Hello esteemed perphead colleagues,
It's been a while since I did a big thinky post, mostly because I got bored of being totally negative. I want to try and encourage some positive discussion about how to allow creative people to do creative things. Today's topic, 2.5.
The first thing to understand with any rule is it's motivation; what problem is it trying to solve, what behaviour is it trying to discourage? For 2.5 I think it's in the name, excessive negativity. The capability for players to affect other players in a detrimental way is part of the perp experience, shitting on people in raids is satisfying and part of the core gameplay loop for many people, but it does negatively affect the losing side (money, time, dignity.) We allow for this because is has many positive upsides. On the flipside, pure randomly killing presents a net negative, with the perpetrator not gaining any advantage while the victim loses time and possibly money. This kind of net negative experience is what 2.5 is intended to limit.
While there are some IC aspects of 2.5 (preserving a reasonable level of realism for roleplay,) it is mostly an OOC rule to moderate how players can affect each other's experiences on the server. This is evident from the definition of the rule:
"You must not seriously harm someone else's experience unless it is a fair and reasonable response to their negative actions against you."
The rest of the rules are specific edge cases or boundary setting. With that groundwork established, here's my idea.
The players experience is subjective to that player alone and thus if both players agree to an event with solid roleplay motivation and limited impact on other players then that event should not be in breach of rule 2.5. The wording of the rule implies that consentual actions between players should be allowed unconditioned on the adherence to some of the more rigid framework in place.
For example, a criminal mayor. This mayor and his SS will kidnap and torture a player, interrogating them for information or something. If this was done against a player who did not consent it would be bad, because the ordeal will be purely negative. If the player consents, however, then the experience would not be negative.
I personally think that 2.5 should be seen through two different lenses depending on the consent of the two parties. The key difference between roleplay and PvP is consent of all parties (no good PvPer will ever consent to lose.)
P.S. this may perhaps be controversial but a third party reporting something just because they had to interact with it because of their job is not excessively negative unless there are other factors involved
It's been a while since I did a big thinky post, mostly because I got bored of being totally negative. I want to try and encourage some positive discussion about how to allow creative people to do creative things. Today's topic, 2.5.
The first thing to understand with any rule is it's motivation; what problem is it trying to solve, what behaviour is it trying to discourage? For 2.5 I think it's in the name, excessive negativity. The capability for players to affect other players in a detrimental way is part of the perp experience, shitting on people in raids is satisfying and part of the core gameplay loop for many people, but it does negatively affect the losing side (money, time, dignity.) We allow for this because is has many positive upsides. On the flipside, pure randomly killing presents a net negative, with the perpetrator not gaining any advantage while the victim loses time and possibly money. This kind of net negative experience is what 2.5 is intended to limit.
While there are some IC aspects of 2.5 (preserving a reasonable level of realism for roleplay,) it is mostly an OOC rule to moderate how players can affect each other's experiences on the server. This is evident from the definition of the rule:
"You must not seriously harm someone else's experience unless it is a fair and reasonable response to their negative actions against you."
The rest of the rules are specific edge cases or boundary setting. With that groundwork established, here's my idea.
The players experience is subjective to that player alone and thus if both players agree to an event with solid roleplay motivation and limited impact on other players then that event should not be in breach of rule 2.5. The wording of the rule implies that consentual actions between players should be allowed unconditioned on the adherence to some of the more rigid framework in place.
For example, a criminal mayor. This mayor and his SS will kidnap and torture a player, interrogating them for information or something. If this was done against a player who did not consent it would be bad, because the ordeal will be purely negative. If the player consents, however, then the experience would not be negative.
I personally think that 2.5 should be seen through two different lenses depending on the consent of the two parties. The key difference between roleplay and PvP is consent of all parties (no good PvPer will ever consent to lose.)
P.S. this may perhaps be controversial but a third party reporting something just because they had to interact with it because of their job is not excessively negative unless there are other factors involved
Last edited:
