Rule Clarification

OOC General Discussion

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Active DMs

User avatar
Sockss
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 7:09 pm

Rule Clarification

Post by Sockss » Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:09 am

LittleWeasel wrote: 24-hour rule applies to group conflicts as well. Regardless of who struck the blows, if the PvP event involved groups and/or sides, then any and all individuals involved in the incident must abide by the no-interaction-for-24-hours rule.
Since this is the big issue of the recent rule reminder (certainly what drew my eye) could it be clarified what being involved is?

I had thought, obviously mistakenly, that it was anyone involved in the actual pvp (aggressor or defender). As in, they made pvp rolls. (And used the rules in the IG journal which are different.)

As it can be very difficult at best, but mostly impossible to attribute someone to a conflict, or to see who is grouped together without using that as a definition.

For example, my PC might cheer for (side with) an orc fighting for his family, having just met him for a minute , and witness some pvp but not get involved, does that mean I have to avoid rp with the people that have pvp'd unless permission is explicitly given by both sides?

If I'm in a group doing a quest with someone who pvp's someone else, and wins, but it's none of my business, does that mean I can't RP with the person who died?
Thankfully this team is no longer being used.

Sockss#5567 for nwn mechanics questions.

User avatar
LittleWeasel
Emeritus Admin
Emeritus Admin
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 4:21 pm
Location: Close by...
Contact:

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by LittleWeasel » Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:17 pm

While the in game journal isn't as elaborate, it does refer clearly "to other hostile PCs in that battle"

Image

Situation A:
Group 1 & Group 2 are in a heated standoff, first blows are struck, first persons die.
Your character was standing with Group 1, witnessing, cheering, but doesn't actually fight, you are still part of Group 1. 24 Rule applies with regards to anyone in Group 2. You may continue to RP with Group 1, since they were "on your side (or you on theirs)".

Situation B:
Your character witnesses PvP between two Groups by accidentally stumbling upon them. As swiftly as your character arrives, they leave again, interacting with neither side. You are NOT under the 24 Hour Rule and may roleplay with either of the involved folks. As soon as you start interacting / engaging in some form, or start taking actual sides, Situation A applies.

Situation C:
You travel with a Group who encounters another Group. In a terse, maybe awkward shuffle it is determined, that the groups had PvP going on PRIOR to your joining. The Groups are under the 24 hour rule. Since your character was not involved in that prior PvP, you may roleplay with either group. However, consider it very poor taste by your character being used as go-between for a "he said to tell you / she said to tell you" between both characters and thus enable interaction by proxy.

Situation D:
Your character is mediating between a two groups - or tries to. He fails, it comes to blows. If your mediating character gets neither killed, nor do they take part in the fighting, you may continue to roleplay with either side. However If the mediator does get killed, OR kills someone ... OR very obviously is taking sides: see Situaton A.

Situation E:
Two groups are in a heated standoff, trading harsh words, even a few harmful spells toward one another, but the conflict ends up with NO DEATHS. No one is killed. 24-Hour Rule does NOT apply.

Situation F:
Group 1 & Group 2 fight. Several of Group 2, and some of Group 1 die. Folks of Group 2 split off and try and find their hail in escape. The survivors of Group 1 goes in hot pursuit.
Group 2 manages to hole up somewhere, and Group 1 takes some minutes before they find them again ... If your search lasted only that short: Sure yeah, still part of the same PvP"... - the scene isn't really over until they stop searching. However: if your search stretches out into unreasonably long... (as in very clearly long enough, for group 2 to not be a group any more and having gone about their business, being sure they have escaped), do be considerate, consider it a "you lost your prey".

That said, we do look at "what happens inbetween".

If group 2 remain together and are clearly trying to hide from group 1, then the scene is continuing. If they split up and go hunting in various dungeons, some log out etc, then it's harder to consider it part of the same scene.

