CvC Rule

[Ithildur]

As whatever policy is finalized/implemented, it sounds like we need a (re)clarification of what CvC is, or more specifically, a clarification of what kind of CvC (i.e. combat, lethal, etc) needs DM oversight/consent/whatever rule is adopted.

As I recall, one of ALFA's distinctives going back to ALFA1 has been the notion that CvC is not necessarily about lethal (or even non lethal) combat (either using game engine or otherwise), and can extend to other forms of conflict between characters. This seems to have been dropped to the wayside somewhere along the way, seeing the points being raised.

i.e. I've always understood that if Joe starts to verbally be abusive/taunts to the point of possibly provoking hostile reaction towards Jack, that's already CvC in ALFA's terms, whether blades are ever drawn/spells are ever cast (possibly our unique definition of cvc in ALFA may have been due to the potentially no holds barred/explosive nature of CvC in ALFA1 days?).At what point 'get consent or DM' applies needs some clarification perhaps, if we do adopt these rules.

Whatever rules/definitions/policies we arrive at needs to take this into consideration, unless the usage of the term 'CvC' in ALFA has changed into something closer to what 'PvP' on most other PWs means.

[danielmn]

Update: Since there are so many last minute opinions, I will allow 3-4 more days for people to weigh in with their opinions before I proceed with revisions.

[Blindhamsterman]

Dan... the ruling of requiring a DM or other Player consent is fine...

as far as I can see, thats not even being disputed.

The only issue that needs to be clarified (and IMO should be an Admin decision, and not based on a poll) is what EXACTLY is considered to be CvC.

Fwiw. after verbal (IC) abuse only a week ago, I let a DM know that I considered it CvC and if it continued, my PC would react accordingly, that didn't mean my PC would kill the other, but it did potentially mean he'd beat/disable them. As Ithildur noted:

one of ALFA's distinctives going back to ALFA1 has been the notion that CvC is not necessarily about lethal (or even non lethal) combat (either using game engine or otherwise), and can extend to other forms of conflict between characters.

Is how I've always viewed it.

[t-ice]

As I recall, one of ALFA's distinctives going back to ALFA1 has been the notion that CvC is not necessarily about lethal (or even non lethal) combat (either using game engine or otherwise), and can extend to other forms of conflict between characters.

Totally agreed. It is PvP, not CvC, if the only way the high ranking member of the thieve's guild can go after the paladin who has inserted himself sideways across the Guild's plans is by charging head on with engine combat.

It's common sense, however, that you shouldn't play "conflict between characters" with players you can't game on good and agreeable OoC terms with. Unless you can get a DM to mediate. Do something else instead.

This seems to have been dropped to the wayside somewhere along the way, seeing the points being raised.

Not really. It's just that the non-direct CvC glaringly obviously needs a DM to facilitate anyway, so there's really no need to discuss on rules of it.

If another toon humiliates my toon, IMO he is already CvCing me.

Yes, assuming the humiliation leads towards plans for actual harm. Harm that shows on the char sheet, that is. Player egos don't count
You don't need a DM to plan to murder someone in their sleep, nor do you need a DM to plan to get the city guard to impose an arrest warrant on someone. You also don't need a DM to say that. But you do need a DM to do it.

Reasonable people should agree that the party that doesn't want to give on-engine CvC consent is the one to back down by default if the other cocks up for a duel. (Unless in a civilized area with guards, etc, when again you need a DM for the NPCs) Be creative together, and should that fail, game and let game: There's plenty of room in the Realms, you don't have to be in the face of people you can't agree on how to play the game with.

those who use our CvC policies to protect their characters while being obvious antagonists

Every PC is the protagonist in her own story. You are no less an antagonist to the PC you call your antagonist.

Again, take the conflict of assassin vs paladin. DMs being understandably leery of letting the assassin take on the paladin his way tilts the scales far more towards the paladin than on-engine cvc restrictions do for the thief.

[Heero]

"You called my mother a hamster and therefore you must die now."

[oldgrayrogue]

IMO what we mean by "CvC" as addressed by these rules is direct on engine combat between characters, which in my view should require mutual consent or absent that DM supervision. There are other types of CvC -- for example setting a group's guildhouse on fire, hiring an assassin to kill them, setting a deadly trap at their temple door, or robbing their P-chest -- but that type of CvC would by its nature require DM involvement to proceed.

