CvC Rule

[Rotku]

A couple of months ago I raised the issue of the current CvC rule with the DM corp. This was spurred on by various confusions that stemmed from the current CvC rules - people having many different understandings of it - as well as the number of OOC drama-fulled situations that results from the majority of CvCs. The thread lead to numerous interesting observations, but no real conclusion other than "We need to poll everyone", which never happened (I blame Veilan - the German must be responsible).

Below I present a scale of options that the DM corp came up with - I am interested to see where people's thoughts lie as to how CvC should be dealt with in ALFA. With the exception of the current rules, I have tried to present the options on a scale, from restrictive to open. On that scale, I feel the current ruling fits between #4 and #5.

Option 0 - Current Rules

CvC is allowed in ALFA. However, it should be noted that there are many nonlethal ways to be at odds with another PC, and killing ought to be the last resort. Where CvC is unavoidable, the attacking player should make every attempt to arrange for a DM to be present.

In premeditated CvC, the player intending CvC should notify at least the HDM of the likely site of the CvC as soon as the IC decision is made to CvC. If the HDM is known to be away, the notification should go to any server DM. The reason behind the CvC must be outlined in that notification of CvC. The HDM in receipt of the notification must post the notification to a new CvC Forum accessible only by Admin and HDMs, for commentary and cross-server information to be passed among HDMs regarding the possible CvC. If another DM is in receipt of the notification, that DM should pass the notification to his own HDM or if the HDM is away, to a member of Admin for posting in the CvC Forum. The player intending CvC does not need to wait for a response or even for pickup if an IC situation to perform the CvC presents itself immediately, but any CvC that takes place within 24 hours of notification AND for which no DM has picked up the notification of CvC PM will be subject to PA review upon petition to the PA by any participant in the CvC. Any CvCsuspected of being illegal will also be subject to PA review. Please note that PMing multiple DMs and waiting for a pickup of the CvC notification will decrease the chances of being involved in a PA review over legitimate IC premeditated CvC.

If the CvC is not premeditated, and postponement until a DM can be present would compromise RP, then a PM containing full information about the CvC must immediately be sent to the server HDM. It should be noted that such a PM will not protect a player from censure if the CvC is later found to have been illegal. If in-character events lead you to believe that your character may get involved in CvC, it’s a good idea to keep a log of what happens. The client log is overwritten with every game restart, so transfer out any text you wish to save before starting a new game.

To sum up:

If it is Premeditated CvC - Get a DM
If it is not Premeditated CvC - Get a DM, so long as it does not break immersion
If a DM isn't present, use your brain. Think about the NPCs around you, and how they would act.
If a DM isn't present, take screenshots

Option 1 - No CvC
CvC be completely disallowed from ALFA.

Option 2 - CvC with DM only
If players wish to CvC, a DM must be sought to mediate and control the surrounding environment.

Option 3 - CvC with Consent or DMs
The aggressor is required to seek consent from the other party before initiating the CvC. If it is clear that no consent will be given, the aggressor may ask a DM to mediate the CvC, as per Option 2.

Option 4 - Rotku's Old Suggestion
This was an option I compiled after listening to the DM feedback, trying to balance out the ideas of freedom for players to RP as they see fit, while trying to minimize the levels of drama and hurt emotions.

CvC is allowed in ALFA. However, it should be noted that there are many nonlethal ways to be at odds with another PC, and killing ought to be the last resort. Where CvC is unavoidable, the attacking player should make every attempt to arrange for a DM to be present.

The following bullet points must be followed in every lethal CvC situation:

• PCs must have a proper In Character reason for attacking.
• If it is Premeditated CvC - You must have a DM.
• If it is not Premeditated CvC - You should make every attempt to arrange for a DM to be present.
• If a DM isn't present, common sense rules. Think about the NPCs around you, and how they would act.
• If a DM isn't present, take screenshots and follow up any lethal CvC with a PM to the server HDM explaining what happened. The HDM will pass this information on to other HDMs.

Three further explanation notes, relating to the above points:

Spoiler:

(1) Making every attempt to get a DM, at the very least, involves checking to see if a DM is online, checking to see if a DM is on chat and checking to see if a DM is actively browsing the forums. This is not an exclusive list - so long as it is clear you have made an effort, there will be no problem. If this will interrupt roleplay, a quick Out of Character message to the parties involved, asking for a quick pause while you get a DM is appropriate.
(2) Thinking about NPCs around you is particularly important in populated environments. For practical reasons, NPCs spawned by the module do not encompass a full range of NPCs that may be present. Remember cities and towns are populated places and if you attack someone in the middle of a city, or by an NPC guard, there will be repercussions.
(3) PCs designed specifically for CvCs are also not tolerated. "He's a homicidal maniac" is not acceptable.

Option 5 - Free CvC
CvC faces no restrictions, so long as it follows the standard ALFA rules (e.g. no Metagaming, Cheating, etc).

Please feel free to discuss below - these options and what ever other ideas people have - and vote in the poll above.

[I-KP]

This poll, or the other poll which at time of posting had more votes cast within it..?

[hollyfant]

It might be a good idea to separate CvC from lethal CvC. We could just ban or limit murder, while easing up on the pickpocketing or mind-control.

[t-ice]

ban or limit murder, while easing up on the pickpocketing or mind-control.

Opening up the latter, non-lethal CvC actions for non-DMd game sure sounds like a minefield. (One high level rogue swiping all low-level PCs clean, anyone?) I'd say ironically it's even more precarious than outright murder because the barrier of initiating the drama spiral will be that much lower.

[I-KP]

Lethal CvC needs to be refereed; no exceptions. Any death that isn't DM moderated should be rolled back. I dare say that it is very rare to see even DM'd lethal CvC passing off without complaint; if it's rarely clean with a DM present then the fallout is almost certainly going to be messier without one (one player's word versus another).

