[Trexmaster]

With the release of Yokoshura the current state of Korvara/SL2's Conflict Rules has become far more apparent to most given the heavy emphasis the lore Yokoshura brings has on sparking conflict in some shape or form.

While we're still 5 days or so away from the grace period ending, recent events have brought the conversation to light on how the system can be improved to better facilitate conflict or curtail it for those who'd rather not without detracting from the experience of others.

For context, here are the Conflict Rules, sourced from the SL2 Wiki that Dev was originally working on. The Korvara Conflict Rules are pretty short and can be summarized to DL1 always being enforced and the option to apply for Forced Danger Level, which I'll get into later.

What is '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).

Clean and straightforward.

Rule of Roleplay

1. Prior to conflict, roleplay between both parties must occur. This RP must be done in an interactive way; you cannot simple RP 'at' someone when you're looking for a fight.
   
2. 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.
   
3. 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 simply insane.
     
   • My character hates (race) and/or (gender) characters.
     

This is reasonable, though fairly subjective. Meaning it is difficult to argue for or against inciting conflict as everyone's idea of a character being justified or not will likely differ.

What defines 'an interactive way'? While I can infer what this means not everyone will easily understand that. From my understanding it boils down to not just swinging at people, or simply put, no direct interactions with another player's character in the context of conflict until they have roleplay'd back at you.

For those who do not seek conflict, without a clear indication that conflict is being sought by the person interacting with them, then the winning move is to simply not interact. Which isn't ideal for a roleplaying game.

Having more clear criteria for what scenarios support certain Danger Levels beyond the 1st may make it easier to judge organic conflict. If that will even be allowed in the rules moving forward.

For example:

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.

To curtail conflict being brought on those who do not want it, I'd suggest having a more clearly enforced Danger Level limit that players can opt into, so those who'd potentially wish to bring conflict to them know their preferences. It goes without saying that one should not seek to incite higher DL conflict than they'd wish brought upon themselves.

Rule of Consent

1. Both parties must give consent to the 'danger level' of a conflict encounter.
   • Danger Levels:
     • 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.
       
2. In the event that no danger level is clearly established, both parties assume that it is level 1.
   
3. For Level 1/2, consent may be given through IC roleplay that explicitly implies that the other party is about to be, for example, punched or robbed.
   
4. For Level 3/4, explicit consent but must be given beforehand in the LOOC channel by both parties. Simply implying it is not allowed in these cases, as they have permanent consequences.
   
5. 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!
   
6. Consent cannot be forced in conflict between two parties. 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.
   • NOTE: If one party is, for example, egging on or insulting another party, and the insulted party makes it clear that they'd better stop or they'll retaliate. In instances like these, continuing to egg on or insult them would be the same as giving consent for the conflict (at level 1). Do not try to use this rule as a shield.
     
7. 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.
   
8. Consent only applies for the specific encounter. (IE, just because someone consents to being robbed once does not mean they are giving consent for you to rob them in the future.)
   

Ah, the good ol' Consent Rules. As they stand, they effectively provide players immortality. Players can yap and do the wildest shit and face no consequence they do not wish to have wrought upon them if they simply do not consent.This is not inherently a bad thing. It becomes dubious when you introduce factors that encourage conflict in an environment that has enabled players to sidestep it at their leisure. You can put up all the warning signs you want but without strict moderation players simply won't know how to properly handle conflict, as they never had any reason to learn.The rules here do indeed state that they are not meant to be used as a shield, though often times in these scenarios it is often simply not worth pursuing the individual in question.


It creates headache in a universe where there are no stakes, no risk without the explicit consent of the affected parties. It takes an inordinate amount of passion and effort to be willing to push the bill when it comes to telling someone 'no, you need to face the consequences of your actions' in a world tailored around those rarely if ever existing without being expressly asked for.No one wants to be the villain OOCly. Sometimes people do stupid stuff and wind up in situations way over their head, and don't realize it until it's too late.

The rules as they presently stand disproportionately favor those who do not want conflict, making it an arduous task for those who are willing to be the aggressor in conflict to make roleplay out of it. The best way I can think of to retain the same safeguards whilst avoiding stressful situations OOCly would be to more clearly define how to handle situations wherein one wishes to invoke their right to not consent.

