CvC Rule

[I-KP]

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.

If such a thing did occur then I would argue that this would be an example of bad RP and that it should be tackled in the same way that meta-gaming currently is; furthermore, I would not consider such a thing to be justification for CvC process that is inherently uneven, i.e., one without a DM/consent clause.

[Keryn]

I-KP I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what is this non-engine combat you are talking about. Could you clarify what do you mean please?

[Blindhamsterman]

I believe I-KP refers to actions not available in engine.

example - grapple.

Thing is, if CvC actually breaks out, engine or no engine, there aren't many actions available, you can:
a) Run away. - kind of useless as most PCs are the same speed, so they'll be just as likely to catch you regardles. (spells like expeditious retreat or dimension door certainly help with this)
b) Defend yourself - this is actually handled just fine in engine, you can cast spells you had prepared, you can also attack back as normal. You can even opt to try and subdue your attacker.
c) Talk them out of it - this is just RP, and if a PC is out for blood, they're out for blood, doesn't need any DM help here either, it's simply a case of requiring good RPers on each side (the attacker has to be willing to ask themselves if their character would listen, and if they would, actually have them back down)
d) Sneak away - Sneaking from other PCs actually works fine in my experience (my toon sucks at spotting hidden PCs for example)

If it's a longer minded thing, they require DMs anyway (the aforementioned poisoning for example).

Grappling really is one of the only things you cannot do without a DM, but we as players should be willing to run with counter rolls on grappling if requested. Invisibility obviously needs a DM as it's borked.

Simple fact is... if Mike the Mighty decides that Jeff the Jerk has insulted him badly enough that he 'draws steel', then it no longer matters if Jeff the Jerk isn't very combat orientated, he just angered the guy with the big sword stood right infront of him.

If there are some other things that people think one ought to be able to do at the last second when a man/woman draws their sword/axe/whatever, what are they? As they are the things that actually require a DM in reality.

[Keryn]

...

Simple fact is... if Mike the Mighty decides that Jeff the Jerk has insulted him badly enough that he 'draws steel', then it no longer matters if Jeff the Jerk isn't very combat orientated, he just angered the guy with the big sword stood right infront of him.

If there are some other things that people think one ought to be able to do at the last second when a man/woman draws their sword/axe/whatever, what are they? As they are the things that actually require a DM in reality.

Exactly.

And I know it is not related to the topic at hand directly. But in a way it is and since the issue was brought up.

Not everyone that plays in ALFA is a PnP master, many certainly have not even played PnP ever. Thus allowing the mechanics nerds to pull of sort of tricks from the canon books out of the blue is a can o worms I'm not entirely sure we would like to open. And if the idea was to place players on an even situation, I think this would just do the opposite. While what we have available on engine is known and obvious to all.
To my knowledge the use of unavailable resources from PnP is or may be used in Dm campaigns when "previously" approved. Its not when the situations happens that you snap your fingers and suddenly remember it would be awesome to use this or that.

Also just food for thought but. When a non premeditated combat happens, folks react to the situation at hand. Stopping it for days until a DM is willing (I insist in this since I see a problem here) and available. Allows for folks to restock on items, potions, healing, and prepare for a situation that they would likely not be prepared for when the situation rose. Do we also want to deal with this?

I've played with the large majority of players we have in ALFA, and have been DMed by quite a few as well. Things can get out of hand, some folks don't dig each other, but for CvC without any reason the PA is and always will be the guy to step in. And from what I have heard there is usually reasons that lead a PC to attack another. Its not like we have folks going around killing others just because they felt like it.

So like BHM just mentioned, if you don't want to get into a CvC situation, the best course of action is not to antagonize those who may get you into such a situation.

On other hand if you roll a Velsharon priest... seriously. What are you expecting?

[Veilan]

Knowledge and mastery of the PnP ruleset is not going to be required for having a successful or enjoyable ALFA experience.

