[Slydria]

Here's what I think I'd like to see in this system:

- Rolls should be for doing something extraordinary or in a contest most of the time. You do not need to roll dice to tie your shoelaces but you would trying to open a lock while not being noticed or trying to arm wrestle someone.

- Bonuses and penalties to rolls should not be dictated by the gameplay stats (since some stats are basically mandatory, 99% of players being able to be good at "Skill" checks wouldn't be particularly interesting).

- Encouragement for players to take penalties. (Such as getting more points to allocate if they take penalties, like a D&D point system when assigning stats.)

- Discouragement for players to only use their "best stat" in a situation all the time. (Maybe like a "stale move" penalty where if you keep using the same kind of check, it gets a -1 for each subsequent use in a row for the rest of the encounter.)

- Some kind of common ground rules so contests don't go on forever by default. For low stakes situations, it'd probably just a matter of one and done anyway. For prolonged encounters like a fight, maybe you'd want to consider things like: a "three strikes" rule where if you get three successes, you "win" the encounter and have the situation go your way (as long as it's reasonable). Or a "turn limit" in case the dice decide to be spiteful.

- The idea of actions, reactions and turns (for prolonged contests). 1 Action & 1 Reaction = 1 Turn. For example, in a barfight: I swing a punch (Action) and you try to duck it (Reaction) and either do so or get bopped based on the result, that's the end of the turn. It is then your turn, you then throw a bottle at me (Action) and I try to block it with a nearby table (Reaction).

[Kazzy]

All conflict should be overseen by impartial judicators in the form of EM/GMs.

Historically, the community has proved that it has difficulty in policing itself. Either meta-grudge or people just being bloodthirsty and not even considering that anything they wish to do to someone elses character, they too should automatically be opened to. No homebrew system of rules that gets suggested is going to be as all-encompassing as having a referee on site to make calls, and we're inevitably gonna run into the issue of things nobody planned for, happening. And to make a ruleset that accomodates for absolutely every little impossibility is a fools errand.

Unfortunately, everyone's biased in one way or another and time is finite. Being 100%? I don't think most people should even be considering conflict.

It inevitably boils down to 'We don't like that this person plays this way and we're going to punish them', with some rationale IC moulded around that decision.

[Skimmy2]

All conflict should be overseen by impartial judicators in the form of EM/GMs.

Historically, the community has proved that it has difficulty in policing itself. Either meta-grudge or people just being bloodthirsty and not even considering that anything they wish to do to someone elses character, they too should automatically be opened to. No homebrew system of rules that gets suggested is going to be as all-encompassing as having a referee on site to make calls, and we're inevitably gonna run into the issue of things nobody planned for, happening. And to make a ruleset that accomodates for absolutely every little impossibility is a fools errand.

Unfortunately, everyone's biased in one way or another and time is finite. Being 100%? I don't think most people should even be considering conflict.

It inevitably boils down to 'We don't like that this person plays this way and we're going to punish them', with some rationale IC moulded around that decision.

The current rules in place, and rules that will replace it, are explicitly so that a GM is not required to handle every spar under the sun, or every DL1 duel and squabble you can think of. It is left into the hands of the players how they wish to roleplay their conflict as consenting adults, the rules merely exist for when a consensus is not reached.

what you are suggesting, is to just remove the entire Conflict rules page and slap on a "Call a Mod if you both can't agree."

[Snake]

Isn't that the point of mods anyway? To moderate?

There should be a baseline of decency, a strict reminder of how SL2 works in terms of conflict, and the rest is based on how good friends you are with your opponents, otherwise, mechanics and/or GM intervention (in a hopefully healthy manner).

There's no need to overly complicate this or make it too leash-tight, because otherwise, why even say we can genuinely fight anything other than NPCs or eventmin mobs?

[Poruku]

All conflict should be overseen by impartial judicators in the form of EM/GMs.

[...]

It inevitably boils down to 'We don't like that this person plays this way and we're going to punish them', with some rationale IC moulded around that decision.

95% of conflict is very small-scale and doesn't require any mediation. But anything large that involves multiple people on two sides of a conflict, yeah sure. Like, one bad guy versus a bunch of people is mostly fine. Four bad guys versus a bunch of people is where it starts to become more useful to have mediation. But honestly, even then the GMs should only come into play when there is a disagreement on things.

