NLR Amendment?

[DJScotchTape]

Alright, I'll start off by saying I think most of the rules are fine and dandy, but I came across one today that confused the shit out of me.

I'll start off with a situation: You and your 3 pals are walking to Vybor from Kabanino. You run into some IG friends/allies. One of your friends in the group initiates on the group that you have just met(situational initiation, no build up at all). Oh no! Your alliance is tatters! SO YOU THOUGHT. Dank PvP occured and you all died. Now the current NLR states you either have to forget you and your allies shot the shit out of eachother, or you can come to an OOC agreement to remember the events. What if the other party doesn't agree? At this point in the rules you're just stuck being forced to be their friends/allies. I don't think this is right. 

**EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION**Another example: You think you have allies who decide to back stab you, or there's a misunderstanding. You all die, or they all die. I'm not exactly saying you start a massive war with the living party, I'm just saying friendships/alliances should be frayed, because of in game hostilities regardless if your whole group was killed **END EDIT**

I think if your whole group dies by the hands of your (ex?) friends/allies, you should be able to remember you had hostilities, because being pals with a group you used to be friends  with, that just shot the mess out of you and yours, is stupid and awkward, in my opinion. No good role play can come from that. 

Does this make sense? Can anyone relate? Let me know. Because in MY opinion, this rule should be changed.

[Brad]

Alright, I'll start off by saying I think most of the rules are fine and dandy, but I came across one today that confused the shit out of me.

I'll start off with a situation: You and your 3 pals are walking to Vybor from Kabanino. You run into some IG friends/allies. One of your friends in the group initiates on the group that you have just met(situational initiation, no build up at all). Oh no! Your alliance is tatters! SO YOU THOUGHT. Dank PvP occured and you all died. Now the current NLR states you either have to forget you and your allies shot the shit out of eachother, or you can come to an OOC agreement to remember the events. What if the other party doesn't agree? At this point in the rules you're just stuck being forced to be their friends/allies. I don't think this is right. 

I think if your whole group dies by the hands of your (ex?) friends/allies, you should be able to remember, because being pals with a group you used to be friends  with, that just shot the mess out of you and yours, is stupid and awkward, in my opinion. No good role play can come from that. 

Does this make sense? Can anyone relate? Let me know. Because in MY opinion, this rule should be changed.

The rule has always played out that you can remember certain things leading up to the events that cause your death (then you lose memories surrounding the event that led to your death).  Situations like these don't pop up a whole lot but I believe the NLR rule basically erases the previous 15 minutes before you died  (it's a little late so I might need to refresh if that's correct or not).  So if there were hostilities of some form you'd remember them.  You just might not remember the ensuing gunfight or some torture that happens during that 15 minutes.

So likely if a group of allies turned on each other, you'd remember some of it, you just wouldn't say "hey you shot the shit out of me", but you might be able to know them as a traitor.

Know what I mean?

[Nolan]

Alright, I'll start off by saying I think most of the rules are fine and dandy, but I came across one today that confused the shit out of me.

I'll start off with a situation: You and your 3 pals are walking to Vybor from Kabanino. You run into some IG friends/allies. One of your friends in the group initiates on the group that you have just met(situational initiation, no build up at all). Oh no! Your alliance is tatters! SO YOU THOUGHT. Dank PvP occured and you all died. Now the current NLR states you either have to forget you and your allies shot the shit out of eachother, or you can come to an OOC agreement to remember the events. What if the other party doesn't agree? At this point in the rules you're just stuck being forced to be their friends/allies. I don't think this is right. 

I think if your whole group dies by the hands of your (ex?) friends/allies, you should be able to remember, because being pals with a group you used to be friends  with, that just shot the mess out of you and yours, is stupid and awkward, in my opinion. No good role play can come from that. 

Does this make sense? Can anyone relate? Let me know. Because in MY opinion, this rule should be changed.