[Ithildur]

So now another entire layer to this is brought forth... *rubs temples*

Mastery of pnp rules, or even NWN2 rules, is surely not required to enjoy ALFA, I think most would agree; on the other hand, ALFA features regular use of pnp skills, spells, and other mechanics that the NWN2 game engine is too limited to support fully, and we clearly enjoy that. A decent grasp of NWN2 mechanics and pnp rules obviously can potentially enhance one's experience with CvC in ALFA as far as survival/victory - just that. It doesn't mean you'll have a great experience RPing in ALFA, just potentially help you survive CvC (or PvM).

Keryn, nothing's stopping you from becoming better acquainted with any of the rules; the SRD is free and there's plenty of people to ask for clarification. You don't need to be a PnP master or mechanics nerd.

Besides, some of it IS actually somewhat grounded in good sense/good RP and at least a faint grasp of tactical situations (though obviously DnD doesn't translate things perfectly): i.e. if you're a halfling about to provoke a half ogre and you're standing 3 inches in front of him, you'd better be a slippery fellow (Escape Artist or at least super high dex) to be able to deal with the guy reaching out and trying to grab you to do unpleasant things with his massive grapple modifier; there's no excuse for you crying 'But there's no grapple in NWN! I had no idea this huge guy might decide to wrestle me when I provoked him!'. Or if you're not a physically strong character don't back up to the edge of a cliff while plinking arrows at a guy that's built like a bull... because he just might get the idea that trying to bull rush you off the edge into a plummeting fall might be a good idea. Again, 'wtf, you can't do that in NWN2!' isn't an excuse, rather it may be borderline metagaming.

Stuff like this is usually handled by DMs (or between players if they're cooperative enough and familiar enough with the rules) without players having to be masters of the rules (grapple especially can be somewhat complex), simply roll what the DM asks you to roll, and he will (hopefully) adjudicate something close to proper results based on 3.5e rules. More simply, don't back yourself to the edge of a cliff just because 'heh, there's no falling off of cliffs and dying in NWN2'. We don't play that way in DMed sessions when using skills or vs NPCs when DM allows it (Babras' underwater grappling Myk's drow NPC until both drowned comes to mind, a spectacular finish to a Hall of Fame PC's career); why should it be different for CvC?

Again,

nothing's stopping people from becoming better acquainted with any of the rules; the SRD is free and there's plenty of people to ask for clarification.

If you're lousy at NWN2 rules and mechanics but you wish to play a tough guy who doesn't back down, chances are good that you'll get pwned sooner or later with game engine combat- that's just reality. So you have two options, either avoid CvC, or avoid game engine combat, and rely on the other forms of CvC that were discussed.

If you happen to play a baddass archer who happens to benefit from good knowledge of NWN2 mechanics/rules and have got yourself a pretty effective build for game engine combat, then obviously you'd prefer that mode of CvC, but that does not mean someone who has a 'lousy build' but thinks of very clever ways to screw your PC without the game engine should be prevented from doing so. That's what a lot of these rules are for, skillchecks and special attacks, etc, to offer a basis for fair objective rules everyone can reference for adjudicating the results of such attempts. And there's always good ol fashioned doing an excellent job RPing a scheming, recruiting type who gets six of his buddies/hirlings to set up a clever ambush to take down that uber combat engine PC; that can often be far more interesting for multiple players/DM than 'k, set to hostile, ready? Let's go'

Honestly, if someone was motivated enough to learn to become good at game engine combat stuff, they can learn at least some basic non game engine stuff as well (especially in ALFA) if they really want to RP being an asskicker in various situations.

[t-ice]

If there are some other things that people think one ought to be able to do at the last second when a man/woman draws their sword/axe/whatever, what are they?

Certainly the most common thing is to run away. Assuming the PCs have same speeds, it's supposed to be a opposed dex check, supposedly every time the chaser wins he gets in another swing, and escaper gets away if he wins once before dying. Most pairs of PCs don't have same speeds by the rules, anyway, even though they do in NWN2. So unless you can kill with one blow from that sword/axe/whatever, you most certainly need a DM for that chase scene. (Which strictly on NWN2 would be resolved by who loads ATs faster, I suppose)

ICly Mike Mighty would likely be much better grappling Joe Jackass than drawing a sword, assuming Joe is a fast slick bugger and Mike wears his heavy armor.

