CvC Rule

[oldgrayrogue]

A "consent" requirement offers every player an "out" of any CvC encounter. If the other player does not consent to your aggression then you must stop until a DM is present. Period. It's simple respect for another player. Some people just find CvC to intense a form of roleplay and I accept that. Anytime I have ever RPd any sort of confrontation with another PC I always "check in" with them OOC to make sure they are cool with it and no lines have been crossed. Its basic etiquette. CvC is "Character v character" not "player v player." It is not a license to gank other people's toons and ruin their game. It hopefully is a means to more immersive roleplay, based on the fact that all people, not just NPCs, can come into conflict from time to time.

A consent rule can be abused by players though who think it fun to have their PC's act like A-holes IC, insulting other PCs and picking fights and then hiding behind a refusal of consent. This to me is metagaming -- i.e. using the OOC game rules to gain an IC advantage. In such a case the other player merely needs to log and screenshot the encounter, get a DM and report it. It will be up to the DM and I suppose PA to determine if the encounter was handled ICly or not. As long as a refusal of consent to CvC is handled ICly, its fine though. A jerk or bully can back down from a fight they instigated, or react in some other way consistent with an OOC refusal of consent, which is fine.

CvC can be really fun as long as everyone involved acts like an adult. My PC recently had an encounter with JMecha's on BG that is a good example. His elf made an obscene gesture at my burly fighter which prompted my fighter to confront him and smack him upside the head, along with a high intimidate roll. We both played along with it, on consent, without moderation by a DM, and it led to several days of nice RP even involving other PCs.

In another scenario, my PC and Ksiel's got into a tavern brawl (subdual) after trading drunken insults. Although I think a DM was present for that, it was loads of fun, we all got a good laugh over it and people are still commenting on it. Before the brawl, Ksiel sent me a polite tell stating his PC was going to strike mine over the head with a wine bottle and was I cool with a bar fight. I responded "you realize we could both get arrested." He replied "I'm fine with it if you are" and it was game on. =)

The point of this post is that IMO there need not be any drama involved with CvC if players just remeber they are playing the game together with others (not against them or in competition with them), practice some basic etiquette and agree to abide by the possible IC consequences with full knowledge of them. These type of encounters happen all the time between PCs on BG and these are just a few examples. It is so much fun and so incredibly immersive to me. It just takes a willingness for players to act like adults and be considerate of each other and the game rules we all are well aware of.

[Zelknolf]

I sincerely doubt that situations like the ones you describe are ones which will be affected by any CvC ruling, OGR-- though they are, indeed, the ideal circumstances of CvC conflicts. Ultimately, any ruling that comes out of this, same as with any ruling about anything truly, will rely on people reporting and complaining to have any enforcement. If we send polite tells and make sure that everyone agrees and is on board with the circumstances, no one reports the incident and the PA probably never even hears that it happened (and if he did hear of it? The PA gets drama in shovelfulls-- the chances of him trying to intervene in the actions of consenting players under amiable circumstances are pretty low).

Rules, by their nature, have to be our proceedures for when that sort of communication breaks down, doesn't happen, or ends with fundamentally-conflicting values/ expectations-- or in situations where it would; there's a degree to which the consent or DM presence options will leverage some of this communication into existence, though I personally voted "only with a DM" under the presumption that no one would ever complain about a CvC with mutual consent anyway, and if there was ambiguity or acrimony, there'd me an avenue for appeal.

[oldgrayrogue]

I hear you Zelk, but there is something about "DM only" that makes CvC taboo, and I would rather see it be something mature and reasonable players can just RP out without fear of drama. Maybe if folks understand that it need not be a boondoggle then it won't be. Dealing with CvC disputes (or any disputes) as PA does indeed stink, but that is part of the job. That's why I think we should just have a discretionary rule for dispute resolution by PA, without the pseudo criminal code that exists now. It will make PA's job much less onerous and lead to such disputes being resolved quickly and finally without a lot of drama. But I'm off topic =)

[Brokenbone]

DM only may mean less chance of rollbacks when the "consensual" thing goes sideways and a DM has to come straighten it out anyhow.

Mature and reasonable players can still have different views about how spells and abilities should work, and what would be exploit-y. Same with maybe willing to take someone's word sometimes if a tech glitch at their end (I lagged out and all of a sudden had been hit 10x), sometimes maybe not, having a DM ref getting the straight story then and there is the best / most honest story you're going to get. Possibly even with corroboration if a DM says "yeah me too I spiked!"

The consensual example you're giving above OGR is a pure friendly one I think. Bar fight of faction mates... where I doubt at the end, the victor would go "muhahaha... " and *draws knife, cuts throat of downed guy, takes his stuff* Friendly bar brawls vs. "wow I just lost my PC of many months age."

Consent or DM if "anywhere short of death", DM if lethal intent? How many lethal CvCs don't get replayed via DM refereeing anyhow? Are there only hypothetical amicable duels non-DM'd out there where everyone high fives and never complains, or have we got a stack of actual ones? Never been behind the AR curtain, so curious.

