Proposal: No PvP

[renau1g]

So if we're in a game that allows PvP because the DM wants it, we can just pack it in and 'port back the tavern if we don't? Also, if the DM is interested in that it should be noted up front so that players can know what they're getting into.

 

[covaithe]

Well, first of all, I've stated my opinion, but that's just my opinion. There's still a proposal on the table. I don't have veto power or anything.

Second... Walking away from an adventure isn't always an option. Usually it is; if you're just hanging around Daunton trying to decide what to do next, I think it would make perfect sense to leave if you wanted to. If you're trapped in an active volcano with two minutes until eruption and you can't figure out how to get out... Quitting an adventure at that point is probably not appropriate. However, even if walking away isn't necessarily an option, that doesn't mean you're forced into PvP. You could simply choose not to fight. You might get killed, but you can still stay true to your character. And, this is just me, but if a player stayed true enough to their character to let themselves be murdered by another PC rather than strike a comrade, I for one would be more than willing to bend some rules to do something nice for that character. (Free resurrection by divine intervention? Reincarnated as a deva? Demigod NPC?)

Third... In my ideal world, DMs wouldn't allow PvP to happen without making it clear to players, and getting their approval beforehand, that he or she wanted to run a game where that would be a possibility. For instance, a DM might say in their adventure's recruitment post that they're willing to allow nonlethal PvP if both players consent OOC and it makes thematic sense IC. But this isn't my ideal world, and it's not always going to be that clear. In this world, where player tempers run high and DMs aren't perfect, we'll have to muddle through the best we can.

Maybe the best way for us to deal with that is an outright ban on PvP, but I still feel that a proposal isn't quite the right way to handle this kind of social contract issue. What if it were a poll?

 

[Atriden]

Maybe the best way for us to deal with that is an outright ban on PvP, but I still feel that a proposal isn't quite the right way to handle this kind of social contract issue. What if it were a poll?

I agree, this would be the best course of action. I still would like to suggest that if we vote about allowing PvP, this form of PvP should be none lethal since otherwise it could create player enmity, which we all want to avoid.

 

[Rathan]

I say it should be a requirement for a DM when setting up an adventure weather or not he allows or doesn't allow PvP.. because what's the point in playing an evil character if pvp is completely shut down and it's what your evil character would do?.... I mean there's a time and a place for everything and it CAN be avoided.. but I say let it be up to the DM not a comity... if the DM says it's ok.. fine.. if he says no.. then it won;t happen in his adventure... f you don't want PvP then don't sign up for adventures that allow it... point is... make sure it's part of a set rules standard given for every adventure run for this setting before the adventure starts..

- Rathan

 

[JoeNotCharles]

I don't like that idea, because advertising "PvP allowed!" would mean that people would assume the adventure gravitates towards PvP even if the DM just doesn't want to rule it out. I've seen some RP that got close to PvP here (Palindrome's first intro to Atreus in the Closed Eye, for instance) and it was much better because it arose naturally from the players' interactions, rather than being obligatory because it was in the thread where people who want to fight go to.

 

[Rathan]

I'm sorry outright banning it to me means you're limiting characters based on a game mechanic you don't want in a setting... to me that's taking away what could at some point be exactly what someones character concept would do in a given situation... I mean if people can't have the foresight not abuse it.. they should go to another game because in a system like this fighting is only one small aspect of a MUCH greater game base plus there are many many other ways of being evil rather than rolling another player... BUT.... I'm just saying ruling it out entirely is placing a limitation that definitely puts playing an evil character at a pretty decent disadvantage IMHO....

 

[stonegod]

One issue w/ PvP is the issue of where the line is drawn:
- Wizard casts fireball to take out minions, but catches the fighter in it.
- Bard misdirects an attack, his the barbarian.
- Warlock uses Prime Shot and Curse on Cleric, uses a Daily that targets only the cleric.
- Rogue coup de graces a fallen warlord that is almost at negative bloodied.
Generally, the first two are probably not. Generally, the second two probably are. However, it does have a factor of intent involved. There are some (highly unlikely) situations where the latter two might be acceptable.

That being said, a policy that *encourages* PvP could encourage griefers of all sorts, which will quickly destroy any sense of community L4W has. I think the default rule should be no PvP, with some understanding of the fuzziness of that boundary (punishing someone for doing the first two on my list, especially when the PCs are okay with it, is being too legalistic).

 

[JoeNotCharles]

I'm sorry outright banning it to me means you're limiting characters based on a game mechanic you don't want in a setting... to me that's taking away what could at some point be exactly what someones character concept would do in a given situation... I mean if people can't have the foresight not abuse it.. they should go to another game because in a system like this fighting is only one small aspect of a MUCH greater game base plus there are many many other ways of being evil rather than rolling another player... BUT.... I'm just saying ruling it out entirely is placing a limitation that definitely puts playing an evil character at a pretty decent disadvantage IMHO....

Did I say ban? I'm saying the DM/Judge should be allowed to rule on whether it's allowed when it comes up, rather than having to post upfront on every thread.

I guess another way would be that it's banned by default, but if somebody wants to PvP they can petition the judge and DM of the adventure they're in.

 

[Oni]

I'm sorry outright banning it to me means you're limiting characters based on a game mechanic you don't want in a setting... to me that's taking away what could at some point be exactly what someones character concept would do in a given situation... I mean if people can't have the foresight not abuse it.. they should go to another game because in a system like this fighting is only one small aspect of a MUCH greater game base plus there are many many other ways of being evil rather than rolling another player... BUT.... I'm just saying ruling it out entirely is placing a limitation that definitely puts playing an evil character at a pretty decent disadvantage IMHO....

No more at a disadvantage than the holier than thou paladin that can't just up and smite you. We as players have a responsibility to maintain the harmony of the community. Sometimes this means you have to be direct your character's actions in a certain way to remain within the social contract, if one is smart enough to come up with a reason to attack another player's character one is smart enough to come up with a reason why they might not in any given situation. If you really want to get your evil on, it's your duty as a player to do so responsibly in a way that doesn't disrupt the game for other players. Which is why I suggested the permission to do harm thing, it allows you to alter the social contract somewhat to individual situations.




On a seperate note, I wouldn't consider Misdirected Mark a candidate for such treatment as it is essentially giving a monster a penalty to hit everyone but one target, should players A and B be upset because you buffed players C and D and made them harder to hit? Well I think the same sort of thought applies to Misdirected Mark.