CvC Rule

[Galadorn]

I think everything T-Ice said in every post on this thread should be followed. I read it all, over and over and just felt agreeing with what he said everytime.

-G

[johnlewismcleod]

T-ice is a prince of intellect...I make it a point to always disagree with him in defense of the proletariat

[Ithildur]

For the sake of anyone who's wondering what 'Option 0' and 'Rotku's Option' are, they're in the first/original post of this thread.

Although honestly I really don't see much difference between the two? Rotku's Suggestions simply look to me like an attempt at clarifying/emphasizing the jumble of text that is Option 0... which is really basically option 3 expanded. i.e. 0, 3, 4 are all pretty much variations on the same.

Another confusing poll; the important thing really is that it's pretty clear only a few folks favor no cvc or DM only cvc.

[kid]

I feel that, given what option five entails (no cheating, no metagaming, etc) it is a good choice for CvC.

Thats making many assumptions that ususaly are impossible to prove.
how could you know if there was meta involved? easy enough to find reasons for CvC.
if you assume every one is fair... then consent should be easy to get, no?

3. Consent or DM seems like the option that would make the most sense.
if two parties have the same view on CvC and trust each other they could do as they like. If not . . . getting a moderator BEFORE all hell and bitterness breaks loose
might help avoiding overloading the PA/adminds.

[Rotku]

Although honestly I really don't see much difference between the two? Rotku's Suggestions simply look to me like an attempt at clarifying/emphasizing the jumble of text that is Option 0... which is really basically option 3 expanded. i.e. 0, 3, 4 are all pretty much variations on the same..

Current rules allow CvC in any situation. Pre-meditated CvC is the only thing that requires DM notification, so long as it doesn't ruin roleplay. No consent is needed. Ever.

My initial suggestion was a compromise, born out of been told by the LA that if I tried to use the "find a DM is it doesn't ruin roleplay" clause again in a CvC case, he'd be vetoing it. It was an attempt to clarify it, make it more streamline and make sure that people knew that they need to be aware of people (NPCs) around them. It also uses a bit stronger wording when it comes to getting a DM (make a proper attempt). Again, no consent is ever needed.

Option 3 is simple - you MUST get a DM or you MUST get consent.

These may seem like small differences, but in the end of the day they will really change the way things work.

FWIW, when writing the poll my preference was my compromised ruling. However, since then, after seeing even more CvCs where people I'd expect to handle them well resorted to the same immature approaches, I'm in favour of the Consent or DM Rule. CvC causes too much heat to be otherwise.

[Castano]

Option 3 please. It's fair, relieves the burden on Admin/HDMs/DMs to adjudicate every bit of PC on PC violence and it's very easy to understand and abide by. 80% of the time you will need a DM anyway to handle use of invisibility, escape attempts etc.

[t-ice]

80% of the time you will need a DM anyway to handle use of invisibility, escape attempts etc.

I'd say higher than 80% if you only take the relevant cases where only one side wishes for the fight and thus no consent is had.

[danielmn]

Status Update : Revision for cvc rule begun. Will be spending a few days to read what is here, as well as other places, on the cvc rule to formulate the approach to revision.

[Keryn]

I'd like to leave here my worries with this possible change. Or maybe something to keep in mind, if not already being considered.

CvC may not be just in the form of combat, or spellcasting. I've seen many PCs taking actions that would obviously considered CvC, and no one seems to even remember that what they are doing may, easily be CvC.

When you constantly provoke, undermine, make jokes about other PC for instance that is already a form of CvCing, that might in return have the offended toon fight back in the same matter or simply punching the guy for example.

What I'm saying is that, to make something like this, it would need to though very seriously about what is CvC, consider the situation in which it can happen. And if the proposals are even possible to be used IG.

When a PC provokes another PC possibly leading to physical aggression, it is not a lesser aggression, in fact IMO is one far worse. Somehow I doubt anyone will look for a DM to stop RPing. Though when the PC that is being attacked snaps and goes physical he will have to stop, keep a cool head, and look for a DM?

