Talk:Policy:Player vs player conflict

General Comments

Please keep discussion on this issue to the specific topic of the page title. Other Policy subjects can be discussed on the other appropriate policy pages.

ANYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THE POLICY DISCUSSION PLEASE READ: Do NOT edit or delete anyone else's contribution. Do NOT hold debates or conversations. You CAN edit your own contribution if you think of more to say. Make sure to add a signature to your contribution so it is easier to find. Click the signature button, second from the right at the top of the editing window. Finally... always make sure to preview BEFORE you save! Thanks! --BLADEDBUTTERFLY (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2016 (CDT)

Discussion

I would like there to be clear and consistent rules regarding aggressive but non-damaging magic/abilities. We say kicking, punching, slapping grants consent to be engaged in PvP by the "injured." Thumping also grants consent when the sole consequence is the inability to speak for a time, yet stunning, sleeping, and paralyzing renders the person incapable of ANY action for a time and they seem to be generally allowed and do not grant consent. Likewise, non-damaging hostile magic like debuffs have had fuzzy rules set to them.

Regarding the changes to depart/grip mechanics, I like this change. I question though if grave-robbing is necessary at all in this game. It is a relic of a 20 year old policy written when 99% of items were replaceable. Today with all the custom, altered, raffle, auction, rare-material items out there, it can pretty much ruin your entire gaming experience to have your things taken. Is there the possibility of eliminating grave-robbing entirely? It doesn't seem really that necessary anymore.

Consistency and sensibility about what can be forcibly wedged into consent could also use a bit of cleaning up. You don't own a room and can't commit violence to someone for being in 'your' hunting spot if they're not interfering, taking your loot or killing your critters - however, apparently you CAN commit violence if against someone if you give them clear warning you will kill them for doing actions such as speaking or gwething and this has been upheld as allowed. On a similar vein, you can of course kill an empath who is healing your opponent or others who are aiding her or him, but I've also witnessed it be allowed to kill clerics for raising a dead body or empaths for healing a dead body. These can be grey areas for sure, but is there a reason they need to be? --NECKHOFF (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2016 (CDT)

I agree with NECKHOFF on all accounts. I would very much like to see grave-robbing removed entirely because, as stated, the proliferation of valuable items has made it too punitive. Other death/resurrection mechanics to increase death's difficulty would be welcome, although we should consider them carefully. I'm especially concerned that if death causes too much permanent damage it will make griefing more prevalent. As for the clarity of the rules, it would be nice to have some kind of chart somewhere. Finally, I would especially like to see some clarity on the rules of harassment. I realize that what constitutes harassment may be best left as a judgment call, but some kind of general guideline about how often one person can attack another would be welcome. --PRIMEQ (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2016 (CDT)

"I question though if grave-robbing is necessary at all in this game. It is a relic of a 20 year old policy written when 99% of items were replaceable. Today with all the custom, altered, raffle, auction, rare-material items out there, it can pretty much ruin your entire gaming experience to have your things taken. Is there the possibility of eliminating grave-robbing entirely? It doesn't seem really that necessary anymore."

"I would very much like to see grave-robbing removed entirely because, as stated, the proliferation of valuable items has made it too punitive."

While it's true that altered and otherwise exotic items are exponentially more common today than 20 years ago, the conclusion is invalid. 20 years ago losing any significant item was much more painful because the likelihood of replacement was slim. Furthermore the time spent to earn any item was relatively much higher. Put simply there are more items now but both the value and rarity of those items is considerably lower.

Perhaps more significant is that being graverobbed now requires a great deal of carelessness. Since the latest safeguards were put into place I've seen very little graverobbing of anything meaningful. The few instances that occurred involved unexplained mismatches between the quality of items carried by the character and the experience of the player. Redesigning important game systems to fit characters who, uh, receive extravagant gifts from strangers, would be counterproductive.

