A thought on PvP

[Pseudonym]

As the title says, a random thought on PvP.

This is a RP server. I believe the (relatively) new limited PvP rule was brought in to enhance the RP experience, not detract. Player vs Player should, in my opinion, be at the end of RP interaction, not as the 'port of first call'.

Respect those that, for reasons IC or OOC, do not wish to engage in PvP.

'That's what my character would do' only carries so much weight with me. Enjoy your character and 'do' what you think they would up unto the point where it may detract from another player's enjoyment of their character.

Cheers!

[Polak76]

As the title says, a random thought on PvP.

This is a RP server. I believe the (relatively) new limited PvP rule was brought in to enhance the RP experience, not detract. Player vs Player should, in my opinion, be at the end of RP interaction, not as the 'port of first call'.

Respect those that, for reasons IC or OOC, do not wish to engage in PvP.

'That's what my character would do' only carries so much weight with me. Enjoy your character and 'do' what you think they would up unto the point where it may detract from another player's enjoyment of their character.

Cheers!

I totally agree.  Many times I've been threatened with PvP yet no RP has taken place prior to it.  Now that to me symbolises metagaming due to the fact they know OOC that I'm lower level and/or a Corathite.

Anyway I think there must be some sort of RP then a OOC chat via tells discussing whether or not the parties wish to conduct some sort of PvP...eg:

Player 1: "Foul Drow I will smite thee in his honor"
Player 2: "you pathetic kivvil deem yourself worthy of my blade?"
Player 1: tell: Listen mate, want to PvP?  You're easy to me so I'm guessing i'm two levels higher.  It's up to you?
Player 2: tell: sure thing..lets give it a shot.  Should be fun.
Player 1: *Draws his Sword* time to die!
widgets are activiated and PvP commences.

[Makashi]

I agree completely.

However - if you are referring to what happened earlier during the day, it was the last point of call of roleplay, you went through an area trnasition expecting that would be it. - I do not wish to turn this into an arguement, but I had a short chat with Dezza afterwards and he agreed with me, Gork is not a nice orc if he's made angry. He's NE, if you get on the wrong side of him, expect the consequences of him wanting to do something about it.

Very Aggitated orc - made angrier by one of them - is also evil -  sees they are smaller - kills them.

I'd also like to point out. The pvp widget gives you 60 seconds to leave party if you do not wish to engage. After that time had expired, you had not left, finally I believe you were the one that set dislike on Gork.

I may also state, if you were referring to earlier this is, you said you're character was not 'stupid' enough to engage in a fight, however, was willing to go ahead and pretty much insult the character in one of the worst ways possible at the time, due to previous roleplay event that had taken place.

As I said I do not wish to turn this into an argument and agree with the things you have said.

I just think it is real shame if this is referring to earlier. As there were several chances not to take place in the pvp what so ever.

If this doesn't have anything to do with earlier, I appologise completely.

[Pseudonym]

Nah mate, I wasn't. Apology accepted.

[Makashi]

*feels stupid for rambling on*

[Interia_Discordius]

My main problem with the PvP widget is that people who are good-aligned wouldn't go and kill another good-aligned human appearing race just for a little argument, and I see that done every now and then recently. Just frustrating, because that's totally unrealistic in my view.

[Pseudonym]

Second random thought on PvP (in one day no less!) ... or, perhaps more accurately, an addendum or edification to/on the first thought.

There may be lots of valid reasons why it is appropriate to activate the PvP widget between two consenting players ... if it's fun for you both and RP relevant, cool, go for it. Just be mindful that it is a trust that has been placed in our hands by Leanthar (and if we abuse it can just as easily be taken away) for us to use responsibly. It suits some players, and some characters, more than others ... don't be too 'trigger-happy' with the widget is the point I was making ... and to no one person in particular! :-)

Ask yourself? Is this adding to the RP experience for all concerned? Am I 100% sure about that? Am I 200% sure about that?