Example:

When initiating conflict, or in a scene that is perceived as approaching conflict, any involved party may state their maximum comfortable Danger Level for the scene. In instances where this is uncertain or has not been declared, either party may request the scene be paused until all involved parties have declared their accepted Danger Level. Once all parties have agreed on the Danger Level of the scene, it may continue, otherwise if no agreement can be reached a moderator determination will be made as to how the scene is resolved.

Not ideal to need to include moderators in every scene but if people cannot agree to how to resolve a scene, it's necessary. More specific determinations can be made in advance for how to handle certain areas like say Yokoshura. If say, an outsider went there and incited conflict and did not wish to face it, they'd be given a single pass and told to leave. Instigating again would result in Forced Danger Level.Ultimately this is a difficult problem to solve, as it touches upon one of the most fundamental things to Sigrogana Legend 2.

The ability for you and you alone to determine how your character's story pans out, bar the planets aligning and someone managing the Hail Mary that is a Forced Danger Level application with their current track record. Seriously though, the Consent Rule is something that needs to be better defined for the sake of both those who wish to avoid conflict and those who may find themselves instigating it, as favoring one side too much is only going to cause headaches.We're all here to have fun and write interesting (to us) stories. Consequences having meaning is integral to maintaining the integrity of the universe we have all collaboratively created. If a character does not wish to face consequences, they should take care to ensure their actions don't warrant them, and if they do? Be willing to compromise. A middle ground is what the Consent Rule needs.

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.
   

This can be a tricky one to enforce but the basis of it is understandable. In a universe where you're physically incapable of simply murdering one another to solve a problem once and for all, naturally a dispute will last forever if both sides are immortal if you don't have something to stop them from going at it indefinitely.

Having to avoid one another on an OOC level though is kind of weird. Though as the rule can simply be waived on request, it's a non issue. It only exists to point at if someone is actively harassing a character repeatedly, which shouldn't be happening.It's just one of those rules that's far more likely to be wielded in bad faith than it is to actually help those who're being harassed. If someone's clearly harassing someone OOCly following conflict, that's harassment, no need for a rule to be carved out in the Conflict Rules to resolve that one. Whereas on the other hand, if I just got in a spat with someone, now suddenly if I'm idling somewhere entirely different on another character, I can get sniped over them being in the same spot on an entirely different character if they're feeling petty enough. 

Now, how to maintain the spirit of this rule whilst removing its abuse cases? Trim down this rule to just 
1. Following the conclusion of conflict, the involved parties may not enter or instigate conflict with one another for 12 real life hours. This rule may be waived if both parties agree to doing so.They can still talk to each other (notably, on other characters), they just can't get into conflict unless they both agree to it.

Way easier to moderate that, unless one side really wants to argue existing is instigating conflict. In some cases, that can be true of course if they aren't supposed to be there. Generally though, a moderator can make a very quick decision as to what is or isn't instigating conflict.

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.
   

Yeah, I agree. The goal of creating a scene should be to have it fun for as many of those involved as possible. This rule is unfortunately one that is assumed to be in play, rather than one that is actively invoked.

With how infrequent conflict is, it's an easy one to to forget for those who aren't accustomed to it. Having some kind of mechanical representation for players to make use of to denote an active scene lock in the area would be a helpful reminder that they exist. So that we don't need to call an EM or GM to drop the Scene Lock icon onto the ground.

A game I play has a simple RP Flag verb that drops an object on the ground akin to a Placeable Sign that players can write text to display when it's clicked. Essentially what a sign is but far simpler and quicker to make use of. No questions as to whether it's a sign ICly, it's just a little arrow pointing downward. You click it, it prints the text the player submitted. This can be helpful for providing context to a scene in progress or simply informing that a scene is locked to those arriving.

Without a scene lock being made abundantly clear, this can create rippling OOC confusion that's extremely difficult to resolve without heavy moderator involvement in the aftermath to retcon things that shouldn't have happened or shouldn't have been known. If players don't know they have these protections nor how to invoke them, they won't be used.

Now for Korvara's Conflict Rules in particular:

Rule of Consent Adjustments

1. Korvara conflict is always assumed to have a consented Danger Level 1 (simple non-life threatening injuries).
   • This means that, provided supporting RP is done, you can't refuse to participate in a conflict.
     
