CvC Rule

[I-KP]

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.

Ah, what a gloriously libertarian world you must live in. Don't keep the address secret, I'd like to visit it from time to time - maybe even emigrate.

[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.

Ah, what a gloriously libertarian world you must live in. Don't keep the address secret, I'd like to visit it from time to time - maybe even emigrate.

Some may see my point of view as hopeless idealism but the fact is that there are many players -- in fact most that I have enjoyed playing with on ALFA over the years -- who operate under the same set of beliefs. To me the goal should be to get everyone trusting each other enough that we can all enjoy serious RP without getting so seriously paranoid that we forget this is a game we play together to have fun. Yes, when you invest a lot of time in developing a character, and the story around that character, you become attached to it and don't want to see it end -- at least not in a meaningless way. But all good stories have endings -- some happy, some sad, some that leave you wondering Huh? Sometimes I hate to see a good book end, but it was still a good book I'll remember fondly despite the fact it's over.

Character v. Character conflict -- whether it is actual battle to the death, verbal confrontation, plotting or whatever -- gives the players much more of a stake in shaping the story they conceived for their own PC, other PC's stories and the overarching plots and stories presented by our DMs. A world where conflict between PCs is artificially limited due to mainly the OOC concerns mentioned in this thread cheapens the RP in my view, and wrecks immersion to a certain extent. Some of the most intense and memorable RP moments I have enjoyed over the years have been in the context of character v character conflict, without a DM even being present. Unless a DM plays with your group almost every day you log on, he can't know the PCs like those other players you RP with day in and day out -- whether they are your friends IC or your enemies or something in between.

IMO most of the drama over CvC conflicts -- just like DMd deaths of PCs -- is due to people being so attached to their toons they can't handle it when they die. No CvC rule is going to change that. Other gripes arise because PCs feel that for whatever reason a CvC fight was unfair, either due to meta or other considerations. As others have said, there are already rules about metagaming etc to resolve situations where players behave inappropriately whether it is in CvC or non CvC situations. As Ronan has pointed out too, if another player starts going meta during CvC there is nothing stopping someone from stopping the action, and even logging out if necessary.

The less restrictions on creativity and immersion we place on each other, the better. Oh and I-KP, the world I live in is full of laws, restrictions, etiquette, taboos, conventions that require observance day in and day out. The libertarian place I run to to get away from that can be found on line -- it's called ALFA =)

[Rotku]

Thanks for all the thoughts. I'm going to try and present a new rule for Admin approval by the end of this weekend, based on what has been said here and in the DM forum.

[Keryn]

Why are we trying to change the rule to start with?

That is the 1 million dollar question...

[johnlewismcleod]

I think I can answer that.

As sad as it is, we have some players that seem to have a tendency to get mad at other players and then use their PC's to "get even".

I believe if all of our players could master the separation of IC and OOC our gametime poor, hard-working Rotku would have much more time to play and DM rather than mediate nerfed CvC's.

[Gebb]

My fondest two memories of ALFA were both CvC encounters (in ALFA1). The CvC Player Group plots during that time really sucked me into the immersion of the game and the risk was great fun.

In the first episode as an ALFA newbie, I promptly rolled up my third ALFA PC (the first two died quick deaths during their first hour online from exploring a swamp alone). Based on the first two experiences, I figured if you can't beat them, join them and decided the new PC would be a bandit. Accordingly he got another partner in crime and posted along a well traveled road. Along came a lone dwarf strolling down the road, who we confronted, and demanded all his gear and gold, or his life. Little did we know he was the most powerful PC in ALFA at the time and the subsequent conversation and bandit deaths was hilarious!

The second happened many PCs later when my semi-accomplished PC was traveling with another partner who unknown to me had made enemies out of a sinister female rogue. As we strolled down the road in some conversation clueless to what was about to happen, the assassin who had been stalking us slipped ahead and gulped a potion or two, and was now hiding in shadows. In an instant out of nowhere she appeared behind us, backstabbing my buddy to a quick death, gulped another potion of invisibility, and vanished again before I could even get the mouse oriented in the right direction. We were both stunned, my partner was pissed, and I was in awe. After a quick exchange in the tell/chat function explaining what had just happened and why, we all agreed it was an awesome roleplay session. To this day, that's my favorite memory of ALFA.

Those and a few other Player Group vs Player Group driven plots in Sembia were great fun and immersion. I'd hate to see that go and some artificial system put in it's place. It is the Forgotten Realms after all! A land of intrigue and adventure, let's keep it that way.

[Brokenbone]

Losing a PC to ten seconds of sneak attack and invisibility potions sounds like a layered, finessed, amazingly in depth session. Very rich in RP! So rich it had to be explained in tells afterwards, hah. Oh well, glad if it's somehow on the list of enjoyable moments!

