I would like to suggest that DM's no longer do this. It's just my personal opinion but it is too OOC. The people who were granted access can get in, and they -know- for certain there will be no random passerby, no people who might witness it, except who is in the quest area. Only other people, who for some reason would know what is going on and ask permission to enter from a DM might happen upon them.

The whole scripted quest thing is too OOC to be allowed to happen like this. Just my opinion, as meaningless as it is ^_^.

It will continue to be a case by case basis, as always.

Also, cut down your sig.

Ok!

I'd say there's two sides to this story.

Pro: Players should not be restricted by quest areas. When they want to murder a person in the lair of the Chosen, why couldn't they - Because there's an invisible, shimmering barrier that doesn't allow it them to pass? You say killing in quests are OOC, but isn't that just what that barrier is as well? I have, on occasion, been trying to PvP people too, who never leave safe areas, unless for questing. If then's the time to strike, then's the time to strike.

Con: On the other hand, if one player should gain access to an @-area, it should be ensured that all players can. DM's can't overlook two events at once, so it may be overlooked, but I am sure everything will be done fairly.

In short, a case-by-case judgement is the best thing to do, and I am sure DM's are fair about things.

Editted to remove something that might cause us a certain discussion.

What about in the cases of people who have manipulated the quest system in order to gain access to a quest area while somebody else is in there?

That would go under the catagory of exploiting.

Naga That would go under the catagory of exploiting.

I agree with you whole-heartedly, but functionally they accomplish the same thing even though one abuses mechanics while the other is arranged via the staff.

It seems that staging such attacks in open quest areas or in intermediate neutral areas would be just as easy; the only major difference being that the party on the quest would be on-guard against PvP in non-quest areas. If one is going to ambush somebody without predicated RP, then the least you can do (for equities sake) is to stage the attack in an area where they might be cautious, and not in areas deemed to be safe form external player theat.

$.02

Leurnid

Naga That would go under the catagory of exploiting.

I agree with you whole-heartedly, but functionally they accomplish the same thing even though one abuses mechanics while the other is arranged via the staff.

It seems that staging such attacks in open quest areas or in intermediate neutral areas would be just as easy; the only major difference being that the party on the quest would be on-guard against PvP in non-quest areas. If one is going to ambush somebody without predicated RP, then the least you can do (for equities sake) is to stage the attack in an area where they might be cautious, and not in areas deemed to be safe form external player theat.

$.02

And this is also for Thrawn, who I love for reminding me this. He spawned a bat on my low-AC Wizard, when I was AFK. I'll never ever feel OOC secure again, on that place. :twisted:

I got to agree with Cold here. Just a quick question: You think quests are just meant for running through? Hell no. This is RP server, and DMs encourage all kind different ideas and try to provide us as free moving as possible. It's your own foolishness if you think nothing is going to change while you are at quest.

Leurnid

Naga That would go under the catagory of exploiting.

I agree with you whole-heartedly, but functionally they accomplish the same thing even though one abuses mechanics while the other is arranged via the staff.

It seems that staging such attacks in open quest areas or in intermediate neutral areas would be just as easy; the only major difference being that the party on the quest would be on-guard against PvP in non-quest areas. If one is going to ambush somebody without predicated RP, then the least you can do (for equities sake) is to stage the attack in an area where they might be cautious, and not in areas deemed to be safe form external player theat.

$.02

Er? These area's were never ever deemed "safe from external player threat" if your going ANYWHERE you should be on guard. Don't roleplay like there's amagical shield protecting you from your assassins while in qeust areas as mentioned earlier. I've actually been granted access to qeust areas to attack others in the past. I found it very much so adds spice to any qeust when something other than mindless ai's and dm posessed npcs are involved in the fray.

As much as I hate to agree with the allowing of PvP inside 'locked' quests, I have to.

In real life if I was given the key to a building to rid it of undead, I probably am not going to lock it behind me. Why? Well because if I'm out numbered and need to escape, I don't want to be fiddling with a lock as the Zombie Lord breathes down my neck with his club - I just want to get out!

So if that door is now left unlocked, technically any passerby could just open the door and walk in and follow you around.

And yes we feel like we've been unduely griefed when we're pvp attacked while we're already fighting monsters as well, but if you're going to kill someone don't you want to make sure that they are dead without a doubt?

As frustrating as it is for players to adjust to this concept, it's just how real life on the shady side of things works.

I have to disagree with the entire notion of players not being allowed into quest areas for the sakes of PVP, when supervised by a DM. Its for one simple reason:

Why couldnt I follow you into that musty old temple? Why cant I sneak in behind you into that haunted house? Please. When else am I going to kill you? You certainly dont make it easy by lounging around the Rock Bottom with a mob of 10 other socialites around you. The second you enter that old house, that abandoned alley, or that musty temple, you're mine.

