First pvp experience

[GodBeastX]

The rules are there for the unagreeable. We don't like to supercede agreements between players. But we have to accept not everyone can or wants to agree. So when all else fails, here's the rules. That's why they exist.

The sundren rules evolved due to situations in game. What we would have early in Sundren history is this scenario.

Player A finds out something about player B, like he's evil or something. They run at the person in a fight. Player B wins and is an evil bastard. He could have easily just tossed the body in the sea and kept his secret. Player A, however, is still alive. Player A also created an OOC vendetta to spoil B's reputation and calls him bloodthirsty guy who tried to kill him and more!

^ This DID happen. Not once, not twice, but over and over. We didn't want people to just be permed in PVP, which is rarely fair enough to warrant it, so we made a rule "You get the crap beat out of you, you don't remember who beat the crap out of you and can't engage that person in PVP for a various amount of time."

We don't want people to fear PVP unreasonably. There isn't red tape because we as DMs don't want to see PVP. It's there so the odd few who take it OOC don't have IC grounds to stand behind to ruin the other person's life.

If everyone came to agreeable terms afterwards and walked away happy, we wouldn't need the rules.

The hostile actions rule was because people would exploit OOCly the idea that you aren't engaging the person until you attack, so they would cast all kinds of magic, safely under the rules, and then attack the person. If you see someone drawing a sword, casting spells, or even throwing out threats, that, to me, is PVP already, just not damaging.

[thaelis]

Basically the battle happened in front of about three other witnesses. I had nothing to hide. Didn't care, etc.

So at my player discretion when he asked to remember I said go for it. I believe player discretion would supersede a ruling meant to protect the winner if I am, in fact the winner. I thought it might be better role play if he could remember.

I agree with this. The rule is designed to protect the winner from being harassed nonstop by a bad loser.

If the winner had told me I could remember then I would have also RP'ed as remembering, even though I know the memory loss rule. Then again, I wouldn't have run straight back there (would spend at least a day or two recovering, and RP being injured).

Also I probably wouldn't actively seek them out at least until I'd gained a level/better equipment. If my character just got his ass beat by someone, I figure he would know better than to go straight back for seconds! (unless there was something else at stake, like they were holding innocents captive etc)

EDIT: And yes, I can understand all of GBX's reasoning above and agree with it. I honestly can't think of a better solution than the memory loss.

[Farmboy2003]

Using your example Dain may not remember who left him a bloody mess on the floor, but he'd certainly remember coming to in a terrible state having had the holy-heck curb stomped out of his face.

Hitting the respawn button may dump you at the temple with full health and an empty recolection - But you should always try and put some perspective on what just happened to your character, he hasn't just popped up out of nowhere, rather his mostly dead ass has been gotten to a temple and dealt with.

In other PW's I've played RPing being put together again, resting or otherwise licking your wounds was not mentioned in the cause for the rule. GBX or Sundren is not the first GM/PW to run into the problem of PVP retaliations. I can totally see recovering like this is half the knowing something awful happened, and I retract many of my points!

I don't see the point in assigning NPC status, it's really rather simple.

I didn't mean to reflect this in the rules, it was merely stated to imply what happens to you, when you let another player have the focus of an event/encounter.

In the first, you didn't die, someone else with the exact same stats and personality as your character died. I have met a few people who favor this style of PvP death. This is problematic though, because the person who killed you does not have amnesia (per the rules), so when they see you again, they now have to pretend you are a different character than the one they killed in order for the IC concept to work. Plus, since you weren't killed it was your doppleganger, there is no reason for you not to take off and go do stuff. This interpretation requires negotiation between the two parties to smooth out the IC wrinkles when they inevitably run across each other again.

This is a broad simplification of my point. I'm not saying that a new universe in the trousers of time are created, or a doppelganger is brought into existence(not that I can't see those implications as a result). I'm just saying that, perhaps, in order to play a succesful warrior of evil, while some wants to play the opposite, you sometimes have to agree that the mighty paladin slain this time, is some other (n)pc. Ofcourse, people can do as they seem fit. But from an immersion perspective the epic battle between good and evil somewhat diminishes if they've been at it a million times. This could be what permadeath are for, but I don't really like it to be enforced on players. And magic is abundant and powerful people with powerful friends come back from the dead by the drop of a bag of gold. I'm just wondering if Jergal ever slams his fist down and says: "Hey now. Enough's enough"

If I played a paladin and constantly found myself confronted by the same villaenous leader of a settlement, Which I'd killed hundreds of times and vice versa, I'd roll a rogue instead. Or a silly gnome.

But it's an immersion paradox of a persistent world maybe? Also my observation was based on LARP, not online DnD.

If this makes me look like an advocate for heavier pvp consquences or permadeath for all players beyond level 6, then it's not intentional. I'd just like to hug trees and look good wielding a sword, really. It's just some of the problems encountered on the path to full immersion I suspect

The rules are there for the unagreeable. We don't like to supercede agreements between players. But we have to accept not everyone can or wants to agree. So when all else fails, here's the rules. That's why they exist.