   • This does not mean that you can attack anyone at any time; the Rule of Roleplay still applies.
     
2. A certain Danger Level can be forced in certain circumstances.
   • See the section below for details.
     

Always DL 1, yet wait. It mentions the Rule of Roleplay. An important aspect to be certain in that your character is respected when it comes to engaging in conflict. People can't swing on you for no reason. Thus a hurdle exists to start any form of conflict, even if innocuous. As it stands, mechanical PvP is the default solution if a compromise can't be reached as to how to resolve it. Which is unfortunate considering how abysmal PvP is.

I don't wish to go on too long of a tangent on PvP, though it's important to mention in regards to conflict as it is presently the default means of resolution. The game actively encourages and rewards hot swapping your build. Your items, your talents, your traits, the only thing you get a warning about the other person swapping is their stats. God forbid you have a race that has counterplay to it (Kaels and Silver Bullets, someone deciding they were going to kill you specifically and got +25% vs Your Race in black spirits). There's way too many ways to counter build in this game, and if you aren't actively trying to do that yourself or have multiple different setups on a character? You are left open to being gamed by the sweatiest metagamers.

SL2 is simply not designed to be a competitive game, and it shows. Yet now we're faced with reasons to do so once more, and I'll get into the problems with that in a bit. For now we look at the section below for details on....

Forced Danger Level

As per the Conflict Rules, there is a Danger Level associated with conflict that determines how far the consequences can go. However, on Korvara, it is possible to 'force' a Danger Level in certain circumstances, by following the rules and guidelines listed below.

1. Positions of influence, such as leadership roles, advisors, ambassadors, etc. are subject to the guidelines below.
   
2. Characters in general can also be subject to them, especially if they engage in conflict-oriented RP.
   • Some examples would be characters who are bandits or other serious criminals, hostile military actions, characters who have killed or harmed others with this rule, and so on.
     

Simplified Explanation
Make a txt, google doc, or some other organized document, with the following:

1. What your character's exact goal is.
   
2. The IC reasoning that your character wishes to try this.
   
3. As many additional details as possible that you feel would bolster your chances of being approved.
   
4. Screenshots or chat logs of in-game RP of your character working towards this goal.
   

Send the document to a GM for private discussion, and wait for them to get back to you.
Detailed Explanation
For this section, there will be a common example scenario provided; "My character wants to kill the Premier and take his/her position."

1. What is your character's exact goal?
   • AKA 'What do I hope to accomplish?'; in our example, it's quite clear. I wish to kill the Premier so that I can become Premier myself.
     
2. The IC reasoning that your character wishes to try this.
   • AKA 'Why am I doing this?'; in our example, perhaps I am simply am ambitious character who craves power. Or, perhaps, the Premier harmed or killed a dear person to me, and I want revenge on them.
     
3. As many additional details as possible that you feel would bolster your chances of being approved.
   • This is an important section that can contain many questions and answers.
     
   • What is my plan to carry this out?
     • You will need to establish the scenario in which you will accomplish this. In all likelihood, you are not going to get carteblanche to attack someone whenever it suits you.
       
     • In our example, my plan is to lure the Premier into a private meeting, where I will attack them with a poisoned knife.
       
   • When am I going to enact my plan?
     • A general idea is fine, as scheduling conflicts may occur for whatever reason.
       
     • In our example, I will say that I am going to enact this plot the next time I have a private meeting with the Premier.
       
   • How am I going to enact my plan?
     • You are not guaranteed to succeed in your goal. When your target inevitably uses their agency to resist, how will you settle matters?
       
     • Are you planning to settle it with PvP, or via RP (perhaps with dice rolls or coin flips)?
       
     • If you suspect you will want or need a GM to observe the conflict to ensure fairness, please state that as well.
       • In the event that you and your target cannot agree on a method, the GM will have you both state your case, and decide from there. They can also act as a mediator/judge for RP.
         
   • Who is going to help me? Who is going to obstruct me?
     • While you are welcome to try something ambitious on your own, you should consider your allies, as well as your enemies; some will aid you, some will try and stop you.
       
