[Neus]

https://neus-projects.net/wiki/index.php/Game_Rules

As mentioned, I've been working on reorganizing and updating the existing rules. Above is my first draft of it, including the conflict rules. If you'd like to offer feedback, you are welcome to. In particular, I'm interested in knowing if;

1 - Did I miss something that should be in the rules?
2 - Do you feel that Dyst's fleeing rules are still necessary with the addition of scene locking and the conflict rules, or can those be retired?

Thank you.

[Miller]

https://neus-projects.net/wiki/index.php/Game_Rules

As mentioned, I've been working on reorganizing and updating the existing rules. Above is my first draft of it, including the conflict rules. If you'd like to offer feedback, you are welcome to. In particular, I'm interested in knowing if;

1 - Did I miss something that should be in the rules?
2 - Do you feel that Dyst's fleeing rules are still necessary with the addition of scene locking and the conflict rules, or can those be retired?

Thank you.

You should always try to be in-character.
It is generally discouraged to have your character be in an 'OOC' state, where you are in-game but your character is not 'actually there'. While it is fine to an extent, you must observe the following if you do so:

[*]Characters which have taken antagonistic actions recently and may be facing retribution (IE, arrest, bounty hunting) cannot be in an 'OOC' state.





Regarding this rule, since this may be a concern for anyone playing an antagonistic force of some nature, how long would be considered 'recent'?

IE: BBG attacks people in broad daylight and then a month later, he runs off to get something quickly done mechanically despite being wanted.

This is a bit of an extreme example, but most trying to play up an antagonistic figure while relying on in-game mechanics would have to go OOC at some point to get things settled or prepared in case something gets nerfed or buffed among other potential changes to the game itself.

[FatherCrixius]

As miller said. If being OOC is disallowed, people will not log in. Simple as. It will not obligate players to be IC on wanted characters as I feel you intended.

[Aqua]

Being OOC While Antagonistic leads to people who are wanted to go untouched, this isn't disallowing people from going OOC in the slightest, I feel clarification on the rule Miller brought up in terms of what would be considered 'Recent' would be nice.

[Neus]

https://neus-projects.net/wiki/index.php/Game_Rules

As mentioned, I've been working on reorganizing and updating the existing rules. Above is my first draft of it, including the conflict rules. If you'd like to offer feedback, you are welcome to. In particular, I'm interested in knowing if;

1 - Did I miss something that should be in the rules?
2 - Do you feel that Dyst's fleeing rules are still necessary with the addition of scene locking and the conflict rules, or can those be retired?

Thank you.

You should always try to be in-character.
It is generally discouraged to have your character be in an 'OOC' state, where you are in-game but your character is not 'actually there'. While it is fine to an extent, you must observe the following if you do so:

[*]Characters which have taken antagonistic actions recently and may be facing retribution (IE, arrest, bounty hunting) cannot be in an 'OOC' state.





Regarding this rule, since this may be a concern for anyone playing an antagonistic force of some nature, how long would be considered 'recent'?

IE: BBG attacks people in broad daylight and then a month later, he runs off to get something quickly done mechanically despite being wanted.

This is a bit of an extreme example, but most trying to play up an antagonistic figure while relying on in-game mechanics would have to go OOC at some point to get things settled or prepared in case something gets nerfed or buffed among other potential changes to the game itself.

The main goal of the rule is to prevent people from using "OOC mode" as a shield to avoid legitimate attempts to retaliate and continue the RP. There have been several situations where antagonistic characters have used 'sorry, I'm OOC' to avoid unfavorable situations for their characters when confronted. The rule could perhaps be rewritten in a different way to clarify this, but I'm not sure how to express it for that purpose.

[Neus]

As miller said. If being OOC is disallowed, people will not log in. Simple as. It will not obligate players to be IC on wanted characters as I feel you intended.

Please read the rules yourself before commenting. They do not say you cannot be OOC, only that you cannot be disruptive while doing so.

[Snake]

The best way to add on to this rule's clarification is by using the word 'ill intent' or 'OOC abuse'. The context of the situation can easily be brought up with a GM, perhaps. There will be courteous people who will understand the spirit of this rule, but there will be others who will attempt to play smart and say 'so it is written'.

In which if it happens, I'll have hard doubts on why they're even being RPed with, if they lack the basic common sense etiquette when playing a character.

Alas, I do find weird if I'm grinding a villain OOCly and someone just pops up like "ay yo, get your LV10 ass up, it's ready for whippin'. Which in the end contributes to people shying away from the position, since by default SL2 gives way too much credit to the good guys.

[Balor]

The best way to add on to this rule's clarification is by using the word 'ill intent' or 'OOC abuse'. The context of the situation can easily be brought up with a GM, perhaps. There will be courteous people who will understand the spirit of this rule, but there will be others who will attempt to play smart and say 'so it is written'.

In which if it happens, I'll have hard doubts on why they're even being RPed with, if they lack the basic common sense etiquette when playing a character.

Alas, I do find weird if I'm grinding a villain OOCly and someone just pops up like "ay yo, get your LV10 ass up, it's ready for whippin'. Which in the end contributes to people shying away from the position, since by default SL2 gives way too much credit to the good guys.

I agree that a good clarification would be nice. Something akin to "If you start a scene as an antag, or instigate conflict. You must see through the scene until it has ended, or both parties OOCly agree to a pause." Simply to discourage people from antagonizing others, doing PVP, and then dipping like "I have work in the morning."

Since this seems to be the intent of the rule.

Apart from that nothing here seems much different than what we've seen in prior iterations bar a few reworded cases to be more firm. I'd have liked if any use of the word 'May' was removed from conflict rules, as I feel you either consent to an altercation or you don't. But that's me.

[Blissey]

If I recall correctly, Mechanations were the exception to the sub-rule in this specific ruling. Or is that no longer the case? If so, it'd probably be best to add Mechanation as exceptions (as long as it isn't a meme designation, such as expressed in the ruling).

[sadbot]

I believe I asked in an earlier forum post regarding the new scene lock rules, but I’ll ask again just to try and get some clarification. Do said scene lock rules now effectively mean that guards can’t intervene in any conflict outside of guard populated areas like towns in almost all cases? I say almost all only because I would assume that they could still arrive and intervene if the conflict itself took long enough to start that someone could fetch them and have them arrive at said non-town location before the conflict even begins.