NEUS Projects
First Draft - Conflict Guidelines & Scene Locking Rules - Printable Version

+- NEUS Projects (https://neus-projects.net/forums)
+-- Forum: Sigrogana Legend 2 (OOC) (https://neus-projects.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://neus-projects.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: First Draft - Conflict Guidelines & Scene Locking Rules (/showthread.php?tid=7366)

Pages: 1 2

First Draft - Conflict Guidelines & Scene Locking Rules - Neus - 11-08-2020

Hello everyone. As promised, I have drafted some basic rules of engagement and things for scene locking. I have run this by the GMs and they gave their opinions, so now I want to also run this by everyone and gather your opinions as well.

The general goal behind these rules and guidelines is not to restrict what you may and may not do, but to give everyone a basic and clear understanding of what is expected when you engage in this type of roleplay, and to help things make more fair in the event that someone wants to be an antagonistic character. Although there are a few other areas which need refinement as well, I think this is the best way to start making progress in this area.

If you feel that I have missed the mark, or that these new rules/guidelines are actually not desired, you are welcome to say so - that is the entire point of this topic. If you want to suggest further additions that I may be unaware of, etc., you are also encouraged to participate in the discussion.

Note that none of this is considered in effect yet.

Rules of Engagement

Conflict: This term will be used frequently. Conflict is defined as any serious scenario that results in violence, or other similar serious consequences, against one or more player character(s).


  1. Prior to conflict, RP between both parties must occur. This RP must be done in an interactive way; you cannot simply RP 'at' someone.
  2. Your conflict and the level of extremity (see Rule of Consent section) must have some IC reason supporting it. Certain things may not be used as the sole justification, for example:
    • My character is just evil.
    • My character is just insane.
    • My character hates (race) and/or (gender) characters.
  3. PVP is not mandatory for conflict RP. If both players agree to RP the scenario instead of PVP, that is perfectly acceptable, but follows all of the same rules.

Rule of Consent
  1. Both parties must give consent to the 'danger level' of a conflict encounter.
  2. Consent may be given in several ways. Here are some examples:
    • The aggressor may give consent to robbery by giving a clear IC implication that they are intending to rob the other party. For example; Masked Man flourishes his dagger threateningly, flashing in the moonlight. "Hand over your valuables."
    • The victim may play along to let the aggressor know they are giving consent. For example, Unarmed Fighter smashes his fist into his palm, and then waves his fingers tauntingly. "Take them if you can!"
    • The aggressor and the victim may use local OOC to clearly state that they are giving consent. It is also best to do this in the event that one party is refusing to give consent.
  3. Once consent is given, it cannot be revoked without the approval of the other party, or the intervention of a GM. Do not give consent if you are unwilling to follow the consequences.
  4. Consent cannot be forced in conflict between two player characters. Furthermore, attempts to force or coerce someone into giving consent for something they do not want to do is not allowed. Do not harass them OOC - simply accept it and continue roleplaying, or move on.
  5. Just because consent is given for a particular danger level does not mean that the victor has to follow through with it. For example, although consent is given for a robbery, the victor of the conflict may later choose not to actually rob the loser.
  6. In the event that a danger level is not clearly established, both players assume it is Level 1.
  7. For Level 3 and Level 4, explicit consent must be given in local OOC - simply implying it is not allowed! This is because these actions have permanent consequences.

The danger levels are as follows:
  • Level 1 - Simple non-life threatening injuries.
  • Level 2 - Robbery. (See Robbery section)
  • Level 3 - Maiming (IE, limb loss), destroying a vampire or lich's body. (IE, non-permanent character death.)
  • Level 4 - Permanent character death.

Rule of Avoidance
  1. To avoid never-ending cycles of revenge conflict, both parties must avoid interacting for at least 12 real-time hours following the resolution of the conflict.
  2. Interacting means interacting; both parties have a responsibility to make sure their characters are not in the same place where conflict would begin again. For example, do not go taunt your victim/aggressor after the conflict.
  3. Naturally, it is forbidden to use different character(s) the player(s) own to try and get around this.
  4. This rule may be waived in the event that both parties amicably agree to do so. (IE, you wish to continue the RP).
  5. Always keep in mind that the spirit of this rule is to prevent nonsensical, repeated headbutting, and to avoid OOC drama which may arise otherwise.

