24 Hour Rule

[Algol]

As far as I'm aware this rule is in place in order to promote RP after PvP rather than things devolving to constant kill-bashing of the opposing player characters. But as far as I have seen it leads some people to kill same person once a day instead.

I think 24 hours provided by this rule is not adequate time for one to lick their wounds, and to properly RP consequence of the fight. I believe extending the no-pvp window to 72 hours instead would be healthier for the RP in the server.

[Kaeldre]

The 24 hour rule forbids all interaction after pvp death, that includes roleplay between affected parties.

Note that the rule heavily discourages the problematic behaviour you mention.

[MRFTW]

The 24 hour rule forbids all interaction after pvp death, that includes roleplay between affected parties.

Note that the rule heavily discourages the problematic behaviour you mention.

I think OP's point is that it doesn't discourage the problematic behaviour enough.

[Borin Drakkmurl]

There's another rule that's been a golden standard on Arelith forever and that preceeds all other rules, always:

The Be Nice Rule.

Following other rules and DM guidelines to the letter in order to "get away" with stupid shit or to be able to lawyer your way out of having behaved like a moron?

That's Not Nice.

So if you see someone abusing the 24h rule, which sounds like what you're describing, report it to the Dms.

I bet things will get sorted out quick enough.

[The GrumpyCat]

There's another rule that's been a golden standard on Arelith forever and that preceeds all other rules, always:

The Be Nice Rule.

Following other rules and DM guidelines to the letter in order to "get away" with stupid shit or to be able to lawyer your way out of having behaved like a moron?

That's Not Nice.

So if you see someone abusing the 24h rule, which sounds like what you're describing, report it to the Dms.

I bet things will get sorted out quick enough.

Absolutly this.

The 24 hour rule is to prevent pretty much any interaction (including rp, speedies, ect) for 24 hours unless wavered. You can of course waver that rule, but if you do you waver all of it (meaning you can be pvped again. Not fun but there it is)

That being said - if you're being killed by the same person, or even the same faction, multiple times in a week... then thats worthy of report for going against the Be Nice rule and please report it.

[Ebonstar]

daily kill bashing is considered griefing as well and yes should be reported, the 24 hour rule works just fine

Grumpy clicked same time and shes the boss so read hers

[Amateur Hour]

The 24-hour rule is something of a compromise to cope with ludonarrative dissonance.

Fundamentally, the rule is there to keep the game playable--dying literally constantly would be fun for very few players--but there's also the burden to avoid interacting during that 24-hour period because it would force out-of-character behavior. If Character A killed Character B in PvP for whatever reason, and Player A had no burden of responsibility to avoid Character B and vice versa, Player A could put Player B into an unplayable situation by having Character A tailing Character B, mocking them, etc. secure in the knowledge that nothing Character A does for the next 24 hours can have any kind of violent consequence because of The Rules, even though Character A should have no reason to expect that Character B would not try to retaliate. You can argue that'd be bad RP, but sometimes you do need to have rules to guide people to at least passable RP.

24 hours, though, is a livable time to take a break for. Even in places like Andunor where everything is in a central hub and avoiding other people is tough, you can just log out for a day. Avoiding someone for THREE days is going to be a lot harder.

[Algol]

The issue is be nice rule is rather vague compared to 24h rule. Getting kills/ killed over and over several times in a week may make IC/ RP sense for one of the parties involved, hence they may not see it as an act of griefing.

We are all humans here it's not possible to know the intentions of the people at the other side of the screen. Increasing the timer would make griefing (intentional or not) less likely to occur in my opinion. And if you enjoy interacting with the other party nothing stops you from you sending a tell about how you had fun and wouldn't mind waiving the timer. (Which is already allowed in the rules as far as I know.)

[Ork]

Usually when this occurs is because a person within the narrative hasn't abandoned, forfeited, or removed themselves but keeps maintaining the same behavior that caused the PvP in the first place.

It's hard to consider anything griefing unless the loser of the encounter quits the "push" that caused their death. For example, my character robs your character and says he'll come back if you tell anyone about it. Your character writes on all the local settlement boards about this action. I return to PvP and maybe subdue or kill declaring, "this ends now!" But, it doesn't end. Your character continues to do all in their power to publicize the actions. Your character is maintaining the hostility, and I don't think it's griefing that they might continually be getting bodied.

Leave the narrative & see what happens.

