Reign's PVP Compendium

[Reign]

As I have stated to a few people as I fish through the forum, I come from a background of pretty rigorously-guided PVP rules. In my (short) time here, I have noticed PVP is a large element, but I’ve also noticed a lot of the guidelines on PVP are implicit or left to interpretation.

I’m making this post not to necessarily throw what’s in place on its head but instead to sort of offer where I come from and what guides how I fight. This thread is open to discussion and modification if people have thoughts as to how it might be better adapted to SWRP. I’d also encourage people who don’t know much about the PVP scene to consider the following as a guide (assuming it isn’t outright veto’d).

Obviously, there’s no obligation on anyone’s part to do anything with this unless so-inclined.

And, as a final disclaimer, much of this content is being adapted from stuff other people have written or described over the years. Not all of it myself. I’d be happy to credit it, but I’ll leave it as their forum usernames where it is they are so as to not venture into advertising categories: supernal, bigfatcat.

Table of Contents

• Logic-guided Action
• Character Specialization & Sheets
• Preps & Advantages
• Combat & its Intricacies

 

[Reign]

Logic-guided Action

I believe this notion is already in play here as most people have described it in the posts I’ve seen. What can and can’t be done must make sense for the setting.

This isn’t always synonymous with realistic. In Star Wars, we’re dealing with humans and aliens in peak levels of fitness guides by, whether directly or indirectly, an unseen Force and destiny in the backdrop. Supernatural feats are possible, and this is generally guided by the setting and precedent in the setting.

This is frequently the section where most arguments occur, ESPECIALLY with canon in Star Wars as it is. What can you rationalize from a situation based on some scene in the comic book? You have a game where a dude grips a Star Destroyer and redirects it with the Force, but does that mean my character could do the same willy nilly? Maybe maybe not, and that’s where the forum canon gets involved to render judgement and scale (to clarify, from what I’ve seen, the answer on Star Destroyers “probably not”).

The easier part is realistic combat, and I find in my experience this is where people mess up. Even with preternatural reflexes and strength, things like realistic physics still apply. This is doubly so when we assume every player character is stronger and faster than average. All of our characters are of a particular ilk.

This is the toughest part cause battles are won and lost here. A logical error, with timing or space, is what typically gets you out-played. As such, people will fight your logical tooth-and-nail to make sure they don’t lose.​

 

[Reign]

Coping with Character Specialization

No two characters are alike. All characters tend to possess specializations and focuses, and these can’t be outright disregarded.

We aren’t dealing with numeric systems, so it’s up to interpretation. But this fits the previous category of “be logical.” A jack-of-all-trades is not going to be the best in all areas. They will likely be proficient in all areas with few distinct ranges of expertise.

A character with a melee focus will possess greater speed or strength than a sorceror or sage, but they will lack in Force defense or Force power. Likewise, a character built extraordinarily fast would be quick on his or her feet but lack raw power (and vice versa).

You get the idea. The point is, whether you directly acknowledge it, your character-type (likely visible in your sheet) will determine your advantages. These advantages can and should be used against you and by you.​

 

[Reign]

Preps & Advantages
This is an area I’m not so certain is in place here. This might be something that won’t apply here, but some form of this exists in other forums. It also makes some intuitive sense.

I see a lot of posts and descriptions that don’t account for this, so I’m going to offer up the general idea of how this works:

Preps are the end-all decision in how much power an attack has. More than character specialization, this is often how defenses or attacks are weighed against one another.

The principle of a prep is that I take whatever it is that rationalizes add power and build it up for a handful of rounds to make my attack pack a harder punch and be harder to simply brush off. Preps pretty much always trump any attacks or defenses off of the cuff. This doesn’t guarantee a hit, either. Preps don’t make you more likely to hit by any means, they justify more complex actions or greater power. If you prep 10 turns and miss, well oops, you messed up.

Preps could be some cybernetic enhancement that hammers down on your arm and increases output. It could simply be cocking back your sword a little further. It could be accumulating Force (or an electrical energy source) for a number of turns to channel into an attack or throw up a barrier. This works pretty well in Star Wars because of tech: you can overcharge a blaster to send out a heavier bolt.