Robbery
  1. Robbery is any conflict scenario that results in the losing party having items or Murai taken from them.
  2. Both parties must be aware prior to PvP or any roleplaying conflict that losing means being robbed, and consent must be given (see Rule of Consent).
  3. Regardless of how many player characters are in either party, the victim(s) may only be robbed once. Some examples:
    • If the winning party has 4 player characters, while the losing party only has 1, the losing party is only required to offer once - they do not have to give something to each of the 4 player characters.
    • If the winning party has 4 player characters, while the losing party has 4, the losing party's 4 characters are only required to offer once. They do not have to offer to all 4 player characters in the winning party - only once. (The winning party has the responsibility of splitting it however they want.)
  4. In the event that the initiator of the robbery 'loses' the conflict, and is at the mercy of their would-be victim, the victim can choose to rob them instead, following the same rules.
  5. A player character can only be a victim to a robbery once per 24 real-time hours. (They may consent to more at their own discretion.)
  6. A player can only rob a victim once per 6 real-time hours. (Note: This means player, not player character. You are not allowed to swap to a different character and continue robbing.)
  7. It is highly recommended that if you engage in such an encounter, you document the whole thing with screenshots and chat logs if you feel even the slightest chance of there being a problem.

If the victim of a robbery, one (and only one) of the following, of the victim's choice, must be offered to the victor. (NOTE: DONATION ITEMS, PATRION ITEMS, REGALIA'D ITEMS, ETC. ARE NEVER REQUIRED TO BE OFFERED, NO MATTER WHAT. IT IS A BANNABLE OFFENSE TO ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE OR IMPLY THAT SOMEONE IS EVER REQUIRED TO.)
  1. Victim's choice of an equipment item of at least 3* rarity.
  2. 2d10 total of any stackable item(s), such as crafting materials or potions, etc.
  3. 10d20 Murai.

Scene Locking
First and foremost: Roleplay is a collaborative activity, not a competitive one. All parties involved in a scene, be it in conflict or not, should strive to make the scene fun and interactive for as many people as possible. Please keep that in mind when reading these rules.

  1. Once conflict has begun, except in one of the listed circumstances, the scene is considered 'locked'. This means that the participants in the conflict at that time are the only ones who can participate - meaning that if someone happens across the scene, they may observe OOCly, but cannot interfere or interact with it, and for the purposes of the scene, they are not there ICly.
  2. Once the conflict concludes, only participants may obstruct either party from leaving the scene, and only if it makes sense with how the scene played out. Non-participants cannot pursue leaving parties or interact with them regarding the scene for 10 real-time minutes (to give a little padding for antagonistic characters from being immediately pulled into another conflict).
  3. KEEP IN MIND: If you stumble across such a scene, you are observing OOCly. The way it plays out and any information divulged is NOT IC knowledge to you - using it as such is considered metagaming. This includes if your character was 'secretly watching' - if you did not participate (by roleplaying) in the scene from the start, you are not there ICly.

The following is an example of how this rule works in practice:
  • John begins conflict with Mary with the intent to rob her.
  • The two roleplay the scene and some resolution is made (PvP or RP) with John being the victor.
  • Part-way through this, a random bypasser, David, sees the scene unfolding.
  • Although David may be a character who would like to interfere and stop Mary from being robbed, they cannot, because they were not an active participant when the scene began. For the scene's purposes, David is not even there.
  • John being the victor takes some Murai from Mary. Despite the scene nearing resolution, David still cannot jump in and try to stop John from leaving.
  • John leaves the area. David may not pursue them. Mary would like to pursue John, but since they have just been beaten up, it would not make sense from a roleplay perspective for them to be able to do so.

