Open comment period, proposed changes to ALFA's CvC policy:

[Ithildur]

... play a pillage/murder sociopath on the gregor clegane level, odds are you are playing the wrong game and lots of ooc annoyance will come of it.

I tend to like tension/conflict as well when it's well done, and would be sad to see cvc nerfed too hard, but ... there is some truth to this especially with a smaller community and less time/energy available from staff and DMs to deal with certain things. It helps minimize ooc crap if players are very thoughtful/respectful and good at handling ooc relations with other players they're RPing conflict with, as well as with DMs; OGR has been cited a number of times by various folks as a good example of someone who is capable of this.

Other folks apparently are not as much.

[Ronan]

I'm not sure how we're going to get away with having people not "play against" each other for as long as we're allowed to play characters with directly-opposed goals and ideologies, or characters who represent significant threats to their neighbors...

We've assumed a pretty sharp distinction between players who get along and PCs who get along. As long as you have the former the later is relatively irrelevant. If you don't have the former then the later is much more important.

"He called me a funny name so I am going to kill him" is not good conflict, is not good for RP and is not good for the player on the receiving end, particularly when it is a higher level and the target has no reasonable way to defend themselves from it.

Could be very reasonable RP for evil PC.

If anyone walks up to Cormac and calls him a prancing fairy, they deserve a beat-down, mauling, maybe even death (if elf?). I don't think anyone would argue otherwise; it would be a monumentally stupid move, similar to a Sharran walking around Persephone's temple casting Darkness or whatever the hell it is Sharrans do.

However that never happens. I've literally never seen it in NWN2. I think I saw some fools talk smack to Amy Woodwalker in NWN1, but no CvC came of it. Any PC that stupid is probably going to die to my DMing anyway.

As stated, if a lowbie antagonizes a highbie, a beatdown should occur. But if a highbie instigates the conflict with a PC an order of magnitude (or two, three...) less powerful? How does that ever make any damn IC sense? If you stab your neighbor, the governor of your state does not show up at your door with his personal SWAT team to kick your ass. If you take a shot at him in a crowd then he might have direct issues with you, sure. When there isn't direct antagonizing lets just call PKing what it is, ban it, and move on.

Option 1 is accept the CvC.
...
Option 2 is refuse the CvC. Both PCs are then bound to never again do any harm to one another...

Never is a long time. It sounds like most of the objection is the ability of staff to just say "nu uh" without recourse. We could codify the whens and hows of "nu uhs", but a hostile staff could again simply just refuse, for the lulz. If you assume a hostile staff you've already lost ALFA in so many ways, who cares what the rules say?

Of course DMs and staff are biased, but their biggest bias isn't for or against any PC. Its against drama. They will jump through hoops, bend/break rules, and display massive favoritism (usually towards the complainers) to keep people from complaining (which is probably why they complain). So yes there's a very real danger of the squeeky wheel getting the no-CvC-grease as long as staff can prohibit CvC in some manner. I've seen it plenty of times, though I'm usually the idiot arguing against it. Its understandable; I don't remember checking a "yes I would like to police ALFA" box when I sent in my DM application, nor have I ever seen a paycheck for it.

I don't think this 'favoritism' will change much if the rules change. What I hope will change is the ability for a CvC to forcibly impose a large cost on staff who literally did not sign up for that shit.

NWN1 was simpler, because our standards were lower (and bigbies and invisibility less broken). DMs weren't really all that needed; we'd often just sit back and munch on popcorn. Today we have a lot more game-mechanics to handle, and then of course there is the inevitable dispute process.

[Ronan]

For the record I do not agree with some posters who speak rather poorly about CvCers in ALFA. I don't think we've had many real antagonists. Most people are selfish, not evil, and its probably a lot more trouble than its worth for a highbie to gank a lowbie.

Ignorance is a far more common problem than maliciousness, especially when we offer few guidelines on when CvC is IC, and when it is not. People aren't born knowing how to get along in the wacky world of ALFA, nor do they necessarily think "hey this area represents 50 square miles; its probably not IC for me to randomly run into my arch nemesis in it". So I would like to see CvC given some real guidance before being banned altogether. Who knows, it might even work.

Could also classify Evil PCs as exceptional.

[Xanthea]

The problem isn't with evil PCs. The problem is with a particular brand of evil PCs. Being evil doesn't mean you need to be a slavering psychopath.

[Zelknolf]

If anyone walks up to Cormac and calls him a prancing fairy, they deserve a beat-down, mauling, maybe even death (if elf?). I don't think anyone would argue otherwise; it would be a monumentally stupid move, similar to a Sharran walking around Persephone's temple casting Darkness or whatever the hell it is Sharrans do.

However that never happens. I've literally never seen it in NWN2. I think I saw some fools talk smack to Amy Woodwalker in NWN1, but no CvC came of it. Any PC that stupid is probably going to die to my DMing anyway.