[Tanman]

Might I also add it is in not in particular fun when a character hides behind pvp rules and the player thinks that they will not be affected because they can just refuse the pvp widget offer.

RP fear according when one does an intimidation check and you fail. I have heard where an intimidation check from a barbarian was 70 vs 15 in a quest or something like that and the character that lost, wet his pants.

As Pseudonym says in the beginning:

Enjoy your character and 'do' what you think they would up unto the point where it may detract from another player's enjoyment of their character.

[lonnarin]

I have heard where an intimidation check from a barbarian was 70 vs 15 in a quest or something like that and the character that lost, wet his pants.

Must have been against a GM controlled NPC.  Whenever Rakish used his Intimidation skill of +30, most folks insulting and threatening him just stood their ground and pretended he was just another elf with a suntan, despite reflexively rolling their opposed intimidate checks or will saves a good 20-30 points lower than his roll.  

Sadly, the intimidation skill in PnP often boils down to metagaming much in the same way that the PVP widget does; The PLAYER (not character) knows that said intimidator is lower level or a rogue and isn't scared, so his character metagames through the check, despiyte having blatantly failed it.  

I'm all for Roleplay vs. Rollplay, but if you step up to the craps table, place a bet and lose, I'm taking that money; If you don't want to acknowledge intimidation checks, then don't roll against them in the first place!

That being said, running up to an orc or drow PC with a chip on your shoulder delivering ultimatums "leave of die!" WILL get you killed.  Just the same as if anybody in real life tried that with me... *grins*  Think about it too, you're goodly character goes out of their way to threaten others with death, an orc or drow tells them to leave them alone a few times but he keeps badgering them.  AT this point, the holier-than-thou goodygoody should be getting evil points, and there's nothing evil about the drow or orc killing them in self defense.  Sorry, but once people playing good characters realize what the little G besided their L N or C stands for, the widget will be abused till the end of days.

Just imagine the furor & grievance reports that would ensue if Kor, Rak and Gork stood by the raw CNR guarding them from all non-orcs, telling them to leave and threatening to kill them if they didn't, then just clicking the PVP widget on all who didn't obey!  SO it's one thing to say "yes, but you're an orc PC, you should expect this!" when we get badgered for using the only crafthalls in town available to us; how come then we can't just raid the town, kill everybody on sight and use the excuse "we're orc PCs, get used to this!"  Common courtesy really.  Honestly I think all us orcs need to band together and just make our own crafthall on a mountaintop somewhere near some tantalizingly valuable ore, and start slaughtering dwarves who try to use it.

[miltonyorkcastle]

I personally have had no real need or opportunity to use the PvP widget. Despite  Steel being blue skinned, hanging out with shady people, and generally slaughtering masses of creatures without saying a single word, no one ever challenges his right to be anywhere and go as he pleases. Perhaps people are more curious than worried.

Either way, I have seen "good" people threaten other "good" people with PvP simply because the one annoyed the other. Really, I was kind of surprised. At first I thought it was the non-serious comment from a heated disagreement, but no, the threatening person was serious. Thankfully, it didn't come down to it, but had the situation escalated further, I was hoping to see any other of the good-aligned folks standing around watching to intervene. And I suppose that's my whole point.

We have been addressing those who are attempting to engage in PvP, but as a good aligned character who witnesses PvP, you should be doing something to stop it when the two involved are supposedly good guys. Granted, you may pass by and see an orc getting killed and no biggie. But what happens if you know that orc? and you have never had any prejudice against the orc, perhaps even seen the orc perform honorable deeds? As a "good" person (LG, NG, CG), your character should intervene. Not intervening should move you closer to neutrality and/or evil. Even so, you don't necessarily have to know the people involved or their situation to intervene if you're good aligned. Also, intervention is not always stopping a fight, but at least making it known what the consequences could be, etc.