In my experience conflict starts mostly because a group is made with the intention of creating conflict. This includes Geladyne, which is a military state and it makes sense they would want to do conquest. And of course, antag groups like the marauders. The issues often arise from individuals who are part of the overall conflict but don't agree with its direction or specific events or don't like losing. But I think it's not fair to say that all or even most conflict is started in bad faith, usually it's either out of a desire to stick to the IC of your group or character, or it's because you specifically wanted some conflict.

[Lolzytripd]

i just want to point out

Danger Level 1: Existing on Korvara.
Danger Level 2: Lingering in areas beyond the Outskirt maps of nations, remaining in a scene with clearly hostile individuals in such areas.
Danger Level 3: Lingering in areas further than the Highway maps from another nation, such as the Deep Wastes and Tundra. Actively inciting others in DL2 areas.
Danger Level 4: Would likely never be warranted outside explicit consent.

DL3 is incredibly fucky to make accessible to 'lingering in a specific map' and will incite impossibly heated drama because for a lot of characters, limb loss and maiming (such as loss of a leg/legs, loss of tongue, blinding, partial paralysis, both hands, etc) is tantamount to character death ANYWAY. I've even had that 'joked' about to me ('not dl4' 'sorry dl3 still lets me break your spine') and is why my characters are, as a rule, 'DL2 at most and I carve out exceptions for specific scenes with people I trust'.

For one, the consequences of those losses can fucking SUCK. Muteness, for instance - I've tried to play nonverbal characters both on siggy and in other settings and it is HELL to get good RP while playing them (both because of their limitations and how they're treated - most RP is incredibly heavy on talking, and people sometimes just outright ignore a nonverbal character. there's a reason most nonverbal characters either disappear or end up sidestepping it with sign language/becoming verbal again), and losing the ability to walk or meaningfully interact with things will make it virtually impossible to participate in most events or even reasonably participate in any standard gameplay. Also, not everyone actually wants to play out that level of disability in the first place. This is before logistical issues like playby changes or reconfiguring a character's build to reflect their permanent injuries.

Part of the trouble is that DL3 is actually an insanely broad category to put into one single 'stage' of permitted injury, and being coerced into it is already not a pleasant possibility given how strong social pressure can be - let alone an entire area permitting it because you made eye contact with the wrong person.

Anyway. That's the only point I really wanted to make - but I do like the idea of being able to deploy scene descriptors/scene locks as a player and want to highlight that! It'd be an incredibly useful tool for more than just conflict!

All conflict should be overseen by impartial judicators in the form of EM/GMs.

Historically, the community has proved that it has difficulty in policing itself. Either meta-grudge or people just being bloodthirsty and not even considering that anything they wish to do to someone elses character, they too should automatically be opened to. No homebrew system of rules that gets suggested is going to be as all-encompassing as having a referee on site to make calls, and we're inevitably gonna run into the issue of things nobody planned for, happening. And to make a ruleset that accomodates for absolutely every little impossibility is a fools errand.

Unfortunately, everyone's biased in one way or another and time is finite. Being 100%? I don't think most people should even be considering conflict.

It inevitably boils down to 'We don't like that this person plays this way and we're going to punish them', with some rationale IC moulded around that decision.

This was why I originally signed up to be an eventmin, small and large scale conflict assistance,  its not what the role is in its current state, most of the duties are at the moment story telling and pve content distribution not conflict management

And I'm not sure that its fair to ask eventmins who are uncomfortable with managing pvp conflict rules to do so, and as they are not on the moderation team this would expose them to flak as a losing side may accuse them of favoritism

[Shujin]

even if the mods are meant to oversee every little thingy (Which I disagree with, its annoying on all fronts), we need a clear reference point for them to point at, for their sanity too else its just going to be endless discussions or fuel for the Usual SL2 Member crashout to start doxing people or the other wonderful things people of this community maturely have handled in the past, such as sharing private information, faking screenshots, etc.

While obviously not everyone does that crap, it has happend often enough over the smallest things that us having some actual serious and pretty on point rules are required to lessen the load on Mods and player alike. Something thats not too handholdy cause that just messes with realism in RP and stagnates it, but fair and most importantly clear enough, that there is little room for discussion.

Everything else is just the worse timeline. Mods should only be required in rare cases and then to just clarify, in the most ideal scenario.