Radical Suggestion: Remove playerside notifications of Disliking

[Silas Rotleaf]

Sometimes and I've noticed this... When it comes to stuff like a ranger or a rogue laying down traps there is this awkward little period where a bunch of people send OOC tells to each other going: Did this player hostile you too? Oh! Okay, I guess they are laying traps! or you ask that player and then they are like: Yeah, setting traps. No worries.

I don't mind it or find it super immersion breaking I just think it's at times amusing how even when we are IC antagonistic there's still that nice help each other vibe OOC.
Tl;Dr version: Would having the setting people to hostile for stuff like setting traps being a different color from the regular this player now dislikes you message be a thing that could be mechanically implemented? Is it possible to do that?

[Iridni Ren]

Here I was thinking that PvP didn't require consent, and that you were just supposed to hostile and give the 10 second warning for the player to emotionally brace themselves.

As I have now stated three times in this thread, it does not require consent. If you do anything other than disengaging, or if you have previously engaged in any of the behaviors that constitute opting-in, you are considered to have opted-in whether you wish to consent or not.

That does not mean that the attacker is exempted from the other PvP rules. But we’ve specifically avoided talking about consent in the rules as creating an unrealistic expectation of being able to pick and choose consequences for your own character.

Whereas most of us would use "consent" and "opt in" as interchangeable synonyms, Arawn is differentiating between the two in that he means by the former something that can be withdrawn at any time, whereas the latter need be given only once and cannot be subsequently withdrawn. (So, for example, if you "opted-in" to receive email from a marketer, you would not be able later to ask to be removed from the mailing list.)

Example 1: A friend invites you over and offers to cook dinner. You accept, but when you take the first bite, the food is awful. Although you accepted the invitation, you decline finishing the meal. You are not obligated to see it through and can eat as much or as little as you choose. This is how Arawn is using consent.

Example 2: You go to a restaurant and order a meal. Of course the restaurant can't make you eat it all, but if halfway through you stop eating, the restaurant may say you are obligated to pay the entire bill. This is how Arawn is using "opt in."

Most players view POTM as a social activity and therefore more like the first example. DMs, however, as the enforcers of the rules, must view POTM more like the second. Additionally, even within the rules we speak of everything IC beginning with OOC consent:

Always prioritize the OOC overall enjoyment of your fellow roleplayers higher than IC. This doesn't mean that you can't ever impose negative consequences or loss - a conceivable line of events and an element of risk can be in the benefit of the general experience - but remember that we as players and DMs decide OOCly what we bring into the game, so ultimately we are responsible for it too. Never use IC as an excuse to lessen the OOC experience of others. Don't create characters that will only become a nuisance or aggravation. And when going into conflict with others, strive to make it an enjoyable experience for the player, even if it's despair and frustration for the character.

- Conversely, try to be open to others' approach to the roleplay and remember that what may be unfriendly and unappealing IC can be quite different OOC. Being able to enjoy things that your character despises makes the roleplay much more enjoyable for all. Distinguish clearly between what's IC and OOC. Don't let a character's disagreement with your character become a disagreement between you and the other player. Keeping in check OOCly when playing out aggressive or provoking interaction ICly is always a good idea.

- If it should happen that you feel someone's actions IC is too much frustration for you OOC or ruins your roleplaying experience, contact the person OOC in a friendly manner and try to reach mutual understanding of the source of this aggravation and find a solution that both can agree to. In the same way, if someone contacts you concerning how your own character's actions frustrates them OOC, be open to suggestions and work to keep a friendly OOC environment.

A player may feel, "Just because I consented (opted in) to a dual between our PCs doesn't mean I consented (opted in) for you to hide my corpse. Or I consented (opted in) for my PC to be imprisoned and ignored for a month."

So we have threads where these things are hashed out and we have requests for DM rulings.

My own preference, however, remains trying to negotiate these misunderstandings and conflicts a little between players, even if it results in a Tell here or there. I think it is more likely the players will be happy with one another afterward and continue to enjoy playing with one another than when one of them is forced by a DM to "pay the tab." The player may simply quit, and that's no fun for anyone.