The Devlogic™:
  1. Although this interaction could, ICly, take less than a few minutes to resolve, it may take much longer than that to roleplay out, not including any PvP or RP'd struggle. The longer the scene goes on, the higher the chance that someone will come across it by chance, even if it doesn't make a lot of sense.
  2. This provides a major disadvantage for antagonistic characters due to the tendency for people to dogpile as more and more people become aware of what's going on.
  3. This rule also prevents scenarios where less well-intentioned players will OOCly alert their friends that they need help IC during conflicts.

What defines a 'participant'?
  1. A character who is actively taking part in roleplay with the conflicting characters before the conflict starts.
  2. A character who is actively roleplaying in the immediate vicinity of where the conflict starts, even if it is not necessarily with the participants. (Immediate vicinity being capable of seeing the scene from where they are.)

What if a participant leaves to get help?
  1. If a participant leaves the scene for whatever reason, they are no longer defined as a participant and thus excluded from the scene. (See Exceptions section).
  2. All parties should apply basic logic, however. If the participant who leaves walks two rooms over to alert someone that conflict is happening nearby, that can be considered a general exception to the scene lock rule. (This only applies for being in the same general area.)
  3. In the event that you cannot come to a general compromise, consult a GM.

Exceptions to Scene Locking
  1. If the conflict is started in town or other area where NPCs are likely to be, this rule does not apply. (This is most places in towns with the exception of areas such as sewers. The reasoning being that, in this scenario, it actually is conceivable that someone would notice what's happening in a reasonable time frame to cause interference.)
  2. If all participants agree to waive this rule, they may do so. (As a participant, until you have confirmation that it is being waived, please do not ICly interact with non-participants to avoid confusing them.)
  3. If a GM believes this rule should not be applied to a certain scene and provides justification to the participants, it may be forcibly waived. (An obvious necessity in scenarios where this rule applying or not isn't clear cut, and for odd outliers.)
  4. During events, this rule may be waived by Event Staff, for both conflicts they start, and conflicts started during the course of the event by others where applicable. (IE, if you try to rob someone in the middle of an area with an event going on, an Event Staff may forcibly waive this rule in those instances.)

Rules for Undying Races (Vampires, Liches)

Some races have the capability to escape death, such as vampires and liches (referred to here as Undying Races). These rules are here to help define what they may and may not do, to avoid players from 'cheesing' and avoiding RP consequences as a result of conflict.

While Undying races are permitted to utilize their relative immortality in a way that benefits them, utilizing it in a way that stifles RP or otherwise seeks to game the system, especially if done repeatedly, is metagaming and therefore a punishable offense.

Note that these rules only apply for instances where the Undying race character is captured or otherwise in peril of such.

Suicide
  1. Undying races can only commit suicide with tools, such as weapons or a noose. They may not commit suicide by bashing their head into a wall, or by biting off their tongue, or biting their body repeatedly. Tools that cannot be interactively RP'd with, such as poison capsules, or weapons that are hidden even after being searched (or otherwise part of the body), etc. are not permitted.
    • If the Undying race character is stated to be restrained or otherwise incapacitated as a result of the RP leading up to it, they cannot attempt to commit suicide until this changes.
    • Youkai or other summons are not considered tools. You cannot summon a Youkai to kill you.
    • Magic is not considered a tool. You cannot drown or freeze yourself with an Aquarian spell, impale yourself on a spike of earth from an Isespian spell, etc.
    • Jumping from a high enough altitude to fall to their death is allowed, but only if the height is substantial enough to be sure death; heights where you would have to land on your head for it to be fatal are not allowed to be used in this method.
  2. If other characters are nearby when this attempt is started, they may intervene. Settle the matter with RP (and if you can't do that, roll a d20 - highest roll wins, RPing appropriately) If they fail to intervene successfully, the suicide attempt is considered a success and cannot be undone/stopped.
  3. If the Undying race is said to be under strict supervision by NPC guards, perhaps due to the high probability of suicide if left unattended, it is assumed that they will intervene and be successful. (If the undying character wishes to try and escape via suicide in this instance, they will need a GM or Event Staff to roleplay as the guards and find a way around their intervention.)


