The World of Layonara
The Layonara Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: Pseudonym on April 29, 2007, 06:02:06 PM
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
Nah mate, I wasn't. Apology accepted.
-
*feels stupid for rambling on*
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Scared? Mayhaps not. Intimidated? Oh yeah.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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*
-
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.
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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).
-
It's not a matter of 'becoming friendly.' It's like breaking when you want them to do something. If anything they likely become more hostile (like Weeblie stated and I missed while typing), but are temporarily cowed into a different course of action than they would normally take.
No one said great heroes are immune to fear. Again, quite the opposite, and I tried to say that more than once. Intimidation is not just random fear, it is a charisma based pressure tool. Just because Acacea is a bit claustrophobic in the UD doesn't mean she's extra susceptible to someone making faces at her for no reason.
A wise adventurer may do many things, including yes, taking any threat seriously and not falling victim to the illusion that they are immortal - but that is not the same as being cowed by the threat into submission. I'm not sure laughter is the appropriate response for some if the check is very high, even if they pass it with the aid of their level - I firmly believe that they would not have their actions changed by it, but the attempt to do so and the fact that it worked on many other people inspire some response. If you pass the save against the giant barbarian's terrifying rage as it mows down the party, you don't laugh, you eliminate the threat.
Anyway this is kind of off-topic but even when disagreeing with the stance of the PHB it's still unfair to rant about all the people that use it for their reference. Again... not ignoring the rolls or a failure, as that's not right either, just the factoring of the level into the counter is what I'm talking about. If it is now an argument on what it SHOULD be then there are a few threads about Intimidation specifically... I was just clarifying the currently correct equation, not that everyone should like it. ;)
-
How does the epic adventerer's eye distinguish between a 30HD dragon of Gargantuan size vs. a 30HD dragon of equal Gargantuan size that has 15 extra sorceror levels?
Also, Indiana Jones fought the nazis all by himself, yet still screams & nearly has a heart attack when you throw a garden snake at him.
Of course this is all philosophy and behavioral science at this point, far detached from the black & white rule system of D&D, in which the human condition has been watered down into vague generalizations for brevity's sake. I must cede that it's just a game and that the current standardized check is as it is because to go in depth as I would, the game would be called "Shadowrun" or "Rifts". They had a nice phobia system and added psychological factors that were a bit more flexible and realistic than 3.5's assumptions.
And no, this is not a rant against those who use the 3.5 system as it is in the book. The initial qualms I had in this thread were about those not even acknowledging intimidation checks despite the rolls; substituting the level check is still far better than completely ignoring the check at all... or likewise opposing it in whatever manner they chose and refusing to RP failure when the dice roll south of the opposed check, extra levels and all.
Then somwhere along the line my mind went lucid and started recalling years and years of behavioral theory and clinical studies, and I began pondering on a philosophical/theoretical bent. I'm not rejecting the use of level checks in game at all, just questioning their ultimate validity for that which they are presumed to represent.
-
Shadow Run ... *shivers* So many numbers...... Rifts, too, but not quite as bad.... played a lot of Rifts last fall....
-
But we are not factoring level into phobias and environmental fears, or at least I wouldn't, because many of those only become greater or more pronounced the more someone has been through - we factor level into another PCs attempt to pressure them into doing something they would not normally do (whether giving information or fleeing from combat) by presenting themselves as a greater threat. I would factor my level against that unless I didn't feel like doing the numbers and felt like my PC was having a bad day or something.
I would not factor my character's level against fear that is the result of a 'phobia' actively threatening her and yawning in the abyss and all that.
What I mean -
Lone hulking brute leering and threatening with a knife in an attempt to cow her into submission: d20+level+wismod = something like "I fought all the nazis by myself and have escaped death by the seat of my pants countless times, I think I can find an intelligent way to deal with this rather than breaking"
Put in a small room 2000 miles under the surface = something like "panic"
I would also remind that passing an intimidation check does not necessarily mean one is unaffected... but you keep your cool and react as you would under 'normal' circumstances.
*Shifty* Topic topic, where have you gone... :P
-
Lonnarin: Special Abilities - Frightful Presence :: d20srd.org (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#frightfulPresence)
I'm afraid that the dragon's fear aura (frightful presence by name) is an Extraordinary Ability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#extraordinaryAbilities), which, while nonmagical, isn't simply gut, That-thing-is-going-to-eat-me-so-it's-smart-to-be-afraid fear. It's OHMYGODMYBRAINISONFIREAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGGGGHHHHH fear.
Intimidation isn't about fear. That's why fear is handled differently than Intimidate. I can be nicely intimidated by the big hulking guy with biceps the size of my thighs, and not be afraid of him (so long as I do what he tells me to), after all.