     • In our example, perhaps I have recruited the head of the guards on my side, who will prevent them from slaughtering me after I attack. That's an ally.
       
     • Also in our example, perhaps the Premier has a bodyguard outside of the guards. That's an enemy who will interfere with my plan. Perhaps I will have him drugged or distracted so they cannot.
       
   • If I'm successful, what is the logical progression?
     • Actions have consequences. You should think ahead of time, based on the questions above, what will happen afterwards.
       
     • In our example, I have killed the Premier. I have the guards on my side, who will serve as muscle to legitimize my claim to be the new Premier.
       
     • If I'm doing it for revenge, however, maybe I'll just flee town quickly. If anyone stops me, for some reason, they might notice the blood on my hands, though...
       
   • If I'm unsuccessful, what is the logical progression?
     • Failure is a possibility, so you should consider what would happen if it occurs. Acknowledging the risks is important.
       
     • Perhaps someone I wasn't expecting intervened, or the Premier turned the tables on me. There is a high likelihood I will be imprisoned, or even executed.
       
   • Am I going to give the other character an 'out'?
     • An 'out' would be a lesser consequence of this plot, while still achieving the goal. While not strictly necessary, it can help progress a plot while minimalizing 'feel bad' moments between players.
       
     • In our example, I am trying to kill the Premier. If I'm ambitious, then all I really want is their power. My request can say that, once I have the Premier at my mercy, I plan to offer them an 'out' by having them willingly surrender power to me, and then exiling them.
       
     • This way, the Premier has a choice; die heroically denouncing my villainy, or save themself and continue their story.
       
   • Is the target's player aware this is coming?
     • Your target does not need to be aware of your intentions. They will, however, be told that someone non-specific may be after their life, if your request is approved.
       
     • The more cooperative both parties are willing to be towards each other, the more likely the request will be approved. It will also ensure that both parties will have time to carry it out in-game.
       
4. Screenshots or chat logs of in-game RP of your character working towards this goal.
   • AKA 'What have I done in service of my goal?';
     • I might include the RP that I did with the head of the guards to earn their loyalty.
       
     • I might also include RP of my character speaking with an alchemist familiar with poisons, to help me develop the poisoned knife I planned to use.
       
     • Furthermore, I can include any other examples of my character's ambitious nature.
       

Once you have received approval from a GM...

1. The GM will notify you of your approval, as well as the target of the conflict that they are being targeted (OOCly).
   • They will not tell the target anything about who is plotting against them.
     
   • Otherwise, this is important for fairness reasons.
     
2. The GM will give you a time frame in which you have approval to carry out your plot.
   • Once the time frame has passed, your approval is automatically revoked and you must apply for it again.
     
   • Otherwise, people would sit on approval for long periods at a time, even if the situation changed in the meantime.
     
3. A GM may give you and your target a 'passphrase'.
   • This is a secret passphrase that can be used to verify between the two of you that what is happening was a request handled by a GM.
     
4. You will be expected to follow the information and answers given in your request.
   • Naturally, your request is only allowed to be carried out by your character. You cannot make a request for another player's character, nor can another player's character carry out your plot, unless explicit permission is given by the GM.
     
   • If you falsified information regarding your intentions, etc., you may be punished and in certain cases, the RP may be reversed.
     
   • Please, just be mature and fair with others, and only act with IC in mind.
     

If a GM denies your request, or asks you to amend it...

1. They will inform you of what they found lacking in your request, or the grounds for its refusal.
   • You may be lacking in supporting RP, for example. In this case, provide more supporting RP you left out, or do it IC.
     
2. Once you have corrected the issue the GM has pointed out, you may submit the request to them again.
   

Wow, what a doozy. I bet many of you didn't even realize you could do this. I've only been privy to one specific Forced Danger Level request ever made. It failed, as the GMs did not believe there was ample cause. It made me wonder if even that couldn't pass, what it would take to have it succeed if the individual in question wasn't already on the road to being banned. 

For what it takes to have this app pass, you might as well just work with the person in question directly to work out an amiable resolution. I cannot imagine anyone wants to leave the resolution to such an arduous task to pure chance or to the easily manipulated mechanics of the game, let alone when it is almost certainly pertaining to the death of a character.

