Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

Completely agree with broham and mute and some of bmd and stevieb--

It is asinine to expect a stealth character to either stand and throw down with a meleer or else call the PvP over if he does not. I give a PvP out when I am the hostile party. If someone hostiles me then they initiated it. There are many bully meathead sorts walking about with their epeen measuring stick. Because I have a caster or stealth character who chooses to play to his strengths shouldn't require me to initiate PvP that was already initiated by their play.

Broham is right that if you mouth off that is not taking an out and you're liable to get pulped same as if you never backed off. I happen to think that the encounter should be "on" until both have left the area. If I quietly walk away to duck a corner like Broham said and then slip a dagger into the aggressor's back for the insult and threat then that is perfectly IC roleplay and the same PvP continued.

I don't think that any random exchange should last longer than the current time both spend in an area though or transcend areas like an assassination contract often does. Let's not forget that this is a random meeting and that area transitions are often miles apart by Sword Coast geography. Bro also mentioned HiPS but that too is perfectly viable and IC roleplay-- if you can hide in plain sight from someone you do it. Nothing worse than someone initiating RP and then whining about you using HiPS when you never said boo about his Ki Strikes.

As to the comments that you need to give them a return RP out by making noise (when your stealth character most likely has maxed Move Silently and the epeen has no ranks in Listen) well that's just plain wrong and utterly silly. They started the PvP and it is their responsibility to give the out-- period. I don't think responding immediately to a PvP threat in the way suggested in the same zone before leaving short changes anyone. Imo they should not have started then...

It is in the rules, that you can write "walks into the shadows" and that is giving concent to PvP, which i also find valid. If Sam had used hips, i would have said it was fine, as that is kind of the same as drawing a weapon.

Simian Approbatur wrote: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?

Two players can always agree to such a thing OOCly. If no one complains, it's all good.

Also, let's see who else chimes in. We can extend the period of consent, if everyone thinks it makes more sense. *shrugs, sits, and waits*

The whole concept of PvP consent supports metagaming and opportunities for some people to opt out of a bad situation. It's weak. I would prefer if we could just do away with the consent rule and just prosecute griefers.

I understand that there are people who don't want to participate in PvP, but sometimes those are the same people who would give you a perfect reason to fight them. Then they hide behind the consent rule. PvP is just part of roleplay. Let us do away with the encumbering and immersion breaking concept of PvP consent. What are people so afraid of? Perming? Noone is forced to be permed on this server. Consent seems like it is intended yo prevent grudging, but it can easily digress into litigation and before you know it the whole situation is spoiled. It gives the advantage to the people who want to face no consequences for their actions.

We're not getting rid of the PvP consent rule.
I will consider extending the period of consent, though, if a huge majority would prefer it. Let's keep it on topic, please.

Saying something like:

"watch your back, next time we meet will be your last" *fades in to the shadows*

That is a threat and open to set hostile. A stealther has a better advantage of preparing PvP since they prefer to use time to set-up their attack properly. During that time, you can send the pm to the PC and tell them that your character will make good on his threat (even though setting to hostile explains that already).

I think vendetta's can be upheld as long as the parties agree on what condition the vendetta would be nullifed upon such as in the event of one of more of the parties being killed in PvP, or a treatie is made, or a concession was given... etc...

Anyways, the best way is to be open about it with the parties you are about to gank. A tell, goes a long way than a surprise shiv in their backside two months down the road with no RP involved.

I don't keep notes about every niggling thing that happens such as a one-off encounter with a meathead. I also really don't want to start having to. I really only think sanctioned assassinations should have such extended PvP time. For day to day random PvP I think it should remain only in effect only for so long as the characters remain in the same area.

I'm a big fan of sending tells to players. On two occasions, I've had players who wanted to shank Charraj check in with me, and I was okay with it (Charraj got pwned both times ). I agree with Void, tells go a long way towards making sure everyone has a good time and avoiding butthurt.
It's a bit off-topic, but I just thought I'd encourage the practice.