-
Causation need not always define effect. While the methods of fear in D&D may undergo taxonomy for simplification, the end result of their application is still avoided only via will save or immunity. While this specific non-magical fear is categorized as an extraordinary ability, it is still the result of extraordinary *circumstances* stemming from looking upon a rather extraordinary-looking dragon. Without either a magical or psionic conduit to artificially instill this fear, I fail to see how extraordinary-ability fear differs from any other naturally occuring type of fear one would experience. If this aura persists in no-magic zones, then one would assume that its source was entirely situational to the amount of fearful stimuli witnessed by the viewer.
On the second point, there is a thought to ponder regarding the nature of intimidation.... Intimidation itself may be entirely divided from fear in certain circumstances. While a Paladin who's immune to fear might shrug off a threat from a rogue that he's going to get gutted in his sleep, he would be foolish to ignore such a threat against the paladin's innocent loved ones. "let me go or my guild will burn down your church as you sleep and slay every child in your orphanage" might not *frighten* the paladin, though it certainly might be enough to give him pause and coerce him towards some end in the rogue's favor, particularly when worded in a manner that is ultimately believable.
In that sense I'm beginning to see intimidation as less of a knee-jerk fear reaction, and more as a situational mind-game of chess in which the context and believability of the threat is of utmost importance. It therefore would not entirely tantamount to instill fear in an individual in order to coerce them with a threat of some sort. This theory might disprove the Paladins' defense of "I have no fear; I can't be intimidated".
Very good points in this discussion, everyone, despite how far from the initial topic it's travelled thus far. Without active philosophical debate my day job would be truly boring!
*picks up a 12pack and drives home for the day*
-
Just to throw in a suggestion here...
What if through pvp you had a greater chance to loose a soul strand?
WOuld this cause people who are taking advantage of the pvp widget or over using it in inappropriate circumstances suddenly consider very seriously their actions?
Entering into combat should be a well thought out event for most people no matter race, class, level or alignment. Its really only CE or perhaps NE to some degree that may take offense over very little and seek to pvp.
But even in saying so...people are trying to do it in the middle of towns, cities and in front of others etc.
Why? Most likely cause after being denied it so long they suddenly can. Its a long way sometimes to run to Fort Vehl and the arena to 'test' your character out against another.
Its one thing to run around killing giants and ogres and such but to fight each other...wow thats new and so much more challenging lets do it!!!
Hopefully its use will die down...I cant say its going to happen though.
I say give people real repercussions in using it and make them think twice about whether they would in truth use it in those circumstances.
Personally I dont feel its required to enhance our RP experience on layo. The only reason that I can see that its there for now is so that evil guys can pick on good guys moreso than good guys taking out evil guys. Good guys have more morals than that....usually.
Consider this: Does killing another PC for very little reason make the game more fun for you? If so then I would say this world is not for you.
If you RP and there is simply no altenative but to draw swords at 5 paces and smash each other to bits you still need to consider your environment. In many cases it is simply not appropriate for you to engage in pvp. Town guards are around, innocent people, other adventurers, military forces etc, etc.
I advise people to think long and hard about pvp...long and hard!
-
Causation need not always define effect. While the methods of fear in D&D may undergo taxonomy for simplification, the end result of their application is still avoided only via will save or immunity. While this specific non-magical fear is categorized as an extraordinary ability, it is still the result of extraordinary *circumstances* stemming from looking upon a rather extraordinary-looking dragon. Without either a magical or psionic conduit to artificially instill this fear, I fail to see how extraordinary-ability fear differs from any other naturally occuring type of fear one would experience. If this aura persists in no-magic zones, then one would assume that its source was entirely situational to the amount of fearful stimuli witnessed by the viewer.
Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.
The main focus there is that Extraordinary Abilites do not (necessarily) adhere to the laws of reality as we know them... Or at all. A dragon's Frightful Presence (which, after checking, is NOT the same as a Fear Aura) is one such mentally-pervasive-
----
Actually, after thinking about this a little, I think I have to reverse my stance on Frightful Presence. Yes, it is a natural fear. The whole gut-deep RUNTHE[ahem]AWAY feeling...
However, that said... Frightful Presence is an Extraordinary Ability rooted in A) the creature's Charisma and B) the creature's HD, both of which lend directly to force of personality. After all, to save it is a "Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 frightful creature's racial HD + frightful creature's Cha modifier)". It's an Extraordinary ability for a reason - it's an enhanced-...
Okay, more thinking.
Frightful Presence seems, indeed, to simply be the D20 system's way of quantifying those VERY impressive creatures. As we'll recall, it activates any time they do anything particularly impressive - snarling, attacking, swooping by...
Wow. I've changed my own mind twice in one post after thinking about it hard enough.
EDIT:
AHAH! Now, on to lay out in clear form why Frightful Presence and Fear spells rely on a Will Save, while Intimidate takes a modified Level check.
Frightful/Fear - Both require Will Saves, as they directly confront the character's force of willpower with the onslaught of unreasoning, animal terror.
Intimidate - Requires a Level check, as, rather than presenting the opposing character with FEAR, it presents the opposing character with a situation they DON'T want to be in. I.e. "hand over the money or the gal gets it" rather than "ROAR! SMASH YOO DED!!!"
