PVP Question

[Broham2]

Reading through another thread I had a PVP question, one that isn’t really enshrined in the rules all that well, and is probably more of a judgment call. The judgment has been made in the past, but with new staff brings new ways of looking at things so I thought I better ask..

Lets say there are two people. Frenzied-Fred and Sneaky-Sam. They meet, RP, and for whatever reason Fred decides he would like to bash Sam’s face in. He shows aggression, he sets hostile, and then he provides and RP out.. “If you don’t leave my site, I shall beat you mercilessly” or whatever the case may be.

Sam, knowing his strengths, turns and runs away.

But not because he isn’t willing to take the challenge, only to even the odds. Sam is a sneak, and frontal combat would be foolish against Frenzied Fred.

So Sam corner sneaks and waits for Fred to pass.. when he does.. Wocky-Chaw! He attacks Fred, paralyzing him, and then finishes the poor sot off.

---

Given that example, is Sam in the wrong? There was RP that led to pvp, and clearly Fred’s RP out was to not threaten Sam. Sam did what he needed to do to use his abilities most favorably. On the other hand, Fred saw that pvp encounter was over, Sam took ‘the out’.. there wasn’t any RP a moment before the attack, so Fred thinks its against the rules.

The baseline question I guess might be, how long of a window does that RP’d aggression give the provoker and the provoked? How long does consent last?

[blackdove]

shouldnt sam at least leave the door open then ?maybe say somthign simular to ' you win , but you better watch your back 'or' this isn't over*runs*

[Broham2]

shouldnt sam at least leave the door open then ?maybe say somthign simular to ' you win , but you better watch your back 'or' this isn't over*runs*

If he does that, and I am Fred.. I dont know that I would see that as him taking the out. Especially the 'watch your back' one. I'd see that as provoking after a warning, which is consent for pvp.

I don’t think there is a real easy answer here, in any case.

But if pvp is warranted and consent is given (through actions, or whatever), how long does that consent last? That’s probably the crux of the matter.

[Charraj]

If Sam took Fred's RP out and ran away, the incident's over.

After Sam ran away, he'd have to give Fred an RP out of his own. Doesn't have to be a big one, but he's gotta give one. Sam could even give the RP out from stealth, when he has the advantage. *a dagger rustles in the grass* or something.

There was RP that led to pvp, and clearly Fred’s RP out was to not threaten Sam.

You're right that there was RP that lead to PvP, so Sam has that covered. But Fred doesn't actually get an RP out in your scenario. When he threatened Sam, he was consenting to PvP for that instance, not future instances.

So basically, consent is relatively short-lived. It lasts until a fight starts right then and there, or one party takes the RP out.

[Blackman D]

that scenario can even go out even further, what if you are a drow raiding group on the surface or an evil faction of wanted criminals like say the hellstorm crew and you are having a meeting somewhere, both groups not messing with anyone at the moment and someone finds you

by the rules if you threaten them and show hostility you have to still give them an out, where as in reality there probably wouldnt even be words just a dead man who walked into the wrong place, so if you stay in character and kill the guy so you dont get compromised are you wrong?

but yea as far as the original one i would think you would need to leave it open, but then on that note how long would it last? could you just attack him when you see him a week later?

RP wise this may be the case tho the rules are too strict on pvp so people will just use them as a shield when they loose

[Broham2]

Sam could even give the RP out from stealth, when he has the advantage. *a dagger rustles in the grass* or something.

That was what I was getting at. Its certainly a change from the past, but thanks for the clarification.

I think it unduly gimps the holy hell out of sneak-based combatants, personally, and relegates pvp to a bash-bash slugfest without the possibility for strategy and/or guile. RPing from stealth to say a dagger rustles in the grass when your character is devoted to actually.. moving silently.. seems like it would advantage a bashing build. It would be enough time to pull up a shield, drink a potion, buff, etc.. which to a sneak-based character defeats the entire purpose of trying to get the jump on someone.

[Charraj]

Either way we do it, someone gets shortchanged. So I'm just drawing the line where it makes the most sense. Otherwise, BMD is right; how far would consent last? *shrugs*

[Simian]

Send a tell asking if it is alright to attack Fred by surprise?
If Fred answers yes, stalk for Fred's moment of weakness.
If Fred answers no, shrug your shoulders and do something else?

How is that?

[Broham2]

Or use hips right in front of them, that way they can complain about that instead of the lack of consent. Lol.

I'm done with the topic, thanks for the clarification.

[Blackman D]

oh i didnt mean having to wait was a bad thing, people shouldnt be able to hide out for x amount of time because they know they will be safe afterwards, and then you have time zones, play times and etc that will naturally draw it out

look at assassinations, ive had assassinations that lasted over a month because you need the victim and the assassin on at the same time, and now you want to throw a DM in there too? so now if you can get the victim and the assassin you cant do it with a DM which only makes it last longer

[stevebarracuda]

Twice now, I've had a toon walk into a secret meeting (the players thought they were in a non-used place...but, surprise!) and I was pretty much immediately killed:

Them: "Who are you, what are you doing here?"
Me: "Uhm, I was just adventuring and I turned this corner..."
Them: "You must die...."
Them slays me....