[Arawn]

The separation of consent from opting in is because the term ‘consent’ can give an unreasonable expectation that nothing can happen to you without your consent. It’s a central tenet of our PW that this isn’t true—we are all expected to subordinate (though not surrender) our ideal plans for our characters to the common and shared narrative. It is this element of uncertainty that makes our stories so rich, immersive, and engaging. Certainly, that may not be for everyone, but it’s how we (speaking as a developer, DM, and longtime player) like it.

[BattleCupcake]

Out of curiosity, does the same rule apply to MPCs?

Yes, MPCs are covered by the same PVP rules - just being an MPC is not sufficient justification to attack them, and MPCs should not be no-roleplay ganking people because they can.

Not quite. MPCs are considered to have opted-in at all times. However, and like my post above mentions:

- PvP should always be done to further the positive experience of all sides and as part of a roleplay event.

Just because the other character has opted in does not mean you are exempted from making sure there is roleplay surrounding the PvP and that it is played as part of a narrative.

Ye bud, I agree with the intention. Thanks.

Only misalignment came from that someone completely averting the situation (doing nothing antagonistic, only backing down, basically removing themselves from the roleplay) isn't supposed to be attacked, which isn't something I've noticed be true and thus assumed wasn't a rule.

Thanks.

[Blight]

I'd recommend that the ten-second timer be altered to 5 minutes.

Ten seconds isnt even remotely enough time for a person to even attempt to convey IC that they DON'T want to PVP and isn't in line with the spirit of the server. We are a roleplay server, not a pvp server, and increasing the PVP timer would force players to roleplay with each other in a meaningful fashion before choosing to merc each other. If at the end of the five minutes, they still want to beef or another player has backed down, then pvp can occur but otherwise roleplay should take precedent. Our server rules state that pvp should never occur unless both parties engage in aggressive conduct, but ten seconds isn't even enough time to even change the outcome of a possible situation, especially for people who don't speak english as their first language.

TL;DR: set pvp timer to 5 minutes, right now the ten second timer is basically used as a means to finalize that pvp WILL happen, not warn people that pvp may occur. It's also not in the spirit of our own rules, which suggest that every player ought to provide each other the opportunity to decline mechanical combat through IC behaviour.

Completely aside it also improves the story for both parties as well as MPC encounters.

[EO]

The rules are about IC behavior not OOC. Once your character has sought into the conflict, either by escalating or not backing down, then there’s no reverse course OOC. If you don’t want to be PvPd the best way is for your character not to get into trouble, provoke or escalate; flee when needed. The 10 seconds delay is less about proper warning than making sure that effects that only work against hostile creatures function properly.

[Blight]

The rules are about IC behavior not OOC. Once your character has sought into the conflict, either by escalating or not backing down, then there’s no reverse course OOC. If you don’t want to be PvPd the best way is for your character not to get into trouble, provoke or escalate; flee when needed. The 10 seconds delay is less about proper warning than making sure that effects that only work against hostile creatures function properly.

The issue with this is that it becomes difficult to determine what constitutes "opting in." At present, I would say that unless your character   does anything short of verbally flagellate themselves and stroke the other players ego, you can expect pvp reprisal. Simply disagreeing with somebody nonconfrontationally can result in pvp, and right now the definition of this "rule" is solely determined only by the person who wants pvp to happen. And afterwards, its virtually impossible to debate the merits of what constitutes opting in. The rules need to be more specific on what constitutes opting in. Is refusing to obey what they say opting in? Is disagreeing with their opinion opting jn?

I think that an OOC warning implying "hey, if your character continues to go down this road during the next 5 minutes of roleplay and perform any of what constitutes as opt-in behaviours, my character may attack," is not only a means of generating some great roleplay to precede pvp before something possibly final for a character, it would also massively reduce the amount of conflicts the DM team would have to mediate and rule on.

It could be argued that the current system is more of a case-by-case solution rather than a rule, but it doesn't do it effectively as there are virtually no grounds for a DM to rule either way on other to let the roleplay stand.