RE: First Draft - Conflict Guidelines & Scene Locking Rules - Noxid - 11-08-2020

Overall I love these rules. However I do feel like the scene locking is a bit inelegant. Like when stumbling across someone it might not be clear straight away if RP is locked or not. Perhaps we could have some kind of RP flag or something to toggle in game? That shows everyone else people are currently locked off in their own little RP bubble.

RE: First Draft - Conflict Guidelines & Scene Locking Rules - Snake - 11-08-2020

This kind of defibrilated a little the evil inside me! I hope this ends up being fun for both sides after being tested a little.

Also for Noxid's suggestion, it'd be some sort of 'ping RP mode' verb that gives you a small and temporary visual indicator of who has RP Mode on (sort of like Spotter from the talent tree Scout, the X). It's a good thing to have. And also won't pollute the game's visuals like LFG's persistent icon does.

RP Mode could be used to also make enemy NPC mobs unable to target you as a bonus utility too.

RE: First Draft - Conflict Guidelines & Scene Locking Rules - GameMaster85 - 11-08-2020

I love these rules. They set in stone a lot of things in general. Scene Locking is very important for different ways that I don't have time to explain right now, maybe later.

You might also want to clarify how Dyst's current "running from an encounter" rules apply with these, and when. I assume Dyst's evasion rules apply when the evasion part of things actually happen, but it's nice to state here and give a link in the same thread either way for 100% clarity.

RE: First Draft - Conflict Guidelines & Scene Locking Rules - sadbot - 11-09-2020

I’m curious as to how the guards will interact with these situations going forward, as I feel like it’s kinda rare that they’re in attendance at any of these sorts of scenarios before the conflict begins. On the other hand though, the rule being waved in towns and other NPC populated areas should make it a non issue unless the crime is committed elsewhere. I think it could be a nice way to make their policing of basically anywhere on the continent a little less oppressive when crimes are committed outside major settlements.

RE: First Draft - Conflict Guidelines & Scene Locking Rules - Balor - 11-09-2020

I feel like there is simultaneously a lot to unpack and not much to it. The rules work but I feel many are inelegant in their wording. I'll break down what I feel is positive and what I find negative with an arbitrary pros and cons.

Pros:

- Defining the severity of losing prior to serious PVP requests is a good and needed change.
- Scene locking does encourage more antags to antagonize.
- The changes to Undying Races and their immortality is necessary and will change interactions for the better.

Cons:
- The use of soft language for defining scenes is not ideal. 'May consent' or 'May play along' is unclear and given how these rules are seeking to define encounters. A player must, or must not give consent. Rather than 'may'. Since the clear implication is that you are giving someone a choice to 'buy in' to the scene as it were.
- Levels Of Consequence should ALL BE DECLARED in LOOC. Not just level 4. If there are going to be rules, they should not be left to IMPLICATION.
- Scene locking allows people to further exclude people from interaction.

I think that with some refining the rules can assist with RP, and we will get a better idea once people apply them to public incidents. Overall we're looking at a solid framework.

RE: First Draft - Conflict Guidelines & Scene Locking Rules - Perdition - 11-09-2020

I like all of this overall, but I would extend the time "penalty" between interactions to be longer. 12 hours seems inconsequential when that means both parties go asleep and then all is normal again. I'd make it 3 irl days or so or more personally.

RE: First Draft - Conflict Guidelines & Scene Locking Rules - Fern - 11-09-2020

Just wanted to quickly chime in and say that I like most of what I see in the draft so far. There isn't much room for me to be nitpicky. I feel that the time penalty is fine where it is.

I think Level 3 danger consent should be stated in LOOC just like Level 4. A character losing a limb can be more important than it seems at first.