(the "you" referred to in this thread is not a reference to the thread's author, just a generic identifier used to make my point)

Edit - I want to add though that every effort should be made to ensure that the people you are after arent engaged with Spawns when you attack, and if they are, that you're group should engage some of the spawns as well, in fairness.

Now, I may be wrong, but I got the impression scripted quest area transitions were to prevent people not on the quest from doing the quest (getting the loot, killing the monsters), not to shield you from PvP.

I've not seen it happen on EFU, but I've absolutely no sympathy for people who use scripted quest doors as some kind of shield from PvP. I've met such people before, and it's just cheesy as hell.

Get a DM to oversee it, and you have no worries then.

As a side note : If someone has been let into a quest area for the specific purpose of attacking you, then that means a DM has decided that their reasoning is justified for an attack on you or your party. Indulging in combat with a DM watching is the safest method of PvP there is, you know there's no metagaming.

And my main point - some characters may feel disinclined move from their 'safe' location when they are in danger. I.E. a character that is wanted dead by half the server is always standing around in one of the inn's within the town, and only ever does the quests which are located within Sanctuary. Why should a character be disallowed from getting them at the latter junctures?

I like taking away comfort-zones. Keeps you on your toes.

I think I miscommunicated somewhat.

I agree there should be no security blanket in quest areas, but I think that a blind-side ambush in such an area deprives the questing group from an opportunity to be involved, RP-wise... a confrontation is fine... an ambush seems griefy in that situation.

It smacks of killing somebody in an inn while they rest, even if your RP /motive is sound, the attack is not.

* my previous post was in regards to blind-side ambushes, not all PvP*

It isn't objectionable to kill somebody in an inn while they rest as long as a DM is supervising to ensure that people who would notice/hear, do notice/hear (since inns are fairly public buildings).

Leurnid I think I miscommunicated somewhat.

I agree there should be no security blanket in quest areas, but I think that a blind-side ambush in such an area deprives the questing group from an opportunity to be involved, RP-wise... a confrontation is fine... an ambush seems griefy in that situation.

It smacks of killing somebody in an inn while they rest, even if your RP /motive is sound, the attack is not.

While the heart of this issue was settled long ago in this thread, I'd just like to address this.

Both of the situations you presented are ones in which probability for success is heavily favored for one party over the other. One thing to keep in mind though, is if something does go wrong, be it a narrow escape, a miracle saving throw, or a series of 1's rolled over and over, the killer loses quite a bit of the element of surprise and initiative over his or her victim -- also note the punishment for getting caught in such an act is either a stoning or an exile. That said, why would killing someone in their sleep be griefing? I'd imagine any intelligent assassin would endorse such a tactic. Furthermore, while a "Blind-side" ambush may not seem entirely fair to you, which I understand, there are measures to take to prevent such a thing from happening. Anyways. Just get a DM. Have them watch, and let them decide what is, and isn't griefing.

Edit: Arkov beat me to it!

Arkov It isn't objectionable to kill somebody in an inn while they rest as long as a DM is supervising to ensure that people who would notice/hear, do notice/hear (since inns are fairly public buildings).

How much noise can slitting a throat make? :twisted:

Leurnid

Arkov It isn't objectionable to kill somebody in an inn while they rest as long as a DM is supervising to ensure that people who would notice/hear, do notice/hear (since inns are fairly public buildings).

How much noise can slitting a throat make? :twisted:

Very rarely does one strike end up killing another PC. There's usually something of a commotion in the room, especially if rolls go poorly for the attacker!

Slitting a throat might make so much noise, but entering a room and leaving it might. If someone's corpse is found in an inn room, you can be sure the Watch will want to know who else was seen coming and going from the inn.

wcsherry While the heart of this issue was settled long ago in this thread, I'd just like to address this.

Both of the situations you presented are ones in which probability for success is heavily favored for one party over the other. One thing to keep in mind though, is if something does go wrong, be it a narrow escape, a miracle saving throw, or a series of 1's rolled over and over, the killer loses quite a bit of the element of surprise and initiative over his or her victim -- also note the punishment for getting caught in such an act is either a stoning or an exile. That said, why would killing someone in their sleep be griefing? I'd imagine any intelligent assassin would endorse such a tactic. Furthermore, while a "Blind-side" ambush may not seem entirely fair to you, which I understand, there are measures to take to prevent such a thing from happening. Anyways. Just get a DM. Have them watch, and let them decide what is, and isn't griefing.

I've got to agree with wcsherry here. A well planned ambush with the right motivation and DM approval/oversight is part and parcel of the game. It might be a little upsetting OOC at the time (I should know 8) ), but if you play in a way that makes you a target, well, you'll be targetted :)

And like he said, if something goes wrong with the ambush, the risk might be huge. I trust the DM's and players involved in stuff like this to act responsibly.