Your suggestion of fleeing also doesn't work, as I've seen firsthand (to clarify, not as the victim) that the flee-er can simply be pursued and killed, now at an even greater disadvantage.

At present, the "opt-in" portion of PVP ruling is very hollow and doesn't really address what it set out to resolve begin with. And the ten seconds doesn't really accomplish anything or improve interactions in any significant way. It's not enough time to change the current direction of the roleplay, and the definition of "opting in" is too undefined to police.

PVP isn't common, but I do think that the majority of pvp generally isn't an engaging, fun experience for most people because the ruling leans heavily in the court of whomever wants to PVP. Either defining the rule a bit better or increasing the amount of time before PVP can occur would give players not wanting to PVP a means to resolve it peacefully.

As an aside, based on the current ruling, a large number of PVP encounters occur and are supported by the administration that actually fall under a breach of the current ruling; Any time a character in a position of authority detains a character who has not "opted in" is in breach of the current rules.

This actually happens a lot, where a person of political intent sabotages the reputation of another,  resulting in the arrest and execution (pvp) of an innocent character. Under the current system it also permits the Vallaki Guard to disobey this ruling as well, committing PVP against character/players who didnt opt in at all.

[APorg]

Blight, I'm not sure you're capable of non-confrontationally disagreeing with someone. And this is me saying that.

Breaking the law is opting in to PvP. Most Vallaki guards will escalate conflict according to a predictable pattern, offering criminals the chance to either accept a moderate punishment (being locked up for a while, being flogged) or continue escalation. That most people don't trust the guards, and therefore choose to escalate, is not the fault of the guard players.

Their extraordinary power of being able to lock people up in the Citadel comes with strict DM supervision, and I know for a fact that DMs can and do intervene to prevent such a fate when they feel it is unwarranted. To imply that this process isn't working -- in specifics or in general -- is going well beyond the remit of this thread.

[Iridni Ren]

The rules are about IC behavior not OOC. Once your character has sought into the conflict, either by escalating or not backing down, then there’s no reverse course OOC.

The player can always log out.

The player wanting to continue PvP can ask, then, that the person who logged out be punished for a rule break, but at this point everything has become OOC, and there's nothing IC about it anymore.

It could be argued that the current system is more of a case-by-case solution rather than a rule, but it doesn't do it effectively as there are virtually no grounds for a DM to rule either way on other to let the roleplay stand.

I have been involved in very few controversies at all (at least that I'm aware of) requiring CC or DM intervention in the past two years. The two I can recall didn't involve PvP. But I do hear complaints a lot, and I have witnessed a few examples that didn't involve me directly in which one side felt a rule break occurred.

As mostly a bystander to the issue, therefore, what motivates me to comment is a desire that rules be clear and easily enforced, not only to make the community a more contented and happier place, but so that DMs spend less time enforcing those rules and more time doing stuff both they and players enjoy.

Arawn says this is not the most often broken rule, but rather muling is. The latter, I think, could be enforced mechanically in the majority of cases. And this I think could fall on DM shoulders less often the more players are encouraged to work on a mutual, win-win solution first, rather than immediately calling "rule break." (Players who look for any excuse to get someone else banned are every bit as poisonous to a community IMO as players who break a rule now and then.)

Personally, I would have no problem with a longer warning timer. Many players complain that the mechanics of PvP necessitate an overwhelming urge to "move" first (regardless whether it be buffing or attacking). Would a five-minute warning lessen that "nuclear first strike" mentality? I don't know.

The bottom line, though, is, as you say, POTM is first and foremost an RP server. So any errors should be made in that direction, rather than in contributing to a tilt toward PvP.

[Blight]

Aprog, I'm not sure why you felt the need the make presumptions about what I'm capable of. I don't even know you well enough to even care/bother to attack your personal character. I'm not sure why you do. You're not doing yourself any favors here if amicably broaching your "confrontational" line is your intent at all.

Secondly, did you even read what I said, or just come to pick a fight? I specifically said an innocent person.