Non-lethal CvC - mugging, fisticuffs, etc. - operates fine under the current rules, i.e., DM presence preferred but in a lot of cases all that's needed is mutual player agreement to proceed (and clearly any kind of stealing must be conducted by mutual player agreement for a host of reasons that don't need to be explained by me). If worst comes to the worst outcomes are generally recoverable.

Seeing as there doesn't seem to be an option that describes the above, and that lethal CvC would be rarer than non-lethal, I voted for the majority benefit (#3) but that doesn't properly represent my view.

[t-ice]

Lethal CvC needs to be refereed; no exceptions.

While I think it'd be rather boring and pointless, if two players both want to resolve their PCs differences via on-nwn2-engine duel, the stakes being the losing PC dying, why should it be outlawed? Presumably we're all friendly adults here and don't need an extra layer of laws to protect us from our own consent. (Long as the fight isn't metagaming.)

That's not to say that any action, including said duel, would be below the DMs radar for other appropriate IC consequences ...

[hollyfant]

Agreed. Anything consensual goes.

[Veilan]

The clone of this thread has been deleted. Please repost / revote here if you did so in the other thread. Rotku apologises for your inconvenience .

Cheers,

[I-KP]

Lethal CvC needs to be refereed; no exceptions.

While I think it'd be rather boring and pointless, if two players both want to resolve their PCs differences via on-nwn2-engine duel, the stakes being the losing PC dying, why should it be outlawed? Presumably we're all friendly adults here and don't need an extra layer of laws to protect us from our own consent. (Long as the fight isn't metagaming.)

Consent is no shield against blowback particularly if one party makes assumptions of ‘fair play’ (or whatever) that the other party didn’t. Consent may quickly need to become something akin to a disclaimer, typed by all parties, copied and recorded by all parties, before anything happens. It only takes one party to kick off and cry foul and before you know it all involved are quickly embroiled in an acrimonious investigation facing the inevitable death roll-back (safest option usually) which would all be avoided if lethal encounters were refereed in the first place.

[EDIT] Additional:

The scenario that you allude to above, Teez, is a very gentlemanly and ordered one. Where undoubtedly such events may indeed play out that way (and may need to play out that way for players who rarely see DMs) you can be assured that there will be just as many encounters of this nature that will not, for one reason or another - despite consent. If unsupervised lethal CvC is to be an option then the agreement between both parties will need to be absolutely ironclad and utterly irrevocable, regardless of what happens during the encounter. Any introduction of clauses and ‘what ifs’ into the process of giving consent would need to be prohibited as allowing such will only add weaknesses to the solidity of the consent agreement – it has to be anything goes or not at all. Rather than having both parties type out disclaimers, each need only be aware of what ‘lethal CvC consent’ actually means – and so does every other player, whether they see themselves ever being party to such an event or not.

I used to think that ALFA could self-police in this regard but recently I have doubts that it truly can.

[t-ice]

The scenario that you allude to above, Teez, is a very gentlemanly and ordered one. Where undoubtedly such events may indeed play out that way (and may need to play out that way for players who rarely see DMs) you can be assured that there will be just as many encounters of this nature that will not, for one reason or another - despite consent.

Suppose DMs will have to have a light trigger for revoking such "player consent CvC" if one side feels OoC tricked. Don't propose or accept concent unless you trust both yourself and the opponent to see it through so that both are satisfied, whichever the outcome. Agree on the meta beforehand, essentially you have to trust to OoCly tip your hand in terms of having pre-cast your buffs or not, how to use any on-engine speed advantage, etc. And trust your fellow to not metagame. If there's discontent afterwards, default to revoking the event.

For what it's worth, I regard rolling opposed d20s, and the one with the smaller number voluntarily dying, to be a better duel than on-nwn2-engine. But if two people agree the on-engine duel lifts both your boats - go for it.

Word of someone tricking others into CvC concent will not take long to reach everyone in this small community. And if someone really starts to prey on new players via it ... it'll be a short-lived run for sure.

[oldgrayrogue]

I voted Option 3. Ask the other player for consent. Screen shot either the giving or denial of consent. Proceed.

We are all adults, albeit playing a game, and should be expected to comport ourselves accordingly.

Any metagaming in the context of consensual CvC should be dealt with accordingly.

[Heero]

I will never give consent to anyone desiring to CvC me, but I will brand those that deny consent for me to CvC them all sorts of degrading things, such as a coward.

[Brokenbone]

Consent I suppose always reviewable if a questionable or "poorly done in engine" tactic goes down.

*plate wearer drinks invisibility potion after getting peppered by high-listen ranger*

*reappears with a power attack to the backside of the head of the ranger, after drinking 10 potions under invisibility cover*

...

I am really figuring CvC here means "fights", not the 100 other ways you can undermine other PCs. Send into a cave with bad intel, scout negligently and wave a guy into their doom, pickpocketing, spread rumors in the right/wrong PC/NPC circles, pouring an alchemist's fire on an unconscious guy's face rather than a CLW, etc.

[Zelknolf]

I am really figuring CvC here means "fights", not the 100 other ways you can undermine other PCs. Send into a cave with bad intel, scout negligently and wave a guy into their doom, pickpocketing, spread rumors in the right/wrong PC/NPC circles, pouring an alchemist's fire on an unconscious guy's face rather than a CLW, etc.

There are a couple items on your list here that are pretty direct attacks, which seem distinct from the other tactics. Obviously, I'd leave it to Rotku to say how the PA's policies would apply to as much, but I wouldn't be so sure that they're exempt.

[Ronan]

So what happens while the aggressor is looking for a DM? Why couldn't the defender simply walk away, into a town, etc.? If this would be tantamount to combat logging, then great.