Preps can also be used in a restorative capacity. Say I’ve been slinging Force blasts for ten straight minutes. Chances are high, I’m tuckered out. I could sit back a few rounds and build some Force back up. Won’t kill my physical fatigue, but it will help some with Force at my disposal.

All of this is put together to compare one attack to the next. If my character builds up force for 3 turns and blasts your character, you can’t just throw up a shield and expect to walk away unscathed unless you did the same.

As a final point, generally speaking, preps should be obvious. Most sites disallow stealth-prep. You could do so out of sight IC, sure, but somewhere in your post, it should be clear you’re accumulating power for something.​

Advantages are not prepped but are advantages on the margin. This is where character strengths and expertise comes in. If my character is an inquisitor with deep knowledge of the force, then if we both TK blast each other, mine will likely trump yours slightly. If your character is melee focused, then you’ll be faster than I on the margin.

The important thing here is that most settings deal with this on the margin, only. It isn’t going to make or break a fight but rather enhance your argument were one to come up.

If we’re locked saber-to-saber for a few minutes, you can justify pushing me back because I’m Force-specced and you’re physically-so.

This is also where buffs come in. Force haste of some kind would count as an advantage. Battle meditation would count as an advantage/disadvantage, etc.​

 

[Reign]

Combat & its Intricacies
All of this leads us to the endgame: the fight itself. I could probably sit here and tackle new issues as they arise for days, but I’m going to focus on some of the common heated points that come up and let the post on “stay logical” speak the rest.

Detail

Detail is critical. It's easy to neglect posts for the sake of keeping simple, but what makes or breaks most fights is detail. Not not left hand/right hand, but angle of approach, distance, length of reach all matter.

A lack of detail leaves you open. Under T1 rules, details that aren't present may be interpreted by the opponent. If you fail to set distance between my character and yours, I can set the distance at an amount that is fair.

Naturally, these details can't be arbitrary. Logic rules the day. My character isn't going to be able to just appear a meter away from you without you noticing. I won't be able to make a horizontal swing diagonal.

If you pull a saber with your left hand from a hilt at your right hip, I can assume you're slashing across your body and to my right. Just because you didn't explicitly state you swung at my right explicitly doesn't mean I have domain over that fact. I couldn't change those details because they would be unnatural. Logically, I have to look at the situation and interpret something that makes sense.​

Action sequences

I know most forums suggest keeping posts short and simple: don’t try to do too much in one post, and this is true. It’s not typically a rule, but it’s just good tact.

The reality is, time in an action sequence passes. It doesn’t stand still until everything you do finishes. Do 40 actions if you want, but chances are, on action #2, I’m going to do something to interrupt you and everything that follows is now moot.​

The Passage of Time

I find a lot of good people struggle here. Competent role-players don’t always consider how much time has passed over the course of their actions, and, in the process, make mistakes.

As I said before, time while you post does not stand still. My character can act at any point over the course of your posts. And my actions have bearing on how much time passes. If I run twenty meters and slice at the gun you have drawn, but all you have to do is pull a tiny trigger, I’m going to lose. Your action is simpler. Your action takes a fraction of a second. Mine does not.​

Combat Rewinds

This best acts as a subtopic on time. Variables change as I act. Even if I perform one or two incredibly simple maneuvers or attacks, you might act in a way that provides my character with new information.

Here, and only here, I would be allowed to venture back to my actions and redescribe them accounting for this new information. Here’s an example:

• My first post was me running at your character, lightsaber drawn to my side. When I reach you, I slice down at your head.
• Your post was you lifting your gun up to take aim at me and fire when I got about halfway there. New information is presented.
• My second post would allow me to act from the moment new information was presented: your character lifting his or her gun. At this point, instead of following through with my charge, I could stop and lift my saber to defend.

This is obvious. Most people do this anyway. But I’ve seen debates over whether or not an action can be changes, so I’ve always found it best to have a specific rule as to when actions are alterable.

This can be used for and against you. Keep in mind that if no new information is presented and you choose to do something stupid in spite of a gun being aimed at you, you’re stuck. You made a decision to charge through a blaster knowing it was coming.​

 

[Reign]

I'll probably edit formatting here at the end when all is said and done. I imagine it might end up tweaked.

