 20 PCs to track down pirates through Minmir in like 5 minutes. You can do this today - you couldn't 10 years ago. Things took way longer to move around.

Systemic PvP, and the new woes we see, I don't think are a result of a new sudden player emotional paradigm - people are as rude, mean, and problematic as ever. However, these folks have more tools at their fingertips, and the server environment is not as resistant to their antics as prior.

I do see, more and more, why Mithreas was so resistant to putting a Speedy Messenger anywhere north of Bendir. It is a very tough battle between convenience / and a sense of isolation (and mystery).

But, as to the 24hr rule, every good PvPer will always (always) give their opponent an "out." Every good PvPer worth their salt I've ever met has done this. Because they understand that PvP is necessary, but it must remain as the result of a decision. It's a consequence, not an imposition. The problem is that (generally) a lot of people refuse to back down, and it's often those people who lose in those scenarios that cause the biggest fuss.

The problem is that there are a lot of bad PvPers who never let the other side choose, but instead impose their will. There's a really big difference between,

"Surrender, convert, or we must fight."
"You're a Banite, you must die."

Huge difference. Colossal difference. It's what separates 40'ers from the rest, usually.

[Spriggan Bride]

You have to go back longer than 10 years if you're looking for a time before scrying and portal lenses. Those things existed when I originally played around like 2008-2010. Maybe they weren't weaponized as much but I think PVP on a large or small scale was as messy as it is now if not more.

I have no idea what the answer is. Or the exact problem this answer is supposed to solve. PVP is always going to be problematic and until we have the technology to reach through the computer screen and strangle other players for not acting the way we want them too it's going to be contentious and dissatisfying a lot of the time. Accept the things you cannot change, fellow addicts.

[Tabby]

You have to go back longer than 10 years if you're looking for a time before scrying and portal lenses. Those things existed when I originally played around like 2008-2010. Maybe they weren't weaponized as much but I think PVP on a large or small scale was as messy as it is now if not more.

I have no idea what the answer is. Or the exact problem this answer is supposed to solve. PVP is always going to be problematic and until we have the technology to reach through the computer screen and strangle other players for not acting the way we want them too it's going to be contentious and dissatisfying a lot of the time. Accept the things you cannot change, fellow addicts.

Agreed +1

[Watchful Glare]

Easy solution that everyone is going to hate. Make pvp deaths only recoverable from if raised. It removes all the awkward nonsense discussed in this thread, it gives death more meaning, and the important bit...it will actually make pvp mean something and will cut down on how fast people jump into it. No one is going to believe me when I say that, but it would be true, I am certain of it.

The problem is that too many people on this server have genuine problems understanding "this would make me upset if someone did it to me, so I shouldn't do it to others." What they'll see is "if I can make a good enough PvP build and get a solid enough group, no one will ever be able to get revenge on me if I kill them."

I've been thinking about this and what could realistically be done about it. As it is, it turns into kind of the arms race you've described. And since PvP is the non-consensual method for solving differences and conflict, if you do have an OOC group that can back you up you're as cool as can be and you have no issue with it as it is, knowing you'll come out on top.

And it has the effect of forcing others to match up or give up. And that's where the brinkmanship starts. And that has led us where we are now.

Some of it I think also has to do with the lack of setting enforced laws. Since things are very low consequence, most everything in Arelith is essentially run by gangs. Ultimately there's no difference or caveat for this example, it will come down to one gang fighting another. Even if say, one gang is actually the Cordor Guard, or the Guldorand Watch/Garrison. If they are corrupt and breaking the law, but there is no other gang to PvP them... What can you really do? Who are you going to tell? It defaults to jungle law all the time.

Before anyone goes "That should be reported!" This isn't about a rulebreak in itself about people playing Lawful or Good aligned characters but playing them as corrupt as can be. You can be perfectly playing evil aligned characters that has made it to that position and thus does not care about what it does, so long as it doesn't do it too overtly (IE no human sacrifices in the public square).

You're left in the same position, ultimately and when everything else has failed the method to get one's way is PvP. There's no appealing to higher forces, preparing and pleading a case, no dreaded consequences for breaking this or that law, or intervention whatsoever that does not come from other player characters unless the ball has stopped rolling entirely, and that is likely because the DM Team as it is cannot possibly keep tabs on it all.

