The last time I played this game was well over a decade ago. I left because the social environment had some pretty toxic elements, and my wallet could use some padding. The decade after was speckled with fond reminiscing of the game, usually closely followed by bitter recollections; all in all, it was clear throughout the years that I really wished I could come back to this game, but had a lot of reason not to. Now that I hear from someone else that free-to-play has become an option, I want to know if any issues that deterred me from the game have improved, and if new ones have popped up. I've been reading what I could over the past couple of days, and I like some of the changes I'm seeing, but I'd appreciate any other input current players can provide.


Back when I played, there was a consent system and all, but it was pretty useless for what I saw and gave some people more freedom for belligerence. Thieves and Barbarians in particular were high on my list of threats.

For a thief example, a hidden thief repeatedly steals from a guy, so guy starts SEARCHing for the thief. The act of SEARCHing granted consent for the thief to then snipe/backstab the guy because searching indicated that the guy wanted to do something to the thief. Guy is dead, conflict "resolved." Or maybe guy manages to kill thief because thief happened to walk back in unhidden, then guy gets thrown in jail for murder (which would've happened anyway, even if the guy managed to point the thief out of hiding). If I recall, there was an option to report thieves to guards, but then guards would just spend a couple of hours not finding the thief, and then stand down.

For a barb example, warmie's hunting in a room and casts Frostbite. Barb just happens to pass through the room. Barb comes back, "RAGH, you hurt my inner fire, now I hurt you!" Barb kills warmie.
As a small empath, I almost died because I casted Refresh on someone and had no idea they were a barb until then.


In my browsing, I see a lot about this Profile and PVP setting stuff, but what effect has it had?
If thief steals from guy and gets set to PVP-Open, does that mean guy can retaliate against thief with impunity now (aside from maybe getting thrown in jail still)? Or would searching for the thief still grant consent to relieve the guy of his spine, thereby "resolving" the conflict? Followed by thief just hiding for four hours to reset his PVP status.
Has thievery against players been deterred in general by this? Or is it still my top priority to run at warp speed to a bank if I have any coins onhand, and heavens forbid I have to be stuck on somewhere like a gondola along the way? I don't live in a country where it's safe enough to leave my front door unlocked, so I'm going to be cautious in general, but I'd like to be able to relax at least a little while exploring the game and take my time with shops.

I saw there's an option to ACCUSE <player> THIEVERY now to get your money back, assuming you had the skill to see them doing it in the first place. Does this only apply within town walls? Does it apply to everything they stole from you within a period of time, or only for the amount they stole for the attempt[s] that you noticed?


As for room effects and/or barbs.. What do you do now?
Just don't use AoE spells?
Suck it up and die if you hurt a random, overly-vengeful barb's inner fire on accident?

>As a small empath, I almost died because I casted Refresh on someone and had no idea they were a barb until then.

You shouldn't ever be casting spells on anyone without their consent, regardless of guild. It's not a great idea if you're trying to avoid conflict. Casting spells on barbarians doesn't hurt them like it used to though.

For the actual PVP policies in game I'd recommend reading News 5 15, News 5 24, and News 5 25. Those cover a lot of what you're asking.

>>Or is it still my top priority to run at warp speed to a bank if I have any coins onhand

You're generally fine on the roads, but standing around somewhere like outside the Empath guild with a pocket full of coins is generally a bad idea.

>> Does this only apply within town walls?

Yes for the most part.

---

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

>You still have someone playing around sometimes, but a simple whisper <person> I'm not interested will stop it in it's tracks.

The Warn command is also helpful as it gets put on record, especially if it's one of those rare and unique people you don't even want to whisper to.

---

>Forgive my snark, but welcome to the life of a warrior mage.

To quote Solomon in regard to WARN - from his original post in 2006:

>WARN INTERACT is not something that should just be thrown around at will and its not something that is a "Magic Shield" meant to insulate you from unpleasant situations or unsavory people. You cannot WARN INTERACT someone to prevent them from stealing, to make them leave a room, or to make them pretend you don't exist, especially if you are the instigator of the problem(s) with that person or if you're unwilling to also hold up your side of the INTERACT bargain, namely, walking away or ignoring them.

