Open question to team evil/morally questionable

[Azroth]

For arguments shake, I will agree with you that there is another game that the devs can find the time to implement the effects of the actions of every player to the environment. Still though, at worst this is how it is for both good and evil characters. Unless of course you mean that consequences should only happen for one side.

I can't find the original post that Wolfshear spoke of.

But in general? On nwn2's current more thriving servers- there is a lack of threat and danger. Mostly from the current player base that brush others off with ease and little to null meaning to consequences. I know DM's here are often hesitant to even try and perm others characters here for- what ever historical reasons. I know former DM's also described in the past how the player base here that's left is simply not mature enough for the setting to work against them at times. So they have to DM a very specific way, else they get players that give them issues.

I also throttled back on nwn2 a while back to take a break as it was much needed for various reasons. Reluctantly mind you, given how others felt they needed/wanted me around to help.

There are other games, yes. In fact often heavy consequences and death if it comes to it? Are less one sided and very much equal ground at times depending on the set up. Here? The DM's and staff hold the remote most cases for most things that go on, not only increasing their work load- but also frustrating players at times that have to go through them. I for one? Am very reluctant given the teams history. And they have a long way to go to prove me I can trust them. As with others who also are skeptical. Nothing personal. That's just how trust works. Given and taken away, then needs to be re-earned. It's a process that's not overnight.

That aside? When players at times have more control over certain aspects. In the right set up? Can be far easier on staff. And also players, given they are now in more control. So long as there are rules to protect the victims from unfair play. And rules fleshed out that are clearly defined with no vague descriptions that only have meaning but to each individual person that reads it. (I am looking at the pg-13 rules here even as an example of that mess). They are solid systems that work both ways.

Just depends on the set up and environment.

I am back for a bit after my break however to help some folks, just not as dedicated as I once was giving all my time to nwn2.

But this is the patterns that I see that persist and just threw my two cents out there... again.

[zhazz]

I believe I have stated this previously on the forums, and certainly many times on Discord, and among friends playing on the server:

The main reason why there is often tension between players, DMs, factions, and whatever demographic we measure on, is that collectively we have never had, nor can we ever have, a Session Zero.

Session Zero is meant to establish expectations, and build trust among everyone involved.
The DMs inform their soon-to-be-players about their world and setting. Expectations towards danger is also explained, such as what might happen when a PC is captured; a PC attacks a guard; or the importance of bringing food and water. Likewise the DM can/should use this session to explain about any home-brew changes, how they generally run the game, and what the expected level range for PCs is going to be. Finally it's an opportunity to inform how the political landscape is; how people of the land generally feel toward outsiders, their neighbours, morals, and attempts to change the status-quo.

Similarly players have the opportunity to talk with each other, and the DM as well, on more personal topics. Some of which usually include: how brutal the setting is going to be (Game of Thrones vs. Power Rangers); are we all playing evil characters?; are we all playing good characters?; are we alright with PC-to-PC conflict within the party, and how do we want to approach that?; are there certain types of role-play or content we want to avoid, or that we definitely want to include?.


In short: Session Zero aims to solve a lot of the issues before they become actual issues, by talking about them, and laying the groundworks for how to resolve them when or if they appear.


All of the rules here on the forums is an attempt at establishing a Session Zero. But despite being quite extensive they only outline a rough overview. And the vast majority of the rules are from the Staff (DM and Admin) perspective as to provide a guideline for what can be expected on the server and within the setting of the server. Every now and then, due to community feedback, some rules may be removed, added, or amended. Largely the rules are a Session Zero flowing from Staff to Players, and not the other way around, with the slight changes being between one very vocal group of Players and Staff. That vocal group of players change depending on topic and over time as the player-base shifts. Three or four years ago several players wanted to bump the server from PG-13 to PG-15, prompting a vote for or against, and it almost won out in favour of PG-15, but not quite. Seven or eight years ago it wouldn't have even made it to a vote, because hardly anyone was interested in such a change.


What we are missing on the server, which we can never have, is a Player-to-Player Session Zero. The player-base isn't static. It changes year-to-year, if not more often than that. Because of this, any agreement we make today between players, on what we want to experience on the server and how we want to experience it, is going to be invalidated the moment a new or returning player joins. It becomes a never-ending process of trying to establish expectations between players, meaning it is never done, and therefore is impossible to establish.