I agree in that there should be some sort of mechanic that helps show you're currently scene locked, so it becomes far easier to tell with a quick glance. Kunai mentioned a 'RP Mode' and I think it could serve just fine in SL2 as well. I think how it'd work is like this:

-You toggle the "RP Mode" somehow, either through a verb or an easily accessible button located in your game screen.

-This places an icon overlay on your character that is small enough to not be jarring, but is also noticeable enough that people can tell at a glance you're scene locked. (Maybe a small thing in the top right of the 32x32 icon map, like a sphere that has the letters "RP" or something like that. If it looks pretty, that's a bonus.)

-I also think a toggle like this should be able to prevent you from getting into mob encounters to an extent. By that I mean that it should only stop you from bumping into mob encounters outside of dungeons. This, in my mind, includes custom mobs and Black Beasts, since sometimes people just want to be that character in the sidelines commenting / watching in panic or something like that, rather than fighting the threat themselves. I'm aware there's a "force encounter" tool, but it's not always used! The "RP Mode" toggle simply not working inside dungeons would prevent most abuse.

 
EDIT: The button could be in the same line up as the coin toss and dice roll buttons.

RE: First Draft - Conflict Guidelines & Scene Locking Rules - Mr.SmileGod - 11-10-2020

A lot of people seem to like the rules as they're established, but I must disagree whole-heartedly. This seems rather... hand-holdy? Very 'we must protect the victim'-esque, which would compound on an issue we see ICly-- People that are all talk, and never see any punishment. I'm guilty of it, myself. My character, Anko, is often HORRID to people, with little repercussion. Also, another problem markedly isn't solved by this. Allow me to explain.

Sure, scene-locking is great. It prevents people from getting jumped for being antagonists... But the issue of your antagonist being snuffed out soon after isn't really solved? The victim, understandably, goes to the guards-- And in a system that doesn't have a solid 'innocent until proven guilty' foundation, you're GOING to be arrested. 9 times out of 10, you'll be arrested even if there's no witness, etc. You mentioned in another post some other possibilities for punishments other than our current soft-ban system, but I feel the initial arrest is more important, personally. That being said, the scene locking does seem like an excellent start.

However. My biggest issues lie in the 1-4 level of consent needed to do literally anything to anyone. The world isn't always going to ask for consent, and I feel like roleplay should be the same way. Sure, consenting to death is a necessary measure, but I'm unclear-- Do you need consent to be in ANY conflict, or any conflict above level 1? Because if it's any conflict, that's just... unreasonable. You shouldn't be just told 'nah not today chief' in LOOC and have your entire encounter scrapped. Or have to break IC to walk off because someone magically has plot-armor. And further than that, say there's a lasting conflict between two characters that would warrant serious fighting (and intent to kill / maim) with plenty of backing and reason for said conflict. You shouldn't just be able to opt out of more serious injury if you've been having serious enough conflict with a person to warrant such a thing.

You'd be able to just be a wall-flower that shit-talks, be an annoyance and expect nothing to come of it until you accidentally cross that line of it being harassment (for which you suddenly get arrested for).

That being said, I'm a strong advocate of keeping robbery-type RP away from OOC possessions. Those take real life time to get, and even if the listed requirements to be given are rather light, it still seems like something I feel should be kept to IC possessions only, without OOCly passing things over. That's more of a personal gripe, though, rather than something I see becoming an issue.

A passing note on the 'rules of avoidance' clause, I feel it's unreasonable to expect characters to not be on the same map, with how few maps see meaningful player presence. Keeping it as 'don't antagonize eachother' should be enough.

I'm also a bit iffy on the Vampire suicide bit, but that's just a personal gut feeling, I won't really touch on that now. Those are my thoughts on it.

RE: First Draft - Conflict Guidelines & Scene Locking Rules - Radioaction - 11-10-2020

I would like to start off by saying one thing.

It appears my superiority has caused some controversy.

Either way, this little demon on my shoulder keeps jabbing me with a stick and telling me to be involved and give my opinion. However, a lot of people disliked my opinion due to it being 'roasting' and not 'helping. So, I'll give it my best shot to assist.

