Setting Hostile...is it still needed?

[Steve]

Hello,

The last section to the PvP Rules & Guidelines is:

You must always, without exception, set your target(s) to hostile before initiating PVP. PVP includes regular attacks, knock down, Curse Song, offensive spells such as Dispel/Mordenkainen's Disjunction/Spell Breach, etc.

Here are the PvP Rules and Guidelines, if you do not already know them by heart. But, in short form:

*There must always be a roleplay reason to initiate PVP!*
*Always allow an RP out before attacking, unless the other player has "consented" to PVP!*
*Setting your target to hostile before initiating PVP is always a MUST!*

But PvP, Player-vs-Players, is actually defined as (cheap Wiki c/p):

PvP can be broadly used to describe any game, or aspect of a game, where players compete against each other.

PvP is often controversial when used in role-playing games. In most cases, there are vast differences in abilities between experienced and novice players. PvP, when poorly designed, can encourage experienced players to immediately attack and kill inexperienced players before they have even had an opportunity to play.

So, in actuality, PvP is far beyond just attacking each other, it goes to a larger, greater relationship between the general Role-Play on this Server. If "setting to Hostile" is something we "must" do before engaging in PvP, well...many PCs might as well set the entire Server hostile when they log on (which, btw, there is a Rule against doing that! lol). (Yes, there is a semantics issue here, and I admit maybe that should be cleaned up first in the PvP Rules and Guildelines.)

What I am really talking about then, is Hostility between PCs, in the actual mechanical+RP sense.

Now...I am NOT suggesting to change the general PvP Rules (RP outs and such). But setting Hostile is a mechanical action that allows for the ENTIRETY of offensive actions to work against an opponent. It is purely a mechanical action, right? As well, setting Hostile has always been considered an OOC action.

So do we still need it?

The biggest issue in my opinion is setting to Hostile is something done after consent to PvP...so it delays the "fight" and causes it to become a dual. There is really no "being caught off guard," here. Well, except for the very, very few that place on their Examine/Bio page that they do not need to be given an RP Out...but still, you MUST set them to Hostile!).

Setting to Hostile before engaging in hostile RP is even worse, in my opinion, as it causes a meta-gamey issue: You know someone has set your Toon to hostile, thus the likelihood you're gonna get bushwhacked is super high...and you have to either RP dumb about it, or you don't, and thus you metagame another Player.

As well, Scent feat, for example, works only if another PC is set to Hostile. So thus, you know your Toon is being tracked...and again, you have to either RP dumb about it, or metagame another Player, by having your PC react.

Usually—at least I think so—PvP and Setting Hostile and hostile RP is all worked out rather friendly-like between Players, and the entire situation is moderated by good gaming practices, good sportsmanship. Right or wrong?

But does the act of Setting Hostile actually cause more instances or possibilities for meta-gamey behavior than prevent arsehattery PvP behavior, and would it be not only possible, but overall better, to drop the Setting Hostile action Player-vs-Player RP, and just stick to the "RP Out, RPing Hostilities" guidelines, which is a fairly necessary rule in order to balance against bad sportsmanship?

If setting Hostile is a necessity for the Game, then my post here may be moot—setting Hostile can't go away. Or maybe setting to Hostile should be changed from being an OOC, mechanical actions, to actually being an in-character (IC) action, that still needs to be RP'd out? Or will any change cause Summons and Companions to simple attack every PC they run across?!?

[Boddynock]

I actually have a habit of setting people hostile long long before the situation progresses to a fight (or literally the moment before I initiate hostilities if they already gave consent, to preserve surprise). But I find that doing it early also prevents people from prepping to much.

If, at the first sign that things might possibly head south, you set to hostile, and then they start buffing or acting differently, you KNOW they are a metagamer as they are reacting to a purely OOC action, and you can just leave and not waste your time. But if they just continue talking you still have the option of unhostiling them later if things simmer down, or then initiating a fight if things DO head south without having to worry about whether or not you hostiled someone.

Now, as to your question about whether we even need this rule... I tend to support anything that increases realism. So, I say no, we do not need this rule. It not only can become an issue with just remembering to hit a button (PVP can be stressful or exciting to some, and they might forget a small thing that translates into them breaking the server rules) but people act/RP differently knowing it exists. I can create a level one wizard with max CHA and DEX and min CON and INT, walk up to literally any PC, and tell him to eat my d!($ knowing he HAS to give me an "RP out" of some kind before he puts me in my place.