Obviously this wouldn't "protect" them if they were literally running away. But if they escape over some time, then RP splitting up with each other, and are then gone about their business, then if group 1 found some members after that, that would feel quite different from a follow on group confrontation - and would start a new scene, at which point: make sure you clarify via tell whether both parties agree to continue roleplaying (and do respect a "No")

I understand, sometimes it is a bit difficult to tell who was involved where, and to keep track of who was in which group. I heartily recommend using kindness (civility) and common sense. Nothing is stopping you from sending a clarifying /tell to a player you are about to approach (or have been approached by, or are bumbling into) to clarify if they were there, and to ensure they are okay roleplaying onward - and respecting a "No" if that is come through as well.
Even in a high trafficked area, if you encounter your opponent, it is fairly easy to *shuffles hastily to point B and out of the picture* and I dare say at that kind of roleplay, no one would call that a rule break.

The 24-Hour-Rule is designed to help with
- cooling heated heads after what might be a highly emotional situation
- showing the significance of the conflict
- allowing people to roleplay loss/victory without being rubbed into the same situation over and over.

As ever: tread with common sense, and kindness (or civility). And as ever, we treat every case individually and look at the logs from all involved sides in case of suspected rule breaks and act accordingly, particularly because above examples are just very few examples out of 100s more that could be listed.
Don't take Life too seriously - you'll never get out of it alive...
Mind over Matter... now that I don't have a mind, it doesn't matter...
Ware the Wrath of the Weasel:
*nibble*
*cluck*

User avatar
Sockss
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 7:09 pm

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by Sockss » Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:31 pm

I would assume that hostile meant actively being hostile, in the sense you tap "!" and participate in PvP somehow.

None the less I'm still having trouble understanding the ins and outs of this, right now it seems very open to abuse?

For example, I could completely ignore an entire group and consequences of my actions from said group if i sponsored a side during a pvp conflict and then high tailed it out of there. Which, I'm sure is obviously not the intent.

Would it be fair to succinctly define the rule, from what I take the journal to mean, as the following:

If you have participated mechanically in PvP, during which someone has been killed, you may not interact with opponents that have mechanically participated in that PvP for 24 hours unless explicitly agreed.

It's the non-participation in pvp that I'm struggling with, that seems open to abuse and is extremely complicated.
Thankfully this team is no longer being used.

Sockss#5567 for nwn mechanics questions.

User avatar
Queen Titania
Community Manager
Community Manager
Posts: 3370
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 6:44 pm
Location: The Seeliecourt singing with Tinkerbell

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by Queen Titania » Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:47 pm

We'll be the final judges on any non-participants.

I think it'd be better to say participators in RP that leads to PVP with someone getting killed should abstain RP with the killed, or if they are killed, the living, regardless if they mechanically engaged or not. The phrase "Participators of RP" should encompass the entirety of LW's definition.
Please don't feed my sister.

User avatar
Sockss
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 7:09 pm

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by Sockss » Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:01 pm

Is that not contrary to the above? (Situation A) As its not limited to people who are dead?

So if you're in group A, and you kill 1 of group B. Neither groups can interact with each other despite being alive, rather than just the people who have died not interacting.

Maybe it could be given a 2019 coat of paint so people can understand it?
Thankfully this team is no longer being used.

Sockss#5567 for nwn mechanics questions.

User avatar
Sockss
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 7:09 pm

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by Sockss » Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:03 pm

FWIW Titania, that's what I thought the rule to be the entirety of my time playing here.
Thankfully this team is no longer being used.

Sockss#5567 for nwn mechanics questions.

User avatar
MissEvelyn
Arelith Silver Supporter
Arelith Silver Supporter
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 8:43 pm

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by MissEvelyn » Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:26 pm

Two groups are in a heated standoff, trading harsh words, even a few harmful spells toward one another, but the conflict ends up with NO DEATHS. No one is killed. 24-Hour Rule does NOT apply.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't fleeing considered a PvP loss?


User avatar
DM Axis
Posts: 332
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:44 pm

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by DM Axis » Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:32 pm

MissEvelyn wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:26 pm
Two groups are in a heated standoff, trading harsh words, even a few harmful spells toward one another, but the conflict ends up with NO DEATHS. No one is killed. 24-Hour Rule does NOT apply.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't fleeing considered a PvP loss?
No. And the rule applies when a person from either side dies. That is considered a loss. If everyone survives then they might reengage later.

Edit/Addition: It's possible for both sides to have deaths. It's not always clear cut who is a 'winner' and a 'loser' so in general:
If you are in a group/faction that has had conflict recently, avoid areas where the other party/faction/individual might obviously be. You can contact one another in tells to see if Roleplay and/or combat is okayed by waiving the 24 hour rule.

