A Land Far Away

Hypothetically speaking, if I see a PC walking encumbered on a road, say, delivering goods that weigh 100 lbs, and I intentionally lead hostile creatures to the PC... is that CvC?

No ---that's just being a dick


But to actually answer ........ leading spawns to another PC would be imo a no go as it would most likely fit into "AI abuse".

Other "indirect" means of killing folks you don't like (hiring another PC assassin or putting a bounty ) ARE CvC acts.

I'm guessing, yes. I would call it premeditated too, so notification to the DMs is required before you do it, and I assume they'd want a say in how such things go down. Warnings of danger on the roads, wanting to be there when it happens, just say no, whatever. The fact that you don't know exactly which PC would be the victim (since it is by definition an IC crime of opportunity) doesn't obviate its nature as one character vs. another. That's my guess.

That would be called "griefing" in an MMO and can result in suspensions/bans.

fluffmonster wrote:I'm guessing, yes. I would call it premeditated too, so notification to the DMs is required before you do it, and I assume they'd want a say in how such things go down.

+1

Is it CVC to sit and watch someone in negative HPs bleed to death when you can save them?

How about when you are in a party with them in combat, but don't help out?

(Assuming you have IC reasons for the above)

Advancement at the expense of other characters, short of killing them, is a perfectly normal style of play, never to my mind requiring formal notifications and whatnot, though having a patron DM aware isn't a terrible idea. It's arguably a more enjoyable, non-final, form of CvC in the right contexts.

- destruction of reputations (Joe Rogue dresses in the trademark hooded purple robes Bob Wizard known to sport, and defrauds a bookseller NPC in Bob's name, or, of course, murders the bookseller's family and lets his purple robes be seen by the guards)
- about twenty different kinds of thievery one can imagine, whether it's pocket picking, house robbery, employing third parties (NPCs especially) with phony documents and demands (hey, if an NPC says you owe the crown money, it's got to be true, right?), alone or teaming with other thieves in a dungeon, distract and misdirect the mark so that your crew actually ends up with the choicest loot with no one else knowing (closing doors, turning corners, etc. nothing like ninja looting before someone's eyes)
- using target PCs for your own ends, generally ("Let's go on a mission of derring do!" (when you and you alone have negotiated a bounty with an NPC employer, and don't mention this to your mates) or "This tower is full of devil worshippers, I will use these silence scrolls to neutralize their worst magics" (actually it's a tower full of neutral monks you or your patrons have marked for death who you'd rather not have explain themselves to your raiding band, hence the silencing).
- sending PCs into death traps with a smile. "Oh, this part of the crypt has been calmed, check the east branch, I'll check the more dangerous western wing... *locks the east door behind the mark once they've gone through, waits* Same goes for being the most negligent scout in the world, for a band of pigeons you're eager to pick over. "Oops, sorry, missed that glyph... are you all right?" Further, the same goes for not lifting a finger to aid them when they really need a lifeline in combat, or lifting that finger slowly, inefficiently, whatever.

... anyhow, lots of schemes can require DM aid, but there's lots of other indirect schemes that are perfectly reasonable to pull off alone. DMs will probably recognize the rare "schemer" concept (why does he keep wasting ranks on social skills?!?), but players alerting DMs as to this kind of dark side isn't necessarily a bad idea. Hell, whole campaigns have successfully revolved around scoundrelhood, choose the PCs you ally with, or attract the negative attention of, carefully. It's not always the guy with the really big sword and boatload of hitpoints you need to worry about.

For Nick's my opinions are that

A. If you aren't responsible for the shed of blood of another PC that becomes in the negs, you are in no way culpable for CVC by not healing that player if it is IC for your particular PC not to do so.

B. If you aren't going to help in a combat situation in some form or another (weather support fire of bows/magick, front line fighting, or healing the injured as they fight) then you probably shouldn't be partied with said player/players. You are getting XP for kills by being partied, that xp is there to reflect the part you've done during a conflict. A CVC call in this situation should be negligable, as the situation shouldn't exsist in the first place.

How about if - for entirely in character reasons - you lie about the dangers in a certain area leading to some poor fool walking to their death?

"The Ogre caves? Oh, that's just a name. No ogres in there, no siree."

danielmn wrote:B. If you aren't going to help in a combat situation in some form or another (weather support fire of bows/magick, front line fighting, or healing the injured as they fight) then you probably shouldn't be partied with said player/players. You are getting XP for kills by being partied, that xp is there to reflect the part you've done during a conflict. A CVC call in this situation should be negligable, as the situation shouldn't exsist in the first place.

Forget about whether you're partied. It's more about a situation where they're lead to believe that you have their back in a situation they can't handle alone, but you don't raise a finger to help them. Does that count as CvC and requiring a DM?

Partying is mostly an OOC mechanism which reveals people's locations on maps, or "insulates" discussions from outsiders, or lets discussions be followed across AT's (such as if your scout just went through a door into a house, and you're outside awaiting intelligence). It's completely conceivable to party up with PCs your own PC deeply dislikes, wishes harm, etc., while at the same time smiling and nodding all around. Happens both by accident (disliked PC happens to show up at a planned session) or by design (your PC, smiling, presents themselves for some duty they know will also attract one of their rivals).

If there was conceivably a complaint that "failing to cover", "failing to bandage", "failing to honestly disclose dangers", "failing to honestly distribute gold loot to the last penny" was CvC, it means you are playing with babies (or even being DM'd by 'em). Game's got more nuance than that, though I can appreciate that at least for direct, toe to toe, two-man-enter, one-man-leave duels, some level of notification or other DM involvement as a local team may require, comes into it. PCs are not, however, mandated to be "nice and protective" of each other.

"Partying is mostly an OOC mechanism which reveals people's locations on maps, or "insulates" discussions from outsiders, or lets discussions be followed across AT's (such as if your scout just went through a door into a house, and you're outside awaiting intelligence)." ......

And getting xp for party kills. Simply put, if you aren't planing to haul your weight in battle with the companions you've chosen to be with, for good or ill, then you should be with them, but out of party. As one can assume ones fellow players aren't babies and are uber-rpers of an ill-natured city as well, one can also assume that no untoward meta-ing will be gleamed by fellow players one is traveling with when they see you not in party.

Heh, if someone wanted to play with me, but out of party (as has happened in the past), I would assume that they are only doing so because they want more XP (and in the past some have even asked me to soften up a hard mob so they can finish it off ), so I would think of them as a overt PGer and be not inclined to play with them.

Nick, their actions would prove otherwise....when you see someone that isn't partied with you, and not helping in combat instead of taking part in combat....pretty obvious they aren't a pger.

This is all going off on a tangent.

But it wouldn't get that far. If someone told me they wanted to go somewhere, but refused to party, that just wouldn't work for me.