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

Reaver34567 wrote:Bit of a personal contribution, but it's pretty relevant. I've only initiated PvP one time on this server, and the RP-Out was exploited (He started buffing the second I sent him a tell, and consented once he was finished).. To have this rule changed in the way Mister Rogers suggests would spare other players similar exploitative hardships.

also it is in the rules that if you are in a hostile/heated argument and they start buffing that is their consent right there, you dont need to let them finish to set hostile and pound their face in

DM Mister Rogers wrote:Yeah. Under the proposed rule change, everyone consenting to PvP would do so knowing that they're opening themselves up to the possibility of ambush for 24 hours.
Do we think this shifts the balance too much? I dunno. What do you all think?

dont get me wrong, there isnt anything wrong with people being scared and walking around fully buffed because someone is gonna pound their face in

its the part on how they got away in the first place i think

if you have to let them leave and then they take it and come back fully buffed then yea thats bs, but if you dont have to let them leave but they manage to escape on their own and come back fully buffed and with backup etc. that is a lot better

it allows for more fluid RP i think, because with the way it is now there are people who will send tells for backup and try to stall and wait for help to magically show up when that normally wouldnt be the case

While it can be argued that the current rule and "hostile window" disadvantages sneakers, my feeling is a change would turn the tables too much, particularly if sneakers are allowed to subsequently attack without warning. General PvP would then be approaching the scenario of an assassination, but without any of the controls. The same might be said for casters and the like who are able to run away, prepare and then jump their antagonist. People complain (ironically) about whiners who "hide behind the rules", and while that may be a problem there are equally plenty of griefers out there who will exploit a softening in the rules like this. Too often from what I have witnessed, the "hot-headedness" belongs more to the player at the keyboard than the character on the screen.

People complain about stealthers enough as it is because of a minority who abuse the skill without any RP, and I think a rule change here in their favour would just compound this. As it is, us sneaks have to be more intelligent, subtle and creative in the way we exact our revenge, and I am quite content to leave it that way.

Aikura wrote:While it can be argued that the current rule and "hostile window" disadvantages sneakers, my feeling is a change would turn the tables too much, particularly if sneakers are allowed to subsequently attack without warning. General PvP would then be approaching the scenario of an assassination, but without any of the controls. The same might be said for casters and the like who are able to run away, prepare and then jump their antagonist. People complain (ironically) about whiners who "hide behind the rules", and while that may be a problem there are equally plenty of griefers out there who will exploit a softening in the rules like this. Too often from what I have witnessed, the "hot-headedness" belongs more to the player at the keyboard than the character on the screen.

People complain about stealthers enough as it is because of a minority who abuse the skill without any RP, and I think a rule change here in their favour would just compound this. As it is, us sneaks have to be more intelligent, subtle and creative in the way we exact our revenge, and I am quite content to leave it that way.

This is my main concern. Passiflora brought it up and said it was a small downside, but I think it's actually pretty significant.
Fighters and melee combatants, think about it. You run into Sneaky Sam, you two get into an argument, you wanna pound his face in. You give him the RP out, he takes it and walks away.
And then, ten hours later, you're shanked in the back as you're waltzing down the Lion's Way. And you die.
This would become the norm. Do we really want that?

Edit: Or you run into Charraj. You don't like Charraj. And you like him even less as you speak to him. You decide to misinterpret something he says and pick a fight. You give him the RP out, and he runs away, grinning gleefully.
Three hours later, a giant magical hand comes out of nowhere and pins you in place. A few spells later, and you're Charraj's first PvP victory.
Guys, the more I think about it, the more I think this would be way too much of a shift in the other direction. But I'll listen to arguments telling me otherwise. *waits and twiddles his thumbs*

I should have also added that it will just undermine the RP-out rule anyway. Why would Randall-fighter let Charraj-wizard or Aikura-rogue get away, if they are obviosly just going to bigby/stab him around the next corner?

I gotta say though, it would make people think twice about whether they really want to play the big-bad-wolf on the street. If the rules become such that someone picking a fight has to watch their back from retaliation, I feel that it would A) humble many characters/players and B) Create a more realistic situation where characters and players have to think about their strategies.

Its a touchy subject though, because there will always be those who feel slighted and "put-off". Personally, I think that there should be an extended window for PvP encounters. An unbuffed mage would generally try and talk their way out of an encounter if they were at a disadvantage, only to regather their strength and put up a fight. A stealther would wait for an opportune time to strike where the outcome is more favorable. 24hrs might be too long for those that play all day, but a server reset might be to short if the encounter happens shortly before someone has to log for whatever RL reason.

I don't want to get into the "RP out" discussion itself, because there are so many flaws with it, but are designed to keep things fair between players.

Lucavern wrote: An unbuffed mage would generally try and talk their way out of an encounter if they were at a disadvantage, only to regather their strength and put up a fight. A stealther would wait for an opportune time to strike where the outcome is more favorable.