(Keeping in mind if you waive the rule there is no restriction to them fighting again. A waive means = I am okay with being potentially attacked again. You cannot use the rule to prohibit further conflict. It's on or it's off, no grey area.)

If there is an obvious losing side (complete party wipe out, failed attack with at least one death (fleeing, retreating), etc) they will be asked to back down from an area and yield to the victors. This again can be a very case by case basis situation and if there is questions or concerns please ping the DM Channel and err on the side of caution and courtesy.
"It is evil things we shall be fighting against, brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution."
- Minister Neville Chamberlain 1939
Discord Contact : DM Axis#2344

boggle99
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:15 am

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by boggle99 » Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:41 pm

A slight segway but what are the rules regarding stealthed members of a group and pvp? I will list a few scenarios and give my opinion of how the rules apply to them but would love to be told if I am right or wrong.

Scenario A. Two groups are heading up for pvp, hostile rp on both sides, everyone hostilities and starts to fight. Stealthed char announces their presence by attacking a member of the opposing group once fighting has started. This seems completely fine within the pvp rules to me.

Scenario B. Both parties are engaging in hostile rp with threats exchanged. The opposing group (group 2) starts to ward and cast spells, the stealthed member of group 1 hostiles them and announces tgeir presence by attacking one of people casting/warding as the first action directed against another player. This also seems fine to me as casting/warding is intrinsically part of pvp and visible members of both groups had engaged in hostile rp.

Scenario C. Group 1 has a stealthed member and approaches group 2. A non stealthed member of group 1 engages in hostile rp. E.g. "Stand and deliver. Drop all your coin purses on the ground then back away and no one gets hurt." A member of group 2 refuses, returning the hostile rp saying something along the lines "Make me." Or "Prepare to die you vile briggand" the visible member of group 1 then hostiles the target and says "Kill the troublemaker" the stealthed member then hostiles the target and announces their presence by attacking. This one I am uncertain on, clearly there is interactive hostile rp between the groups, and the visible person makes it clear a attack is coming. But is it ok for a stealthed character to initiate the violence in this situation where the other player wasn't aware of the stealthed players presence? Should they wait till the target starts a hostile action like casting/warding or till a visible member of group 1 attacks the target?

Nitro
Posts: 2800
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 7:04 pm

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by Nitro » Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:16 pm

I am also confused about this recent change and would appreciate further clarification.

For instance the 24hr rule. In the past it's been assumed that the defeated would avoid the victor and not go to places they usually hang out on. But now if everyone is beholden to the 24hr rule whether they died or now, how do you determine victor from the survivors? What if someone kills 5 hostiles then escapes leaving 3 more alive, is he the winner or loser? Does he need to avoid the 3 just because he retreated or do they need to avoid him just because their friends died?

This recent "Clarification" is a change from how things have always operated in the past. Which was that if two groups fought, and people died on either or both sides, then those who didn't die and those who did die were bound by the 24hr rule, but everyone who didn't die were free to continue engaging each other as they'd not been put down. (And I'm not just saying this from anecdotal evidence as a player, I've been in large-scale PvP's before where this was upheld as the rule standard by DM's). It seems somewhat counterproductive to stifle all conflict RP because one or either side suffered a casualty and didn't immediately hunt down the aggressor.
Last edited by Nitro on Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sockss
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 7:09 pm

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by Sockss » Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:17 pm

I think this highlights the need for a clear and concise rule, because everyone has different opinions on this. (Even the DM team)

I've asked around and the general consensus of the rule, at least the interpretation of it, is very simple (and shared by some DM's and was my own view). Albeit it's completely different to LW's post.

This is what I've heard:
Unless it's specifically agreed to ignore.

If you are killed during PvP, you should avoid those who mechanically contributed your death for 24h.
If you have killed someone during PvP, or contributed to that death mechanically, you should avoid people you have killed.
The onus is on the dead person to vacate an area if it's being used by those that have killed them.
Not dead people can engage again, provided they have sufficient fresh interactive RP.
And I feel that it achieves the objectives of the rule, without being complicated. Notably:
The 24-Hour-Rule is designed to help with
- cooling heated heads after what might be a highly emotional situation
- showing the significance of the conflict
- allowing people to roleplay loss/victory without being rubbed into the same situation over and over.
And of course there's the all encompassing 'be nice' rule which can account for people being 'not nice'.
Thankfully this team is no longer being used.