I haven't come up with anything worthwhile for this yet.

[Wings of Peace]

But, I am still astounded that people are unable to rp out of situations that feel oppressive. Every single time I have been in a spot where my character was being braced and I abased myself, or payed up or pleaded for my life the other characters have allowed mine to live. The inverse is true also, every time a character has been willing g to come up with some tiny fraction of a plea I have let them fly.

In my experience characters/players want to keep their lives and their pride. They don’t want to give anything in exchange for walking away.

Sure there are some players who are buck wild loons but I think that you can reason with the vast majority of players if you are willing to allow your characters to look weak while allowing the other party to look strong. Like, you know treating death seriously.

This is just an attempt to normalize pvp as the way by which to force narrative compliance through abusive behavior. It's a reframing of "If you're being bullied just do what they want and they'll go away." Sure, lots of people will let you live. But many won't and even if they do this still just means that you think a good rp server lets pvp power dictate rp outcomes across the board. This outlook only encourages more toxic pvp behavior not less because it rewards being abusive with the expectation that if your victims didn't wholly comply it's their fault rp broke down.

[Zavandar]

what if i told you that, historically, settlement leaders don't even have the best builds/aren't always that good at pvp?

yet they control narratives a lot.

makes me think that maybe rp is what controls the narrative.

[Wings of Peace]

what if i told you that, historically, settlement leaders don't even have the best builds/aren't always that good at pvp?

yet they control narratives a lot.

makes me think that maybe rp is what controls the narrative.

Because a settlement leader can't be removed or restricted unless they purposely expose themselves to assassin pvp. Your point is a red herring anyway and not a very good one given how many settlements only elect leaders from outside their cliques when the discord groups go to sleep for a bit. I don't think "But what about the mechanic gamed via ooc communication" is a good counter example but that's just imo.

[Zavandar]

what if i told you that, historically, settlement leaders don't even have the best builds/aren't always that good at pvp?

yet they control narratives a lot.

makes me think that maybe rp is what controls the narrative.

Because a settlement leader can't be removed or restricted unless they purposely expose themselves to assassin pvp. Your point is a red herring anyway and not a very good one given how many settlements only elect leaders from outside their cliques when the discord groups go to sleep for a bit. I don't think "But what about the mechanic gamed via ooc communication" is a good counter example but that's just imo.

if you actually were in the game instead of assuming the worst of your fellow player and shutting out contrary evidence you'd realize these claims don't hold much water.

[Wings of Peace]

what if i told you that, historically, settlement leaders don't even have the best builds/aren't always that good at pvp?

yet they control narratives a lot.

makes me think that maybe rp is what controls the narrative.

Because a settlement leader can't be removed or restricted unless they purposely expose themselves to assassin pvp. Your point is a red herring anyway and not a very good one given how many settlements only elect leaders from outside their cliques when the discord groups go to sleep for a bit. I don't think "But what about the mechanic gamed via ooc communication" is a good counter example but that's just imo.

if you actually were in the game instead of assuming the worst of your fellow player and shutting out contrary evidence you'd realize these claims don't hold much water.

This is a strange line of reasoning considering how many settlements have been controlled by pc groups or sponsored candidates of those pc going back irl years. This is before even mentioning that the entire reason for the current auction system on properties is because of ooc coordination between players to keep desirable properties within their pool (also why the arcane tower can no longer be owned).

[Zavandar]

Because a settlement leader can't be removed or restricted unless they purposely expose themselves to assassin pvp. Your point is a red herring anyway and not a very good one given how many settlements only elect leaders from outside their cliques when the discord groups go to sleep for a bit. I don't think "But what about the mechanic gamed via ooc communication" is a good counter example but that's just imo.

if you actually were in the game instead of assuming the worst of your fellow player and shutting out contrary evidence you'd realize these claims don't hold much water.

