CvC Rule

[Rotku]

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,

Thank you.

[Rotku]

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.

Some very good points made. I hadn't even considered the difference between non-lethal and lethal CvC.

I'd probably be in favour of having non-lethal CvC at least via consent.

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.

I think Zelk hit the nail on the head with that one. Some of those I would definitely say are fairly direct attacks against another PC- they'd definitely count as (non-lethal?) CvC. Aw for starting rumours or sending someone into the wilds on false intel, I think that way is the best way to handle character conflict.

[Brokenbone]

Killing someone who is unconscious I guess is combat like. I suppose if it's just PCs A & B in a dungeon, A goes to negatives, B wins against hostiles overall, and then B just cackles and watches A slowly bleed out, perhaps praising Cyric, revealing a long standing IC faith motivation or something... maybe it was CvC, maybe it wasn't.

Pickpocketing though we have startlingly few rules on if you try it as a search term (tied really to some NWN1 write ups about OOC returning anything larger than your hand more or less). Recognize the main shortcoming there must be "only the victim gets an in-engine opposed spot roll" as opposed to the potentially many observers (PC or NPC) who might say "hey PC B, why are you pickpocketing PC A?" ALFA hasn't really got a lot of PP-strong rogues that I can tell though, maybe people were warned off sleight of hand skills by varied Dm crews over time, cannot say. A dedicated pickpocket may not be thinking in the slightest of ever trying to kill someone, but may also be prepared to flee if ever detected, huge gamble since people take loot kinda personally sometimes.

Consenting to pickpocketing would be kind of overboard. Same with requiring a DM around to adjudicate pickpocketing as if it's just "you and a hin" in a room and the DM sends you tells out of nowhere to roll spot, and then starts manually removing items from you (or gold), yellow server messages start popping up while the hin keeps smiling innocently.

[Heero]

Isnt pickpocketing hindered by the fact that with a successful roll your little hin theif might have just lifted a tower shield off a paladin's back while he just stood there with his thumb up his...well...you get the idea...

[Brokenbone]

Which is why the "OOC, return anything big" thing is somewhere in our rules.

http://www.alandfaraway.org/node/948

Search term "pick pocket" comes up with old Rogue writeup, mentioning the emote ball (of NWN1), or the Bard writeup which mentions re: pickpocketing, "see Rogue."

Again, I wouldn't have seen this as a "major" form of CvC, though something to probably keep your patron DMs well informed on so that they wouldn't be running around like idiots looking for bugs that are mysteriously draining some victim's gold or small items. "Hey DM I lost 23gp and I never left the tavern yesterday, reimburse me!" (DM knowing damn well that Snidely the thief was picking everyone's pockets that night in the tavern, but not wanting to "out" him)

[johnlewismcleod]

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.

Exactly.

As much as I feel badly for Rotku having to deal with *redacted* players who seem to think their PC's are meant to live an eternal life of high stakes adventure and mayhem, I had to vote for the rules remaining as is.

While it sounds a simple matter in the forums to seek out a DM before proceeding, IG it would be completely immersion breaking at the very least, and more probably make CvC mostly impossible in most instances.

What we will be left with is a silly IG duel, replete with a DM standing in the middle counting off steps.

One is forced to wonder..what then is the point?

Seems more like player vs player in this scenario to me than PC vs PC.

But I'm fine with whatever the majority chooses.

[Rotku]

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.

I'd imagine most ALFA members would be willing to sit back and wait for a bit while a DM is sought. Maybe I'm mistaken though? I would hazard a guess that most problems with CvCs occur after the event, when emotions are high.

[Adanu]

I'd say our current system works except for the instances where players are ignoring obvious IC issues like CvCing right next to a gate or somesuch. I always prefer to trust players, but I have heard about such things, and lets face it; no matter how some might not like it, OOC emotions are still going to factor into your play simply because very, very people can truly totally compartmentalize personalities within their head. These characters are part of us.

Personally, just for a bit of caution, I'd go with option 2 for a fair experience all around. Not because players can't be trusted, but DMs can have the world react to your fighting if need be, and it will keep things from degenerating into a he said she said...

Another option that I'd consider more would be a mix of current system and option 2... when in the wilds or totally alone, have at it. When near roads, cities, or otherwise somewhere that the world would react to you, a DM is required.