[Distant Relation]

Usually when this occurs is because a person within the narrative hasn't abandoned, forfeited, or removed themselves but keeps maintaining the same behavior that caused the PvP in the first place.

It's hard to consider anything griefing unless the loser of the encounter quits the "push" that caused their death. For example, my character robs your character and says he'll come back if you tell anyone about it. Your character writes on all the local settlement boards about this action. I return to PvP and maybe subdue or kill declaring, "this ends now!" But, it doesn't end. Your character continues to do all in their power to publicize the actions. Your character is maintaining the hostility, and I don't think it's griefing that they might continually be getting bodied.

Leave the narrative & see what happens.

This is just "I'll pvp your character into submission" in fancy words. Exactly the kind of thing that gives pvp way too much narrative power in present day Arelith.

[Ork]

What's wrong with roleplaying submission?

[Distant Relation]

If you ever wonder 'why does everyone say RP start at 30?' I want you to think back to this moment. To the moment where you advocated not only for pvp-bullying people for not doing what you want, but then mockingly brought up 'lol, just RP submission like a good little roleplayer'.

RP starts at 30 because in order to be anyone and do anything in Arelith you have to be able to defend yourself against people who think like this.

[Ork]

It's a good strawman on my position, but we happen to be playing the same game. Who decides narrative control? If a player isn't willing to flex to accommodate a loss, they'll find themselves in a circle of the same act over and over.

When I played in Guldorand in Rannos era, we had an opportunity to roleplay submission. We were attacked inside Rannos's mansion by Vance's forces and held there while Vance petitioned Rannos to surrender to him or die. This was all very well roleplayed, but Rannos said "nah". We died. But, we had the opportunity to make that story so much more. To roleplay under oppression.

Ego is the roleplay killer, dear players.

[LichBait]

24 hour rule is enough IMO, when all parties are acting in good faith. I agree that ego is the role play killer. RP your wins and losses accordingly, and you'll be surprised how far the narrative can go.

There are of course, extreme circumstances where people are violating the "Be Nice" rule. Those should be reported. If you feel targeted because of OOC vendetta, please report and hope that it gets sorted while not participating in the forced narrative. Everyone only loses when you participate in OOC vendetta hashing by dragging it out into the IC spectrum.

[Distant Relation]

It's a good strawman on my position, but we happen to be playing the same game. Who decides narrative control? If a player isn't willing to flex to accommodate a loss, they'll find themselves in a circle of the same act over and over.

When I played in Guldorand in Rannos era, we had an opportunity to roleplay submission. We were attacked inside Rannos's mansion by Vance's forces and held there while Vance petitioned Rannos to surrender to him or die. This was all very well roleplayed, but Rannos said "nah". We died. But, we had the opportunity to make that story so much more. To roleplay under oppression.

Ego is the roleplay killer, dear players.

Did you then go back and repeat the pvp action roughly every 24 hours until you got the outcome you desired?

If not, then this is just humblebragging about what a good roleplayer you are, and not at all what's being discussed here.

[Algol]

Ork, I doubt the quality of RP you had with Vance would be reduced if the no-no time between pvp interactions were increased. I'm sure you also know people who rolled their characters in frustration or were driven off the server because they came across people who think it's appropriate to ambush a person with minimal RP every day.

I personally don't think someone who has managed to obtain some amount of IC "clout/ success" shouldn't be easily bullied to submission by people who clearly do not have that much interest in fostering RP in the server and just want to "win". A longer time off would still let these people get their kills or whatever they seek it is while not discouraging other people by ruining their play session every single day.

[Ork]

what? In that example, I had 0 narrative power. It is an example of when pvp happens and continues to happen because individuals refuse to accept the consequences of their actions.

I have killed characters before after killing them earlier either that week. I have been killed by others after being killed by them earlier that week. If it revolves around narrative control and accepting consequences, my point is that is not griefing.

[The GrumpyCat]

What's wrong with roleplaying submission?

Nothing wrong with it - so long as it's in your comfort zone.

This is a bit of a hazy zone I'll grant but whilst I'm all for people rping fear/pain/discomfort/giving up/coming to a compromise. There's a narrow balence between that, and doing a gentle narrative push, ideally from a vareity of angles, bringing various people in, and making sure your 'enemy' is comfortable with what's going on - and

'So give me your nice quarter or I'm going to pvp you every single day.'
'Empty out your bank account or I'll pvp you with my mates!'
'Give me your equipment or expect to be pvped constnatly!'
'I don't like you. My faction will murder you and hunt you constantly until you agree to be my slave.'