I think the consent time should be extended, but only to a 10-minute window after the agressor sets you to hostile. I also think that both parties should still be set hostile to each other if you want this to occur.

TheVoid wrote:Saying something like:

"watch your back, next time we meet will be your last" *fades in to the shadows*

That is a threat and open to set hostile. A stealther has a better advantage of preparing PvP since they prefer to use time to set-up their attack properly. During that time, you can send the pm to the PC and tell them that your character will make good on his threat (even though setting to hostile explains that already).

I think vendetta's can be upheld as long as the parties agree on what condition the vendetta would be nullifed upon such as in the event of one of more of the parties being killed in PvP, or a treatie is made, or a concession was given... etc...

Anyways, the best way is to be open about it with the parties you are about to gank. A tell, goes a long way than a surprise shiv in their backside two months down the road with no RP involved.

If you don't have hips, the 'watch your back, next time.." line is liable get you killed because your aggressor would be wise to just attack. You might as well just not take the out, because that line right there is clear consent. Its not using an RP out in any way, shape, or form. You are continuing the provocation.

Overall I agree that a quick tell resolves a lot of these issues, if the situation involves a couple of reasonable players. I've sent plenty of quick tells to help cover my rear and as a polite warning... But everyone knows that there are rule-lawyers, especially when it comes to PVP, that will use the rules to their benefit. Its why we changed the pvp rules to RP-based instead of OOC outs in the first place, to prevent people being mouthy (ie. I'll be back..) and then using rules to avoid consequence.

I'd lean more toward a 24 hour rule. If you give consent (either as the initiator or the 'victim') that consent should remain valid for longer than the length of your conversation. Make it 24 hours for consistency. Once consent is given you have 24 hours or until the conclusion of the fight to make good on that consent.

In my opinion, any other way seriously detracts from immersive RP of characters that would never accept a fair fight from a brute.

It seems very reasonable that PvP, once initiated by hostile actions/dialogue, is active until either one or the other parties leaves the area in which it occurred. Essentially, if you don't like what's going on, take the out and leave. If you can't take a toe-to-toe fight, take the out and regroup to take down the initiator.

This has lots of benefits, both to all types of classes with different skills, and to cutting down on wanton PvP in general. It also makes hostilities against another toon a greater consequential act, which I like.

Because even though the initiator must give an out, and it can be taken, there is a chance that, in the initiator stays in the area, they'll get their just deserts.

For the record, I am not PVPer. That being said, I think that extended the consent period is a good idea because its certain not in IC for everyone to address the prepared aggressor on their terms immediately as has been previously addressed. Of the proposed time periods (24 hours, 10 minutes, until leaving the area) extending until one party leaves the area strikes a good balance of RP and OoC considerations.

24 hours is too long. I am not running a stopwatch for an entire day to know when its over. Also, I may log in and out a couple of times over a day, over multiple server resets, and may be in an entirely different region from where the hostilities occurred a day ago. It also allows for metagaming if the other party uses the scrying tool or another character to locate and jump to my location.

10 minutes isn't bad, but it still comes down to keeping a stopwatch handy.

Leaving the area is a clear distinction - you know when you do it. Two minor clarification would be useful though. (1) When you leave the area, you either set to unhostile and/or send the other PC a tell. (2) The 'area' should be defined as the general geographic area. For example, if there is a dispute at the FAI campfire and one of the parties gets away, the consent lasts until you leave the FAI zone. Inside the walls or inside the Inn itself would be fair game (if a foolish location). In a dungeon complex it would include the entire complex (from entrance to lowest level). This would certainly add some tension to adventuring after exchanging barbs...you never know when the other party may surprise you. Perhaps that's even enough of a deterrent to reconcile.

Cristof they meant one IG day. But that's longer than 10 minutes, so your arguement is still the same.