What happens instead is that cliques are formed. Small groups within the server, where we know the preferences and expectations of those within the group, and thus feel comfortable playing with them. A lot of players complain about this, because they feel left out or shunned from certain groups, despite wanting to become part of it. To this there is no solution. As humans we are predisposed to be wary of strangers seeking entry into our tight-knit community. Trust needs to be established first, which is often made more difficult due to prior bad experiences of including someone new. Most often what is required is for someone within the group to vouch for the newcomer — usually through pre-established relations (friends or family).

Guilds and factions themselves are also cliques. However, unlike natural groups formed between players, a guild or faction is formed through aspiration towards a shared goal, story, or interest. A guild or faction is a formalised group within the group. Someone has set aside the time and effort to formalise what the goals and interests of the group are, and created a list of requirements for entry. A natural group is like a group of friends playing basket ball in their spare time after school, while a guild or faction is the basket ball team at school. One is formalised, the other is not.




That is the main issue on the server: Session Zero is impossible for the whole server, and can only reasonably be applied within smaller groups.




A subset of Session Zero is that Team Evil will likely want to oppose Team Good, and vice versa. Whether winning or losing, either side want to put in their best effort. At a table, with a group of friends meeting every week, there are no issues with this. Everyone is present, and get to act or react in due time. But on a persistent world server, such as BG, this is not possible. Effort towards a desirable outcome is determined by availability of players and DMs, which will vary greatly. While our characters might have had time to act, we as players might not, and that creates a temporal disconnect, where the DMs involved have no choice but to push the story/plot forward as not to stall the entire thing. This creates friction, because one group didn't get to do everything they wanted to, despite their characters having the time to do so.

And here's the real kick in the groin:
Because every interested party in a conflict is not seated at the same table at the same time, with everyone else involved readily available, it quickly turns into a scenario of us-vs-them. Rather than a group of friends collaborating on a story once every week, it becomes a race to the finish for two disconnected groups. The us-vs-them is a highly tribal mentality, and one that often carries some unintentional enmity and distrust.




Recommendation:
In a Good versus Evil setting, which also includes Underdark vs Surface to some extent, there is always going to be a disconnect between players on either side of the divide. One side cannot be happy without the other being at least a little disgruntled/dissatisfied. Therefore it is better to have two settings. One where it is Team Good vs DM-controlled Evil, and one where it is Team Evil vs DM-controlled Good. The BG (and by extent NWN2) community doesn't currently have the player-base to support such a change. In the interest of doing the least harm with a change, if a change is to be had at all, it would do less harm to remove player-driven Team Evil . . . Or accept the headaches that come with the impossibility of a Session Zero, which is what the server has done since it was first founded.

---

Edit: Spelling

[Kayle Walker]

Recommendation:

In the interest of doing the least harm with a change, if a change is to be had at all, it would do less harm to remove player-driven Team Evil . . .

Very well put Thanos impression there.

P.S. That two-way Session Zero idea isn't bad. IMO it probably can be established in some form without being specific to DM-to-player.

[Steve]

The main reason why there is often tension between players, DMs, factions, and whatever demographic we measure on, is that collectively we have never had, nor can we ever have, a Session Zero.

Excellent post. And you’re absolutely right. But I do think Session Zeros can and should start on BGTSCC.

I know for a fact that at least one whole guild died because of a lack of one, in the past. And such things should never be repeated if BGTSCC is to continue on in any healthy way.

[DM Honk]

Hidden: show

I believe I have stated this previously on the forums, and certainly many times on Discord, and among friends playing on the server:

The main reason why there is often tension between players, DMs, factions, and whatever demographic we measure on, is that collectively we have never had, nor can we ever have, a Session Zero.

Session Zero is meant to establish expectations, and build trust among everyone involved.
The DMs inform their soon-to-be-players about their world and setting. Expectations towards danger is also explained, such as what might happen when a PC is captured; a PC attacks a guard; or the importance of bringing food and water. Likewise the DM can/should use this session to explain about any home-brew changes, how they generally run the game, and what the expected level range for PCs is going to be. Finally it's an opportunity to inform how the political landscape is; how people of the land generally feel toward outsiders, their neighbours, morals, and attempts to change the status-quo.