Sockss#5567 for nwn mechanics questions.

User avatar
MissEvelyn
Arelith Silver Supporter
Arelith Silver Supporter
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 8:43 pm

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by MissEvelyn » Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:04 pm

DM Axis wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:32 pm
MissEvelyn wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:26 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't fleeing considered a PvP loss?
No. And the rule applies when a person from either side dies. That is considered a loss. If everyone survives then they might reengage later.

Edit/Addition: It's possible for both sides to have deaths. It's not always clear cut who is a 'winner' and a 'loser' so in general:
If you are in a group/faction that has had conflict recently, avoid areas where the other party/faction/individual might obviously be. You can contact one another in tells to see if Roleplay and/or combat is okayed by waiving the 24 hour rule.
Thanks, that clarifies things! I think that was one of the many 'shadow rules' we seem to have. I was certainly guilt of that! So a clarification post and a thread like this definitely helps!


xanrael
Posts: 507
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:13 pm

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by xanrael » Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:27 am

Does silence in chat but not in action count as interaction?

A simple example would be person A having aggressive RP towards person B while B stays silent and then in response proceeds to buff/summon a critter in front of person A. Could person A engage at that moment?

A more drawn out but less potentially aggressive example would be:

Party is adventuring along and has an unrelated thief sneaking by and nabbing loot. The party notices in some IC manner that they're being shadowed (closed door/chest opening, succeed a spot check, etc). Attempt to engage the thief in RP, thief stays silent and stealthed and continues looting.

If the party issues a warning to the thief at that point and the thief silently sticks around nabbing stuff does that count as interaction?

In both cases I'm assuming a reasonable time to respond, not catching a person mid spell cast or expecting the thief to flee seconds after the message is typed.

User avatar
LittleWeasel
Emeritus Admin
Emeritus Admin
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 4:21 pm
Location: Close by...
Contact:

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by LittleWeasel » Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:36 am

Stealthed party members are part of the party. They can engage after they set the "!" themselves, too. If the other members of the group have interacted, and have been interacted back, the stealthed person is free to engage as this is very much part of the "One group counts as 1 person" rule in the view of engagement. So ... when you aggravate a group of people, be aware that there might be stealthed party members about.
Now... an unrelated randomly stealthed person, that has NOT been part of EITHER group and just randomly comes upon the PvP absolutely has to make his presence known and may not just jump into the PvP without interaction.


Once combat between 2 groups has started, anyone, stealthed or non stealthed may join on either side of the combat. However, once they do and PvP is over, they, too fall under the 24-hour-rule.

As for the stealthy, spotted thief: Him continuing to be there, and continuing to steal and willfully not responding to being spoken for, but also not retreating can be considered interaction.
"willful silence, does not protect from IC consequences." So yes, if they continue to nab, pickpocket, loot, and continue to be a silent, but active detriment - that does count as interaction.

I also would like to stress that intent is important, and we look at that, too when we dissect cases.
And speaking of intent:
The question has come up, so I am going to state the answer here, too:

When sending speedy messengers, images, or other proxies, they are NOT considered interactive enough for exile or PvP initiation. However, AFTER PvP is over, please note that we do count that as "interaction" for the purpose of 'spirit of the law' (aka for the purpose of peace/common sense).
The rule is in place, as stated above to allow characters to get some distance from one another. Continue to goad/rub it in/provoke via proxy messages, is in bad taste, disrespectful to the scene/setting/roleplay/character, disruptive and immersion breaking, as it disregards win/loss roleplay.

You may complain that this is 'incoherent'. But I can only stress: don't lawyer up on us or the rules, deliberately chase and abuse loopholes. Consider fun and fairness for your fellow players. Be considerate. We really don't want to have 176 pages of Ts&Cs and want to continue to be able to rely on Common Sense, Kindness, and Courtesy.