So, after I was killed, the group did Tell me that in "reality," their toons would have killed me on sight for intruding on the meeting, and although they totally broke the PvP rules by not giving me any sort of out at all, I understood that they were "correct" to the reality of the situation.

So, in my example, it's a situation where players need to be understanding and adult about the PvP situations, with our without written rules. Maybe, in my example, we were all lucky we could see the situation with open eyes.

But, getting to Broham2's example, and thinking about what happened in my example, I actually think that if Fred initiated PvP on Sam, that PvP session should actually last a lot longer, maybe say 1 IG day, or one server reset. I think Sam's actions are so consistent with "realistic" RP for his character, that it makes no sense to have to re-initiate PvP in order to sneak a retributive strike.

And, making PvP initiation last longer is warranted by the rules itself:

You must always, without exception, set your target(s) to hostile before initiating PVP. If both parties stay hostile, you should be able to walk away and come back to the situation still hostile. So, if Fred hostiles Sam, Sam could leave the situation, but with still being hostile or actually making Fred hostile after leaving the situation, would make it possible to sneak attack...Fred needs to live with his consequence of initiating PvP.

Avoid directly interacting with the player or players who you have PVPed for a period of 24 hours. If one has to avoid their PvP opponent for 24 hours, it seems reasonable that if someone hostiles you for PvP, but you walk away to regroup, unless they specifically un-hostile you and make motions that the squabble is over, you should have 24 hours to regroup and enact revenge.

The way I see it, if ya don't give a longer window of PvP retribution, it makes all our toons short tempered arses who, with a flip of a switch, can either attack you or keep you from attacking them...totally not IC and immersive in the least.

[Blackman D]

The way I see it, if ya don't give a longer window of PvP retribution, it makes all our toons short tempered arses who, with a flip of a switch, can either attack you or keep you from attacking them...totally not IC and immersive in the least.

exactly

payback doesnt happen overnight or within a few moments for a lot of people, and then there are those who couldnt either way so they find someone who can, like an assassin, but that is something that takes time and you will just have people complaining that "why you kill me that happened a week ago" as if it would matter to the guy who he offended

vendettas dont have expiration dates

[mute83]

It might make sence for Sam to walk off, as that is his "strength", but it does come off as he takes the "RP way out". If he where allowed to "use his strenght" everyone could claim they should. Fred could just as easy claim he should be able to hit right away, as that is part of such a chars strength. "Hit hard and hit first, before they get to react". He might not be able to spot a sneaker if he have already started to hide, or resist a spell from a caster. The same can be said for a wizard. One seems threatening, he make a way to create a little distance, and fires of a spell. That is a spellcasters strength. Kill/disable first, before you get hit.

[stevebarracuda]

It might make sence for Sam to walk off, as that is his "strength", but it does come off as he takes the "RP way out". If he where allowed to "use his strenght" everyone could claim they should. Fred could just as easy claim he should be able to hit right away, as that is part of such a chars strength. "Hit hard and hit first, before they get to react". He might not be able to spot a sneaker if he have already started to hide, or resist a spell from a caster. The same can be said for a wizard. One seems threatening, he make a way to create a little distance, and fires of a spell. That is a spellcasters strength. Kill/disable first, before you get hit.

From what I know of PvP, if the hostile button is set on you, you can take as long as you want to react, either with direct interaction, or hours later. Is this not correct?

If Fred is the type of toon that attacks right away, then he better be Evil aligned in the first place, as well as prepared to acquire a reputation as a hot-head fighter...which has it's own consequences.

The whole nature of PvP should have more consequences that currently written about in the rules.

[mute83]

It might make sence for Sam to walk off, as that is his "strength", but it does come off as he takes the "RP way out". If he where allowed to "use his strenght" everyone could claim they should. Fred could just as easy claim he should be able to hit right away, as that is part of such a chars strength. "Hit hard and hit first, before they get to react". He might not be able to spot a sneaker if he have already started to hide, or resist a spell from a caster. The same can be said for a wizard. One seems threatening, he make a way to create a little distance, and fires of a spell. That is a spellcasters strength. Kill/disable first, before you get hit.

From what I know of PvP, if the hostile button is set on you, you can take as long as you want to react, either with direct interaction, or hours later. Is this not correct?

If Fred is the type of toon that attacks right away, then he better be Evil aligned in the first place, as well as prepared to acquire a reputation as a hot-head fighter...which has it's own consequences.

The whole nature of PvP should have more consequences that currently written about in the rules.

But i dont think sam hit the hostile button. Some said it would be normal for a sneaker, and i will give them right, but the situations i pointed it, might also be true to that type of char. And a FB can be a hot-head. He could even be a BG.