Also setting this post aside for any miscellaneous things that come up later.

 

[Rin]

Okay... you just posted this.... and as I started to read through this I had to stop just so I can reply with this comment immediately. I LOVE YOU.

Ive only been here a week, but I feel this forum definitely needed something like this. PvP in RP content is difficult to process and can sometimes be hard to get into. Based on your table of contents alone, youre definitely qualified and educated on the subject. I will be following this thread and thank you so much for posting it.

 

[Reya Starlyght]

Good advice, although there are a few things that aren't really true.

First of all, never ever ever do a lot of actions in one post. It leads you into a corner and is bad to do. This goes along with the rule of going back into your post, you can't unless it was an obvious interrupt. An example from one of the Telis battles: A Sith throws a grenade and then proceeds to jump onto two blocks that were thrown at him. He will land on the catwalk the two are standing on behind the the Jedi. The Jedi dodges the grenade which lands underneath the Sith. Because he wrote too much and you can't go back into posts in that situation, than it wouldn't count.

Also, don't do the if x happens y will happen. Do that in your next post. The above just confuses propel and is not a good strategy.

Another thing is I cannot say this enough is to keep it SIMPLE. Don't be doing flips that you don't need. Keep it to the most straightforward stuff. Another thing is be VERY SPECIFIC about your posts. Don't say he swung his saber at her side. Say he swung his saber at her left side below the ribcage with his right hand. It was a horizontal slash that was quite powerful. That is much better.

 

[Vosrik]

Excellent guide! Another thing you might want to add is the "confirming" of actions or posts, so to speak. For example:

I reach out to grab you and then attempt to stab you with my lightsaber.
You lash out to cut off my hand after it grabs you.​

Now, because in your post you wrote that the grab actually happened, in my next post I cannot write that I saw your blade coming and pull my hand back before you cut it off.

Another example. If I post something that seems weird or couldn't actually happen realistically, then when you post you "confirm" my ridiculous post and it cannot be changed. The best thing to do in this case is challenge the post oocly (usually via ooc thread, it's easier for the admins to moderate/weigh in if they need to rather than through PM).

 

[Reign]

First of all, never ever ever do a lot of actions in one post. It leads you into a corner and is bad to do. This goes along with the rule of going back into your post, you can't unless it was an obvious interrupt. An example from one of the Telis battles: A Sith throws a grenade and then proceeds to jump onto two blocks that were thrown at him. He will land on the catwalk the two are standing on behind the the Jedi. The Jedi dodges the grenade which lands underneath the Sith. Because he wrote too much and you can't go back into posts in that situation, than it wouldn't count.

@Reya Starlyght I agree that never do a lot of actions is a good personal rule, but you can't really make that a rule because it's circumstantial. It really depends on the variables at play.

However, and I'm speaking here from my perspective, the notion that actions cannot be taken back is something I have to disagree with. I hit this some in my posts above during combat rewinds.

I am not for being able to take back actions outright, but to say they can't be taken back unless clearly interrupted is dismissive of the passage of time. Variables in battle change, and this changes how things play out and how characters perceive things. That's why there's a specific rule in place: only when new information is presented that justifies your character acting differently, and only from this point.

This is not about posting a lot of actions, it can be about posting one action.

• I run 20 meters straight toward you.
• You shoot at me about halfway through.

The notion I would be committed to cross the full 20 meters would be false, and I don't think you would hold me to it. If you would, then the implication is that, what, you can only shoot me after I run 20 meters? That would be bogus to. Between me standing 20 meters away and getting to you is 20 meters of running time during which my character can act. If this is the case, it's also really exploitable; you just have to make every post a half action, not a full action, and essentially force people into a corner where they commit to something they can't then change.

Tactically, this is already done and good practice, but it's committal. It's because you force your opponent to play a reactive game, and typically there's something in it to exploit.

If then, the above is okay, when is it not okay to take back actions? You can't really make it after X number of actions because this is, again, situational. The reality is, in my 15 years of highly competitive post-based combat, make it realistic. If new information is presented that would change my characters actions, then I can change my character's actions. This is logical because time passes in threads and character perception is active and constant.

