The Amendment to Fugue Rules seems flawed

[Nurel]

Not remembering the exact circumstance of one's death is certainly quality RP, not remembering the Fugue, also great

But I believe there should be some changes in the wording of the ruling, for better understanding and clarity

1) The announcement states that the PC who died will not remember "who struck the killing blow". I think it should be amended to "the PC who died will have no recollection of the fight altogether", because now it is somewhat vague.

2) The announcement example or X,Y,Z is well articulated but does not describe player Y position as catalyst. Player Y is a Witness, they can go and tell the whole story to Player X (who died), or they can pretend they saw nothing, or they can act as a false witness and claim Z never killed anyone. I think the potential role of witnesses in PVP needs to be clearly addressed in the ruling, because it is very important.

On another note, here is another thought that sprung to mind after reading the announcement:

As previously argued in the thread, since the PC who died will have no recollection of the event of its death, the Player of the loser PC should not be forced to adhere by the 48h rule, because their PC doesn't remember anything. That there is too much losing. PC loses, PC dies and gets debuffs, player of loser PC should not be held accountable for avoiding victor PC. It makes sense, since the PC who lost has no recollection of the actual fight.

[JustMonika]

I always wondered why it wasn't the winner's responsibility to avoid the loser, myself.

[AstralUniverse]

I always assumed it's equally both sides' responsibility. I'll go with that.

[Vespidae]

As previously argued in the thread, since the PC who died will have no recollection of the event of its death, the Player of the loser PC should not be forced to adhere by the 48h rule, because their PC doesn't remember anything. That there is too much losing. PC loses, PC dies and gets debuffs, player of loser PC should not be held accountable for avoiding victor PC. It makes sense, since the PC who lost has no recollection of the actual fight.

The rule is there for OC reasons, not IC ones. It's to stop people getting their mates together to go bash the person who just iced them, and also to stop the same group icing the same person 3 times in a row. Yeah it might make for some confusing moments of RP where a player might have to avoid an individual when their character wouldn't necessarily, but it's a small price to pay for a smoother playing environment.

Personally very glad to see this rule. I think maybe as said above it would make sense if the actual fight itself, from first blow to last, would be forgotten too. But it's a good change.

[With Darkness and Silence]

Perhaps the most popular video game roleplaying server that's been out for a decade now started with "the 30 minute rule." This rule saw some adjustments to later become "the death memory loss rule."

The original rule was that you forget 30 minutes of everything before your death. This was flawed, so they changed it to say you simply forget who your killer was and details in relation to it, making it hard for you to identity your own murderer which is ridiculous to do in general. How that might work is Bob was going to City B to see his friend Dee. On the way, Bob is robbed and killed by Bandit E. Bob only remembers he was on his way to see Dee in City B.

That server also has a whitelist and several application teams. Whitelists and applications, I know to be a foreign concept to Arelith players but cleaner communities have them. Both of these things are proven to work, the same as a death rule for memory loss.

Structure and strictness are not a negative, but a boon to any community desiring to thrive. People will play, and more wishy-washy people will not play. Having to write a whole 3 paragraph bio is too much for some people.

Some people have noted potential improvements to Arelith's current handling of the rule. And I think they're correct. It's probably best to just mimic the successes of the past. It's how gaming theory works anyway. Someone establishes a new cultural standard, such as standout world colors in a heavy parkcour game to guide you to where you can climb and now it's considered a marketplace standard.

[Nurel]

As previously argued in the thread, since the PC who died will have no recollection of the event of its death, the Player of the loser PC should not be forced to adhere by the 48h rule, because their PC doesn't remember anything. That there is too much losing. PC loses, PC dies and gets debuffs, player of loser PC should not be held accountable for avoiding victor PC. It makes sense, since the PC who lost has no recollection of the actual fight.

The rule is there for OC reasons, not IC ones. It's to stop people getting their mates together to go bash the person who just iced them, and also to stop the same group icing the same person 3 times in a row. Yeah it might make for some confusing moments of RP where a player might have to avoid an individual when their character wouldn't necessarily, but it's a small price to pay for a smoother playing environment.

Personally very glad to see this rule. I think maybe as said above it would make sense if the actual fight itself, from first blow to last, would be forgotten too. But it's a good change.

Its just that, with the current rule system the Loser player has to adhere to an IC rule (not remembering death) and also an OOC rule, the 48hour rule, on top of dealing with death penalties and the frustration of losing. Remember, this is an environment where involuntary PvP can occur.