That leaves the question then, of how does one resolve conflict when all we're effectively left with is flipping a coin to decide which side wins if players cannot agree?

Without massive mechanical changes such as creating an entirely new load out for characters that is only used for PvP (and cannot easily be changed), the best we can do is create a simple tabletop-esque system in line with the hinted at dice system yet to be introduced. Dice rolls offering relevant modifiers are about the best compromise I can think of that'd not require an inordinate amount of effort to implement. Even then, it isn't ideal.

I believe that until a more robust system and or rule set can be made, Forced Danger Level should never exceed 2. Capture being the only exception with the caveat that players cannot be held for over an OOC day without good cause.

Not that anyone was really even using Forced Danger Level (successfully). I just don't think the system as it stands can support it, and time has proven that to be true. Unless someone wants to correct me we've not seen a single instance of one of these apps successfully being carried out. It simply doesn't work and no one wants to use it to kill or maim people. They just ask the person in question nicely about doing those things to their characters, as it'd be perceived as OOCly hostile to do so otherwise, among other complications.

In Conclusion

The rules are only one half of the dilemma we face in this community when it comes to conflict and successfully facilitating it to the enjoyment of all parties involved.

The other is in our collective ability to maturely handle it. I believe a primer on how to properly conduct conflict would come in handy. The most succinct one I can provide would be to simply state your desired outcomes at the onset of conflict, and find a happy medium if so desired. Being able to OOCly compromise can result in a far more enjoyable experience for both parties rather than it solely being about 'winning' the conflict. There's no need to fight for creative license when we're all here to try and create a story that's fun for everyone involved.

If larger scale conflict is ever sought it'd require clear rules as to how it'd be conducted, if not an entirely new system designed to facilitate it, with clearly defined goals from the parties involved.

Korvara as it presently stands is a universe that remains nigh unchanging. Outside the realm of events the world cannot change. Few desire it to change, change is actively fought against when it comes to developing the land or expanding territory. It makes for a stagnant world. It comes as no surprise that many would be eager to jump ship with how much trouble everywhere other than Geladyne has had in drumming up activity.

Conflict is the catalyst of change, the force that individuals battle against to achieve their goals, no matter how great or insignificant they may be. Bereft of it, the world remains unchanged, for better or worse. When one can strive for little as the barriers are insurmountable (no one wants war, some maps cannot be changed, some areas are off limits to expand into, many innovations are outright banned from being created, etc), they are forced to look toward the world of events to receive anything resembling conflict or growth.


TL;DR

PvP is horrible for resolving conflict whilst being the default method of doing so, and we need the conflict rules to be better defined to better facilitate conflict in a way that's enjoyable to all parties.

I'm sure I didn't touch on every problem spot when it comes to conflict so I welcome input as to how conflict can be improved.

[pilcrow]

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!

[Trexmaster]

Yeah, ideally DL3 will be reworked in the future to have a divide between those permanent injuries, and those would be lopped into the current DL4 category of 'unlikely to ever be done without explicit consent'. Dev's already likely going to do this I just didn't factor it into my list, I went off what we currently have.

[MultiWonder]

I've very little to add here. I do want better definitions for the danger levels, I do want updates, and I sincerely do not want PvP to be the default. I will happily accept more unique RP tools, as someone who craves change.
Lest we return to the status quo of barely anything happening at all, people paying little mind to things that should matter, and ultimately leaving people frustrated enough to just never try (or simply leave)

This fact alone breaks my heart, and conflict practically feels discouraged right now with how many can't find a proper middle ground.

The 'application' type rules for conflict are something I haven't considered in a while, but that too may only add to the frustration to some on paper, and for reasons I find similar to character applications. I would rather discuss and figure out how something would work between the appropriate parties than need to wait for something to go through.

Time is inherently valuable between us all, and ideas can shift and change depending on that alone. Of course, I have not once taken conflict to the degree where I had to reach out for approval, but my experience with needing to *wait* for an okay to start rather than doing something to actively aid it does not feel right. I would prefer for an alternative there.

Either way, thanks for putting this all together and discussing it with us all. The looming end of the grace period is worrying me a tad.
I hope we get an update to how conflicts can be handled, be it small scale or large at some point soon. I want to enjoy witnessing and handling conflict in the stories we wish to write together.