Meaning, players who are innocent of a crime, are arrested, imprisoned, and executed on trumped up charges.

[APorg]

I'm sorry if you felt what I was said as a personal attack; I'm just rather amused by the circumstances.

Because, regardless of whether you are right or wrong in accusing garda members of abusing the PvP system, this is still not the thread for it.

[Blight]

Aprog, you can beef with the people in your real life. I don't care to engage further. The topic was the validity of the ten second timer, my suggestion was to increase it and reinforce the rules surrounding it. I gave an example of how the current rule by definition is contradicting what is actually enforced on the server. I suggested the rule be changed, not the activities of the Guard.

And you aren't sorry; you're being confrontational and your "amusement" isn't something you needed to share with anybody. Just stop. It's not me that looks obnoxious here.

Iridni, it would make sense that Arawn would say that muling  is more common than pvp rule breaks. The Rules regarding PVP are so loosely defined that the situation I've described above, where an aggressive player can use the currently very liberal definition of "opting in," to justify PVP that were the situation ever brought to the attention of DMs, it doesn't constitute a rule break because the definition of opting in is so open to interpretation. Under the current rules it's more of a "frowned upon" than a "rule break." Because it's a vague rule that can't really be policed.

Did I mention that an increased pvp timer also eliminates ganks almost completely? Nobody enjoys Ganks.

[APorg]

So you stand by your "non-confrontational" aside that effectively implies bad faith or even cheating on the part of the Garda?

[Blight]

Oh for heavens sakes.

No, I dont think the Vallaki guard is doing anything wrong. I think the rule regarding pvp is ineffective and gave an in-game example of how it fails to address pvp in practice. 

Again, rule change/better definition. Not Vallaki Guard's fault.
Innocent people getting executed doesn't do anything beyond incite cheering from me. That's fun roleplay.

Stop trying to twist what I'm saying into an attack. Not going to bite.

[APorg]

If people are committing PvP against people who are truly innocent and have done everything to back down from a fight, then what does the length of the warning have to do with it?

If the problem is that people are breaking the rules to pursue PvP and murder "innocents" who did nothing to opt in, then the problem is that they are breaking the rules. Being excessively coy and trying to pretend that the rules are at issue, as you are being, is either obtuse or a stratagem to sidestep the "No complaining OOC about IC events" rule.

[zDark Shadowz]

A ten second timer is quite subjective. If you click hostile on someone, don't complain if they shorten it because they are quicker to respond, be prepared for it instead.

It's the same with if you're being chased through transitions, if your computer loads quicker try give them the same appropriate distance as you had prior.

Someone who has had a lot of time to mentally prepare for PvP compared to someone that is given ten seconds is a vast chasm that needs to be quickly jumped by the other player. Give them time to realise 'this is what's going to happen'. If you're trying to get some kind of pseudo-initiative round for an ambush (and only an ambush) then you should probably give them longer.

It bothers me slightly when I'm hostiled by players that aren't in the same area because my mindset instantly switches when I see it into battle mode, anxiety ramps up and then... Nothing. Kind of a let-down.

Just my opinions on it, not asking for any changes. A lack of the message appearing would be appreciated and is doable with scripts, however your actual target should receive this message. It's just bothersome if you aren't the target you get hostiled.

[LivingWasteland]

A reminder that the 10 seconds isn't even a timer on how long you have. It's purely courtesy. Someone can swing the moment they turn red, if the RP has escalated to the point of violence.

[APorg]

A reminder that the 10 seconds isn't even a timer on how long you have. It's purely courtesy. Someone can swing the moment they turn red, if the RP has escalated to the point of violence.

Courtesy and a technical recommendation to make sure everything works correctly, but yeah. LivingWasteland is right. Someone getting ganked without the 10 second courtesy won't invalidate a PvP.

[Blight]

I'm gonna go through this reverse order.

I haven't had a pvp interaction in several years. I don't play mechanically pvp oriented characters. So I'm really unsure what in the nine hells I would be complaining about. I'm making an observation that the rule needs further clarification.