IC verbal confrontation between PCs, while it certainly can lead to CvC as defined above, should not be considered CvC that requires player consent or DM moderation. Such verbal interaction is so commonplace in our gameworld (as opposed to CvC combat) that extending CvC rules to these situations would be completely immersion breaking.

Now, if as a player your PC is the subject of uninvited IC verbal confrontation with another PC, it is absolutely within your perogative to send a tell to the other player involved and say "Hey, I am really not comfortable with that type of confrontational RP -- can you please find someone else to play with?" If they continue to antagonize your PC ICly then report it to the PA to investigate for griefing, but IMO it is not CvC. It is good player etiquette to "check in" with another player OOC in tells or chat after such confrontation and make sure no lines were crossed and that the encounter was fun for everyone. I do "check ins" all the time as my RP tends to be confrontational and it is always well received.

To the extent a "consent rule" is implemented, I would encourage PA to make clear that being an "antagonist" -- and by that I mean RPing your PC as picking a fight or starting an argument with another PC -- and then refusing consent to CvC without correspondingly altering your RP to reflect that -- i.e by RPing "backing down" or running away etc., should be considered metagaming. It is taking an advantage of an OOC game rule for an IC advantage. So if you pick a fight and then refuse CvC consent, I'd say you need to 1)alter your RP to reflect that choice, or 2) refuse consent and ask the encounter to continue with DM moderation.

It all seems pretty common sense to me.

[t-ice]

+1 ogr, well phrased

[Ithildur]

Right, so I'm hearing...

1. as long as the conflict/confrontation is verbal, it's not considered CvC (such can obviously lead to CvC however which may require DM oversight or consent)

2. carrying out plotting/undermining/assassination/theft etc which obviously requires DM intervention is considered CvC

3. combat either via game engine or using emotes/dice rolls, lethal or non lethal, is considered CvC

#3 above is specifically what this thread is about it seems. Probably helpful to make that clear (even if it should be fairly clear to most folks it may not be to new players, etc.).

It is taking an advantage of an OOC game rule for an IC advantage. So if you pick a fight and then refuse CvC consent, I'd say you need to 1)alter your RP to reflect that choice, or 2) refuse consent and ask the encounter to continue with DM moderation.

Agreed. FWIW, it's my observation that in the days of more triggerhappy/freewheeling days of olde, a lead-in from #1 to #3 happened much more often than it does these days which is why I think the lines weren't necessarily all that distinct. Depending on the setting and characters involved (say Shadow Thief in Amn, drow in Menzo, etc), it's entirely feasible that verbally provoking someone IS near tantamount to instigating a physical altercation. i.e. If more restrictive 'CvC' rules are being implemented, there are times when it's a good idea for players to quickly send tells to each other along the lines of 'this is 99% likely to lead to combat of some sort' 'agreed, do we have consent/we should get a DM' 'er, actually my guy may back down' etc. when engaging in even verbal conflict.

Our characters simply may not be as nice as the players behind them are, even 'good guys', and Baldur's Gate isn't a small US Midwestern town in the 21st century. People walk around with weapons at their sides and regularly meet things that try to poke them with sharp objects in this world, and even peasants know the reality of possible death from raiding humanoids or a wyvern. Occasionally I think some of us lose sight of this.

[Brokenbone]

Non dextrous warrior pc loots big glowing magic sword in front of four casual chance companion type fellow adventurers. Claims "no I didn't take anything" or worse just offers up some spare half decent mw sword from inventory claiming that's what he took. Yeah, some of loot ninja bs or lying about things that fast in engine grabbing Ooc kind of break or try to head off IC and Ooc discovery, that may be metagaming (player use of Ooc tricks to beat other players out of an IC opportunity) well before it's a form of CvC, but I'd imagine loot swindles including appearing to pay out a full share but mildly or boldly rounding down to own advantage happens plenty. Or even a completely fair lootman may get a fight picked by someone who gets idea (planted by someone or not) that a swindle is underway.

I bet DMs love dealing with that. Hah. Mom, Verdilaim the destroyer claims he only sold those "garnets" for 71gp, I thought that idol had a pair of 100gp ruby eyes too! He is being a cheater. Make him roll bluff so I can catch him and kill him!

[Keryn]

Well here is the problem!