This is a strange line of reasoning considering how many settlements have been controlled by pc groups or sponsored candidates of those pc going back irl years. This is before even mentioning that the entire reason for the current auction system on properties is because of ooc coordination between players to keep desirable properties within their pool (also why the arcane tower can no longer be owned).

yet happenings going from now to pretty far in the past contradict this.

wordlessly passing a property to a friend definitely wasn't/isn't controlled by pvp either...

wasn't something said about a red herring?

anyway i think it would serve a lot of people in here to rp instead of chalking up their undesired outcomes to somebody other than them. some people need to touch grass out of game. some apparently need to touch it in game, too!

[Wings of Peace]

if you actually were in the game instead of assuming the worst of your fellow player and shutting out contrary evidence you'd realize these claims don't hold much water.

This is a strange line of reasoning considering how many settlements have been controlled by pc groups or sponsored candidates of those pc going back irl years. This is before even mentioning that the entire reason for the current auction system on properties is because of ooc coordination between players to keep desirable properties within their pool (also why the arcane tower can no longer be owned).

yet happenings going from now to pretty far in the past contradict this.

wordlessly passing a property to a friend definitely wasn't/isn't controlled by pvp either...

wasn't something said about a red herring?

anyway i think it would serve a lot of people in here to rp instead of chalking up their undesired outcomes to somebody other than them. some people need to touch grass out of game. some apparently need to touch it in game, too!

Your argument was a red herring because it wasn't material to the original point being made and if interpreted charitably and assumed to be relevant because it illustrated an overriding mechanic it still makes no sense because all of your examples are still examples of mechanical force being used to force outcomes. You've deviated far enough from the op though that I don't think there's value to the thread if we continue this.

[seppuku me senpai]

But, I am still astounded that people are unable to rp out of situations that feel oppressive. Every single time I have been in a spot where my character was being braced and I abased myself, or payed up or pleaded for my life the other characters have allowed mine to live. The inverse is true also, every time a character has been willing g to come up with some tiny fraction of a plea I have let them fly.

In my experience characters/players want to keep their lives and their pride. They don’t want to give anything in exchange for walking away.

Sure there are some players who are buck wild loons but I think that you can reason with the vast majority of players if you are willing to allow your characters to look weak while allowing the other party to look strong. Like, you know treating death seriously.

This is just an attempt to normalize pvp as the way by which to force narrative compliance through abusive behavior. It's a reframing of "If you're being bullied just do what they want and they'll go away." Sure, lots of people will let you live. But many won't and even if they do this still just means that you think a good rp server lets pvp power dictate rp outcomes across the board. This outlook only encourages more toxic pvp behavior not less because it rewards being abusive with the expectation that if your victims didn't wholly comply it's their fault rp broke down.

I hate this attitude because it is a HUGE factor to the atrocious manners that can arise when it comes to conflict rp.

Let me preface this by explaining that all stories require conflict in *some* variety to be a story. That's what the rise to action is about. Navigating the conflict.

Baring this in mind and the nature of D&D, it's about conflict. It's about conflicting ideas meeting and how you go about answering challenges ranging from ethical to physical. Most of the time in single player RPGs you get this conflict through NPCs, but with NWN we are *blessed* to have real live breathing people on the other side who are also telling their own character driven narrative.

To say that all conflict RP is the result of "bullying" is downright unfair to the other people trying to tell a story. You know what's unfair? Winning a fight and the other person being a sore loser and refusing to give you an inch of acknowledgement, and then turning around to say you're a bully. Learn to take the L. It's an opportunity to tell a story, it's not "coercion" to bend your narrative. You're playing a collective story telling medium. If you don't want to "comply" with someone else's rp, then what, do pick and choose the rp that's "good enough" for you to treat with gravitas? No one is asking you to play like a beaten dog or take a collar or give up your items. You just have to say the RP equivalent to "good game" and go home. And if it *was* a bad manners play, this is still what you should be doing whole you send a report.

Further more, if you lack that much faith in the player base to be cool and nice to each other, you need to step back, leave all your discords, play on -notells, and interpret the game strictly IC.

Also, I'm just going to say it.

Guldorands last leader was recently assasinated by the plan of a player who is not involved at all in the last administrations sphere. The new settlement leader is a new player who more or less went rogue and did their own unique thing. It would have been very hard for this to happen without mechanical enforcement.

