Disclaimer: This is a DRAMA FREE ZONE. There will be no bashing of each others opinions. There will be no getting snippy. There will be no out-right posts saying 'this rule sucks'. This is a discussion. If you do not like something, discuss it, offer ideas on how it can be improved.

If I see even a little bit of drama, I will lock the post faster than @Xigo and @Spiky can get First Blood in LoL with Blitzcrank and Alistar and promptly stop posting these discussions. Be civil.


Today's topic is one that's been coming up a lot in recent discussion. Most people know that a character warning is something given out when a character might be put into a dangerous situation if they proceed with their current actions, however I've found there's been some confusion on what actually justifies a warning. No two people are able to give the same description of a character warning nor what sort of situation would call for one. Some find vague warnings to be okay while others want it to be expressly stated.

Personally, when I think of a CW, I think it needs to be explicitly stated and applies to any situation that will alter a character physically [death, maiming] or cause major mental trama [Assult, injection of IC drugs].

Under the current policy, blanket character warnings are not allowed and they must be given out per situation. There is no 'If you interact with this group, things can happen', it has to be stated each time a new situation pops up. For example, a group of assassins would have to re-issue the warning every time they come in contact with their target, so that the player can leave the situation. When a CW is issued, it is also automatically accepted by the person issuing the warning. You cannot give out a warning while refusing the death of your own character.

So, my question to the players is thus: How have you interpreted the character warning policy? What might you change about it? What would you add to it? Discuss your thoughts on the policy and remember the disclaimer. This goes hand in hand with the resurrection policy, but please keep all discussion on resurrection in the other thread.

Annnnd go!

BRB, getting flame-resistant suit.

DRAMA GOES HERE

------------DRAMA END HERE

I think CWs should be left for death and/or major injuries/screw ups about to happen. RP shouldn't be dictated, it should flow freel.y

Quote:If I see even a little bit of drama, I will lock the post faster than @Xigo and @Spiky can get First Blood in LoL with Blitzcrank and Alistar and promptly stop posting these discussions. Be civil.

Personally I don't think CWs are like candy to be handed out when you enter a room. Sorry but CWs should be a serious thing, not just because you feel that your guy is either the most BA thing in the room or because you just feel like going on a murdering spree. It's a serious thing to give a CW. I've had about 3-4 so far, and all of them were legitimate.

FFS Mezrin, I mean. Come on man.

I ask -one- thing for this thread. I ask -one- thing, for no drama.

What the hell man? What the hell?

Mezrin: Lol man, lol.

that is hilarious.

I have very rarely issued character warnings, and when I do, it is when my character, if physically capable at the moment, would attempt to totally murder the other person. It doesn't mean that OoCly I necessarily want to have the other player's character dead, it's just that someone or something will need to intervene if they don't want their character maimed/killed.
Of course, how harmed their character is, should they not anyone else stop my character from acting is up to them.

For me, CWs tend to have a very short shelf life, ending at the end of such a scuffle, and if my character were to attempt to backstab another, I would address it ICly beforehand.

In general, I talk a lot about any conflict for the sake of keeping all participants on the same page, in both OoC demeanor and general events, but I do find that at times, people take it as an invitation to metagame.
So let me make this clear: my explaining what my character is thinking or feeling, especially with combat, is *not* what your character is perceiving. And just because I let you know my character is plotting your character's doom does not mean your character should suddenly be Sherlock Horde, able to deduce that the wine is poisoned , or whatever.
If you really dislike what my character wants to do to yours, PLEASE talk to me about it. That's why I told you about it in the first place. Talking OoCly can lead into even more exciting scenarios!

So, the way CWs are supposed to currently work...

http://wiki.conquestofthehorde.com/Character_Warning

There. I wrote that a long while ago.

Now, there is apparently still confusion though. There are people thinking that you don't need to vocalize any acceptance or rejection of a CW, when that isn't the case.

"Rape" scenarios aren't mentioned in that write-up, though in hind-sight they probably should be, since it's a very...uncomfortable subject for some. Since this policy isn't apparently reaching enough people, we may have to place it in a location that is more visible.

Do you think I still need to issue CWs to anyone agreeing to have sex with Thragash, on account of broken bones?

(06-20-2013, 06:56 PM)Grakor456 Wrote: Do you think I still need to issue CWs to anyone agreeing to have sex with Thragash, on account of broken bones?

I'm frightened for Torok. :|

(06-20-2013, 06:56 PM)Grakor456 Wrote: Do you think I still need to issue CWs to anyone agreeing to have sex with Thragash, on account of broken bones?

Aw man. I cried. ;_;

Ohh my, I remember the good old league days....

I absolutely agree that rape should be included as a CW. It is not only uncomfortable, but even traumatizing for some players.

Death, anything permanently damaging physically (maiming, blinding, gouging, etc), with high risk of death (disemboweling, suffocating, and so forth), and mentally/emotionally delicate and scarring (rape of any sort), I feel, ought to fall under a CW which should absolutely and explicitly be given, and the player who gives the CW shouldn't go ahead with the action until fully absolute and explicit consent is granted. No vagueness, no after-the-fact warnings, and so forth. Both parties--the giver and the receiver--are in full responsibility of being clear on what is to happen.

Worth also mentioning that, I feel, players should--IC ONLY--be able to attempt to escape death, both the giver and receiver. However, with death as a possibility, it should be accepted with fully acknowledged responsibility.

Here is a scenario: Mounted DK player issued a CW, pedestrian mage player fully accepts. Mr. Mage can attempt to portal out of danger, but if the DK player manages to stab the mage to death before he can reach it, the mage's player shouldn't throw a fit and call out foul. Once you accept the CW, accept the consequences that follow.

And players--remember, you can resurrect. As long as your character died within the resurrection eligibility, you can still play that character after he/she is revived. If your character died outside your own resurrection standards (we all have our own), then problem lies within your sense of judgement to give out and accept CWs. If you really don't want your character to die in any circumstance, decline the CW (that means 'No') and bail your character out of the situation.

I've always seen this as a "common sense" blanket, although I've never used it. It's been used on me, but when it was, I've always figured "Okay, something awful could happen to my character. As for what, we'll just have to see."



I mean, really, if someone says "Hey, I'm tossing you a character warning, you can leave if you need!" Then, well... don't be surprised when bad things happen.

That's how I've felt about it. Doesn't really need to be so complicated.

The way I see it, rejecting a CW is a 'get out of jail free' card for people who don't want to submit their character to possible death or any other major wound or traumatic event. Otherwise, if you don't find a way to leave the area ICly, you're submitting yourself to the CW which means that any sort of lore/game breaking move to escape are prohibited. What would be annoying is if someone accepted a CW, then as soon as it looks like said person might lose a fight to the death, they find some wacky way to get out of it.

I find trying to escape after accepting a CW is... Annoying. I'd prefer if it was set in stone that a character can decide to either escaping or staying to meet the warning. Honestly, I'm fine if someone wants to escape, but explain OOCly what their plan is so that I can give my piece on it.

Best suggestion to make CW's have less drama is to specifically have a detailed conversation with CW'er and CW'ee, making sure they know what's about to happen for both parties. If they can't come to an agreement, then just say the CW is rejected and the receiving party departs. It doesn't have to be difficult or a terror process as long as communication is applied.