Similarly players have the opportunity to talk with each other, and the DM as well, on more personal topics. Some of which usually include: how brutal the setting is going to be (Game of Thrones vs. Power Rangers); are we all playing evil characters?; are we all playing good characters?; are we alright with PC-to-PC conflict within the party, and how do we want to approach that?; are there certain types of role-play or content we want to avoid, or that we definitely want to include?.


In short: Session Zero aims to solve a lot of the issues before they become actual issues, by talking about them, and laying the groundworks for how to resolve them when or if they appear.


All of the rules here on the forums is an attempt at establishing a Session Zero. But despite being quite extensive they only outline a rough overview. And the vast majority of the rules are from the Staff (DM and Admin) perspective as to provide a guideline for what can be expected on the server and within the setting of the server. Every now and then, due to community feedback, some rules may be removed, added, or amended. Largely the rules are a Session Zero flowing from Staff to Players, and not the other way around, with the slight changes being between one very vocal group of Players and Staff. That vocal group of players change depending on topic and over time as the player-base shifts. Three or four years ago several players wanted to bump the server from PG-13 to PG-15, prompting a vote for or against, and it almost won out in favour of PG-15, but not quite. Seven or eight years ago it wouldn't have even made it to a vote, because hardly anyone was interested in such a change.


What we are missing on the server, which we can never have, is a Player-to-Player Session Zero. The player-base isn't static. It changes year-to-year, if not more often than that. Because of this, any agreement we make today between players, on what we want to experience on the server and how we want to experience it, is going to be invalidated the moment a new or returning player joins. It becomes a never-ending process of trying to establish expectations between players, meaning it is never done, and therefore is impossible to establish.

What happens instead is that cliques are formed. Small groups within the server, where we know the preferences and expectations of those within the group, and thus feel comfortable playing with them. A lot of players complain about this, because they feel left out or shunned from certain groups, despite wanting to become part of it. To this there is no solution. As humans we are predisposed to be wary of strangers seeking entry into our tight-knit community. Trust needs to be established first, which is often made more difficult due to prior bad experiences of including someone new. Most often what is required is for someone within the group to vouch for the newcomer — usually through pre-established relations (friends or family).

Guilds and factions themselves are also cliques. However, unlike natural groups formed between players, a guild or faction is formed through aspiration towards a shared goal, story, or interest. A guild or faction is a formalised group within the group. Someone has set aside the time and effort to formalise what the goals and interests of the group are, and created a list of requirements for entry. A natural group is like a group of friends playing basket ball in their spare time after school, while a guild or faction is the basket ball team at school. One is formalised, the other is not.




That is the main issue on the server: Session Zero is impossible for the whole server, and can only reasonably be applied within smaller groups.




A subset of Session Zero is that Team Evil will likely want to oppose Team Good, and vice versa. Whether winning or losing, either side want to put in their best effort. At a table, with a group of friends meeting every week, there are no issues with this. Everyone is present, and get to act or react in due time. But on a persistent world server, such as BG, this is not possible. Effort towards a desirable outcome is determined by availability of players and DMs, which will vary greatly. While our characters might have had time to act, we as players might not, and that creates a temporal disconnect, where the DMs involved have no choice but to push the story/plot forward as not to stall the entire thing. This creates friction, because one group didn't get to do everything they wanted to, despite their characters having the time to do so.

And here's the real kick in the groin:
Because every interested party in a conflict is not seated at the same table at the same time, with everyone else involved readily available, it quickly turns into a scenario of us-vs-them. Rather than a group of friends collaborating on a story once every week, it becomes a race to the finish for two disconnected groups. The us-vs-them is a highly tribal mentality, and one that often carries some unintentional enmity and distrust.