-
Firstly thanks Dezza for bringing this back to the original topic, but alas i'll quikly comment on die roll business.
What irritates me most when i read these posts is how technical we get over such really simple issues. Without going into all the fine print of the PHB 3.5 or other resources why can't we just simply play it by ear and enjoy the game for what it is.
Quite simply if my char rolls a skill check against any epic characters regardless of how high they are and beats them with the roll, they had better RP their failure appropriately or i'll simply send them a tell thats probably not going to be very nice and ignore them from then on. I dont really care if their level isn't factored in the die roll, all i'm concerned with is my total versus their total, or if i roll a 20 and they roll a 1, visa versa. It's petty squabbling over who's right and who's wrong, lets just play the game as it is.
But back to the PvP, with the widgets we naturally assume that all PvP occurs when both parties agree to combat and they both have a chance to be ready. How completely different this is in most circumstances. Most of the time PvP would happen with one party being surpirsed by the sudden attack be it a stab in the back, ambush, assassination or any attack when they least expect it. So taking that into consideration lets say Mr Big wants to attack my char because i said something that irritated him (which would be most of the time). He might be visibly angry but my char might simply turn his back and start walking off. He then might activate the widget and send me a tell saying he wants to PvP. Now if I at this point accept combat but keep walking off as i may fail a spot check to see him reaching for his dagger and he could then very well kill me without me being ready. At this point such an action could be viewed as murder if it happened in sight of others and be reported to the town militia. So basiaclly what I'm getting at is PvP can be agreed with the notion that one party member has no idea that the other is about to launch the attack where death would most likely be imminent.
-
If a PC dies in Layo, they should risk the loss of a Soul Strand. There needs to be serious, tangible and painful consequences for taking a PC's life. Some will retort that it's unfair to the lower level or the under-prepared. I submit they should not have allowed their Level 30 mouth to override their Level 6 body.
-
*bump* Oh look what I bumped into.
-
I know I hear people always talk about intimidate with a roll and many other things to be rolled for, whilst I sometimes find it's necessary to roll an opposed skill check, being an RP server I would much rather someone intimidate by appearance, presence and REAL fear, as opposed to walking up to me and all I see is "*intimidate check* go away".
I was witness to one lame attempt at intimidating, in which one character continued to attack a target despite being told to stop by the whole party whom was then temporarily disabled and threatened me, fine naturally.
Then randomly, some character who doesn't even know the character threatening me, pops out of nowhere, standing infront of me and just does an intimidate check without a word.
The whole system of intimidate, bluff and so forth was mainly designed for PC versus NPC, not PC versus PC. I have seen many PC's intimidate many times without any dice rolls and done is fantastically, forcing me to back down from something, so as not to risk their wrath (if it makes RP sense I never decline PVP, no matter how painful it will be). Remember the old joke, Roleplay, not rollplay. Simply walking up to people and rolling intimidate checks doesn't cut it, as previously stated, if I roll and lose, I will RP it, but sometimes I won't roll, if the situation just doesn't seem appropriate. Another great example is Mr Rogue of level 40 and Mr Barbarian of level 10. Say they've been friends for awhile but things go sour. Say we do an opposed intimidate check and Mr Barbarian wins, now Mr Rogue is more than aware of Mr Barbarians combat ability and is quite sure he can rip him apart. Would he really quake in his boots and cry in the corner, or realistically, would the NE rogue just stab the barbarian and be about his business? This illustrates my point about intimidate as a Roll or a Role check, people should try and RP it out, only using Rolls at an impass and a way to force avoidance of metagaming.
I want to finish with PvP should be used when it makes RP sense and never any other time. If you insult a powerful and evil person you shouldn't hide behind the deny button but accept what you know makes sense, just as you'd be forced to, if you called an NPC lich a number of insults.
-
I'm surprised no one's really brought up the converse situation, where you RP your attempt to intimidate someone really well, and by all reasonable accounting, the character you're attempting to intimidate should be intimidated, but doesn't even so much as acknowledge it, except to boldly act as though even if Vorax himself were the one trying to intimidate them they wouldn't back-down.
So, in the end after reading these kinds of posts time-and-again, I say the need to roll or not roll greatly depends upon the players involved in any given situation and their ability to maturely handle it and either acquiesce one to the other, or agree to rolling to settle it.
-
Nice and pleasant PMs can solve a lot of issues...
erm... edit...
Nice and pleasant Tells......
-
I'm surprised no one's really brought up the converse situation, where you RP your attempt to intimidate someone really well, and by all reasonable accounting, the character you're attempting to intimidate should be intimidated, but doesn't even so much as acknowledge it, except to boldly act as though even if Vorax himself were the one trying to intimidate them they wouldn't back-down.
So, in the end after reading these kinds of posts time-and-again, I say the need to roll or not roll greatly depends upon the players involved in any given situation and their ability to maturely handle it and either acquiesce one to the other, or agree to rolling to settle it.
Never met Brian eh? :D I think I'm using the intimidate check so much with him, that it is fading off my screen.