[Lolzytripd]

I think that while in dl3 scenarios the one receiving the injury should have the right to choose what that injury exactly entails.

[Ray2064]

I've very little to add here.  I do want better definitions for the danger levels, I do want updates, and I sincerely do not want PvP to be the default.  I will happily accept more unique RP tools, as someone who craves change.
Lest we return to the status quo of barely anything happening at all, people paying little mind to things that should matter, and ultimately leaving people frustrated enough to just never try (or simply leave)

This fact alone breaks my heart, and conflict practically feels discouraged right now with how many can't find a proper middle ground.

The 'application' type rules for conflict are something I haven't considered in a while, but that too may only add to the frustration to some on paper, and for reasons I find similar to character applications.  I would rather discuss and figure out how something would work between the appropriate parties than need to wait for something to go through.

Time is inherently valuable between us all, and ideas can shift and change depending on that alone.  Of course, I have not once taken conflict to the degree where I had to reach out for approval, but my experience with needing to *wait* for an okay to start rather than doing something to actively aid it does not feel right.  I would prefer for an alternative there.

Either way, thanks for putting this all together and discussing it with us all.  The looming end of the grace period is worrying me a tad.
I hope we get an update to how conflicts can be handled, be it small scale or large at some point soon.  I want to enjoy witnessing and handling conflict in the stories we wish to write together.

d4

[Poruku]

I'm gonna give you my ideal version of conflict rules.

As someone who does a lot of the conflict in sl2, I'd like to weigh in by saying that in genuinely 99% of cases, the rules don't really matter except the simple rule of consent. If someone doesn't wanna die, they just say no. If they don't wanna lose their limb, they say no. No need to over-complicate most situations, as mutual agreement is the main way these things go. What we need is rules that explain this clearly to the players.

A conflict is considered valid if the following are true:
- Both parties consent to any consequences that may occur (See danger level).
- The players involved are willingly engaging in conflict (They don't feel forced).
- The method of resolution is agreed upon, whether it's dice, pure roleplay, or pvp.

In any situation where players can not agree, the default course of action is what would naturally happen through roleplay, and conflict is resolved through pvp. If any player is uncomfortable with it, or simply doesn't enjoy it, they are allowed and encouraged to escape the situation, and if players agree, they may retcon their participation (pretend it never happened). Any invalid conflict is to be avoided, and forcing it on others after non-consent is made clear is breaking the rule. However, players cannot claim the rule was broken if they haven't made their stance clear beforehand. This is where danger levels come in.

This is important because the problem with sl2 conflict is that some people don't enjoy it. If they don't enjoy it, I'm not enjoying it. So I want to know, I want to make sure it's actually positive. But many times, they don't let me know unless I specifically ask them if they want this to happen and if they enjoy it, and offer that they can escape or we just cancel the scene. I would like people to be aware this is an option.

Next I want to propose an update to danger levels that makes more sense with what actually happens in the game and what people want out of danger level. I think there's some validity to this rule and many people intuitively get it, we just need to make it better and more detailed, while also merging DL2 and DL1.

DL1: Minor injuries, low impact consequences such as loss of money.
Characters may flee at any time, provided their roleplay for escape makes sense, and does not overpower other characters to do so (As per godmodding). You may flee even after losing a pvp (or other) battle, and avoid any consequences. If you do not flee, the victorious player(s) may inflict minor injury, and take some of your money. Money and item loss is always roleplay-only, unless the defeated party wishes to give away things.
DL2: Major injuries, loss of limb, and general big consequences such as losing your house.
Characters may flee from any number of foes if they win any battle. Losing a battle puts you at the mercy of your enemy's DL2 intentions, including capture for a limited period of time. However, all foes must be defeated before you can capture them. Other consequences like injury can occur, but limb loss requires extra consent.
DL3: Death and extreme consequences such as loss of all memory, race change, or other things that force the end or transformation of a character.
Characters may flee from any number of foes if they win any battle. Defeated foes can be captured for any amount of time and executed.
Unless all parties consent to a higher level, danger level is always 1. Parties must consent BEFORE the resolution of any conflict (before battle). This means danger level is only useful and valid when combat occurs. In 90% of cases, it's gonna stay at level 1 because that's just the best tier for consent. Higher levels lock you into consequences, thus making the stakes much higher. However, you can also agree on specific consequences even at DL1.