Now if someone is happy after a death or two to give over any of those? Groovy. Kudos. Fully respect it. But pvping someone constnatly, killing them unendingly and unceasingly until you get the mechanical outcome you want - reguardless of whether they feel comfortable with it? No. No I'm sorry. That's not a server I want to play on, let alone DM/Admin for.

EDIT

It's a good strawman on my position, but we happen to be playing the same game. Who decides narrative control? If a player isn't willing to flex to accommodate a loss, they'll find themselves in a circle of the same act over and over.

Doesn't it take two to tango?
If you've killed someone twice, in a short time, and they arn't submitting then perhaps (wild idea) you should consider another angle? Talk to them ooc? And if they really, really really won't move at all then (and again situation I'll admit) Is it really worth you pushing it?

Like, if you're in a sitaution where you want Outcome A, and person B isn't willing under any circumstances to give it, maye a good idea is to stop banging your head against a brick wall, making both yourself, and them, miserable and go on to greener pastures?

[Party in the forest at midnight]

I'm with Ork on this. The server has a very large issue with people talking trash to people, getting PKed for it, and then complaining horrible PvP on the server is. There's some posts being very aggressive and insulting towards Ork for pointing all of this out, if you're like this in-game too I'm going to guess this is where your pvp problems are coming from.

[Algol]

My issue isn't about talking smack and getting smacked.

It's more about be nice rule being... Too vague for swift action against griefers, if it makes sense?

I'm not sure how long it'd take for DMs to look into reports, make sure the kill bashing was done maliciously etc, but my guess is it'd be way longer than checking if some people not respecting "grace" period after PvP.

[LichBait]

What's wrong with roleplaying submission?

Now if someone is happy after a death or two to give over any of those? Groovy. Kudos. Fully respect it. But pvping someone constnatly, killing them unendingly and unceasingly until you get the mechanical outcome you want - reguardless of whether they feel comfortable with it? No. No I'm sorry. That's not a server I want to play on, let alone DM/Admin for.

Big agree on this. And not even necessarily the comfort thing. It's okay to RP a little out of the 'comfort zone', within server rules, but when the line is crossed into ceaseless PvP even when one side makes moves to drop the conflict and the other doesn't accept anything less than the one side rolling/leaving, is what I find personally distasteful.

But again, I don't think extending the 24 hour rule will have an effect on this. As the people who perpetuate this form of behavior will be a problem no matter what the rules are. Just, don't do anything to get sucked into it yourself because then it is just misery for all involved, and those who rightly, don't want to touch the situation with a 10ft pole.

[Ork]

I agree Grumpy & Algol. Unreasonable requests, for me, fall within the "be nice" rule. And, honestly Algol when constant PvP is happening after 24h and are reported, I've seen action taken swiftly. If it isn't a clear, cut and dry case of those infractions, I'd wager you'd see longer on action taken just because I feel like this is such a fine line as the discussions here have indicated.

We do need a mediator when both sides refuse to drop the "push", and DMs ought be that role. When peers give advice, well.. you see what happens here.

[LichBait]

I agree Grumpy & Algol. Unreasonable requests, for me, fall within the "be nice" rule. And, honestly Algol when constant PvP is happening after 24h and are reported, I've seen action taken swiftly. If it isn't a clear, cut and dry case of those infractions, I'd wager you'd see longer on action taken just because I feel like this is such a fine line as the discussions here have indicated.

We do need a mediator when both sides refuse to drop the "push", and DMs ought be that role. When peers give advice, well.. you see what happens here.

+1

[Good Character]

I do understand Ork's POV. Some players seem to brush off death threats and literal death like it's an annoying tick. I understand why that is for those players as there's nothing that encourages a fluid, genuine reaction for the fear of death beyond a Mark of Despair. It's just... what dictates imposing a MoD on a player? What steps must be taken before it's the needed option?

[Distant Relation]

Agreed wholeheartedly. That's the exact sentiment I was trying to reach for.

And the sentiment goes for both sides. Its just as immersion breaking to be a constant aggressor who flies into every possible conflict with immediate, murderous intent safe in the knowledge that the worst that can happen is a 1 hour break after the fugue plane. Some folks are far too quick to resort to pvp, and then refuse to accept any consequence from it while at the same time demanding others capitulate immediately upon being defeated.