Also, don't do the if x happens y will happen. Do that in your next post. The above just confuses propel and is not a good strategy.

I don't know about this one, either. It's not that I disagree, but honestly, times come with conditionals are necessary to cover your ass. Also, if actions cannot be taken back at all, then conditionals must be part of the game. Yet another reason I feel that combat rewinds are essential.

Another thing is I cannot say this enough is to keep it SIMPLE. Don't be doing flips that you don't need. Keep it to the most straightforward stuff.

Absolutely. The number of people I've stabbed while they did a 360 spin can't be counted on fingers and toes. But I didn't get into strategies so much as rules.

Another thing is be VERY SPECIFIC about your posts. Don't say he swung his saber at her side. Say he swung his saber at her left side below the ribcage with his right hand. It was a horizontal slash that was quite powerful. That is much better.

This is something that I didn't put in here but should be in here.

In T1/TBL, vague details are always open to interpretation. If you say you swing your sword at my left side, I can literally write the details for you because they're absent. If you don't tell me how far away we are, I can tell you how far away we are.

This is done to push detailed-centric role-play. Those details are necessary to be able to act fully.

I say this, but it can only be done within reason. I can't metagame and take control of your character. I'm just interpreting your post because you failed to offer me this information.

I reach out to grab you and then attempt to stab you with my lightsaber.
You lash out to cut off my hand after it grabs you.

@Vosrik I'm also on the fence here. I can abide this. I think @Phœnix touched on this some in a PM with me the other day. I assume you mean in the sense that it's written in past tense?

If so, I'm of the ilk that thinks semantics should be secondary to content. Phoenix had mentioned something about whether I write in future or past tense influencing what can and can't be modified, and I think this is more a matter of style than combat. I'd be against that rule (personally). I typcally write most combat actions in "would" which assumes dependency on previous action.

If you mean that I followed up with a second action, I would say the post would be bad tact. Yes, assuming I successfully grabbed you well enough to stab you would be poor, but I sorta go back to my earlier point. You then moving to cut off my hand presents new information to my character, and me stabbing at you doesn't make it impossible for me to let go. So nothing logically prevents me from evading your attack.

Logic for me supercedes everything else. It boils down to the question, "Does it make sense that I would act this way?" While semantics matter, it's something else to argue that I think detracts from the nature. I don't think the best and most consistent writer with flawless consideration to appropriate and situational grammar would be considered #1.

 

[Phoenix]

Usually, redactions are going to come if you're using two or more actions in a post. That's also where semantics often come in. For instance, excerpt from a recent post of mine:

His strike came in from his own left to right horizontally at the girl at chest height. With her saber occupied with his own, Venator would then lash out with an open palmed strike to her shoulder.

So because I had two actions in the post, the first one (written in past tense) is cemented. Because it was the first action in the duel, it's also the first thing that happens. My opponent can't go back in time and insert a strike before that. The second though (written in future tense) is something that I could reserve the right to change if the situation changes drastically. It's a combination of semantics (which, yes, if it comes down to the nit-picky details of a post, will come up) and logic, since the attack is based on the assumption of what the opponent is going to do (ie they're not happening simultaneously so if something happens between slash and punch, punch may not happen).

So what Vosrik (I think) is saying is that if my opponent then said something cementing my first attack, that's non-negotiable (but it already really was). Things can get... tricky and often cause fights when you're talking about multiple actions because the other poster doesn't always have the right to cement the second action. If that makes any sense.

 

[Reign]

what Vosrik (I think) is saying is that if my opponent then said something cementing my first attack, that's non-negotiable.

@Phœnix @Vosrik
I'm with him on this actually. If I post and say something was done, yeah. It's locked in. If I, as your opponent, accept a hit or action, then I can't later contest it when it's convenient. I'm on board.

Also, to the other point, I get that. There is a limit to how far back I can go. That's why most combat threads require entrances absent attacks (I speak to what I've done before). And the first poster does usually get dibs on the first action to start the sequence. I can, at best, start at a point simultaneous with your own. The neutral, non-offensive entrances permit this because once we are both in play, the time frame is set, immediately post-entrance. And nothing can be taken back from a previous round as it has been committed (to your and Vosrik's earlier point).