My solution to this dilemma has long been the same, though before you try it I should warn you I have been called out on it, by DMs even, despite it not being against the rules even a little. But, regardless, here it is. The rules state you must allow an RP out of some kind, it does not say that the OTHER PARTY gets to choose what that out is. It is perfectly within the rules to RP, for example, a Trade Way bandit and accost PCs with the options of "Give me a bag of gold or I will attack." The RP out here is giving you gold. This gives them the option of fighting, giving you money, or attempting to flee. And, while attempting to flee in this case is technically consent, considering the fact that you gave them warning and they get the chance to respond before you can act, they will almost always hit that transition before you can catch them.

While I have never done the above per se, I can give you an example of something I have done recently (and gotten in trouble for, despite, once again, the rules being followed). A PC belonging to a faction my character wants to appear hostile with refuses to call my character by the honorific "Sir" that I demand. I challenge him to an honor duel with the caveat that if he refuses I will give him a coward's death, OR he can simply call me "Sir" or "Lord". He fuses all of the above, and begins to walk away...WALK...away from a threat of death. I remind him again that leaving was not an option I gave him (which still leaves him the option of a legitimate retreat, involving running) and he decides to simply turn his back to me, taking what is coming to him.

Now I imagine this left a sour taste in his mouth (I imagine that because he reported it, although he reported it as griefing as my character was a much higher level, which I didnt even check, but I guess using the scry to metagame another characters level before PVP is something we are encouraging now? lol, sorry, but I'm never doing that) but you know what, it left a sour taste in my mouth too, because the RP threats I made were basically ignored, due to this player attempting to hide behind the RP out rule and think he was safe. That isn't how that works, though, as the RP out rule doesn't stipulate what sort of RP out you have to give.

So basically, despite the rules being the way they are, that doesn't mean you have to dismiss all realism from PVP situations. Still, the rule is cumbersome and unrealistic and should be done away with IMO, or at least streamlined.

[Thorsson]

And the above story illustrates very well the issues with PvP. One man's meat was another's poison.

A low level character may want to know whether he's being challenged by a high level or someone of a roughly similar level; if you're level 30 then you care much less; besides there are numerous clues that the player being picked on is lower level. My character reacts the same whatever the level of the challenger, but me as a player, I dislike bullies and I like to know which players to avoid.

Back to Steve's question. IIRC the hostility requirement was set because casters can't target spells without it on and not setting it therefore it opens the path to mechanically taking advantage.

IC or OOC? Well it clearly is not IC, it's a purely mechanical function, and you already RP getting to hostile. It's not ideal, but it's the best that can be done with what we have I think.

[ragnarok1983]

If, at the first sign that things might possibly head south, you set to hostile, and then they start buffing or acting differently, you KNOW they are a metagamer as they are reacting to a purely OOC action, and you can just leave and not waste your time. But if they just continue talking you still have the option of unhostiling them later if things simmer down, or then initiating a fight if things DO head south without having to worry about whether or not you hostiled someone.

I love when I transition into an area while stealthed, and under any enchantment. People hear the *brrdingding!* noise and start casting "See invisibility" and the like. Which then makes me IRL *rolls eyes* and move on.

[Boddynock]

A low level character may want to know whether he's being challenged by a high level or someone of a roughly similar level; if you're level 30 then you care much less; besides there are numerous clues that the player being picked on is lower level. My character reacts the same whatever the level of the challenger, but me as a player, I dislike bullies and I like to know which players to avoid.

Just a bit of a correction here. A PLAYER might want to know if his low level character is being challenged by a higher level character, which is metagaming. Also, the higher level characters generally have a justifiable IC reason to be cocky, when you regularly go ah-dragon slaying a roadside duel isn't a big deal. This whole statement is based on the idea of considering level in RP, which is using OOC information to color your IC interactions, which I strive not to do, ever.

And while you get kudos to reacting to challenges without regard to level, I hope you don't assume that someone playing a bullish character is automatically a bully themselves.

[Steve]

IC or OOC? Well it clearly is not IC, it's a purely mechanical function, and you already RP getting to hostile. It's not ideal, but it's the best that can be done with what we have I think.

Though it may be totally anecdotal, I have experienced being set to hostile before any real IC hostility was emoted. From my perspective, setting Hostile was simply to be able to press the Hotkey first, should my Toon not take the RP out...when it was finally given.