[-XXX-]

I don't see how the current rules ammendment changes anything about the 48hrs rule:

The amnesia rule regards CHARACTERS
The 48hrs rule regards PLAYERS

^There's a clear distinction here. While the character might be subject to amnesia after a PvP defeat, the player is not.
That means the player is responsible for their character to comply with the following:

Characters who have died are expected to leave the area if the victor shows up and to not interact with them at all.

https://wiki.nwnarelith.com/Rules#Playe ... nteraction

[Nurel]

I don't see how the current rules ammendment changes anything about the 48hrs rule:

The amnesia rule regards CHARACTERS
The 48hrs rule regards PLAYERS

^There's a clear distinction here. While the character might be subject to amnesia after a PvP defeat, the player is not.
That means the player is responsible for their character to comply with the following:

Characters who have died are expected to leave the area if the victor shows up and to not interact with them at all.

https://wiki.nwnarelith.com/Rules#Playe ... nteraction

That I believe is just too much punishment for losing after an involuntary and/or imbalanced fight. I would rather logout for 48hours than have to jump through as many hoops to be within the rules.

[Nurel]

Characters who have died are expected to leave the area if the victor shows up and to not interact with them at all.

https://wiki.nwnarelith.com/Rules#Playe ... nteraction

This is what I suggest, following this amnesia rulechange, and everything will be OK in my opinion:

Characters who have won are expected to leave the area if the loser shows up and to not interact with them at all.

[Eira]

"PvP: The 24 hour rule is now 48 hours.

-This is to discourage PvP from occurring day after day. In return, we are going to be a bit more lax about characters in the same area. You should still not be interacting, or if not possible, at least not interacting with hostility. Otherwise you will be found in violation. This should be of benefit to players in Skal, so they don't have to be away from the town for 2 days if their attacker is there. We understand this is a BIG change and will be monitoring it"

From the announcement about the 48 hour rule.

Characters are not forced to leave the area. And neither is it or was it dependent on winner or loser. If Sam kills Bob and then shows up at Bob's wedding, it's not like Bob was forced to leave their bride at the altar to comply with pvp rules.

Regardless, as it is now, no one is forced out of an area. And both are responsible for not interacting. So no running up to your killer. No taunting your victim. If someone is abusing the 48 hour rule, winner or loser, report it.

And if you cannot possibly come up with reasons why your character may avoid any interaction with another character for 48 irl hours, maybe just take a break from them for that time.

[The GrumpyCat]

Just like... use common sense and be kind?

If you've good reason to think your killer will be in an area - don't go to that area.
If you died trying to 'breach' an area belonging to your killer - don't go to that area. Respect the loss.
If you killed a pc in an area, but that area is heavily trafficed and used for just general utility (e.g. Hub, Skal Village) then allow them some grace as long as they don't bother you.
If you happen to run into each other - find an excuse to avoid each other or hells, if you're not sure take it to tells and work out the best solution there!

To be honest we rarely get complaints that people are having issues with that. We do get them, but they're not common - so I think that 99% of situations, people have no real issue with this rule. If I'm somehow wrong and there's in fact thousands of times a day where this rule is being breached then I propsose the following:

In you die in PvP your respawn timer is set to 48 hours.

Would people feel that's a superior answer to the one above? Because it is an option. Not one I personally like but if the 'avoiding people' is really that tough, it's an option we can consider.

[Nurel]

In you die in PvP your respawn timer is set to 48 hours.

So when someone gets ganged up on in involuntary PVP, they are then mechanically unable to play their character for 48hrs.

While myself I was debating suggesting this as a blanket rule for PVP and PVE (it would make death matter a lot), I decided not to, because it would be unfair in PVP more times than not

[Amateur Hour]

So when someone gets ganged up on in involuntary PVP, they are then mechanically unable to play their character for 48hrs.

They can absolutely play their character; they just can't play their character with any of the people who killed them. One of my favorite scenes of all time - probably some of the best writing I've experienced - was when a person my character was very close to IC was killed in PvP and, after being resurrected, didn't want to be alone and asked for my character to spend time with them, talking about how the experience had impacted them on a personal level and how being reminded of their mortality had clarified some priorities.

You've got options for focusing on the person instead of revenge. Maybe not if you're playing a Hoarite, but maybe don't play a Hoarite if that's going to be a problem?

[-XXX-]

In you die in PvP your respawn timer is set to 48 hours.

That might end up preventing players from refreshing their quarter/shop.
While I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, it was worth pointing out.

[Eira]

I will be hosting a Q&A regarding death and amnesia in 5.5 hours on the official discord for those who still have questions, concerns, need help wrapping their mind around potential roleplay route, or want clarification.

https://discord.com/events/651879025643 ... 9314674688

[Spyre]

Not remembering the exact circumstance of one's death is certainly quality RP, not remembering the Fugue, also great

But I believe there should be some changes in the wording of the ruling, for better understanding and clarity

1) The announcement states that the PC who died will not remember "who struck the killing blow". I think it should be amended to "the PC who died will have no recollection of the fight altogether", because now it is somewhat vague.

This is a good point and the ruling is still in its infancy. I can make it more clear as needed. But, the person should not remember who attacked. My personal rule of thumb is to not remember the points after hostilities turn into PvP.

If I need to further clarify that and make it more clear, I will do so.