Games that are both overly easy and lack dynamic content quickly become boring. DR is a resource-limited, slow-changing game with a comparative dearth of both content and players. Removing graverobbing would end one of the few dynamic and challenging aspects of the game. Leave it alone.--MRTSCR (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2016 (CDT)

I'm skeptical that something as safeguarded and secure and idiot-proof as you argue it has become still provide any kind of dynamic challenge. As you mentioned, it's really something that inexperienced people suffer more than anything. At that point, why bother having it there at all? Who does it benefit? It fails to create a challenge for those who want more risk or danger, and it fails to create anything exciting and fun for people who dislike losing their stuff. --TEVESHSZAT (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

I agree that there should be clearly defined and consistent rules surrounding PvP and consent policy. The details of the consent policy should be made completely available via the POLICY verb and not something that also requires the browsing of multiple NEWS items to supplement the information. PvP stances should be updated and the GUARDED stance should be removed completely. If a CLOSED player initiates an attack on an OPEN player their stance should be set to OPEN for a set period of time. If a CLOSED player attacks another CLOSED player the stance should not be changed as it should be considered RP conflict. Likewise, if an OPEN player initiates an attack on a CLOSED player for any reason it would not affect their stance, even if they choose to retaliate (within "X" minutes, preferably). --WHITEBEAUTY (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2016 (CDT)

I agree with this. Closed/guarded players attacking only when they're assured victory by a massive rank difference is a longstanding problem. "Consent" with constant GM mediation was never a great way to manage PvP. But now there are fewer and fewer GMs online, and their time could be much better spent elsewhere. It's clearly time for something new.--MRTSCR (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2016 (CDT)

WHITEBEAUTY, one problem I see with the proposed mechanics change to switch a player's PvP stances based on triggers is that an open profile character may perform non-combat actions (e.g. slap/kick/thump) or insult the closed-profile player into attacking and still be within the grounds of consent which shouldn't trigger an automatic opening of profile per the gist of your proposal. --UNFINISHED-USERNAM (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2016 (CDT)

I personally wish the PVP could be tweaked as follows.

Your combat stance also dictates how you see others in the game.

For example if you are guarded or closed and attack an open without a consent, that open player is allowed to report you if they wish. In other words, your PVP stance keeps you beholden to your choices. A Guarded/Closed character should always be at risk for getting reported if they attack without consent. This would remove the first strike many Guarded/Closed enjoy versus opens. Furthermore, it would help put an end to the guarded/closed baiting of opens. Opens would still be stuck with the same rules they currently have to follow. They would be able to attack other opens, but would have to gain consent to attack guarded/closed. I feel like its far more fair to make Guarded/Closed characters play and adhere to the very policy they are choosing. --DISCOTEQ21 (talk) 07:33, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

One of the main problems the game faces today, in regards to PVP: GMs don't know the difference between CONSENT and Unconsented PVP. If I AIM at someone, ADVANCE on someone, or cast a spell on them, I've given them consent to attack me, but I haven't attacked them in regards to un-consented PVP. Just because I've done an action that grants someone else consent on my character, doesn't mean I've PVP'ed them in an unconsented manner.

Also, PVP ON/OFF. If you're PVP ON, then you attack other PVP ON no problem, and can not attack PVP OFF. If you're PVP OFF, you're saying I don't want physical violence whatsoever. However, if a PVP OFF attacks ANYONE, they are set to PVP ON. Nice and clear cut, easy peasy. --WILLN1 (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

This ^. So much this. The current GM's seem clueless about the difference between what a CONSENTABLE action is, and a what a REPORTABLE action is. Non-damaging spells are NOT reportable currently, but they do grant consent. Simplifying the policy will make this less of an issue, but GM's understanding whatever policy is in place, and enforcing it properly is still key. --IVORYTOWERNECRO (talk) 8:28, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

How does this ON/OFF plan address a person who is actively harassing and acting like a jerk if their PVP OFF? --DISCOTEQ21 (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

PvP policy is too legalistic.

At the end of the day, what matters is that players are having a good time and not necessarily that they are adhering to the rules. A player staying within the letter of policy while griefing someone else is still spoiling the community. Neither should players fear engaging in PvP shenanigans unless they're acting in bad faith. Some guiding concepts could be considered in lieu of hard and fast rules.

A) Consent is implied. The game world is interactive, and one of the ways to be interacted with is PvP. Unless a player is stanced Closed, it is not a policy violation to initiate PvP with them.

B) Consent can be withdrawn. If a player does not want to engage in PvP and they 1) make that OOCly clear and 2) refrain from provoking the other party, aggression stops. Violating this rule nets a warning, full stop. If you want people to play along, they need to be enjoying themselves.

C) Staff can say "no fault, knock it off" in any circumstance without additional justification.

In either B or C any stolen property must be returned and consent ends - unless someone was killed. In that case the party killed can try to score a kill in revenge, then consent ends.

A simple framework like the above is likely be easier for players to apply and easier for staff to enforce. And if players know that they can stop the action if they're not having fun, they may be more willing to approach PvP with an open mind. --JULIAN (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2016 (CDT)