Recommendation:
In a Good versus Evil setting, which also includes Underdark vs Surface to some extent, there is always going to be a disconnect between players on either side of the divide. One side cannot be happy without the other being at least a little disgruntled/dissatisfied. Therefore it is better to have two settings. One where it is Team Good vs DM-controlled Evil, and one where it is Team Evil vs DM-controlled Good. The BG (and by extent NWN2) community doesn't currently have the player-base to support such a change. In the interest of doing the least harm with a change, if a change is to be had at all, it would do less harm to remove player-driven Team Evil . . . Or accept the headaches that come with the impossibility of a Session Zero, which is what the server has done since it was first founded.

---

Edit: Spelling

I find this post very insightful, thank you zhazz.

As a PnP DM I couldn't agree more on the importance of said "Session Zero", while you underline how that would be impossible to achieve on an environment such as this it is still food for thought.

Perhaps we can adapt this Session Zero idea to something else, something that could be feasible in the environment we play in.

Setting expectations is always important.

[zhazz]

Recommendation:

In the interest of doing the least harm with a change, if a change is to be had at all, it would do less harm to remove player-driven Team Evil . . .

Very well put Thanos impression there.

P.S. That two-way Session Zero idea isn't bad. IMO it probably can be established in some form without being specific to DM-to-player.

The main reason why there is often tension between players, DMs, factions, and whatever demographic we measure on, is that collectively we have never had, nor can we ever have, a Session Zero.

Excellent post. And you’re absolutely right. But I do think Session Zeros can and should start on BGTSCC.

I know for a fact that at least one whole guild died because of a lack of one, in the past. And such things should never be repeated if BGTSCC is to continue on in any healthy way.

Hidden: show

I believe I have stated this previously on the forums, and certainly many times on Discord, and among friends playing on the server:

The main reason why there is often tension between players, DMs, factions, and whatever demographic we measure on, is that collectively we have never had, nor can we ever have, a Session Zero.

Session Zero is meant to establish expectations, and build trust among everyone involved.
The DMs inform their soon-to-be-players about their world and setting. Expectations towards danger is also explained, such as what might happen when a PC is captured; a PC attacks a guard; or the importance of bringing food and water. Likewise the DM can/should use this session to explain about any home-brew changes, how they generally run the game, and what the expected level range for PCs is going to be. Finally it's an opportunity to inform how the political landscape is; how people of the land generally feel toward outsiders, their neighbours, morals, and attempts to change the status-quo.

Similarly players have the opportunity to talk with each other, and the DM as well, on more personal topics. Some of which usually include: how brutal the setting is going to be (Game of Thrones vs. Power Rangers); are we all playing evil characters?; are we all playing good characters?; are we alright with PC-to-PC conflict within the party, and how do we want to approach that?; are there certain types of role-play or content we want to avoid, or that we definitely want to include?.


In short: Session Zero aims to solve a lot of the issues before they become actual issues, by talking about them, and laying the groundworks for how to resolve them when or if they appear.


All of the rules here on the forums is an attempt at establishing a Session Zero. But despite being quite extensive they only outline a rough overview. And the vast majority of the rules are from the Staff (DM and Admin) perspective as to provide a guideline for what can be expected on the server and within the setting of the server. Every now and then, due to community feedback, some rules may be removed, added, or amended. Largely the rules are a Session Zero flowing from Staff to Players, and not the other way around, with the slight changes being between one very vocal group of Players and Staff. That vocal group of players change depending on topic and over time as the player-base shifts. Three or four years ago several players wanted to bump the server from PG-13 to PG-15, prompting a vote for or against, and it almost won out in favour of PG-15, but not quite. Seven or eight years ago it wouldn't have even made it to a vote, because hardly anyone was interested in such a change.


What we are missing on the server, which we can never have, is a Player-to-Player Session Zero. The player-base isn't static. It changes year-to-year, if not more often than that. Because of this, any agreement we make today between players, on what we want to experience on the server and how we want to experience it, is going to be invalidated the moment a new or returning player joins. It becomes a never-ending process of trying to establish expectations between players, meaning it is never done, and therefore is impossible to establish.