The rule has always played out that you can remember certain things leading up to the events that cause your death (then you lose memories surrounding the event that led to your death).  Situations like these don't pop up a whole lot but I believe the NLR rule basically erases the previous 15 minutes before you died  (it's a little late so I might need to refresh if that's correct or not).  So if there were hostilities of some form you'd remember them.  You just might not remember the ensuing gunfight or some torture that happens during that 15 minutes.

So likely if a group of allies turned on each other, you'd remember some of it, you just wouldn't say "hey you shot the shit out of me", but you might be able to know them as a traitor.

Know what I mean?

It'd be great if the whole 15 minute deal could be clarified, as that changes the whole game based on my understanding.

I thought it was something like, if you're killed by someone you just met (say perhaps 30 minutes earlier) you forget everything up to when you met them. Like, you forget everything up to the one element that started the hostile chain of events, which would be meeting your killer.

[Asriel]

This is one of the reasons why I prefer permadeathing characters as it is so much easier to RP out. Otherwise things kinda get a bit ridiculous. I'd hope its not considered meta-gaming info if you have "fuzzy memories" about a certain person who has killed you before being bad.

[Jetwells]

The rule is fine as it is, People need to find other ways to RP instead of simply, Firefight.

[WongRP]

The rule is fine as it is, People need to find other ways to RP instead of simply, Firefight.

Don't think your understanding what he's saying.

So I'll try explain better.

If Group A and Group B come across each other and they was meant to be allies but group B decides fuck em and initiates and kill everyone Group A would will be left thinking they are still allies as they can't remember group B killing them or what not.

So personally I think if someone kill you in a firefight and they are apart of that group you should be able to remember what that group did it actually promotes RP.

[Jetwells]

Don't think your understanding what he's saying.

So I'll try explain better.

If Group A and Group B come across each other and they was meant to be allies but group B decides fuck em and initiates and kill everyone Group A would will be left thinking they are still allies as they can't remember group B killing them or what not.

So personally I think if someone kill you in a firefight and they are apart of that group you should be able to remember what that group did it actually promotes RP.

He already came up with the solution himself. This can be solved OOCly, Like most alliances are. Changing the rule will cause more confusion than is actually worth. If each group decides to fight to the death rather then complying, Then that's the path you have taken. Rules don't need to be changed so people keen on PvP can remember "Conflicts". You say to promote RP, But wouldn't promoting RP be one of you at least complying after all your friends get shot down?

I see no need to fix something that isnt broken. This has never been a problem before, and i dont really think its one now.

[Guest]

technically, this is my understanding of the rule. You remember  events leading up to the "death" of your character about 15 mins beforehand. 

A scenerio would be that you and a few group members ran into Ally B, Ally B decide they want to fuck with you and initiated, you Die Die Never Complied. Resulting in the death of your group members as well as yourself, well shit, you died within 15 mins?

You dont remember shit, that's the NLR.

However there is an ultimatum to a situation like this, it's called "COMPLYING", if you comply, they'll be forced to give you RP, if it lasts for more than 15 mins which it really should because any lesser would just be horrid, you remember something. 

You can get executed or you may not, assuming that Ally B doesnt pull some kind of "execution rights" out of their ass over the tiniest thing and execute you anyway which in that case you can always deny. 

Remember that when you are a compliant hostage, you can always deny OOC about the shit that the captor is about to do to you. Execution rights should only come in play after a decent amount of RP time, which in that case you would be able to remember something. 

Taking the DIE DIE NEVER COMPLY route would usually cause your members to get killed within the 15 minute time frame, it would make sense that you forget everything because that is the rule. At the end of the day, you need to ask yourself the questions.

"Do I want to comply for RP? Or do I want to fight back and risk everything?"

[DJScotchTape]

technically, this is my understanding of the rule. You remember  events leading up to the "death" of your character about 15 mins beforehand. 

A scenerio would be that you and a few group members ran into Ally B, Ally B decide they want to fuck with you and initiated, you Die Die Never Complied. Resulting in the death of your group members as well as yourself, well shit, you died within 15 mins?

You dont remember shit, that's the NLR.

However there is an ultimatum to a situation like this, it's called "COMPLYING", if you comply, they'll be forced to give you RP, if it lasts for more than 15 mins which it really should because any lesser would just be horrid, you remember something. 