This situation can easily happen, when John Doe lvl 1 decides to laugh making jokes about Bad Luke who happens to be a lvl 12 Wizard, that loses his temper and cannot simply silence John Doe because it is CvC, cannot even simply kill John Doe because he needs a DM or consent, while the player of John Doe is just having a laugh and totally thinks his antics are acceptable and not worth CvC, not to say worse... Because it is totally open to be abused, in these situations.

[Blindhamsterman]

have to admit i kinda agree with Keryn there, there have been a number of times where it'd probably have been IC for his toon or my toon or another toon to react physically or whatever in certain situations both recently and in the past

[Castano]

I disagree Keryn & BHM, at the point it leads to potentially lethal violence by "Bad Luke" that's when you ask for CvC consent or call in a DM and stop the RP with that toon until a DM is found to handle the fight. So I would define the "CvC" rule as handling any situation where HP damage is possible. Anything else can and should be handled by the players themselves, e.g. use subdual for a fist fight, cast a silence spell on the guy, etc. Admin only get inundated with rollback requests, redos and other CRAP after the toon is dead. No one has ever come to dispute status/disciplinary crap for RP'd non lethal CvC.

Either that or we should chuck all the ALFA rules about how to use the engine and let people abuse the engine to their heart's content during combat. (that's the whole genesis of this issue - the need to play PnP instead of NWN2). Since we have elected to play PnP or ALFA PnP if you will (as close to PnP as we can get has been the motto around policy here for years) we need these types of rules.

[t-ice]

When you constantly provoke, undermine, make jokes about other PC for instance that is already a form of CvCing, that might in return have the offended toon fight back in the same matter or simply punching the guy for example.

I think this is a straw man argument.

RP can certainly see punches / boxing match between such PCs. You can resolve that by subdual, or by whatever rolls float your boats. (If in a tavern, opposed diplo checks to talk the bouncers to which is thrown out, etc) Long as the winnig party only humiliates the other, not rob or kill. Or you can flip fingers and threatening words at each other and walk away. If you can't agree on such gaming with the other player without a DM, well bad RP is bad RP, and allowing the ganking of bad RPers for their bad RP won't make it better. Just walk away.

If that bad RP goes to the level of griefing by nyah nyah, the appropriate channel to take it to is not IC CvC.

[Blindhamsterman]

indeed, but when for example my toon subdual punches the other toon, and they react with actual damage... what then? do we suddenly stop, with me already having taken damage?

also, casting silence HAS to come under actual DM required CvC... simple reason, a PC could cast silence on the other PC, THEN declare that hes going to attack with lethal force, a DM comes over and the PC muders the now defenseless mage PC.

seriously, it does need to be an all or nothing affair.

I think we all agree that 'CvC' should be allowed either if both parties agree to it, or if a DM is there for it... but what this rule doesn't cover, is exactly WHAT is CvC.

funnily enough, that's a pretty important fact.

[Zelknolf]

A straw man argument has to be made up, in fairness, and it's not difficult to find those who use our CvC policies to protect their characters while being obvious antagonists. It is more than difficult to get an anyone to hear out a request, though-- as anyone can tell you, admin get swamped with requests, and "I think [character] is being a meanie, and [player] won't fight over it!" sounds terribly trivial next to "[player] killed my character just for calling his character a buttface!" And I think this is the angle Keryn and BHM mean to approach from.

[Keryn]

Exactly! BHM and Zelk just nailed it.

Also as a note T-ice, you can tell me several things my toon or anyone's toon can do in a certain situation. Though in reality, either it is, or it is not CvCing, and IMO if someone punches another toon, he can either find it sporty and punch him back, or who knows maybe he is a classy swashbuckler who will wait in a dark alley and cut his neck. I cannot, nor can anyone define or limit another player's RP, what he could or could not do, the uncertainty of how the other toon will react is a great part of RPing.

When you say

Long as the winnig party only humiliates the other, not rob or kill.

,

you just make my point. If another toon humiliates my toon, IMO he is already CvCing me.