As for the years' long misinterpretation on the 24 Hour Rule ... The rule hasn't changed. The rule has been in place for 10-12 years.
The fact that people have not read, and not acted as per that rule isn't the fault of the rule.
However, giving the confusion it is causing, I am going to speak to Irongron. I don't expect a massive change/overhaul to the rule. But I will speak with him on how we'll go forward on its interpretation.

Until that is done, however, I ask everyone to treat the rule as it is. Not misinterpreting it. Not misrepresenting it. Just as is written, and keep the spirit as well as the letter of the rule in mind. Remember, that many years ago, we considered "don't be a cheeseball" pretty much the only necessary rule. That spirit still is within our 5 rules.
Don't take Life too seriously - you'll never get out of it alive...
Mind over Matter... now that I don't have a mind, it doesn't matter...
Ware the Wrath of the Weasel:
*nibble*
*cluck*

User avatar
Kreydis
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2014 3:42 am

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by Kreydis » Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:18 am

LittleWeasel wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:36 am
Now... an unrelated randomly stealthed person, that has NOT been part of EITHER group and just randomly comes upon the PvP absolutely has to make his presence known and may not just jump into the PvP without interaction.
Do they have to make it known to both groups? Or can they make it known to only one and still be okay?
It's a Dwarf, no it's a Dragon, no it's a Halfling! I think.

User avatar
LittleWeasel
Emeritus Admin
Emeritus Admin
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 4:21 pm
Location: Close by...
Contact:

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by LittleWeasel » Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:56 am

Kreydis wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:18 am
LittleWeasel wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:36 am
Now... an unrelated randomly stealthed person, that has NOT been part of EITHER group and just randomly comes upon the PvP absolutely has to make his presence known and may not just jump into the PvP without interaction.
Do they have to make it known to both groups? Or can they make it known to only one and still be okay?
They need to make themselves known to whomever they intend to attack and allow for interactive Roleplay with that person, prior to the attack.
Don't take Life too seriously - you'll never get out of it alive...
Mind over Matter... now that I don't have a mind, it doesn't matter...
Ware the Wrath of the Weasel:
*nibble*
*cluck*

User avatar
Kreydis
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2014 3:42 am

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by Kreydis » Thu Mar 07, 2019 7:00 am

LittleWeasel wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:56 am
Kreydis wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:18 am
LittleWeasel wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:36 am
Now... an unrelated randomly stealthed person, that has NOT been part of EITHER group and just randomly comes upon the PvP absolutely has to make his presence known and may not just jump into the PvP without interaction.
Do they have to make it known to both groups? Or can they make it known to only one and still be okay?
They need to make themselves known to whomever they intend to attack and allow for interactive Roleplay with that person, prior to the attack.
Well. . . guess I'm banned.
It's a Dwarf, no it's a Dragon, no it's a Halfling! I think.

Nobs
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 6:32 pm

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by Nobs » Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:26 am

And what if some random stealther is just watching but he/she gets spotted by one of the parties and gets killed by them with out rp?
As im sure its hard to see who is with who and who is with no one in sutch a situation.

And im sure im blind but i cant even find the pvp rules any more on the forums.

User avatar
Kreydis
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2014 3:42 am

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by Kreydis » Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:36 am

Nobs wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:26 am
And what if some random stealther is just watching but he/she gets spotted by one of the parties and gets killed by them with out rp?
As im sure its hard to see who is with who and who is with no one in sutch a situation.

And im sure im blind but i cant even find the pvp rules any more on the forums.
Then you report and move on. The DM's will handle it from there. As for the PvP rule you can find it in the journal / the home page of Arelith. Scroll down to the bottom.
It's a Dwarf, no it's a Dragon, no it's a Halfling! I think.

User avatar
LittleWeasel
Emeritus Admin
Emeritus Admin
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 4:21 pm
Location: Close by...
Contact:

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by LittleWeasel » Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:26 pm

Don't take Life too seriously - you'll never get out of it alive...
Mind over Matter... now that I don't have a mind, it doesn't matter...
Ware the Wrath of the Weasel:
*nibble*
*cluck*

Cerk Evermoore
Posts: 680
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:30 am

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by Cerk Evermoore » Thu Mar 07, 2019 5:26 pm

Kreydis wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 7:00 am

Well. . . guess I'm banned.