More here: http://forums.play.net/forums/DragonRealms/DragonRealms%20Policy%20Discussions/Policy%20Announcements%20(Staff%20only)/view/19


Annwyl
Message Board Supervisor

If you've questions or comments, take it to e-mail by writing me at DR-Annwyl@play.net.

>On that note, I'm guessing that even with people set to Open, they're still allowed to defend themselves against you once you attack them, advance on them, prep a spell, etc., right? So if they're strong enough, they can get away with it still?

My understanding is that when Person A is 'open', this means anyone can engage them, at any time. So when Person B initiates PvP, regardless of Person B's profile, Person A can retaliate with an attack. Initiate here is defined a bit loosely, but I think 'engage', attack, etc. are needed? I don't think just prepping a spell, hiding, pointing out of hiding, or anything short of an actual attack/engagement is enough to grant consent (barring the obvious harassment issues).

As described in NEWS 5 31:

<<Open PvP Stance

<<The most simple yet complicated stance is the Open stance. Unlike Guarded and Closed, it has significant policy implications. By having this stance set, you are saying that you are open to all sorts of conflict, combat, etc. It does not give you the right to attack others, but it gives others (even others with their PvP stances not set to Open) the right to attack you. The essence of this setting is that all normal rules still apply, except that you completely waive your right to REPORT or ASSIST if attacked without consent. Clearly, this is a complicated subject, and explanations of the tricky bits follow in the next few paragraphs.

<<ACQUIRING CONSENT

<<Clearly, consent is not required to attack you - You've noted that you are interested in all sorts of combat by setting this stance. However, if somebody with a lower PvP stance attacks you, they DO grant you consent. As noted above, folks with these settings are not immune to the consequences of their actions. However, normal consent rules apply to you - Once consent has been satisfied with another party with a lower PvP Stance, the conflict is over and you no longer have consent.

tl:dr version: What Badgopher said is correct. If a Guarded, Closed, or Default person attacks an Open one, the Open person gains consent, which follows the normal consent rules.

I suggest reading the that NEWS article as there's more pertaining to the subject of profile stances and PVP.

Nikpack

<My understanding is that when Person A is 'open', this means anyone can engage them, at any time. So when Person B initiates PvP, regardless of Person B's profile, Person A can retaliate with an attack. Initiate here is defined a bit loosely, but I think 'engage', attack, etc. are needed? I don't think just prepping a spell, hiding, pointing out of hiding, or anything short of an actual attack/engagement is enough to grant consent (barring the obvious harassment issues).>

There is just so much wrong here I don't even know where to start. Person B initiates PvP but is closed/guarded, then they are not RPing to their profile. They can be reported for this. (like the guy a few days ago that went around literally killing every open he could find while using guarded stance) Prepping a spell, pointing someone hiding, calling someone's mom a bad name are all consent, especially if there is a conflict going(like searching for a thief that stole from you or someone else) Prepping a spell, any spell, is consent during a conflict since the other person can and should assume its to be used against them and not have to wait and see if its a bless or chain lightning. Same with search and point. Person does not have to wait and see if the search/point is going to be immediately followed by a cast/throw/arrow. Anything regarded as a threat can be considered consent.

TL;DR no you can't just kill an open if your stance is not also open. There has to be some context to justify why you are not RPing to your stated RP stance. Consent is covered by a WIDE array of actions, not just engaging or attacking.

>There is just so much wrong here I don't even know

Context matters.

Your context is that someone is doing this repeatedly, and isn't matching his profile.

My context (which I thought was self evident) was that these are two guys, not currently in a conflict, just sitting in a room. In that case (no ongoing conflict) searching, prepping a spell, etc. is not consent. Otherwise we could camp outside the empath guild and have consent on 99% of the people there.

>> I would argue that pointing someone from hiding is in fact starting a conflict, since what reason would you have to do that other than to in some way stop someone from doing something?

By that logic, hiding around someone is starting a conflict.

>> There has to be a reason for pointing someone, and it would take a tremendous reach of logic to come up with a reason that is non confrontational.

Such as suspecting someone may be about to start a conflict, so you take precautions.

I consider pointing to be the same as watching. You're taking steps to de-escalate a potential situation before it becomes a violent one by making yourself a less inviting target. It's not a conflict in itself. It could be a resolution.