I suppose I'm really just wanting to point out the responsibility of characters/players outside of the two or more engaging (or threatening to engage) in PvP.

[Tanman]

Must have been against a GM controlled NPC.  

Well no. it was on a quest and between two players with GM Supervision.

Sadly, the intimidation skill in PnP often boils down to metagaming much in the same way that the PVP widget does; The PLAYER (not character) knows that said intimidator is lower level or a rogue and isn't scared, so his character metagames through the check, despiyte having blatantly failed it.

I TOTALLY agree and thats what I was trying to portray in my post in a pvp light. I guess yours highlighted it better with initimidation checks. Sometimes when my barbarian wins an intimidation check roll all I get from Roleplay from the other person...is a shrug and a smile.

Regardless of level, because that is really ooc information. . .one should RP being scared, when losing out on an intimdation check roll.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Scared? Mayhaps not. Intimidated? Oh yeah.

[Polak76]

Overall I tihnk the game is getting better with regards to skill rolls.  In the old days i felt the dice bag was used far less and most of the time the opposing characters seemed to ignore the roll anyway.
Now however, i feel the is a concerted effort to play by the die-roll.  Anyway if i find someone that does not honor a failed die roll, i generally have a bad habit of sending them a tell to do so.

Overall I'm quite pleased with the use of the skills.  These days i find myself taking a broader range of skills depending on what my character has been using prior to leveling.

With regards to PvP, i might add that not all people react to conflict the same way.  My character wouldn't openly attack someone but rather use gile and wit to trace what his enemy treasures most and kill it, burn it, steal it etc, be it his house, family or faction.  So it horses for courses.

[Acacea]

Just as a note, I don't think a high level character is particularly obligated to wet his pants at a high intimidate roll just because they don't have ranks in the skill. Intimidate isn't the counter to intimidate; it's a modified level check if we're using the 'right' one, and for good reaon. If a character has say, faced down Blood, I don't feel they require intimidate ranks to avoid pants-wetting at a random dark elf making constipated faces or a barbarian eating raw ogre meat off of dirty armor, however awe-inspiring the shade of black.

I'm not saying that it's right to ignore it completely by metagaming the level, quite the opposite, but it is equally wrong to assume that it's all about the skill number, regardless of what the epic characters have been through prior to running into the intimidating one.

Conclusion: PCs should bother to make a counter roll regardless of each other's level. But the level IS factored into the counter-equation. If Sir Onionhead were level 40, rolling against someone's +30 intimidate, he'd save with a d20 + 40 + WISmod, without metagaming having anything to do with it. Even rules that don't take the whole levels still use part of them, like half.  

Good comments on PvP all around, whether respecting the right to not engage in it, or not abusing that respect to commit actions that are essentially just hiding behind an unwillingness to take it to the next level. For most PCs it is definitely a last resort action; how many of our good or even neutral PCs are going to kill someone because they were annoying? It can be fun to mess around, but it's all still in character and subject to roleplay.

[Tanman]

Just as a note, I don't think a high level character is particularly obligated to wet his pants at a high intimidate roll just because they don't have ranks in the skill.

You are quite right, but the pant wetting was one 'such' example and it's not a set rule. Yes when you bring in epic levels it is consider it different. BUT in this case, we are not talking about epic characters. And I would believe if this is the case...being intimidated after losing to an intimidated check still remains true.

The number of skillpoints is important. Otherwise how can we say that Triba is one of the reknown rogue in Layonara that is good at hiding? *winks*

[Acacea]

I think the point was missed. I said in the previous post that I agreed ignoring a failure is very silly. However, the roll was made incorrectly, because you're supposed to add the character level to the save.

The pants-wetting wasn't making an assumption that the example was meant to apply to everyone, far from it - I would certainly hope we didn't expect all intimidated people to lose control of their bladders, as there are a lot of ways one can show being intimidated and it would be a difficult one to enforce. It was a direct response to the complaint that higher level characters ignore the rolls of lower level characters with high skills. It was not stated that it was epic or non-epic, and either way it doesn't really matter because I was just objecting to the premise of levels having nothing to do with it.