The only thing I don't like about attacks in quest areas, is that during assassinations and such, the biggest risk is getting caught, and the chances of getting caught by other PC's in quest areas is almost 0.

This is why if I do allow someone in a quest area, I try to do it by adding a transition. This way, if anyone happens by, they can also walk right in behind the attackers to witness the attack.

Well as one of the characters ambushed just recently in the Temple of Hoar I have to say that I think well planned ambushes that advance plot lines are perfectly acceptable and untegral to the game - it can be annoying to loose a character you like but in the end it is a game - you win some you loose some :)

If allowing these kinds of action in QAs then it is also important to take into account the NPCs that are around - for example in Hoar - you have Accolyte Derber near by, in the Taverns you have NPCs all around etc.

I beleive that some clues should be able to be obtained from these sources by authorities etc tracking down the guilty parties.

One problem with QA attacks is that it tilts the balance in favor of the attackers mainly becuase most parties have to expend a lot of resources to get through and complete the quest and are coming back in a much more weakened State and a lot of the tomes injured as well and this leaves itself open to unintentional meta-gaming knowning that the pray is going to be much weaker coming out than going in.

In the event of a QA attack can the quest itself be modified to be much simpler so that the returning party has a larger majority of its resources in reserve to make the fight fairer as if ambushed outside the city? Just a thought.

Cheers Nestek

Thrawn The only thing I don't like about attacks in quest areas, is that during assassinations and such, the biggest risk is getting caught, and the chances of getting caught by other PC's in quest areas is almost 0.

This is why if I do allow someone in a quest area, I try to do it by adding a transition. This way, if anyone happens by, they can also walk right in behind the attackers to witness the attack.

That is sort of what I was getting at, but for all my effort, failed :?

The risk to the attackers from helpful bystanders goes to near zero in a quest area.

here is where I go on blabbing and bury my foot in my mouth again:

Also, if the attack was planned offline, in tells, or party chat, there is no opportunity for a curious eavesdropper to garner the nature of the plan and alert authorities, or the would be victims.

That is the aspect of this that seems 'meta-game' to me, and I sincerely hope that a DM allowing such opportunities to a group enforce online planning of the attack, or that failing, leave a VERY subtle clue or two as to the possibility of an upcoming attack... such as an anonymous letter indicating a threat is mounting, while not specifying the timing or nature of the threat.

I have full confidence in the judgement of the DM staff, and I trust that when they allow things like this happen, its met their stringent requirements for RP and fairness to all respective parties.

I think anyone planning PvP outside of roleplaying the planning in game should be punished very harshly, that's metagaming and I'd even call it griefing. The problem is, how do you catch them? I hope when the DMs allow QA access, they make sure that the attackers have planned the attack in game and not in IRC or tells by actually witnessing some of the planning.

Leurnid -

Speaking from personal experience I can tell you that I have sat outside a QA hardly even using whispers, (mostly speaking loud enough for others to hear) to have my PC plot out his course of actions in the past wearing an incredibly sketchy set of black clothing and a black helm. While I definitely can't speak for everyone, DM's are watching these things anyways. I mean, you have to alert them of your plans just to get the ball rolling on your plan. Anyways, put some faith in the DM team, and relax a bit man.

The reason I disagree with being granted access to quest areas for PVP is because there is no chance anyone else can enter the same area, by chance. It's basically a 'safe zone' for people to kill PC's. Because they know there is zero chance anyone will wander in on them. Which turns it into too much OOCness in a PVP kill where perma death can be involved.

The reason I view quests as OOC? Most characters have done the same ones dozens of times. You can't go into an area without talking to person x, invisible barrier. You can't go in and help players x if your level x. It's all extremely OOC. If you can't come up with a reasonable way to ambush someone, or lure them out of the city, you need to be more creative. It's not even like attacking someone inside the city safely is impossible, or that hard.

I disagree. Anyone who happened "by chance" to spot a masked stranger buffing himself to the high heavens and creeping about after a group of adventurers would simply have to send a tell to the DM to ask to follow, and it would be most likely they'd receive a: "Sure, go ahead. I'll port you in."

At any rate. I don't imagine many people would skulk around an Orog Fortress alone, or a Goblin Fortress, or a Haunted Temple ... etc.

Vlaid The reason I disagree with being granted access to quest areas for PVP is because there is no chance anyone else can enter the same area, by chance. It's basically a 'safe zone' for people to kill PC's. Because they know there is zero chance anyone will wander in on them. Which turns it into too much OOCness in a PVP kill where perma death can be involved.