[t-ice]

Those and a few other Player Group vs Player Group driven plots in Sembia were great fun and immersion. I'd hate to see that go and some artificial system put in it's place.

And that's why we have the mutual consent. So that people who enjoy this kind of game can play it. But people who enjoy the most hard-core and to the hilt gaming in the case of CvC, certainly have no right to force themselves and their game on others.

Consider that in my version of "hard-core and to the hilt" world, those 2 bandits by the road would have had maybe a 1% chance of happening on a PC as opposed to an NPC. To me it's the setting and IC -first, and opposed to "game between players at face value" first.

I'd be willing to let you play your "hardcore" version among people who prefer it, and I'd expect the same courtesy from you by refraining from non-consensual, non-DMd CvC actions, thank you.

[Castano]

+1 t-ice. PC's make up a tiny fraction of the hostile targets in game. I know it's more fun to play versus a real human opponent, but that is why we have a consent option. You want to build two warring theive's guilds complete with CvC all over town, that's totally fine under the consent option go for it and enjoy. Allowing totally open CvC with highway bandits etc. would devolve into camping the roads waiting for gear laden toons to walk by.

[Gebb]

I think I'm confused on the other position? When a PC gets killed by:
A. Software spawned wandering NPC/monster = ok
B. DM spawned NPC/monster = ok
C. PC legitimately playing his PC = not ok unless both pre-agree to the event

It seems kind of contrary to the goal of recreating the Forgotten Realms in an online environment. I'd rather have the option of robot spawned encounters requiring my permission before killing my PC.

[t-ice]

I'd rather have the option of robot spawned encounters requiring my permission before killing my PC.

"Robot spawned encounters" don't come after you in the game unless you go after them. To a large decree you can pick your "robot encounters" to approriate level by where you go and not. Other players sure can proactively come after you. And they can potentially do so in a massively biased way. Including the nwn2 engine allowing for various ways to go about it that ignore DnD rules.

Among people who like this kind of "semi-arena" game, sure, knock yourselves out. But, again, why force it on others, who might prefer a DM-led campaign experience that doesn't get cut off by random invisible death while taking a stroll in the park between two events?

[oldgrayrogue]

Just like everything else, if CvC isn't story driven it gets real boring real fast. The consent requirement is there because all players in ALFA are free not to RP with any other player if they so choose.

[danielmn]

Bumping this, as it is the next topic to be examined by me. Any further input is appreciated.

[Magile]

Bumping this, as it is the next topic to be examined by me. Any further input is appreciated.

I feel that, given what option five entails (no cheating, no metagaming, etc) it is a good choice for CvC. Perhaps combine it with part of Rotku's option four, which is taking into consideration roleplaying aspects (NPCs watching, is it a last resort) and it should be simple enough to handle. I could even see screenshots being helpful just to be a "just in case" scenario; however, a DM always needing to be looked for on every hilltop before doing something IC and in-game is a bit over the top to me (especially looking for them on the forums, where many are AFK/may not notice a private message/may be at work, etc).

Just my two cents (which is nearly worth the same as an American two cents now!). 4 or 5 is the best option, I just feel the freedom of 5 is one that can be most appreciated.

[I-KP]

4 or 5 is the best option, I just feel the freedom of 5 is one that can be most appreciated.

...and easiest to abuse and the option most likely to generate a sh_tstorm of QQ, BM, TT, RetCon, PA investigations plus a host of other aggravation related abbreviations. If the administration are happy with the workload then by all means fill your boots and stick with 4/5. (This is not to say that QQ, BM and TT aren’t likely to happen with a DMed lethal CvC encounter but it probably does make subsequent PA investigations less likely and when they do occur they’re probably a bit more cut and dry.)

Free lethal CvC heavily disadvantages characters that survive within the game world through means that the engine can’t auto-manage (particularly in the light of the current absurdity that bans the use of Invisibility tricks during non-DMed CvC). If the drive behind free CvC is to keep things as IC and opportunistic as possible one cannot then simply throw out consideration for the characters that utilise non-engine mechanics to get by in order to achieve that – unless the object is to turn ALFA into a game populated all but exclusively by Clerics and Warlocks.

(Factoid: all of my CvC encounters in ALFA to date have been verses Warlocks. I’m not attempting to draw accusative parallels; just statin’ the facts, m’Lord. )

Rot’s option 4 does indeed mitigate some of my concerns but it still leaves the door wide open for engine driven characters to gank the non-engine driven ones, with isn’t fair in the least. Honestly, who would agree to leave their best player on the bench for a league survival match? Some may indeed agree to that but please do not force all other non-engine characters to do that as well.

On balance I'd say that Option #3 is the only sensible, and more importantly practical, choice.