For examples of personal insults at people who can obviously kill you, I'd point to Mossin and Bevan from personal experience. Though they're fine examples of the situation going well-- plenty pleasant and jovial OOCly about the stupid risks their characters take; they took their (granted, nonlethal) beatdowns like champs and got on with playing.

For examples of crazy dudes risking life and limb to skulk about obviously-hostile territory, I can think of two examples from personal experience, who are probably written in the BG DM forums. I know they got warnings for abuse of invisibility in there.

[Adanu]

For the record: I'm all for cooperating OOC and keeping IC, IC... but I've seen plenty of examples where players have not, and these examples are my primary concern about this 'admins can veto and you can't do a thing about it' policy.

It's basically giving admins leave to go LOL and wash their hands of dealing with obvious asshats.

I've got no problems with people coming up to Zyrus and poking him about his skin, or provoking him into a fight if they OOC understand that he will probably berserk on their ass and beat them into a pulp. That's all IC. Disliking a player so much that you go out of your way to try and kill every single PC they have? That's where I draw the line.

[Ronan]

Xan, thats true, but evils are associated with 90% of the CvC problems I've encountered. Its hard to draw a line around 'slavering psychopath', while its easy to draw a line around 'evil' (its in the character sheet!).

For examples of crazy dudes risking life and limb to skulk about obviously-hostile territory, I can think of two examples from personal experience, who are probably written in the BG DM forums. I know they got warnings for abuse of invisibility in there.

Ahh, yeah that was rolled back. Anyway, being a dick to non-evils is generally considered much safer than being a dick to evils. The former typically need good reasons to kill you, the latter not so much. I haven't personally seen anyone intentionally pick a fight with a much more powerful PC.

It's basically giving admins leave to go LOL and wash their hands of dealing with obvious asshats.

We'd need a PA who wanted to deal with it. I don't know when the last time was we had one of those.

[Regas]

It's basically giving admins leave to go LOL and wash their hands of dealing with obvious asshats.

We'd need a PA who wanted to deal with it. I don't know when the last time was we had one of those.

I don't think that's fair really. I am dealing with it- head on. It's not easy to change things in ALFA, it's far easier to ignore the issues and bump along, to go along and get along. The PA isn't nearly as involved in CvC as the DMs, and I have lots of help with the ARs. We can keep CvC the way it is and we can keep loosing players and DMs over it. That is what I'm trying to address. Further, this will not eliminate all issues with player and player-DM conflict. The PAs, ARs, and DM teams have always dealt with these issues and continue to do so. It was Ronan telling me how much of the CvC on BG was dominating his time (being forced on him really) that caused me to re-think our policy. We are not going to let players pick fights and then call "time out". Part of the reason for me posting this policy for discussion was for feedback. We will be taking a second look at everything and will bedoing our best to get it right. If admin wanted to wash it's had of CvC, we would simply boot the five members who are behind 90% of it. Problem solved. Or, we could do what many communities do, and simply turn CvC off. Problem solved.

This is not about admin washing it's hands of CvC it's about stopping CvC from happening when it's not between friends. The community is too small to be played against one another now.

We have maybe six to eight active dms. How much time do you want us spending on forced CvC mitigation? How many dms need to quit in disgust before the price to have CvC on any terms is too high?

[danielmn]

We have maybe six to eight active dms. How much time do you want us spending on forced CvC mitigation? How many dms need to quit in disgust before the price to have CvC on any terms is too high?

This.

[t-ice]

Questions:

- If I instigate the CvC, is the opinion of the opposing player and the RP of his PC asked by the DM(s) before making the decision about the permission?
- If a CvC permission is given, are both PCs involved told of it, or can the instigating party ambush the other IG?
- What about if other PCs are present when 2 PCs who have "CvC permission" fight? (Say my PC is given permission to cvc PC B, and as a result PC B only logs in while he is together with other PCs)
- Can permission be given for "DM overseen combat only", or is it an cat-and-mouse-on-nwn2-module game after the permission? What if one player wants to play with a DM and another not? Or what if the two players want a different DM to oversee it?
- If my PC wants to attack another PC, and that PC doesn't give concent, what are the rules on RP consequences? In particular, does he have to do something like run away from me?

[rorax]

If anyone walks up to Cormac and calls him a prancing fairy, they deserve a beat-down, mauling, maybe even death (if elf?). I don't think anyone would argue otherwise; it would be a monumentally stupid move, similar to a Sharran walking around Persephone's temple casting Darkness or whatever the hell it is Sharrans do.

.

You'd be shocked how many times in ALFA just that happened.

If anything, people OOCly use the fact they know CvC cause OOC drama, so in many instances the "underdog" side allow themselves to provoke characters IG they would not have, if they knew there was back for the retaliating side.

In simple words, the "provoking" side is often much more OOC in their "IG activities" than the retaliating "Evil" party.

If you want to believe or not , your average ALFAian player is pretty much smart ass lawyer who'd justify himself / play the victim / whine / accuse others according to the circumstances that fits him the most in the same moment.