Maybe someone wants to argue the point that attacking another PC is not always a hostile action, but a defensive action?!?

I actually have a habit of setting people hostile long long before the situation progresses to a fight (or literally the moment before I initiate hostilities if they already gave consent, to preserve surprise). But I find that doing it early also prevents people from prepping to much.

See, this is my point: getting set to Hostile should NOT initiate one. single. response, IC. But it definitely sets a Player on edge...and like I said, the Player ends up RPing dumb, or metagames. Or, I guess, one cares little whether their Toon gets/gives the beat down, because usually, getting killed via another PC, is not like a lasting death.

RPing hostility and giving and RP out, makes sense in like 90% of PvP situations, so I fully support it. Having to click a 'lock on' button seems too much, but might be technically necessary, for the mage spells/etc..

[Boddynock]

Setting hostile is mechanically required for a LOT of abilities, which I imagine is why the rule still does exist.

[ragnarok1983]

Setting hostile is mechanically required for a LOT of abilities, which I imagine is why the rule still does exist.

Bingo.

[Thorsson]

[I hope you don't assume that someone playing a bullish character is automatically a bully themselves.

No more than you assume that people are metagaming your level 30 bully...

[Boddynock]

[I hope you don't assume that someone playing a bullish character is automatically a bully themselves.

No more than you assume that people are metagaming your level 30 bully...

I don't have any level 30 toons, never have, and I assumed nothing.

[Thorsson]

[I hope you don't assume that someone playing a bullish character is automatically a bully themselves.

No more than you assume that people are metagaming your level 30 bully...

I don't have any level 30 toons, never have, and I assumed nothing.

Well then neither did I...

[Face]

I for one would love to see the day where turning hostile is no longer needed , It wil make a encounter feel better if you dont need to worry about clicking a button and it gets worse when its lets say 2 groups facing of....You wil need to turn evry one on the other party hostile and that takes a few moments and that in turn breaks the moment for me.

[ragnarok1983]

A suggestion:

Instead of a default "friendly" setting with a "hostile" button, I really wish it was the other way around.

Unfortunately this would be a real pain in the arse due to Summons/pets.

[NeOmega]

It is perfectly within the rules to RP, for example, a Trade Way bandit and accost PCs with the options of "Give me a bag of gold or I will attack." The RP out here is giving you gold. This gives them the option of fighting, giving you money, or attempting to flee. And, while attempting to flee in this case is technically consent, considering the fact that you gave them warning and they get the chance to respond before you can act, they will almost always hit that transition before you can catch them.

"prefectly" within the rules. Nope. Isn't. What is perfectly in the rules is someone can then send a tell that says "not gonna play this", or just simply ignore someone like that. RP is consensual play. You never can "perfectly within the rules" force anybody to do anything, be it flee, fight, or give you gold, unless they are kill on sight.

ESPECIALLY people you know better than to roleplay with, based on past experiences.

[Boddynock]

"prefectly" within the rules. Nope. Isn't. What is perfectly in the rules is someone can then send a tell that says "not gonna play this", or just simply ignore someone like that. RP is consensual play. You never can "perfectly within the rules" force anybody to do anything, be it flee, fight, or give you gold, unless they are kill on sight.

ESPECIALLY people you know better than to roleplay with, based on past experiences.

Actually, what I said IS perfectly within the rules, you added the caveat of them explicitly telling you they do not wish to play that way in an OOC tell. That's a whole different thing. Simply ignoring them is an IC action, and without any OOC input telling the other player otherwise, should be regarded as such. So, if a bandit threatens your life unless you give them money ICly, and you ignore them and walk by ICly without sending them an OOC message, what is supposed to happen? Are they supposed to assume you are perma-non consent to PVP and respect that, or are you to assume that they are respecting YOUR rp and respond by trying to kill them, as you said you would?

Simply logging in is consenting to RP with others, and ignoring RP that you don't like doesn't afford you any special protection. All RP should be responded to with more RP, even the kinds you aren't a fan of, even if you RP only a way to get out of the situation as fast as you can. Respect goes both ways, and there is another player putting effort into RPing a bad guy who is basically just being shit on when people ignore it cause they don't want to RP that way. Got to respect that bad guy RP too, don't we.

Hells, Boddynock got eaten once by a cannabalistic Malarite dragon druid. I didn't want to be eaten, but they got me fair and square, so I went with it.