What happens instead is that cliques are formed. Small groups within the server, where we know the preferences and expectations of those within the group, and thus feel comfortable playing with them. A lot of players complain about this, because they feel left out or shunned from certain groups, despite wanting to become part of it. To this there is no solution. As humans we are predisposed to be wary of strangers seeking entry into our tight-knit community. Trust needs to be established first, which is often made more difficult due to prior bad experiences of including someone new. Most often what is required is for someone within the group to vouch for the newcomer — usually through pre-established relations (friends or family).

Guilds and factions themselves are also cliques. However, unlike natural groups formed between players, a guild or faction is formed through aspiration towards a shared goal, story, or interest. A guild or faction is a formalised group within the group. Someone has set aside the time and effort to formalise what the goals and interests of the group are, and created a list of requirements for entry. A natural group is like a group of friends playing basket ball in their spare time after school, while a guild or faction is the basket ball team at school. One is formalised, the other is not.




That is the main issue on the server: Session Zero is impossible for the whole server, and can only reasonably be applied within smaller groups.




A subset of Session Zero is that Team Evil will likely want to oppose Team Good, and vice versa. Whether winning or losing, either side want to put in their best effort. At a table, with a group of friends meeting every week, there are no issues with this. Everyone is present, and get to act or react in due time. But on a persistent world server, such as BG, this is not possible. Effort towards a desirable outcome is determined by availability of players and DMs, which will vary greatly. While our characters might have had time to act, we as players might not, and that creates a temporal disconnect, where the DMs involved have no choice but to push the story/plot forward as not to stall the entire thing. This creates friction, because one group didn't get to do everything they wanted to, despite their characters having the time to do so.

And here's the real kick in the groin:
Because every interested party in a conflict is not seated at the same table at the same time, with everyone else involved readily available, it quickly turns into a scenario of us-vs-them. Rather than a group of friends collaborating on a story once every week, it becomes a race to the finish for two disconnected groups. The us-vs-them is a highly tribal mentality, and one that often carries some unintentional enmity and distrust.




Recommendation:
In a Good versus Evil setting, which also includes Underdark vs Surface to some extent, there is always going to be a disconnect between players on either side of the divide. One side cannot be happy without the other being at least a little disgruntled/dissatisfied. Therefore it is better to have two settings. One where it is Team Good vs DM-controlled Evil, and one where it is Team Evil vs DM-controlled Good. The BG (and by extent NWN2) community doesn't currently have the player-base to support such a change. In the interest of doing the least harm with a change, if a change is to be had at all, it would do less harm to remove player-driven Team Evil . . . Or accept the headaches that come with the impossibility of a Session Zero, which is what the server has done since it was first founded.

---

Edit: Spelling

I find this post very insightful, thank you zhazz.

As a PnP DM I couldn't agree more on the importance of said "Session Zero", while you underline how that would be impossible to achieve on an environment such as this it is still food for thought.

Perhaps we can adapt this Session Zero idea to something else, something that could be feasible in the environment we play in.

Setting expectations is always important.

Having thought it over since posting, and reading the replies, I do believe that a slightly altered form of Session Zero is possible to do. It will even be possible to do with new or returning players as well, which is the main issue of a Session Zero on a persistent world.

What can be done is to take a page out of Haven's book. I haven't played there for a long time, so I don't know if they still do this, but they used to. Anyway, what they did/do is require every character to complete a questionnaire-dialogue for all the R-rated stuff before that character is allowed to leave their version of the Nexus. This creates a list of themes that other players can inspect on the character. The list contains everything the player is okay with, want to experiment with, and is not okay with. Green, yellow, and red flags. Every player is expected to check the flags for other characters before interacting.

Obviously such a system is made with a R-rated server in mind. However, an adapted version could work for our server. Don't want to do capture role-play? Red flag. Don't want to do romance role-play? Red flag. Interested in horror/mind-shenanigans, but a little scared of it? Yellow flag. And so on.

What themes should go on such a list, and what the system would look like on our server, I do not know. It is, however, a feasible, though incomplete solution to the Player-to-Player Session Zero. And by extent also Player-to-Staff Session Zero, provided Staff can view the list too.

[Almarea90]

I would agree to -trial- a system like that but with the option of rolling back if certain situations arise, for example people being ignored or excluded from all interactions because of their preferences.

[DaloLorn]

Well, it could be stored as a bunch of flags on the DMFI tool. That part's easy.