This thread itself is good example for it, and indirectly encourages people to sharpen their smart ass skills.

[kid]

I played on CoTSC once or twice.
I think they have a fairly well thought out CvC policy. im uncertain but I think it covers the whole provoking thing well.
Might be worth a look to see if there's anything there we'd like to adopt.

[I-KP]

IME the worst kind of CvC is the one that leads to lethal combat. For a community that prides itself on its quality of RP it is a great shame that some would rather take the banal option of a few rounds of lethal combat rather than engage in enormously enriching CvC RP which has all of the glorious hostility without the finality of lethal combat.

I’ve been fortunate to play out a couple of lengthy CvC RP chapters in my NWN2 PW career, the best of which took place on Exodus: a Sunite Priestess being targeted by a criminal underworld Yuan-ti blackheart. If lethal CvC had been the action of choice there would have been one brief battle, the Sunite would have lost and the Yuan-ti would probably have been subsequently exposed and either chased out of town or executed. Not the greatest story ever told, eh. Instead what took place was months of blackmail and counter-blackmail, the occasion physical expression of anger (RP’d combat rolls, not using the engine – far more engaging IME), the odd mobilization of NPCs to ruin the other’s day (but not to instigate NPC vs PC - unless the DM thought it necessary and even then the threat was proportionate to level - it instead often ended up being NPC vs NPC which for two characters with vested interests in separate organisations such moves still had the power to hurt), and an eventual partnership that was the very definition of unlikely. For a pair of characters that would ordinarily be ‘expose/kill on sight’ taking the CvC RP route ended up being a hugely gratifying experience, not only for those two PCs but also for the DMs involved; a story was being written, DMs enjoy having a hand in that. For me that sort of situation is what good RP is all about; PCs are for bouncing RP off, not axes and power-spells.

Arguments along the lines of ‘I am a Paladin, I must destroy you now’ or ‘but my PC would do that’ or even ‘I’m evil – I do eevol things – now prepare to die’ are to my mind weak and unimaginative justifications for lethal CvC; the act of a player who is more interested in phat lewt than contributing to fascinating story crafting. Yes, I know it’s canon for such things to occur, and where it’s PC vs NPC I’m all for it, but when it comes to CvC one’s desire to write a good story, from both perspectives, should be the overriding motivation – or stop playing binary decision making PCs that don’t lend themselves well to creating engrossing narratives. I will also grant you that it takes some effort for both parties to RP such CvC without deliberately putting either protagonist in a situation that would break the suspension of disbelief if it did not provoke a lethal response, but where all involved players are committed to writing a good story such pitfalls are fairly easily sidestepped. There are usually other ways to up the stakes without resulting in killing off one of the protagonists and ending the story right there. (Accepting that all stories must end eventually.)

If the proposed revised CvC rules for ALFA make CvC RP of the kind I've just outlined more likely to occur then I’m all for it and will fully support the move. Thus far the only CvCs I’ve encountered with Tam in ALFA have all been verses Warlocks whom the players behind which weren’t in the least bit interested in CvC RP. (I’m not trying to draw any parallels between Warlocks and the propensity for crappy CvC, that’s just the way I’ve experienced it here in ALFA.) I would very much like for that to change.

[Regas]

Questions:

- If I instigate the CvC, is the opinion of the opposing player and the RP of his PC asked by the DM(s) before making the decision about the permission?
- If a CvC permission is given, are both PCs involved told of it, or can the instigating party ambush the other IG?
- What about if other PCs are present when 2 PCs who have "CvC permission" fight? (Say my PC is given permission to cvc PC B, and as a result PC B only logs in while he is together with other PCs)
- Can permission be given for "DM overseen combat only", or is it an cat-and-mouse-on-nwn2-module game after the permission? What if one player wants to play with a DM and another not? Or what if the two players want a different DM to oversee it?
- If my PC wants to attack another PC, and that PC doesn't give concent, what are the rules on RP consequences? In particular, does he have to do something like run away from me?

Great questions T-ice.
-We left DM run CvC in to accommodate the dms, not the players. I would expect that many of the CvC requests to DMs are going to be turned down by the DMs. The policy is moving from one where players are entitled to to demand the DM handle their CvC to one where they must ask and receive both permission and supervision from the dm teams. I would suspect in the rare instances where it's granted it will be based on the circumstances as to who is told what and when.
-As a dm would be present in cases of a dm run CvC, they would have to oversee interactions of any other nearby PCs and NPCs.
-Non-consenting CvC must happen with a DM. The DM teams have to allow it.
-If a player is refusing CvC it's up to the two of you how to handle it. You can ignore the player, not play with them or you can work it into the RP. Each circumstance will be different.

[kid]

Dont see how this lowers the work on DM.
Dont see how this makes for believable RP.

The whole point is to figure out something that is NOT vague.

If we wanted vague, we have the old rule.