To the extent a "consent rule" is implemented, I would encourage PA to make clear that being an "antagonist" -- and by that I mean RPing your PC as picking a fight or starting an argument with another PC -- and then refusing consent to CvC without correspondingly altering your RP to reflect that -- i.e by RPing "backing down" or running away etc., should be considered metagaming. It is taking an advantage of an OOC game rule for an IC advantage. So if you pick a fight and then refuse CvC consent, I'd say you need to 1)alter your RP to reflect that choice, or 2) refuse consent and ask the encounter to continue with DM moderation.

It all seems pretty common sense to me.

In RL we may say that each of us as individuals have different ways to react to things. Some being more tolerant, while others at the same provocation would simply punch someone. IG its not different, and as Ith mentioned, folks seem to forget the setting we play in is full of folks (be it a PC or NPC) that may or may not take some crap from others. And often physical confrontation happens and may indeed lead to deaths.

As a player I do feel more often then not that my respect for the other player is being abused, when over and over my PC is pushed against the wall, by other toon/player that knows I'll likely not materialize my warnings IC, because death is a harsh thing in a perma death setting. Some may claim that means nothing but it does, it means everything. It means that a PC may or may not have a word that counts. May or may not be respected for his warnings, in reality it means the reputation and the way others look at the toon changes and changes dramatically.

Its the difference between fearing/respecting a toon or simply thinking...
"yee right, just the other day he also threatened the other guy and did nothing in the end"

If another toon humiliates my toon, IMO he is already CvCing me.

By T-ice - Yes, assuming the humiliation leads towards plans for actual harm. Harm that shows on the char sheet, that is. Player egos don't count

The fact is that the need to seek a DM for CvC does break immersion, I don't need plans if I wish to act in the moment when it makes sense to act. And it has nothing to do with player egos, PCs also have Egos, probably bigger Egos then the player in RL, many toons are arrogant, cold minded, vile, lack patience, etc... Assuming an action from a PC, is portraying the player behind the scenes is not even real in a place like ALFA where we have so many good RPers that RP vile characters. Are they all assholes in RL?

Where do we draw the line? A toon antagonizes another over and over, for several days. The day will come in which he will just say... "enough with this!" and do something about it. But at that moment I need to seek a DM, stop the RP and call it a day until a DM can and is willing to get IG... For what?
Are we also considering that being called IG as a DM to witness someone killing another is just something some might not be willing to do? As a DM I sure would not feel like going IG just for that... If you contact a DM to oversee CvC and he simply says. "I won't do it." We are basically saying we are done with CvC in ALFA, unless it is consensual, and that is protecting those that are antagonists and then hide behind the need for consent for CvC.

Also another question.

What are we really trying to accomplish with this? If people complain after a CvC they complain about what?
Do we really believe that even with a DM looking at it, there won't still be complains? People take a while to digest the event, some have some difficulties in dealing with loss, and look for a way out of the situation. Anything goes... no real reason, RP was bad, there was a bug, he used tactics that should not be allowed...

I know that, because I had a situation that happened with me. There was CvC, the player was probably confident he would win and gave the consent, and then latter, still tried to question the legitimacy of the CvC.

PA is not an easy position we all know that. But I'm not sure if this will change anything, other then limiting RP even more.

[Ithildur]

I have to say...

At some point we have to trust our DMs and elected PA to make solid calls in case by case situations where complaints are brought up and rules may be ambiguous; that's why they hold the amount of authority they're entrusted with. If you can't trust people who are in positions of authority to make sensible, mature decisions then no amount of rule making will truly fix the bigger problems.

KISS it - Keep it simple, clear. Define CvC. Settle on a relatively simple and clear set of rules, not three pages. Stick with it. Let DM's/PA sort out case by case complications and trust that the majority of players will not be asshats. Deal with asshattery decisively as it surfaces, rather than make life more complicated for the entire playerbase because of a handful of headaches.

You cannot over legislate to account for every scenerio out there; all that does is needlessly complicate things and give the would-be complainers who'll try to find loopholes more material to argue with.

[Keryn]

Exactly Ith, that is why I do not really understand why we need to make changes in our system. All that trully seems to be needed is a clarification. Maybe rotkus proposal sounds the most reasonable of all in the end.

Each time I look at our current system i ask myself whats wrong about it.

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

With the use of the CE, RP logs are always saved.

With screens of the combat logs, these two informations would be way better then a DM, that can be accused of not being neutral. And it is of both players interest to save them anyway. The attacker to make sure his CvC is not contested, and the guy who lost his toon to be able to contest it. After all without proof there is no case.