A slightly harder element is prepending/appending it to the PC's description when examining. Might be easier to hook it into the conditional examine system (which is also better because it lets the DMs see it!) and get people to start using that more often.

The hardest part, IMO, is going to be figuring out the exact list of things to check for. I'm bowing out of that one, thanks!

[mastajabba]

All I know is that EVERY TIME I have reached out to “team evil” to try to work together on a story. I get “left on read”. So I dunno what they want unless it just them an DMs off in a corner doing things. Away from everyone else.

I offered to have my good guy taken POW aim this war. Since I feel a lot of it seems to be just Combat RP. Figured someone would like to have a prisoner. Try to RP a prisoner exchange something what ever. But

At this time I am more inclined to believe they just wanna cry about the situation instead of actively change the state of RP. So que sera.. sera…

I am sorry to hear you have been so soundly rejected by "team evil", EVERY TIME. I can see how it could even give you a bad attitude.

But you do bring up an interesting point regarding changing the state of RP.
One thing I do not have very much interest in, is having characters 'pretend' to do things. Like pretending to be captured and pretending to be a POW.
It's fake, and the idea of play acting is really weird to me. I would never want you to 'let me' catch you.

In fact the mechanics of this game does allow for me to actually and legit capture you. You see the game does this neat thing where it simulates combat. So we do not actually have to pretend at all. I could actaully try to capture you if we are so inclined.
But if you want to talk about people crying, then all you have to do actually play the game as it was intended and try to capture another player for real.

I think somewhere between where I though of this reply and the English translation things got lost.

My intent is not to “script” RP or Pretend. But to open up dialog along factions so that everyone can come and speak of ideas of story lines,
Expectations, say boundaries if any so that everyone involved is aware of the parameters to craft a story together where everyone feels involved and can be happy about outcomes what ever it might be.

I believe in character consequences, some players do not. What I think we need is player - player dialog. So that expectations are set to minimize any of any OOC beef over any good/bad RP.

A hero is only as good as his villains.

[Kitunenotsume]

Having thought it over since posting, and reading the replies, I do believe that a slightly altered form of Session Zero is possible to do. It will even be possible to do with new or returning players as well, which is the main issue of a Session Zero on a persistent world.

What can be done is to take a page out of Haven's book. I haven't played there for a long time, so I don't know if they still do this, but they used to. Anyway, what they did/do is require every character to complete a questionnaire-dialogue for all the R-rated stuff before that character is allowed to leave their version of the Nexus. This creates a list of themes that other players can inspect on the character. The list contains everything the player is okay with, want to experiment with, and is not okay with. Green, yellow, and red flags. Every player is expected to check the flags for other characters before interacting.

Obviously such a system is made with a R-rated server in mind. However, an adapted version could work for our server. Don't want to do capture role-play? Red flag. Don't want to do romance role-play? Red flag. Interested in horror/mind-shenanigans, but a little scared of it? Yellow flag. And so on.

What themes should go on such a list, and what the system would look like on our server, I do not know. It is, however, a feasible, though incomplete solution to the Player-to-Player Session Zero. And by extent also Player-to-Staff Session Zero, provided Staff can view the list too.

I have usually encountered these constructions refered to as "Consent Checklists" and they are usually fairly versatile. They are used by a few gaming communities I have had, where it becomes mandatory in character creation to establish effectively a Session-Zero with the community. However, It is also important to remember that it is a Consent form, and degrees can still be different for each person. I've had to abruptly stop some descriptions in horror RPGs when it went a bit too far for a player who was otherwise quite willing to engage in the setting.

There are many forms and discussions on the resource that I could provide if anyone needs it. The first example I found on Google is fairly thorough: https://mcpl.info/sites/default/files/i ... -09-13.pdf

Admittedly, some fields are automatically filled out for us by the server standards (Such as pregnancy and explicit action), and others render questionable character decisions (Should you really be playing a Grey Orc if you are unwilling to engage in discussion on racial inequity?)