Also note that all of this applies only for a wilderness meeting, where Mike and Joe somehow ended up antagonizing each other enough. If it's in a tavern or otherwise civilized setting, where most RP tends to happen, you need a DM for the NPCs, anyway.

So bottom line, if both players want to fight, then consent should not be a problem. If one wishes to escape, you need a DM to play it out.

Suppose you might as well change the rule to: "Unless a DM is present, all attempts by a PC to escape a CvC situation will be successful. If mutual consent to fight to the death is given by all affected PCs, any attempts to escape will fail and lead to the escaping PCs death, unless mutual consent to break off the fight is had."

[Keryn]

T-Ice as I stated before many ALFAns have no idea about pnp rules. And MANY DMs have no idea about pnp rules.

How do you expect this to work when the very protagonists have no idea of what you are talking about? (both player side and on DM side)

As Veilan stated there is nothing in ALFA that says that a player needs to know about pnp to enjoy playing in ALFA.
And none of these pnp tactics are described or claimed to be an integral part of ALFA mechanics.

[t-ice]

T-Ice as I stated before many ALFAns have no idea about pnp rules. And MANY DMs have no idea about pnp rules.
How do you expect this to work when the very protagonists have no idea of what you are talking about? (both player side and on DM side)

So, how do you propose to resolve a situation where one PC attacks and another wants to escape- assuming you don't trust DMs to mediate it? Because if you leave it to NWN2, it will depend on who will load ATs faster (unless there's a barbarian, monk or druid).

I didn't say DMs must strictly follow pnp rules to mediate CvC escapes, or that DMs must be willing to step up as a referee when asked if they feel they don't have a clue. But really there must be a referee beyond the engine in a escape/chase situation.

If there's a dispute on what's happening IC, falling back to pnp rules has always been the way to resolve it. What else is there to resolve an escape/chase?

[dergon darkhelm]

The Pillars of ALFA:

1) D&D. ALFA uses Dungeons & Dragons ("D&D").

It's pillar #1 - Specifically we use the 3.5 rules set to the best of our ability, understanding that not all players or DMs have a comprehensive understanding of those rules. However, if you're going to be dealing with PC life and death - then it's time to bone up on PnP D&D 3.5

Part of the DM role is to adjudicate CvC. (one which they all relish ). Having a DM around for CvC is just smart thinking.

[Keryn]

The Pillars of ALFA:

1) D&D. ALFA uses Dungeons & Dragons ("D&D").

It's pillar #1 - Specifically we use the 3.5 rules set to the best of our ability, understanding that not all players or DMs have a comprehensive understanding of those rules. However, if you're going to be dealing with PC life and death - then it's time to bone up on PnP D&D 3.5

Part of the DM role is to adjudicate CvC. (one which they all relish ). Having a DM around for CvC is just smart thinking.

My understanding of this is that ALFA uses DnD as a base to implement its systems. Not players having to have a book by the PC to know core rules, nor study before they can play.

I may be playing the devils side here, but fact is I have been DMed by many DMs in ALFA who simply have ZERO understanding of DnD rules. And I have played with players who also have no idea how dnd/pnp works. If ALFA is to be turned into a place where knowing DnD core rules is a must, then you should advertise it when people fill in their application. I have been playing here for some years and had no idea about this, I know somethings, but can say without any trouble that most dnd/pnp rules and tricks simply evade me because I never played it. Its not after the deed that you'll explain to some player that toon X or Y killed or escaped using super duper skills that he was not aware of but should have been since its also based on DnD...

Also a doubt comes to mind. If in life or death situations a DM should be there, and dnd tricks and skills used. Maybe ALL deaths should be temp and the players have a second try with a DM playing the critters and them having a DnD chance to escape or whatever? Somehow I guess we do not wish this to happen...

I really don't think I'm being unreasonable here. But things must be clear to those that play in ALFA.

[Ithildur]

Look, it's not that complicated. As others have stated, you cannot solely rely on game engine mechanics to resolve many situations (relying on how fast one ATs means I would be boned every single time, for instance ), so you have to have some reference point. It doesn't matter if not every DM/player is an expert on (or even agrees 100% with) said reference point; the important thing is that there IS a widely accessible reference point which already we base most of ALFA's elements around, the core elements of 3.5e ruleset which ANYONE can access via the SRD.