[Zavandar]

sometimes i think some RPers would be better off as authors.

[Wings of Peace]

But, I am still astounded that people are unable to rp out of situations that feel oppressive. Every single time I have been in a spot where my character was being braced and I abased myself, or payed up or pleaded for my life the other characters have allowed mine to live. The inverse is true also, every time a character has been willing g to come up with some tiny fraction of a plea I have let them fly.

In my experience characters/players want to keep their lives and their pride. They don’t want to give anything in exchange for walking away.

Sure there are some players who are buck wild loons but I think that you can reason with the vast majority of players if you are willing to allow your characters to look weak while allowing the other party to look strong. Like, you know treating death seriously.

This is just an attempt to normalize pvp as the way by which to force narrative compliance through abusive behavior. It's a reframing of "If you're being bullied just do what they want and they'll go away." Sure, lots of people will let you live. But many won't and even if they do this still just means that you think a good rp server lets pvp power dictate rp outcomes across the board. This outlook only encourages more toxic pvp behavior not less because it rewards being abusive with the expectation that if your victims didn't wholly comply it's their fault rp broke down.

I hate this attitude because it is a HUGE factor to the atrocious manners that can arise when it comes to conflict rp.

Let me preface this by explaining that all stories require conflict in *some* variety to be a story. That's what the rise to action is about. Navigating the conflict.

Baring this in mind and the nature of D&D, it's about conflict. It's about conflicting ideas meeting and how you go about answering challenges ranging from ethical to physical. Most of the time in single player RPGs you get this conflict through NPCs, but with NWN we are *blessed* to have real live breathing people on the other side who are also telling their own character driven narrative.

To say that all conflict RP is the result of "bullying" is downright unfair to the other people trying to tell a story. You know what's unfair? Winning a fight and the other person being a sore loser and refusing to give you an inch of acknowledgement, and then turning around to say you're a bully. Learn to take the L. It's an opportunity to tell a story, it's not "coercion" to bend your narrative. You're playing a collective story telling medium. If you don't want to "comply" with someone else's rp, then what, do pick and choose the rp that's "good enough" for you to treat with gravitas? No one is asking you to play like a beaten dog or take a collar or give up your items. You just have to say the RP equivalent to "good game" and go home. And if it *was* a bad manners play, this is still what you should be doing whole you send a report.

Further more, if you lack that much faith in the player base to be cool and nice to each other, you need to step back, leave all your discords, play on -notells, and interpret the game strictly IC.

Also, I'm just going to say it.

Guldorands last leader was recently assasinated by the plan of a player who is not involved at all in the last administrations sphere. The new settlement leader is a new player who more or less went rogue and did their own unique thing. It would have been very hard for this to happen without mechanical enforcement.

My claim wasn't that all conflict rp was an example of bullying it was that the specific argument being made was an example of advocating for normalizing an attitude of victim blaming. I felt this was relevant because the situation being presented was critical of victims in a particular scenario for being unhappy while also implying that it was their own fault for being unhappy despite not being the instigators of the situation in the first place. My point wasn't meant as a criticism of all conflict rp on the server. Your examples are also recent exceptions to the broader server history and that is all I'll say on that since as I said with Zavander it deviates heavily from what the original op was about.

[AstralUniverse]

Yet another thread that has been answered by the staff/veterans in a united front in the first page but here we are at page 3 and I dont understand what this thread is about anymore, other than talking down people who give you a good advice - to talk less and play more. Experience the game instead of speculating. Yeah sure there will always be bad apples in the basket. Report them and move on. They are far few and between. PVP is in a better state than 5 or 10 years ago. It's a fact.

[Ork]

My claim wasn't that all conflict rp was an example of bullying it was that the specific argument being made was an example of advocating for normalizing an attitude of victim blaming. I felt this was relevant because the situation being presented was critical of victims in a particular scenario for being unhappy while also implying that it was their own fault for being unhappy despite not being the instigators of the situation in the first place.

Victim? Victim blaming? C'mon. This is a 15+ year old video game. Let's not take ourselves too seriously.