I hope the contextual resource is helpful to someone

[Tekill]

Would this checklist work as a list of things a player could approve of or decline?
IE:
Pvp auto consent
Assassination attempts consent
Robbery attempts consent
Hostage/kidnapping/capture consent
Pvp out - disabled


What would be decent would be if this session 0 creates the affect of danger to those that want to feel the threat of danger but also spontaneously.

The need for it to not be prearranged is important.

Also the checklist should be viewable in game IC.

Could it mean I could spend a saturday afternoon being a highway bandit without the need of dm oversight/approval?

[Steve]

For me, I don’t see “Session Zero” as a consent between players in a way formulaic addition to the Examine page, bio page.

I understand Session Zero as being some OOC “orientation” to attempt/create/insert some form of role-play, some form of a campaign, some form of PC/NPC interaction experience.

Simply put: when a DM wants to run an event/campaign/storyline to entice or engage a group of PCs, the DM reaches out to explain their intentions and give some taste of the proposed setup of said event, to gauge interest and solicit support.

Between players, it’s rather the same, making some gesture or outreach to say “are you cool if I jump in, join in, make a mess of X…” with your PC and those you’re reaching out to.

I don’t think this is about being overly cautious, but instead about just getting, for lack of better words, permission.

Maybe it sounds silly to you that a player of an Evil minded toon should solicited permission, but I’d argue that is far better an avenue for success than to drop in all raging evil-like to the goodness jamboree, and then expect respect.

Of course, this goes both ways.

Like I wrote earlier, the missing link is the overall feeling our toons are a contribution to all RP, instead of an annoyance to someone’s RP. Again, it’s storybuilding, together. And, it’s storybuilding between Characters, which means players have to remain open to players, even if you don’t agree with that player OOC.

I know, it’s not easy. But goals are a good thing!

[Zar'shalee]

I appreciate that this topic is booming like that. It tells that people are aware of some issues and want to talk about it. However I would be careful about not blowing this too out of proportions by implementing new kind of OOC systems. I am strictly against any "pre-determined" RP scenarios. I am against team evil meeting OOCly with "team good" and negotiate the outcome of future events. Let's just play the game, roleplay, immerse yourself with your characters. Be ambitious with your goals and try t oreach those goals. If you die, you die. If you live, you live. That is the circle of life. RP characters comes and go and no story lasts forever.

[Young Werther]

Be strong as steel and evil witches will satiate you in hell.

[selhan]

Would this checklist work as a list of things a player could approve of or decline?
IE:
Pvp auto consent
Assassination attempts consent
Robbery attempts consent
Hostage/kidnapping/capture consent
Pvp out - disabled


What would be decent would be if this session 0 creates the affect of danger to those that want to feel the threat of danger but also spontaneously.

The need for it to not be prearranged is important.

Also the checklist should be viewable in game IC.

Could it mean I could spend a saturday afternoon being a highway bandit without the need of dm oversight/approval?

The days of this is long gone due to player base complaints. The server had asked to keep things respectful but some did otherwise, so certain things had to be enforced upon, however there is a con to it. People tend to hide behind the rules and rp while using the rules as an ic shield. When a person is caught with their pants down and there's a blade at their necks, any given person would be very careful in their next few words. However due to the shielding, they instead rp a very tough and bold response because they know without consent their necks not getting cut. Only a very few players with wholesome rp will "ROLEPLAY" the situation correctly. And if said aggressor pushes towards pvp due to the bold response trauma drama begins. Players who play evil characters doesn't necessary mean their ooc xxxhats.. Hell alot of them are very respectful to be honest. So then the involvement of DM's etc yada yada has to get involved to direct an outcome. And on another note, thats why one team tends to play with only one team. Because alot of times when they try to cross over...disaster.

The forums can be a useful thing but as well as a dangerous thing. Too much complaints equal changes to the server. BGTSCC is nothing like what it use to be once upon a time. Some changes were good and alot were not so much.

The PVP no consent thread was created long ago for players who prefer rp without having to deal with the whole consent system. But then again, some players were one sided. They signed up went around engaging in any pvp they can conjure up , but then when they get a bounty on their heads and it gets collected, they rant and rage and QQ to the Dm's.

So to conclude my post I will use the words of the old timers.."Less forum and more rp!" Oh and add discord to that too lol