The reason I view quests as OOC? Most characters have done the same ones dozens of times. You can't go into an area without talking to person x, invisible barrier. You can't go in and help players x if your level x. It's all extremely OOC. If you can't come up with a reasonable way to ambush someone, or lure them out of the city, you need to be more creative. It's not even like attacking someone inside the city safely is impossible, or that hard.

I don't have time to log in to say this so I'm gonna say it as geust.

I got ambushed while ambushing people from behind on a qeust by an individual who happend to be on the qeust also that I had'nt noticed. He had lef tthe area and then came back later (likely to get supplies.) So it can happen and if somebody has areason to go into a qeust area thye can send atell to the dms and they can feel free to "wander in" I know any character who walks into an orog fort or a mine shaft full of crazy gnomes alone is a freaking lunatic so you won't find em often.

All of the recent assaults were planned IG and IC, in whispers, typically on the streets outside of the area that we are about to enter. We would follow the people invisibly until they entered the QA, plan the attack, tell the DM what was gonna go down, go in, and make it happen.

Just so there's no doubt.

I do not mind people being allowed into quest areas to PK someone, just as long as someone else (say my sealth elven ranger) can following in, wittness the attack, and help save the person being attacked. (or mabey i will just stay hidden and watch if i know there is no way i can help and live :P)

Here's a silly question. Why do the assault only happen in quest areas, and not in 'relatively secluded areas'? Because it's obvious OOCly quest areas are ideal for killing people.

Yes its ideal to kill people ic'ly in an area where nobody wants to go because its filled with horrible creatures tat want to kill EVERYTHING that enters.

Try to make sence of it ic before you go about automatically assuming its 100% ooc.

I didn't say it is always 100% OOC. But it is pretty obvious to anyone, oocly, that killing someone in a quest areas is pretty much secure.

Lately I have hardly seen any attempted killings happen anywhere but in quest areas. Takes a lot of fun out of it if you ask me.

Here's a silly question. Why do the assault only happen in quest areas, and not in 'relatively secluded areas'? Because it's obvious OOCly quest areas are ideal for killing people.

They happen in both, with QA's being the vast, vast minority. And it's not for the reason you project, do you think the DMs would allow a PVP encounter to occur in a QA if the only reason for it was because random people couldn't run inside?

Trust me, in situations where PVP in QA's occur, everything is covered and everything is fine. The major event everyone is talking about was 100% legitimate and awesome.

wcsherry-

I have come to see the error of my concerns... I mentioned I have faith in the staff. I understand Vlaid's concern, but obviously most if not all the player base here has the integrity to not metagame these things, and the DM's are careful to insure that everything is as kosher as murder can be :D

It was an awesome event, for sure. :D

And don't think the repercussions of it are over yet.

As a non-target, but still a PC who wound up dead in one of these attacks, I'll say this: why did I die? Well...it's simple. I got lazy. A long time ago, I learned you are safe in this quest area. Just us and the monsters, right? -Wrong- The very reason I retired a 7th level character with plots galore going on who had some real nice lewt was the awesomeness of that attack. I think credit goes out to the players who thought outside the box and the DMs who made it happen. That attack was brutal and efficient...I tilt my hat to all involved. My retirement and lewt was left as your reward for a job well done. :wink:

While I agree with the DMs allowing others into QAs for PvP, I do have a suggestion:

Limit those who wish entry to the QA level restrictions. If a L10 wants to mug a L7, then he's going to have to find some other place than the gnoll mine to do it.

The level restrictions for QAs should be applied to those that enter normally and those that enter with DM assistance.

I believe it would add a level of fairness - or if anyone can enter any QA, then why not mug people in the Zhrukwood plant?

These events show you something. The DM staff is really dedicated to making us think. If your character is a target marked for death. You can fel safe at no time. Thats why this is genious. The player cannot feel safe just because they are on a quest. Just as the character has to realize that no moment is safe, so must you. In many of the quest areas you have to assume there would be witnesses. The Red Smile quest for example. That has obvious witness possibilites. A place like a tomb...well thats a little more secluded, and thus a wiser spot. I would hope, as a player base, that we dont make this a routine. To the point that no one wants to do a certain quest because that's the one people get whacked on. Obviously such a thing was done for excellent role playing and earning such an act. I thought it was brilliant.

While I agree with the DMs allowing others into QAs for PvP, I do have a suggestion:

Limit those who wish entry to the QA level restrictions. If a L10 wants to mug a L7, then he's going to have to find some other place than the gnoll mine to do it.

The level restrictions for QAs should be applied to those that enter normally and those that enter with DM assistance.

I believe it would add a level of fairness - or if anyone can enter any QA, then why not mug people in the Zhrukwood plant?

We would not allow anyone into a QA to mug someone, at all.