FLEEING
I think anyone should be able to flee if they want to, as long as we’re in DL1. If you had no intention to get into a fight, and you don't really want to do this, just run! Just escape! Why not? We’re DL1, so it’s not like they can do anything of consequence. So anyone who abuses this ability would quickly see all their attempts simply become safely ignored.
In DL2 and above, the fleeing party may choose to roll a d20 to escape, opposed to the chasing party’s d20. Failure to flee results in forced combat. However, you can’t flee after losing a battle.
CAPTURE
I think we gotta make capture and prison rules better for all parties involved.

- The max jail time is 3 days, up to 7 days for murder/attempts. Can be longer if prisoner agrees.
- The jailer may decide between two options for freedom: Escape or Release. A prisoner may escape (without harming/killing people or it being a specific character’s fault) or may be released after serving the sentence. In the event of a release, the parties involved agree on an IC amount of time that was spent in jail, which could be years, even if the OOC time is short. Roleplay appropriately.
- Prisoners can always be sent to execution, but in that case, they’re allowed to escape and avoid their execution if they choose, whether on the day of the event, or from jail. Only once per player per calendar year. This means if you send someone to jail and specifically state they will be executed, they are forced to die unless they use their once-a-year card.

I think we gotta normalize prisoner escapes. It keeps the roleplay more intact than short sentences that feel meaningless, sparing characters from releasing a violent criminal after a few days. If the criminal instead flees, it would be either the fault of an NPC or simply a masterful plan. Keep in mind capture can only be done in danger level 2 and 3. A criminal may be executed even if he only agreed to DL2.

However, of course, this means that criminals may choose to continue their run for any amount of time as long as they keep things to DL1. Players who wish to hunt this antagonist may want DL2, and if refused enough times without good reason, that player will lose all respect from the players involved and thus can be blacklisted from conflict thanks to the “valid conflict” rules. Thus, we create a system that organically punishes abuse of the generous rules by allowing players to police abusers and simply refuse them. Conversely, if a non-antagonist player always refuses to engage in conflict, that’s completely fine, as long as they don’t try to participate.

TL;DR
I’m suggesting rules that allow people to hop out of unwanted conflict and a more fair danger level system and prison system. I won’t deny it helps out antag players, that’s the main goal. However, I think these rules could help people navigate conflict in general, especially with a clearer baseline for the globally-active DL1. Being in DL2-3 makes escape non-guaranteed and thus increases risk for the character.

[pilcrow]

I'm gonna give you my ideal version of conflict rules.

[LOTS OF TEXT I'M NOT GONNA INCLUDE IN A QUOTE]

I actually really, really like this. Those three maxims are incredibly strong and touch on what's PRETTY KEY about conflict in roleplay, and more importantly roleplay in general: you're writing together. Communicating and agreeing on things should be emphasized and encouraged above all else. Any kind of ruleset that forces your hand is, inherently, flawed.

One thing I'm not sure at all about is the execution thing - that feels like a REALLY ABUSABLE shortcut from DL2 to DL3, all you have to do to execute somebody is DL2 capture them twice, and not even necessarily on the same characters? If somebody captures my antag and uses the threat of execution to get rid of that once-a-year opportunity, they can just start DL2ing my characters to later execute them for the rest of the year? The same with the sides swapped, with a malicious player capturing somebody on two different, possibly even disposable, characters to confirm a kill.
Even if you shortened it to a week, you'd probably see people just log off of the game for that time, or stay obstinately DL1 during it. All it takes is trusting the wrong person.

So I think that'd encourage me never to go over DL1, personally, even moreso than the current system does.

[WaifuApple]

I disagree with the idea of merging DL levels and making it a three level system. If anything, DL3 needs to be SPLIT in the current system (which would be DL2 in the Polk suggestion). Major injuries are significant, but stuff like limb loss is on a tier that could be comparable to death as it significantly changes the way people have to RP in ways that could potentially kill a character from difficulty adapting to the changes that takes.

As such, there needs to be better distinction between major injury and an injury that changes your whole dynamic completely, they shouldn't be lumped together.