[Rotku]

Another option that I'd consider more would be a mix of current system and option 2... when in the wilds or totally alone, have at it. When near roads, cities, or otherwise somewhere that the world would react to you, a DM is required.

That's an intriguing thought. While emotions do run high in most CvCs, it's definitely true, from a disputes perspective, most of the problems occur in populated regions.

[johnlewismcleod]

Another option that I'd consider more would be a mix of current system and option 2... when in the wilds or totally alone, have at it. When near roads, cities, or otherwise somewhere that the world would react to you, a DM is required.

Damn...Adanu nailed it for me.

I vote for Adanu's option!

On a side note...everyone should have chat logging enabled via the Gnomish Log Rotater IMO. If you don't have this enabled, please do so.

Chat logs can be extremely helpful and eliminates the "he said, she said" scenario Adanu refers to.

The same goes for screen pics...easy to do (even I figured out how to do it after taking notes )

[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.

I'd imagine most ALFA members would be willing to sit back and wait for a bit while a DM is sought. Maybe I'm mistaken though? I would hazard a guess that most problems with CvCs occur after the event, when emotions are high.

Maybe you are, or maybe you aren't, but if you're right it'll be a rule no one breaks?

My stance CvC on BG is this: you can do it whenever if you cannot find a DM, but do it around NPCs who might give a crap and everything is subject to a roll-back and re-play. Out in the woods with no tech problems, it stands.

In a lot of areas, the guards are not going to get involved with breaking up a fight by two heavily armed adventurers sporting wands of 'Burn-Your-Crap-Town-To-Cinders'. If one of ThinkPig's PCs starts making mom jokes at Kaleb in the streets of BG, is one of the watch going to try to break it up? Maybe. I'd probably roll for it. In all likelyhood piggy's PC would be a deader before the Fist was ever notified though, and Kaleb could easily slip away from any generic NPC who'd be dumb enough to try and stop him.

Can we name any drama which was created by lack of DM involvement, or DM involvement after the fact? DCJ's case had elements of the later, but I don't at all see how the DM's rollback caused any of the issues which surfaced (except maybe in a very roundabout way). I guess what I'm asking is, whats broken, and what will this fix?

[Rotku]

Can we name any drama which was created by lack of DM involvement, or DM involvement after the fact? DCJ's case had elements of the later, but I don't at all see how the DM's rollback caused any of the issues which surfaced (except maybe in a very roundabout way). I guess what I'm asking is, whats broken?

I'd have to look back on my records to be certain, but I'd say with some certainty that nearly all of the CvCs that I hear about with my PA hat on could have been solved through having DMs actively involved during the incident itself.

[DMyles]

I vote for being able to kill anyone where ever when ever, unless somebody is afk. High lvls should also seek nonlethal solutions when dealing with lower lvls. Having to find a dm just makes it to hard though.

[Darkmystic]

Well since I never seen CvC do anything in NWN 2 Alfa but start ooc drama or be abused by high levels to smash low levels I would suggest to always bring in DMs to just be a witness so the DM can later simply smash any arguments.

CvC can be great fun but it does require players to trust each other, And I dont think many players trust people really, I know I dont trust many players sadly.

[t-ice]

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

And probably a whole score of various ways to "arena game" that I'm totally unaware of.

The bottom line is, unless both players want to fight the CvC fight on-engine without a DM, there's no way the engine will give a anywhere near a fair representation of it. Not by DnD rules, anyhow, and even with a DM it's a stretch. Also if, say, invisibility must have a DM present to use in CvC (and it would be hugely abusable if it didn't), then it follows that all you have to do is carry one invisibility potion and you're "safe" from non-DMd CvC fights you don't want to have. Or if you need a DM to judge what happens when one simply runs away (and you do to be anywhere near DnD rules), then you don't even need that potion.

So why should we allow forcing PvP on people? Especially when the engine does such a awful job at it. The least in terms of protection from abuse is the option to demand a DM be present to referee a CvC if so desired. (And DMs should be readily willing to defuse said totally unbalanced encounters so that no-one gets stomped on to stroke higher level player's ego and sense of entitlement. High levels should find encounters their own level to instigate - doubly so in CvC. Of course it's very different if it's the lower level who brought it on, which I feel would be the case in many a "executioner" CvC scenario.)