2) The announcement example or X,Y,Z is well articulated but does not describe player Y position as catalyst. Player Y is a Witness, they can go and tell the whole story to Player X (who died), or they can pretend they saw nothing, or they can act as a false witness and claim Z never killed anyone. I think the potential role of witnesses in PVP needs to be clearly addressed in the ruling, because it is very important.

The role of the witness is whatever that person wants to do with the knowledge. They can claim whatever they like, be it falsehood or truth. They can tell the person about the experience - it will be a haze to the player who died, and they can take it whatever way they want. But, it is generating roleplay opportunities to expand on it and fill in possible details.

On another note, here is another thought that sprung to mind after reading the announcement:

As previously argued in the thread, since the PC who died will have no recollection of the event of its death, the Player of the loser PC should not be forced to adhere by the 48h rule, because their PC doesn't remember anything. That there is too much losing. PC loses, PC dies and gets debuffs, player of loser PC should not be held accountable for avoiding victor PC. It makes sense, since the PC who lost has no recollection of the actual fight.

The 48 HR rule will remain in effect as its beholden on the player more than the character. You, the player, are not to interact with the same person within 48 hours unless waived. XXX had mentioned it well earlier in the thread.

[msheeler]

I thought I would point out that the 48 hour rule is not solely the victim's responsibility. It is just as much on the victor to avoid interaction with the victim as it is the other way around.

I think based on the motto of 'be kind' a lot of times you might find that the victor is the one who leaves. or avoids, so that they don't trigger the victim's memory.

[AllPizzasArePersonal]

A few weeks ago, maybe six or so, we had someone in the ud killing noobies(lvl 2 fresh off the boat) at the gate into town..with the current ruling..would we be able to handle a similar situation on our own like we did back then? and again, just incase people kinda skimmed over that..this isnt a hypothetical that actually happened until others /learned about it/ and put a stop to it in-character.

One of the things I love about Arelith is having rules that are intended to be followed to the spirit and that we do not need a lengthy account of every possible interaction. If someone's griefing new players by killing them immediately off the boat, just report it and let a DM handle it. I think it's really nice that someone handled it IC if a DM wasn't around, but this just sounds like a cut and dry violation of the Be Nice rule and the kind of interaction that doesn't have much of a place.

[TurningLeaf]

The fugue zone itself becomes even weirder with this change. Is it still IC? Do we remember the circumstances of our deaths while in fugue?

[AstralUniverse]

The fugue zone itself becomes even weirder with this change. Is it still IC? Do we remember the circumstances of our deaths while in fugue?

I'd argue it doesnt matter if it's IC or not anymore. You can treat it as IC (and probably should) if you're interacting with other characters in the Fugue, but since no one who's leaving it remember ever being in it or anything that happend in it then it really doesnt matter anymore.

[The GrumpyCat]

In you die in PvP your respawn timer is set to 48 hours.

So when someone gets ganged up on in involuntary PVP, they are then mechanically unable to play their character for 48hrs.

Yeah, I don't actually like this idea either honestly? But that'd be the obvious alternative to some form of what we have.

[Baron Saturday]

In you die in PvP your respawn timer is set to 48 hours.

So when someone gets ganged up on in involuntary PVP, they are then mechanically unable to play their character for 48hrs.

Yeah, I don't actually like this idea either honestly? But that'd be the obvious alternative to some form of what we have.

Unfortunately, I suspect this would be immediately abused. People would try to use it to soft-permakill opposing characters by ganking them every two days. It should absolutely not be considered an option.

[AstralUniverse]

yeah that's not gonna happen. I'd be shocked if it did. It would be the modern equivalent of "bash them back to 3" in seconds. I'd rather lose a chunk of thousands exp like in the old days than being unable to play 48 hours.

[Eyeliner]

Any idea that further punishes the loser after PVP needs to be discarded immediately.

I mean there's already a lot of lip service about how winning or losing doesn't matter because we're telling a story, yet there are clear advantages to winning and disadvantages to losing already including it being on the loser to steer clear of the winner for 48 hours. The more it sucks to lose (and I mean mechanically or from the player side, not your character's story side) the more people will drift to shotgun or tightly minmaxed builds and only play classes at the top of the food chain.

[Sincra]

Any idea that further punishes the loser after PVP needs to be discarded immediately.

I mean there's already a lot of lip service about how winning or losing doesn't matter because we're telling a story, yet there are clear advantages to winning and disadvantages to losing already including it being on the loser to steer clear of the winner for 48 hours. The more it sucks to lose (and I mean mechanically or from the player side, not your character's story side) the more people will drift to shotgun or tightly minmaxed builds and only play classes at the top of the food chain.

It's not a one sided arrangement, it is always a common sense of who was in a place first.

If the loser enters a location where the victor is, they should recognise this is the case.
Inversely, if the victor enters a location where the loser is they should recognise this too.

I don't understand why people act as if making sure the loser respects the loss is such a tragic thing either.