We could simply make it mandatory to take screens and save the log file, so that in case it needs to be investigated in case of the cvc is contested, there is evidence of what happened. And if lacking such it is an auto redo.

And if it was premeditated the DM would have been warned anyway.

Simple...

[t-ice]

Each time I look at our current system i ask myself whats wrong about it.

The main thing remains that without a DM you can't act out the conflict in any way resembling the rules. Only thing you can do is draw weapons and duke it out like Luke vs Vader, with a spell or two in the middle. Now I don't have statistics, but I'd claim that in more than 3/4 of the times that is not ICly how such conflict would play out, considering the PCs involved. Simply because most CvC appears to be one side trying to escape and the other trying to kill it before it escapes. Allowing one side to force the arena match gives unfair advantage to the more arena suited PCs, who would then push the conflict without a DM, whereas the other side tries to avoid until a DM is found.

Furthermore, if you can force non-moderated CvC on players who don't want to fight you on-engine, it pushes people towards making their PCs into arena builds. Especially if you're planning on a PC that has strong "edges" that might antagonize others (banite, paladin, warlock etc.)

I'd claim than in at least 95% percent of the cases, drawing weapons asking for permission to on-engine CvC will get that "nyah nayh" PC you're so worried about to appropriately back down. And if not, it's not a person you'd want to be playing with anyway, why do you care if you can't ICly gank that PC. Just turn your back to the bad RP as a player.

Phrased in other words, we can consider this in terms of "long as it does not break immersion". Without a DM it's simply impossible for me to nwn2-CvC you in a way that does not break immersion, unless you want to fight me back in a duel fashion. All you have to do is try to run away, and we're deep in the immersion breaking zone. So why not just simplify it, and demand to ask for consent instead.

[I-KP]

I think some people are beginning to lose sight of why a CvC rule is needed. It’s primary function, which should not come as news to anyone here, is to apply fairness whereby certain PC archetypes have an unfair advantage over other archetypes purely by virtue of the game engine not being able to automatically resolve a wide variety of RP-based tactics and tricks during potentially lethal CvC. As soon as a player engages functions of the game engine (attack, cast, stealth) they’ve stepped into the remit of the CvC ruling. Anything prior to that – insults, posturing, plotting – is something called role play, and this rightly falls outside of the suggested jurisdiction of the CvC ruling. Essentially, what Teez just posted.

Resolving game engine combat fairly overrules any perceived RP (or player) sensibilities; it has to because its function is the enforcement of fairness. There is no need to foggy the line between RP and CvC as in my view the delineation between the two concepts is already clear. Also, the cries of the breaking of immersion because your razor-edge bruiser would ordinarily rearrange faces if slighted are entirely mute for the simple, logical reason that you yourself aren't taking into account of the fact that you are expecting the non-engine character to break their immersion by fighting you head on rather than via their usual non-engine/RP-based means.

To reiterate, if ALFA is concerned about giving every PC archetype a fair and even crack of the whip, and ALFA is set to remain a PvP setting (and long may it do so), then option #3 is the only sensible and practicable solution. It is the only option that allows all parties to engage in combat without a DM overseer if they all so wish; it is the only option that prevents non-engine style characters from being ganked by engine-driven ones; it is a strong option for minimizing the amount of grief and QQ that the admins have to carve their way through after the event.

[Ronan]

FWIW as long as I've DMed in ALFA, I have never heard a viable complaint that a defending party was abusing CvC rules. If we let them just run away or log without consequence because a DM wasn't found, then we might start having more problems here. I trust any rule crafted won't allow this, of course.

Anyway, we need to clearly separate the Why from the How, here.

I think the How has been nailed by the last few posts: in many cases it requires a DM. If it does the players involved should be required to 'pause' until one is found (without the pause, one player could simply run away).

The Why is much trickier. ALFA is tiny, while Faerun is large. Because of its size, ALFA simply cannot support violently opposing PC concepts, unless those concepts are kept secret from each other (which is hard because of meta information) or of similar power levels (which is just unlikely).

If anyone gets off easy due to our CvC rules, its the would-be victims of the players who don't like CvC and thus don't attack when they could, instead opting for alternative IC resolutions when possible. Though sadly not all ALFAns return this favor, most ALFAns seem to want to play civilly with each other regardless of how their IC personas interact.

Believe it or not "hey, can you step in and do something so we can avoid CvC?" is a more common request than "I need a DM for CvC".

The Why might be off-topic here and require another thread?