User avatar
Sockss
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 7:09 pm

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by Sockss » Thu Mar 07, 2019 7:47 pm

Woah woah woah, so you can't join in ongoing PvP you've discovered without interactive roleplay now?

I'd say pretty much the entirety of the server needs a talking to (myself included)

But... regardless of whether everyone's reading of the rule is and what the 'actual' rule is (Because I'm sure most players have been using very different rules forever)... If that really /is/ the rule, then it really needs to be changed.
Thankfully this team is no longer being used.

Sockss#5567 for nwn mechanics questions.

User avatar
Scurvy Cur
Posts: 1310
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:48 am

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by Scurvy Cur » Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:05 pm

This discussion is getting more convoluted and less clear as it goes on. I've been on the server since we moved from "No PvP without IC justification" to "No PvP without prior interaction", and I think this is the most labyrinthine interpretation I've ever seen of the rules of engagement.

I also don't see how it's possible under these circumstances to avoid having dozens of players inadvertently break the rules simply because they are unable to decipher who is covered and under what terms they may engage. I would instead suggest that we just formally enshrine the guidelines that have always existed, since they are straightforward, easy to apply, and make good sense. Roughly, they can be summed up as follows:
"Unless waived, no participant in any PvP conflict may interact with any other participant in that conflict for 24 hours once that conflict has concluded. While it's never been a hard and fast requirement, we've always vaguely encouraged the loser to avoid creating further situations that involve interaction with the other side."

And

"There must be prior interaction (aside from when the assassin exception replies) before PvP begins. However once it has begun, any observer may join in."
These have always been pretty clean cut and easy to apply.

Everyone knows who participated in a conflict: It's the people who cast spells, make attack rolls, buff and heal their allies, etc. It's not the bystander who was in-party and two maps away, or the guy who saw the fight about to break out and ran off.

Everyone knows afterwards that it makes sense for the loser of a fight to take a step back and avoid the winner for a while unless the 24h rule is waived. Everyone also knows that sometimes this guideline needs to flex: it's bad form for the winner to make it impossible for the loser to avoid contact.

Everyone knows that it's stilted and awkward to require characters to attempt to inject themselves into an ongoing fight by interactively conversing with the participants, but that it's also awkward to tell a player that their character cannot rally to their friend's defense if they see them under attack.

There are, of course, some determinations to be made about what constitutes an interaction, what constitutes a participant, and when a conflict is concluded. These are things that have been well and fairly settled by our DMs in the past with mostly sensible results (ex: walking away from someone after they attempt to engage you in dialog may be an interaction in some circumstances, people who stand on the sidelines and buff active combatants are also participants, etc.). That's part of what DMs are for: figuring out which conduct fits into the framework of a clean engagement and which does not, with an eye to making sure rulings are sensible and both discourage attempts to cheese the rules while not punishing good faith attempts by players to keep it clean.


Hellfire
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:32 pm

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by Hellfire » Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:31 pm

This quote, in relation to someone coming upon PVP in progress is a serious problem.
LittleWeasel wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:56 am
They need to make themselves known to whomever they intend to attack and allow for interactive Roleplay with that person, prior to the attack.
Lets try to clarify this statement, if my character transitions into a map, and finds a big bad <Insert character with reason to be fighting> attacking my <insert family member/friend/ally>, is your expectation is that I either may not participate, or I have to get the character I want to attack to stop his fight long enough to RP with me?

With very few exceptions, once things have transitioned from text to hostile spells and attack rolls, it is suicide for a character to stop what they are doing and interact with a new participant. But at the same time, its beyond immersion breaking to expect characters with close ties or strong driving factors to be required to wait for a large enough lull in the mechanical fight to be able to get interactive Roleplay.

I am not trying to cheapen the requirement for the interactive (and I agree that is key) roleplay before fights, but I had to reread your statements several times because I could not believe what I was seeing. PVP should never take place without that roleplay, but it is also a fair assumption for anyone finding PVP in progress that the rule requirements for that fight to be taking place have been met. Once the fight has broken out, things should be allowed to play out as naturally IC as possible.

Nobs
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 6:32 pm

Re: Rule Clarification

Post by Nobs » Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:04 pm

Hellfire gets it.

Post Reply