First off, these conflict rules seem to be making SL2 more like a daycare for toddlers than before. I'll explain why.

I understand this a draft, but there's some things that I feel should be stomped into the dirt immediately.

  1. Consent cannot be forced in conflict between two player characters. Furthermore, attempts to force or coerce someone into giving consent for something they do not want to do is not allowed. Do not harass them OOC - simply accept it and continue roleplaying, or move on.

In my opinion, this appears to be outright a pure mistake. According to my understanding, this prevents anyone from "dealing" with a player who insists on harassing others ICly. Ontop of this in a loophole nitpicking style, this also means that a player can "refuse" a fight from the Guards as well.. Of course, simply nitpicking that part. However.

The main complaint is that,

If I were to walk into a bar and start calling everyone a bunch of idiots, and outright being an ass.

Someone tries to fight me, I could by all means just go, "No."

At first, I believed this merely meant consenting to the danger level. However, after reviewing the example of what "consent" implied,
  • The aggressor may give consent to robbery by giving a clear IC implication that they are intending to rob the other party. For example; Masked Man flourishes his dagger threateningly, flashing in the moonlight. "Hand over your valuables."

  • The victim may play along to let the aggressor know they are giving consent. For example, Unarmed Fighter smashes his fist into his palm, and then waves his fingers tauntingly. "Take them if you can!"

  • The aggressor and the victim may use local OOC to clearly state that they are giving consent. It is also best to do this in the event that one party is refusing to give consent.

So, maybe I'm misunderstanding. But I feel like if I'm not, it's good to get that out of the way.

NEXT UP

  1. To avoid never-ending cycles of revenge conflict, both parties must avoid interacting for at least 12 real-time hours following the resolution of the conflict.

All things considered, this just seems like it'll cause a lot more bad blood and boiling anger than it's worth. I can see what you're going for, but how do you decide to do this?

Say for example, these parties initiate this conflict in the arena. And we're assuming guards are not called for whatever reason.

Does the winner decide that the loser has to leave? Do they both have to leave? I personally believe it should be left up to the players calling the guards if the two parties continue to conflict and fight. Otherwise, forcing players to leave an area or avoid a person's presence for TWELVE real time hours is a bit ridiculous. What if the RP spot where everyone is, happens to be Cellsvich square? But they just conflicted, so one party is restricted from RP because their ex-opponent is there?

SUGGESTIONS

For the former, that's a very difficult topic. It always has been, but honestly?

Talk shit, get hit. You shouldn't be able to anger people then just laugh and get away with it. That'll piss a lot of people off, and overall makes an extremely toxic community. Trust me, I've been in a community that does that.

My best suggestion?
If a player refuses to consent, yet the aggressor wishes to continue. The conflict is considered level 1, and PVP-based.

That's my basic idea for it.

As for the avoidance rule, I'd suggest-
After the conflict, the losing party must leave the area. If they happen to come across their opponent again, oh well.

Because honestly, having an OOC-enforced restraining order that affects IC? That's a bit much. Like, imagine getting punished because you want to be in an RP spot but your opponent says "haha no". If it's that serious, just call the guards and sort them out. They need things to do anyway.. It's their job, my guy.

Now, sure. I may be expecting the worst out of these rules.
But that's because in all honesty, you're likely to get the worst.
And I want to nitpick, and patch the loopholes because the last thing I want to hear is different GMs giving different rulings.

Like one conflict being the same as another, but having two different outcomes because there was two different mindsets from two different GMs.
I, by all means, want to see SL2 be better. This is a good start. The ideas I didn't touch on in this post, I genuinely approve of. But I will not be getting on my knees and crawling to the gloryhole saying, "I love these ideas!". But, some of these are good for a first draft. . Also, I tried to be nicer than last time.

I might have missed some stuff, but I'm not gonna pull out my reading glasses and start analyzing every ounce. If I misinterpreted the actual idea? That means others can too. Until next time, where I get dragged out of the basement and held at gunpoint to type another Gamer Review.