So for example, the question of who gets away/how they get away that T Ice cited above (perhaps a bad example, he and I would adjudicate things completely differently apparently) it's not complicated to reference the core rule of initiative checks to see who gets the drop on the other person/gets to act first under most circumstances. That's at least an objective starting point for adjudicating that we can all accept because that's a core element of 3.5e rules (and even included in NWN2 btw to some extent). If a DM says 'Joe won initiative, he's an unarmored monk, you have no ranged weapon, he gets away easily', it's rather difficult to complain that he arbitrarily pulled it out of thin air.

A more thoughtful/knowledgeable DM might throw in factors like the environment, who wears full plate vs who's lightly armored, halfling with short legs vs human barbarian, Withdrawl action/tumble vs AOOs, etc, but it's not completely necessary and unrealistic to demand all ALFAns to know PnP rules inside out (though it's probably a good idea to encourage DMs to bone up on a few important and frequently used basics especially to resolve stuff like this); the important thing is we have basis for DMs to reference basic core rules as a starting point (and perhaps more importantly, good sense) to referee things, and we go from there.

Morale of the story: yes, DMs are in positions of greater responsibility, they should be encouraged to bone up on some commonly applied rules, and it definitely can be handy if you RP a Ranger to read up on using Track properly, etc. But unless you're seriously worried about not being able to PG successfully because of lack of expertise with PnP rules, there's no need to lose sleep studying the SRD backwards and forwards.

Again, why is this so complicated? And we've gotten rather off topic as well; might be better to start a separate thread elsewhere, though it'd be more within the scope of DMs/DM Admin, i.e. 'How to resolve 5 common situations the game engine can't handle'

[Keryn]

I don't know why in any discussion in ALFA, it will eventually come down to personal attacks...

What I have said earlier on, doesn't apply entirely to me, if at all, I may not be the most knowledgeable person on DnD playing in ALFA, but I am surely not the one who knows less. It does not matter what I play or what I don't play, if you have any complain about my use of the Track feat, or any PGing DanM is the man for you, suit yourself.
This is a rule for the whole ALFA, and it is with that in mind that this decision must be taken, for those today with us, and for those players that might join us in the future. ALFA for a long time was badged as an Elitist community, and I thought it was something ALFA itself saw as non beneficial.
All I asked of was why this change to the current system was needed. And the answer I got from some folks and the Admin (Veilan) don't seem to be matching. If the idea is to make CvC less of a problem, it seems to me it all starts in making it very clear how the game rules are, and how the players must act when facing a CvC situation. Something Rotku's proposal was doing for the current system, so I take he himself recognized this as a problem when he made this poll.
If the way is to move on to make necessary to know some SDR stuff, then so be it, I am no on to take that decision. But I can give my opinion just like any other ALFAn, and if such a step is taken, it better be made clear to everyone playing, and everyone that decides to try ALFA.
Thats what I'm saying. Some people might not feel like studying the SDR to play this game and feel it as something that makes them not with to join this community.

I guess THAT is not something that hard to get. And once again, when I post, I'm not talking about myself. I post with the community in mind and with the players and possible new players ALFA might embrace, in mind. And that is something we all must certainly keep in mind when making decision if we wish this community to continue to prosper.

When we run a PW the rules must be clear to all and equal to all. I'm done with this thread.

[Ithildur]

Keryn, FWIW, I've always thought you're probably one of the folks that are better versed in how Track works... I donno where you're getting the idea I'm complaining about your use of it. *shrug*

I don't understand why you're suddenly having issue with this; we've always looked to pnp rules as a reference point for dealing with stuff the game engine is too limited to deal with, even if things aren't always done perfectly by the book. Why suddenly go 'we can't all be rulesmasters so this is no good'? It's needlessly complicating an element of CvC/general gameplay in ALFA that most of us apparently are ok with since 2002.

[kid]

The Pillars of ALFA:

1) D&D. ALFA uses Dungeons & Dragons ("D&D").

It's pillar #1 - Specifically we use the 3.5 rules set

Does it actualy say 3.5 anywhere? just curious.