The thing is.. the barbarian with the axe ready is "forced" to let an RP out to the wizard or sneak. So he's forced to lose his adventage, while the sneak/mage always have the advantage because if they "want", they can always come back a few minutes later invis/buffed and attack without letting RP out. That's the flaw. )=

few people will actually be around for 24 hrs so probably doesnt need to be that long yea

12 hrs should be fine tho, thats one full server reset and half of one, which few people stay around that long so should be plenty as far as time goes

DM Mister Rogers wrote:Fighters and melee combatants, think about it. You run into Sneaky Sam, you two get into an argument, you wanna pound his face in. You give him the RP out, he takes it and walks away.
And then, ten hours later, you're shanked in the back as you're waltzing down the Lion's Way. And you die.
This would become the norm. Do we really want that?

this i think will just force/lead to this:

Lucavern wrote:If the rules become such that someone picking a fight has to watch their back from retaliation, I feel that it would A) humble many characters/players and B) Create a more realistic situation where characters and players have to think about their strategies.

and like i said there are plenty of ways for people to not take an out and still get away, people who can do this have an ace up their sleeve and probably wont be bothered by a change, the people who dont have an ace are probably not mouthing off anyway (assuming they are smart... and/or not a drunk IC and do it anyway because the character dont care)

and as for the guy who doesnt have an ace vs a guy who does, and the guy without an ace having to give an RP out, well those guys are screwed by the rule regardless, because unless they can attack on their terms they will always be at a disadvantage, hell even if they can attack on their terms they are at a disadvantage if the first thing the opponent does is hips/invis/ethereal

for someone who has a hard time combating stealth/invis tactics their only advantage is probably a quick fight and land a crit or three on an unbuffed opponent

Lucavern wrote: I don't want to get into the "RP out" discussion itself, because there are so many flaws with it, but are designed to keep things fair between players.

DM Passiflora wrote: The thing is.. the barbarian with the axe ready is "forced" to let an RP out to the wizard or sneak. So he's forced to lose his adventage, while the sneak/mage always have the advantage because if they "want", they can always come back a few minutes later invis/buffed and attack without letting RP out. That's the flaw. )=

And you just hit on one of the flaws I was referencing.

Edit in response to BMD:
But if it does lead to characters/players being humbled and having to think about how they do things, is that such a bad thing? Personally I saw many that played brute-type characters because they could without repercussion, only because they can use the PvP rules to hide behind.

Obviously there are characters that would be either not smart enough to foresee repercussions, or just don't care about them. But I think Fred should have to worry about Sam being a sneak and retaliating later, if he was so inclined to worry about such a thing.

yea pure meat shield types are screwed either way by just having to give the out

which only way to help them is to get rid of requiring the out...

This is why the PvP hostilities should only last until you transition areas.

This way, either the starter or receiver of the initial hostilities can "get away" without a tricky time frame.

If you are a melee shit starter and start something where the possible Mage/rogue takes the out in order to go around the corner and buff, you then have the ability to get away youselve without getting shanked or Fingered, cause you realized it's better to stay alive.

If the retributive striker then follows you in stealth/invisible to the next area, they then would have to restart the hostilities, which then gives the fighter an RP out.

If this continues, then it would become grieving, and that is not allowed.

True story that happened on the server a year or two ago, not using any names:

A group of characters were in a clique. They met a wizard. The wizard started to make fun of the clique, and the clique responded by setting the wizard hostile(clique was not even buffed up, it was just a case of being outnumbered). The wizard ran away not
wanting to fight the clique, and the clique was forced to let him go due to RP out.

About 2 hours later, the clique is hanging about RPing in a remote location. All of a sudden, a cloudkill spell comes out of nowhere followed by an incendiary cloud. Then a Horned Demon(warlock in polymorph) and they begin attacking the clique by surprise. The leader of the clique is the sole survivor, and since the clique was unbuffed, the leader is frantically trying to get buffs on. Now the warlock and the wizard are fully buffed and easily defeating the clique. The Leader is able to recover and kill the warlock, but the wizard is in immortal mode with all of those buffs, and after 15 minutes of trying to fight through it, gives up.


So yeah, consent is abused and I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't abused a lot. But again, its a necessary evil.

Yes, but then by that definition moving from an interior<->exterior area would stop pvp events. And whose to say the mage/rogue that removes themselves from sight isn't following the other one at their heels? A stealther that is not visible nor making a sound could easily stay within feet of someone and they would never know without the appropriate counter-skill checks. (Again, not getting into a silly debate on some applications/usages of stealth-skills) Same could be said for a mage turning invisible/ethereal in front of someone without the appropriate "See Invis" buffs. Just because you travel 200 miles doesn't mean that the person who is coming back after you didn't travel the same distance.

Yeah, anyone who wants to start a fight would have to be cautious. That in itself is not so bad.
It would make it hard on people honestly RPing a hotheaded character, though. *shrugs*

How would it make it hard on them? If their character was a hothead, it likely wouldn't think far enough ahead to worry about the results of their actions. "Shoot first, ask questions later". And if we are worried about it on the player vs. player level, and not character vs. character, would make people think twice about what characters they really want to play and how they want to play it. If you (player) can't handle people possibly retaliating and kicking your ass on more favorable terms for them, you may want to think harder about playing a hothead that picks fights.

Lucavern wrote:If you (player) can't handle people possibly retaliating and kicking your ass on more favorable terms for them, you may want to think harder about playing a hothead that picks fights.

But remember, that hot-headed character wants to kick that person's ass right now... but that person is hiding behind the consent rule until they get the upper hand. Is it really fair for that?

That's like threatening a mage, you are right by them, about to pound them.. but you don't have consent. The mage decides to walk a bit ways away and then decides: "Gee.. I think I'm ready to PvP you now, consent granted" *casts Bigby 7*.


I also know there are some people who ignore the consent rule, as SteveBarracuda said, I really wish I could do that.