The sundren rules evolved due to situations in game. What we would have early in Sundren history is this scenario.

Player A finds out something about player B, like he's evil or something. They run at the person in a fight. Player B wins and is an evil bastard. He could have easily just tossed the body in the sea and kept his secret. Player A, however, is still alive. Player A also created an OOC vendetta to spoil B's reputation and calls him bloodthirsty guy who tried to kill him and more!

Nothing to spoil a good discussion of roleplaying abstracts than the wholesome point of a practical application. I'm not arguing the decision made by you, Saulus or the rest of the team. And I understand the need for such a rule. I'm just giving air to some thoughts.

[wangxiuming]

I'll just point out also that not all PvP results in death. Sometimes the losing party might just be knocked uncosncious or some such. I know subdual exists for this, but there are also situations where if you want to do something with the body, it's mechanically easier to just send someone to the fugue and tow the body away to dump it or throw it in jail or what-have you. In these cases, where the losing party doesn't really "die," it would make sense that the amnesia might be waived.

Again though, just because one provision of the rules are waiv ed, does not mean the others are as well. Basically, even if you can rememeber, it should not mean that you can just jump back up and re-engage the other person in PVP immediately.

[Doubtful]

I have to say, I DESPISE resurrection, raise dead and all the tedious implications of it. People who treat death as a revolving door make my eye twitch and it's pretty much one of the few things that when encountered will make me wander off from the client and find something else to do (It's that, or perm whoever's going on about it.)

There's not really any rule about it, but if people treated death/respawn as merely memory imparing comas/beatdowns/near deaths then I know I'd be a lot happier than with some of the "I died three times yesterday, but I got better" nonsense.

[ManUtd4Ever]

I'll just point out also that not all PvP results in death. Sometimes the losing party might just be knocked uncosncious or some such.

This... is my preferred method for engaging someone in PvP. I like that I can win the engagement and still continue to RP my will. I like it too when I don't win and the other toon RP's their will. It is more painful to watch, but far better than processing through the death system.

[Talleyman99]

Yeah the Subdue button is my friend in pvp, as I said be fore way more fun to get the talking in over a fallen adversary. Then some people seem to think once they wake back up they can blast you again though.... *shrugs*

[Gamling]

As a wise man once said.

*Subdual disabled*

[Twisted-Indoctrine]

I have to say, I DESPISE resurrection, raise dead and all the tedious implications of it. People who treat death as a revolving door make my eye twitch and it's pretty much one of the few things that when encountered will make me wander off from the client and find something else to do (It's that, or perm whoever's going on about it.)

There's not really any rule about it, but if people treated death/respawn as merely memory imparing comas/beatdowns/near deaths then I know I'd be a lot happier than with some of the "I died three times yesterday, but I got better" nonsense.

Could just make permanent death a more present risk. Maybe vitality points shouldn't recover (but should similarly be more plentiful off the get go or deaths shouldn't remove quite a third of them in one go) outside of DM awards. People would likely respect death more, enough that lethal PvP wouldn't be cartoon style serial villain/hero stomps serial villain/hero episode 458, but rather a dangerous calculated risk.

That's pretty much sundrens only real flaw. People just seem to hang around for ever and never ever ever die off. There's just no real sense of mortality to it.

[Farmboy2003]

How about creating a gold sink for restoring Vitality after a certain level? Like buying the liquid toenails of an albino otter to restore oneself? or other strange remedies.

Or some other form of system that restricts vitality regeneration?

My suggestion is probably only relevant in a gold excess problem, hah!

[Talleyman99]

why should we punish our self's to treat fights and death more realistic? They put in the vitality system to do just that... yet everyone just ignores it all the same. People just need to grow up a bit and treat life and death like life and death. Not Lol blew you up lol. there is the flip side though this is a game we are here to have fun.

[Fezzik]

Remember, before the Vitality, if you were over 11, you probably didn't solo anything, unless you were uber buffed and felt lucky... you died alone, you had to wait for someone to find your rotting corpse in the middle of Mossdale

[darcane]

Fezzik,I remember a lot of running involved in those loneliest of ventures."Oh crap,run…to the transition!!" With the sound of gnolls and orcs scraping at your heels.

[Twisted-Indoctrine]

why should we punish our self's to treat fights and death more realistic? They put in the vitality system to do just that... yet everyone just ignores it all the same. People just need to grow up a bit and treat life and death like life and death. Not Lol blew you up lol. there is the flip side though this is a game we are here to have fun.

Part of the fun is risk taking. If you know you'll always come out on top in the end then there is no risk taking. No character drama is real, it all ends up just a bunch of people going through motions without any real weight or fear of reprisal for their actions.

Also I just don't see death as punishment. At all. In fact it can be a pretty damned interesting mechanism for RP. One we don't really have right now because nothing supports it. The vitality system is good and all but the problem is it allows an 'out' for death.

Dying is part of the fun in games. It's something you can't really experience in real life (well, I can guarantee that you will, but you won't know it when it happens).