 

[Vosrik]

Phoenix basically nailed my point, I wasn't talking about tense per se :P

To add to this, if something happened you disagree with in your opponent's post, then by posting your response you make the previous post concrete and non-negotiable. Clarification and challenges need to be made oocly. I actually managed to find it in the rules as well, Combat section F:

F. Once a participant posts, the previous post can not be addressed for changes. For example, if metagaming is believed to have occurred in Post 1 and the opponent posts Post 2, the opponent has solidified the actions in Post 1 and cannot argue Post 1. This only applies to opposition. If a teammate of the poster of Post 1 posts Post 2, it does not exempt Post 1 from review. Any and all posts can be reviewed at the discretion of the admins.

 

[Reign]

Well this is relevant right now. If my IC posts contests, where does this stand?

From my background, you can offer in character objects and corrections if things are glaringly wrong. You know, say that you just imagined time doesn't exist and ignored it completely in a post.

 

[Vosrik]

It doesn't matter if your IC post contests; if you disagree with something the last person posted, you need to challenge it oocly and wait for them to make edits before posting yourself. It doesn't matter how glaringly wrong something might be; as the rules say, your next post "confirms" the previous one.

 

[Outlander]

Well this is relevant right now. If my IC posts contests, where does this stand?

From my background, you can offer in character objects and corrections if things are glaringly wrong. You know, say that you just imagined time doesn't exist and ignored it completely in a post.

It doesn't matter if your IC post contests; if you disagree with something the last person posted, you need to challenge it oocly and wait for them to make edits before posting yourself. It doesn't matter how glaringly wrong something might be; as the rules say, your next post "confirms" the previous one.

Gotta agree with Vos here. Basically, in PVP and unless there are particularly strange circumstances, the next post from someone on the opposite side as the offending post cements the last post as happening, and it can no longer be brought up for OOC contest.

 

[Reign]

What I don't understand is why.

I get it's a rule, and that's fair. But if someone clearly objects IC, in most forums and combat settings, that's enough. Why is it that it must be OoC here? An objection is an objection, is it not? I get you guys say that that's how it is, but I'm not making the connection as to why.

And I'm not dense here. There's a lack of why other than "It's in the rules."

I'll mirror what I said in the other thread. An objection is an objection. If I post something that actually confirms or accepts his action, I get that. That makes sense. But if I post a clear objection, vivid, explicit, no ambiguity, what's the difference?

This sounds exploitable for the explicit purpose of being a rule-check. A rule read once and perhaps forgotten?

 

[Outlander]

What I don't understand is why.

I get it's a rule, and that's fair. But if someone clearly objects IC, in most forums and combat settings, that's enough. Why is it that it must be OoC here? An objection is an objection, is it not? I get you guys say that that's how it is, but I'm not making the connection as to why.

And I'm not dense here. There's a lack of why other than "It's in the rules."

I'll mirror what I said in the other thread. An objection is an objection. If I post something that confirms or accepts his action, I get that. That makes sense. But if I post a clear objection, vivid, explicit, no ambiguity, what's the difference?

Because, while you're making an objection, you're also continuing the fight. I assume the rule is in place so the fight can go uninterrupted IC, relegating any discussion on the actions in question to the OOC without making additional actions to be accounted for in the actual posts.

 

[Reign]

There's rationale in that, sure. But to say it's confirmed when it's objected? It seems more suitable a time to halt the fight and make sure the rule is clear. Or to make sure the reason for the rule is clear.

 

[Outlander]

There's rationale in that, sure. But to say it's confirmed when it's objected? It seems more suitable a time to halt the fight and make sure the rule is clear. Or to make sure the reason for the rule is clear.

You know, as opposed to exploiting the rule in your favor.

Man, I really think you need to take a step back from this issue. Going off on Bauren and talking about how you've been wronged and how it was exploited are all going to work against you later on.

Just lay out the facts, say you objected IC and weren't aware prior of the rule on using OOC to object, and call in an Admin. That's the best course of action.