You can get executed or you may not, assuming that Ally B doesnt pull some kind of "execution rights" out of their ass over the tiniest thing and execute you anyway which in that case you can always deny. 

Remember that when you are a compliant hostage, you can always deny OOC about the shit that the captor is about to do to you. Execution rights should only come in play after a decent amount of RP time, which in that case you would be able to remember something. 

Taking the DIE DIE NEVER COMPLY route would usually cause your members to get killed within the 15 minute time frame, it would make sense that you forget everything because that is the rule. At the end of the day, you need to ask yourself the questions.

"Do I want to comply for RP? Or do I want to fight back and risk everything?"

I understand the NLR rule as it stands. In a certain situation, (that prompted me to make this thread), we basically initiate in hopes to get some good hostage/hostile RP, but the other party rule plays and catches us off guard, just spraying us down as we initiate. He kills 3 of us 4 and I die later. I asked if we could remember the situation, and he said "No" because we are a much larger group and I guess he doesn't want to go to war with us. I understand this, but I also don't agree with this.

I don't mind being captured/complying/ect... but other people do, so they hop into PvP mode immediately, ruining any chance we had of hostage RP. And if we die without roleplay from the suspect, why shouldn't we be allowed to remember so we can actually get some role play from them later?

Your example was coming from a different side of the situation. I was on the "looking for role play" end of the gun.

[Guest]

technically, this is my understanding of the rule. You remember  events leading up to the "death" of your character about 15 mins beforehand. 

A scenerio would be that you and a few group members ran into Ally B, Ally B decide they want to fuck with you and initiated, you Die Die Never Complied. Resulting in the death of your group members as well as yourself, well shit, you died within 15 mins?

You dont remember shit, that's the NLR.

However there is an ultimatum to a situation like this, it's called "COMPLYING", if you comply, they'll be forced to give you RP, if it lasts for more than 15 mins which it really should because any lesser would just be horrid, you remember something. 

You can get executed or you may not, assuming that Ally B doesnt pull some kind of "execution rights" out of their ass over the tiniest thing and execute you anyway which in that case you can always deny. 

Remember that when you are a compliant hostage, you can always deny OOC about the shit that the captor is about to do to you. Execution rights should only come in play after a decent amount of RP time, which in that case you would be able to remember something. 

Taking the DIE DIE NEVER COMPLY route would usually cause your members to get killed within the 15 minute time frame, it would make sense that you forget everything because that is the rule. At the end of the day, you need to ask yourself the questions.

"Do I want to comply for RP? Or do I want to fight back and risk everything?"

I understand the NLR rule as it stands. In a certain situation, (that prompted me to make this thread), we basically initiate in hopes to get some good hostage/hostile RP, but the other party rule plays and catches us off guard, just spraying us down as we initiate. He kills 3 of us 4 and I die later. I asked if we could remember the situation, and he said "No" because we are a much larger group and I guess he doesn't want to go to war with us. I understand this, but I also don't agree with this.

I don't mind being captured/complying/ect... but other people do, so they hop into PvP mode immediately, ruining any chance we had of hostage RP. And if we die without roleplay from the suspect, why shouldn't we be allowed to remember so we can actually get some role play from them later?

Your example was coming from a different side of the situation. I was on the "looking for role play" end of the gun.

well in that case this sounds like something you guys need to handle OOC, the issue is if you got killed within the 15 min period where you shouldn't remember anything then you can't remember anything. it's the NLR, there's nothing wrong with the rule, if it changes to fit your description, many people would be able to die, come back disregard the NLR and go find the person and initiate saying "remember me motherfucker?"