[Hialmar]

I voted "No CvC".

Most disputes we had in the past revolved around it.
Let's remove it and we will be better.

And don't tell me that a persistent world with no CvC is not realistic. If we want a realistic persistent world then maybe we should not have started with a game like DnD which is very very far from realistic. Oh and realistic = RL = boring

Edit: oh and if you want to resolve IC CvC conflicts, use your imagination and be cooperative like OGR did above.

[SwordSaintMusashi]

I voted "No CvC".

Most disputes we had in the past revolved around it.
Let's remove it and we will be better.

And don't tell me that a persistent world with no CvC is not realistic. If we want a realistic persistent world then maybe we should not have started with a game like DnD which is very very far from realistic. Oh and realistic = RL = boring

Edit: oh and if you want to resolve IC CvC conflicts, use your imagination and be cooperative like OGR did above.

I like the cut of your Jib, sir.

[Ronan]

Its really a question of costs vs. benefits, and the only ones who can speak about the costs are the ones who bear them. If the cost is deemed too high, maybe we ought to reduce the number of people who get caught up in the drama? The PA can always say "I support the DM's decision" and leave it at that.

This live DM says: yes, absolutely we should keep CvC. I will gladly bear the costs.

I could support DM / consent only CvC if there was something preventing the attacked character from simply walking away, logging out, etc. while a DM was fetched. Otherwise you're effectively banning CvC.

Out in the woods with no tech problems.

The problem is, anything else than two people taking turns at lobbing blows/spells/arrows at each other will be a "tech problem". What if:
- One uses on-engine stealth mode to sneak up close for the starting blow or to escape
- One uses invisibility (potion/spell) to ambush / run away
- One tries to simply run away and another pursues
- One tries to use the "terrain" that is the walkmesh for any on-engine tactical advantage
- Any "hit and run" tactics by shadowdancers / monks / barb\rogues /whathaveyou

While I don't think stealth and 'hit and run' tactics are at all tech problems in most wildness situations (we don't render all the grass, underbrush and foot traffic that exists, after all), the other problems listed will hopefully eventually be fixed by a combination of the tech team and builders.

[Keryn]

First of all my question would be...

Why are we having this poll?... I mean, in a world like ALFA, with a one PC rule, when a PC dies people will get a bit irrational for a while, and will try anything to get heir PCs back, so I guess even though we would like all players to be mature etc..etc... It does take it toll, BUT on other hand it also makes it quite more exciting.

On other hand, current rules and Rotkus rules to me look like the same with Rotkus being slightly more detailed maybe. But in essence they look the same to me. Personally I think we are cool as we are.

Removing CvC IMO should not even be an option as long as we allow evil aligned PCs!

[oldgrayrogue]

DMs CvC players with their NPCs all the time and players seem to love it. First thing I say to a DM who DMs me is that I will never gripe and moan if you kill my PC -- just please make it exciting! Only time PC death bothers me is when it happens at low levels in a meaningless way before the character can develop any sort of story. I love the adventure of roleplaying in D&D. Worrying OOCly about my PC dying ruins it. I honestly don't see why CvC is such an issue when it is player to player rather than DM to player. Maybe its ego or something. CvC can be exciting! Enjoy it! Let go of the drama -- and your PCs when their time comes -- play with each other no matter the outcome, and have fun.

[johnlewismcleod]

Whut OGR said

[Rotku]

Only time PC death bothers me is when it happens at low levels in a meaningless way before the character can develop any sort of story.

What about dying at high levels in a meaningless way? My only PC to past level 2 (or 3?), she made it to level 6, and died to a BAT on the way to an adventure.

[oldgrayrogue]

Only time PC death bothers me is when it happens at low levels in a meaningless way before the character can develop any sort of story.

What about dying at high levels in a meaningless way? My only PC to past level 2 (or 3?), she made it to level 6, and died to a BAT on the way to an adventure.

Epic fail

[Adanu]

DMs CvC players with their NPCs all the time and players seem to love it. First thing I say to a DM who DMs me is that I will never gripe and moan if you kill my PC -- just please make it exciting! Only time PC death bothers me is when it happens at low levels in a meaningless way before the character can develop any sort of story. I love the adventure of roleplaying in D&D. Worrying OOCly about my PC dying ruins it. I honestly don't see why CvC is such an issue when it is player to player rather than DM to player. Maybe its ego or something. CvC can be exciting! Enjoy it! Let go of the drama -- and your PCs when their time comes -- play with each other no matter the outcome, and have fun.

I can understand your view, but not all of us see it that way. DMs and players are different leagues.

[HEEGZ]

Only time PC death bothers me is when it happens at low levels in a meaningless way before the character can develop any sort of story.

What about dying at high levels in a meaningless way? My only PC to past level 2 (or 3?), she made it to level 6, and died to a BAT on the way to an adventure.

This made my day Rotku.

[Blindhamsterman]

yeah, if a PC dies at any level in a meaningless manner it sucks, its just harder to give a higher level a meaningful death in many situations (though Viigas nearly gave us a lot of meaningful deaths yesterday).