 I've played as a Vallaki Guard and held the same belief. That isn't what we call obtuse, it's what we refer to as being objectively consistent in opinion. If the Vallaki Guard want to frame somebody for a crime they didn't commit, which happens occasionally, then they should be able to do that.

However, the current ruleset states they can't. Somebody has to opt in. Yet it still happens. Is it the Guard's fault? No. The rule isn't consistent with pvp in practice and standard pvp isn't even consistent with the rule in theory. The fault lies in the wording of the rule.

I made a suggestion two-fold, that first we identify what it means to clearly "Opt-In" regardless of how loose those terms are, because right now there is a very weak definition of acts that determine what it means. An example of this would be the usage of insults, of refusing to obey, breaking laws, threats, mockery, etc. Or, in the case you so vehemently want to argue over, whether refusing to admit culpability does refusing to admit culpability count as "opting in?" Does imprisoning somebody under the threat of violence count as PVP? That's what should be clarified in the rules.

Regardless of which way you lean, be it only a few or a long list, currently there is no way to police pvp  "opting in" because the definition of opting in is too loose and without a predefined definition of what opting in means, there is no way to determine if something constituted a rule break or not. It's entirely in the court of public opinion, and in any negative pvp encounter the loser will almost always feel they didnt by definition opt-in and the winner will always think they did, and that will almost always leave a bitter taste in the mouth of the loser and create negative opinions. Rules need to be clear so that people don't have to debate for themselves if it was fair or not. The current set up for those kinds of pvp results in the loser always feeling as though a rule was broken, and the winner doesn't ever agree. Doesn't really build a strong community, it divides it. More defined pvp rules would reduce animosity between players.

Secondly, I recommended an additional method based on the reason for this thread was started,  the validity of the ten second timer. I suggested that pvp timer be set to 5 minutes so that players HAVE the ability to clarify their character's intent rather than leave it up to opinion. And also because it allows for a pvp event to become a more nuanced interaction where everybody gets to say whatever they want to before it goes to violence. For the loser, this will create a better roleplay experience and not trap them into an OOC perception of IC Opting In when the other player could have very well read into sarcasm or implication that wasn't intended. For something that causes so much strife and segregation in the community, I find it alarming that so little effort went into clarifying the rule to make things a little more Hakuna Matata

In debate politics there's a strategy employed where a person may choose to attack the character of the person they are debating in a hope to discredit the person's objectivity, thus invalidating their argument. It's also commonly known to be a last ditch effort to argue a position that the debater wasn't prepared to argue in the first place. Whether you think that's a valid means to settle a debate is irrelevant, because if you have to target a person's character to win the debate what isn't debatable is the moral implication of your values. And it certainly speaks to your intent.

Debate the opinion, not the person. And for somebody who generally takes such a progressive stance in the majority of debates, Aprog, it's unbecoming of you to resort to what I aless-than-affectionately refer to as the Donald Trump Playbook ( and also not consistent with how you usually conduct yourself. ) There wasn't any need to make it personal, and you really should avoid doing that.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're having a bad day, but I also won't be responding again. I'm not really sure why I continued the argument  as I said I woudn't. Feel free to get the last word, I'll read it.

TL;DR: I'm not being coy, my opinion hasn't changed, and I don't have an ulterior motive that discredits my opinion. I stand by my initial view, that the rule is at fault for failing to accomplish what it was intended to do and instead results in spreading animosity due only to ambiguity. 5 minute PVP timer would make losing pvp more digestible and also eliminate ganking.

Cheers.

[MAB77]

Guys, remember to be excellent to each other or I'll close this thread. Don't call out names and accuse others of anything. Thank you.

[APorg]

Blight, suggesting that Garda players are breaking the PvP rules because the PvP rules are bad is still claiming Garda players are breaking the rules. This is simply not the forum for making such claims. Because you can't back them up, and they can't be refuted, without bringing up specific IC examples, which would be breaking the rules even further. Now I'm sure there's a tactic in the Trump playbook for making claims that can't be challenged...

[Edward]

This is petty.

[Arawn]

Think we’re done.