NLR prevents users from doing so, if he doesn't agree that you should remember this, it didn't happen. like Jetwell's say there is no reason for the rule to be change, it will cause more issues that way. as of the moment, your situation is one in a million, typically people don't go and ask if they can remember the situation.

it would be great for rp in a sense it can create conflict but no means no, there's nothing you can do about it. at the end of the day, IG you're still allies like it or not.

learn to separate IC and OOC, in situations like this

[Jetwells]

You initiate for hostile rp/hostage rp? Why does it have to be an initiation to achieve this? Find alternative ways to provide that hostile RP. They rule play the situation, report them. You cant say its rule play though if they decide to not comply after YOU initiated. I'm sorry Scotch, But it just doesn't make sense to me how this will benefit anyone other than the groups that do go around initiating on everything and everyone. As Kenny said, This happens to be a 1 in a million scenario. Find alternative routes around it, such as NOT initiating, and providing the hostile RP without having to point a gun at someone. (Not saying you do ect, just examples)

I don't mind being captured/complying/ect... but other people do

This is the risk you take being the initiator. As all staff would tell you, that's the risk you take. I've provided plenty of hostile RP without having to initiate, Its just all about how you go about doing it. I also manage to have hostile RP with others and they decide to initiate on me. I don't comply, but i don't get shot either. 75% of situations can be dealt with by saying the right things or the wrong things in the right way. If your overly aggressiveve with the hostile RP, of course people are going to fight back. But if your hostile RP is portrayed in a calm, informative manner as such, I don't see why people would want to initiate. 

You say you look for role play, But that can be found without the need to initiate on someone. Maybe that's the real issue? Maybe it is the fact people don't like to be taken hostage? Maybe it is the fact some people prefer pvp over being taken hostage. But that's what happens in the real world, people are random and spontaneous. One man might get on his knees and beg for forgiveness, while another laughs at you for trying to intimidate them.

Overall, I feel the rule doesn't need to be changed, But your suggestion of sorting things OOC can be used. Alot of alliances are done via OOC after all. And that is a valid work around without having to alter a rule that is there to prevent the exact thing you are suggesting.

[Manic]

If the rule was to change then I feel people would have even less value for their characters lives because they would be able to just gear back up and go get their revenge because Hey! I remember who killed/Shot me! What keeps me from jumping into anything that could potentially end RP due to death is the fact that I won't remember any of it. 

It seems people are quick to jump into the "Never Comply! Never Surrender" mindset when it comes to being initiated on. PVP is fine and all but no matter which side wins there is nothing that comes out of it. Sure you might have slaughtered their whole group but they are not allowed to remember that and then any potential character growth or hostilities between the groups goes out the window. There are times when I find the NLR annoying, I can't lie. Example: Executing someone after long hostilities and they refuse to Perma their character. Meaning you are going to run into them again, remembering you put a bullet in their head knowing you can't tell them because that would in turn break a rule as he's not allowed to remember. 

When it comes to the situation at hand I would say it would need to be handled OOCly. As much as I am against going OOC to work around a story sometimes you need to just let them know that a Firefight isn't going to lead the RP any further. Firefights can be fun, the last one I was in we had amazing RP during the firefight with the people we were fighting against. Countless times we tried to get them to surrender so that we could progress the RP further but they refused and it was a shame that they did. Yet the back and forth RP was something I hadn't seen in a long time. You don't always need to initiate to get good hostile RP, and you don't always need to go down guns blazing.  

[MatthewFC]

If I was in charge of a group that was promptly squadwiped by an allied group abusing their position, said allied group would receive the following text through PM:

Our alliance is henceforth considered dissolved, being the cause for this dissolution, distrust built up by your recent actions. If you feel that we are not able to dissolve the alliance as the events that caused distrust may fall into NLR amnesia, and you disagree with distrust being built upon these events, we shall be forced to report this abuse of game rules in order to gain an advantageous position against our group to the Staff team.

I don't think my logic is faulty

[DJScotchTape]

I think the conversation has gotten slightly derailed.

I don't care that I died. I know that is the risk that comes with initiation. I understand why the NLR rule is in place. I understand it can be solved OOC with some people. What none of you seem to be understanding is when somebody else doesn't want to talk about it OOC/they deny you rights to remember, and you go ahead and continue to be allies with them. This doesn't make sense. Don't try and tell me this makes sense. Because realistically, when you and your friends shoot each other, will you still be friends? No.