Conclusion: PCs should bother to make a counter roll regardless of each other's level. But the level IS factored into the counter-equation. If Sir Onionhead were level 40, rolling against someone's +30 intimidate, he'd save with a d20 + 40 + WISmod, without metagaming having anything to do with it. Even rules that don't take the whole levels still use part of them, like half.

Not a defense of ignoring rolls, merely a defense of proper rolling to take levels into account.

[lonnarin]

A Will save is a will save.  A dragon's terrifying aura is nothing magical, but the sheer horror of the experience.  The level of the viewer doesn't apply in this non-magical situation.  Any spells that reproduce fear or instances of unsightly undead are also derivative of will save.  Fear as a tangible emotion therefore is most logically opposed by will save, despite whatever ammendiums are made to 3.5.  IMO, assigning a level bonus to resisting a scarey situation is a folly of current PnP revisionism that incosistantly reflects the interaction of stats and gameplay.  It automatically presumes that all parties involved metagame knowledge of eachother's level and net accomplishments in advance.  A wise adventerer acknowledges that death and doom can come from any shadowy corner or haggard beggar in robes, and would take any and all threats equally seriously.  

It forgets also that in many cases, the most terrified rogue will hide first and live longest and therefore attain the higher levels despite his cowardice.  One need not be fearless to find a dark corner and stick a knife in the back at just the right moment.  To list the accomplishments that come with level as a decisive bonus to a will save situation also ignores the psychological conditions that arise from post traumatic stress disorders that would undoubtedly flood the adventurer's mind progressivly as they advanced.  The slightest cough could be mummy rot, the shadow of a vulture looks for a moment like an overcast dragon and trusting strangers becomes all the harder after the pain of being stabbed in the back.  To say then, that mere experience counteracts all fear is both psychologically inaccurate and still redundant; Higher level characters already have stronger wills by virtue of their increasing Will Saves.

Never assume that the greatest of heroes are fearless.  Fear is a key motivator in many of their actions.  Without fear, many would have died taunting dragons well before attaining epic levels.  How they REACT to that fear however, is likely a mark of experience.  Some tense up, some shift to diplomacy, others return threats and become hostile, flee, etc... not every reaction need result in a bowel movemnt; which is equally likely to be a cause of poor diet and intestinal health than just the fear itself.

[Weeblie]

For once, something is clearly written in the PhB... Hehe...

From the 3.5 Edition Player Handbook:

You can change another's behavior with a successful check. your Intimidate check is opposed by the target's modified level check (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target's Wisdom bonus [if any] + target's modifiers on saves against fear). If you beat your target's check result, you may treat the target as friendly, but only for the pupose of actions taken while it remains intimidated. (That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated....

[lonnarin]

True, but that same book also states that 17th level pure rangers get hide in plain sight.  

And to say that everybody becomes friendly to successful intimidation is inaccurate.  If I'm intimidated by a barbarian with a battleaxe roaring at me in the parking lot, I'm going to run or draw my gun, not buy him a soda.

[Weeblie]

Glancing at the monster handbook I noticed that... It's not completely accurate that level (i.e. HD) doesn't matter against the fear-aura of the dragons.

According to the handbook, only creatures of less HD than the dragon can be affected by the aura. Different effects also apply depending whether the creatures' HDs are above or below 5.

And to answer your last post, the hostility change is in fact extremly accurate. The misunderstanding is of that the change isn't really a "change". The intimidated creature will act as though being friendly (he's scared! he will do whatever you tell him!) but the true attitude towards you is still the same (he's so scared of you that he will buy you that soda but the thoughts in his head is most probably something like "one day in the future...").

Side note is that afterwards, the creature's attitude towards you will drop to unfriendly (or hostile, if the attitude before was unfriendly).