I'm not suggesting we be allowed to have a witch hunt for them or start a war IG, I'm just saying we should be able to cancel an alliance/friendship with someone at the least.

*Snip*

*Snip again*

learn to separate IC and OOC, in situations like this

^ Nothing about this is OOC. I'm still cordial with these people OOC. I just don't think it makes any sense role play wise, in situations like this. If you're just going to tell me non-constructive things like "learn to seperate IC and OOC" then don't. I have no trouble separating the two.

---

If I was in charge of a group that was promptly squadwiped by an allied group abusing their position, said allied group would receive the following text through PM:

Our alliance is henceforth considered dissolved, being the cause for this dissolution, distrust built up by your recent actions. If you feel that we are not able to dissolve the alliance as the events that caused distrust may fall into NLR amnesia, and you disagree with distrust being built upon these events, we shall be forced to report this abuse of game rules in order to gain an advantageous position against our group to the Staff team.

I don't think my logic is faulty

That's actually a great way to put it.... I'll give it a shot!

[Guest]

the concept of telling you "to learn to separate IC and OOC in situations like this" is not a way of saying you were salty.

it's a way of telling you that although OOC you don't trust them, you still have to give them your trust IC due to the fact they are still your allies. do not cut ties simply because they did something like that, because IC you don't have the knowledge.

I understand it can be frustrating that the person who is suppose to be your ally have shot and killed you, now they are denying you rights of any kind to gain information that they were the one who shot you boys. yet you are still force to be friends with them IC, now that is separation of IC and OOC knowledge.

They are protected by the NLR atm, it is important to remember you simply can't just bend the rules to your favor, if he says no it means no. there's nothing you can do about it, NLR is after all one of the most important rules in this community, if the staff bend a rule once or twice because a situation like this pop out from time to time it wouldn't make sense, now if this is a constant problem perhaps an amendment is in order, but as far as I know, this is the first situation I heard of where it causes some frustration.

personally I play as a character who rob, betray and infiltrate, half of the people who I work with, don't even know I once conspired against them. if NLR is to be bend in such a way, a number of us who play as an espionage agent would have our experience utterly ruined.

[DJScotchTape]

the concept of telling you "to learn to separate IC and OOC in situations like this" is not a way of saying you were salty.

it's a way of telling you that although OOC you don't trust them, you still have to give them your trust IC due to the fact they are still your allies. do not cut ties simply because they did something like that, because IC you don't have the knowledge.

I understand it can be frustrating that the person who is suppose to be your ally have shot and killed you, now they are denying you rights of any kind to gain information that they were the one who shot you boys. yet you are still force to be friends with them IC, now that is separation of IC and OOC knowledge.

They are protected by the NLR atm, it is important to remember you simply can't just bend the rules to your favor, if he says no it means no. there's nothing you can do about it, NLR is after all one of the most important rules in this community, if the staff bend a rule once or twice because a situation like this pop out from time to time it wouldn't make sense, now if this is a constant problem perhaps an amendment is in order, but as far as I know, this is the first situation I heard of where it causes some frustration.

personally I play as a character who rob, betray and infiltrate, half of the people who I work with, don't even know I once conspired against them. if NLR is to be bend in such a way, a number of us who play as an espionage agent would have our experience utterly ruined.

It is a really niche situation. I didn't know if this happens to people ever, so I figured I'd ask about it. I went to the help desk and I couldn't get a 100% straight answer so I brought it here to either get clarification, or something done about it.

[Guest]

This is one of the reasons why I prefer permadeathing characters as it is so much easier to RP out. Otherwise things kinda get a bit ridiculous. I'd hope its not considered meta-gaming info if you have "fuzzy memories" about a certain person who has killed you before being bad.

Old men tend to have poor memory so its k

[TheGlassSpider]

No good role play can come from that...are you kidding?

Intrigue and investigation can come from that. You might only have certain OOC knowledge, but your character can dig deeper into his allies. He can think it strange that all of you had a similar experience and have lost some memories. All sorts of things.

The rule does not need a change in my opinion.