Shattered Kingdoms

After the rules discussion thread earlier this summer, the staff put a lot of effort into discussion of changes that would clarify existing rules and improve the game in general. We went through several revisions and nothing was held sacred (as you will see with the reduced number of rules and the new Rule #1).

These rules are not yet posted (or active) in the game. If you have feedback on anything that is still unclear, the staff would like to hear it now rather than after a sticky situation has occurred. And now without further ado:

I am a bit surprised to see no commentary whatsoever on this. We worked hard to get this right, but given the amount of angst over the rules recently, I expected there to be at least a few requests for clarification. And if you like the changes, it would be good to hear that too.

I will give it one more day. If I don't hear any feedback that would warrant tweaking, these will go live tomorrow.

This rule, while pretty generally what I'd like to see in place on SK, could stand to be written in a clearer and more friendly fashion if you ask me. I was perusing the help files for another mud and found a really neat way to describe this aspect of competitive PK games. Granted, this game is much lighter in terms of the amount of PK and the losses incurred from it, and is also generally much more heavily policed and IMM-driven, so while I realize it's very different than SK, I think some aspect of their stance would be useful in the revised rule 1.



Specifically I would like to more clearly separate the difference between IC conflict and OOC conflict, and to have the rules and enforcement performed in a way that clearly delineates the two while acknowledging that aggressively targeting one character IC who's working to avoid conflict is just as hurtful to the game environment as going OOC to gloat or complain about a loss.

In short, I'd like to make the following recommendations for rule 1.

1. Let's avoid using the word "dick" in it please. It's hard to take a game seriously that uses a word that's even filtered on the main forums in the first rule.
2. I think it would be better to split the line between how character vs. character is acceptable and normal (if not almost guaranteed the more powerful/influential a character becomes) yet that player vs. player is never acceptable. It should be emphasized that while no one likes to lose, someone will always have to when conflict arises. Your goal should never be to grief another player, but to explore the IC results of winning and losing.
3. At least one example from both sides would be nice: What does it look like to win graciously versus lose graciously, and what does it look like to win or lose ungraciously?

Part of the criteria for the new rules was that they had to be :

- concise
- enforceable

What you're proposing is not particularly either. While it's pretty much IMPOSSIBLE for us to know and prove that a player is targeting another player rather than his character, it's much easier to look at a situation and determine whether or not someone is being an unsportsmanlike dick. That's the entire beauty of Wheaton's Law, even Wheaton's own words. "Don't be a dick. .... everyone knows what that means."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3ICRoe ... redirect=1

I hate that the forums are so heavily filtered that you can't say the word here, but that's neither here nor there, IMO.

IC versus OOC conflict is covered in Rule 2.

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that Wheaton's law is a good rule for playing SK. I'm saying that the compact statement of it leaves a lot to be desired as the first rule of SK, especially because SK is a game where everyone is playing IC a completely different person than they are OOC. Wheaton's law was created because of his observation on how people spoke playing Call of Duty online, where the very concept of a separate in-character persona isn't even a thought. I think that presenting Wheaton's law bare leaves much to be desired.

For one, it looks immature. We should be able to describe the most important rule of playing SK without using a mild expletive. I'm not sure that I would be very excited by the prospect of playing a game where that was the first rule. It's edgy and enticing, yes, but I'd rather the staff present themselves in written form more maturely.

Second, the simple statement is only focusing on what -not- to do, not what -to- aim for. I think the longer text could be compacted while also adding in the positive aspect. As it stands, there's nothing that actually -encourages- characters to embrace conflict when it is necessary, only discouraging them from taking conflict the wrong direction, and I think that's missing a golden opportunity. Let's take the second and third sentence as an example.

Those two sentences mostly say the same thing: Respect your adversaries. I think if you reduced those two sentences down to one and added in something about how IC conflict is one of the best parts of the game -if done with respect- then it would be a much better described rule.

I just want to make sure that there's a clear line between saying "Don't be a jerk OOC" and saying "Being a jerk IC is perfectly acceptable." Right now that line really isn't made clear, and I think it could be much clearer.

To give an additional thought to that idea: I think that Wheaton's law is nothing more than the inverse of "Respect other players" which is a simplified version of a part of the current rule #1. Focusing on positive language is the best way to concisely communicate that, if you ask me, rather than focusing on the negative with a negative-sounding phrase.

If you will, consider the following rendition.

From

To


Obviously it's longer and not polished, but the theme of focusing on the goal rather than focusing on the negative is what I'd like to see more of. I want to make it crystal clear that just because someone is a total douchecanoe IC doesn't mean that they really hate you, and you should always respond IC first before assuming that they're just going after you for OOC reasons. Some of my most memorable RPG experiences involved people being a total [REDACTED] IC in many cases.

I'm sorry you put a lot of work into this and haven't gotten much of a response. I just saw this now since I only check into the forums once in a while when I think of it. l also haven't been playing lately so maybe my opinion doesn't even matter.

I have to agree with Edoras here. The rules as written are terribly offensive and player-blaming. It makes it seem like this game has a big problem with players who need to been kept at heel.

Here are my suggestions:

1) delete rule 1 entirely

2)

Delete this. Death is often senseless, especially in SK where builders love random death traps.

3)
If you're going to ban IN-CHARACTER sexual harassment, I think you need to be a lot more specific about what you're banning. The rule as-written could be used by a future rules admin to site-ban a player for using the "goose" command on a stranger.

6)


This doesn't make any sense as a rule. If I encounter something I "feel" isn't "realistic" I "should?" report it?

A possible fix would be to say, "We reserve the exclusive right to determine whether an effect is intended or unintended and players shall be retroactively punished for abusing a mechanic regardless of when the mechanical abuse became known to the staff. As a courtesy, the staff will respond to questions about whether a specific tactic or mechanic is considered abuse, but no complete list of banned mechanics will be provided."

Ok, so I couldn't really make this sound fair. I think the problem is that you're not leaving yourself room for the punishment to fit the crime. If someone finds a new exploit that lets them modify the stats on their weapons, that's a huge deal and obviously not intended. Delete/ban them. But if someone uses the "get" command to take an item from an NPC and realizes that the game returns different messaging that reveals whether the NPC has the item or not, there has to be a different punishment, such as telling them to stop, fixing the messaging and allowing them to continue to enjoy the game.

An equivalent to what you've done with this law is something like: "Occasionally, the parking signs in this area are incorrect. Should you encounter a space that you feel should be marked "no parking," you should report it in an email to the town traffic supervisor. Any cars found to be parked in no-parking zones will be towed, crushed and have their materials recycled. This includes no-parking zones that should have been marked but weren't at the time, at the sole discretion of the town traffic supervisor"



Delete this, it's unnecessarily hostile and petty. Further, why shouldn't we consider the difference between someone knowingly breaking an important rule and someone who accidentally does because the game is already complex enough and we can't seriously expect every new person to figure out every possible thing that isn't allowed in the game.

Since I suggested deleting rule 1, I would like to further propose an addendum.

NOTE TO PLAYERS: This is a competitive, tactical roleplaying game. As such, there will be winners and losers in each encounter. If you feel that losing an encouter is reducing your enjoyment of the game, we encourage you to check out the following resources that will help you be more competitive in the future "link-to-list-of-resources." If you feel that you are unable to roleplay your character the way you want to because other characters are interfering, through combat or diplomacy, be aware that the staff will not intervene on your behalf, unless the player or group is abusing a mechanical advantage. OOC harrassment will not be tolerated, however roleplaying does not happen on an individual level. Your character must find a place in the world and be able to interact with other characters, even those diametrically opposed to your character's value and goals. There is no limit to the number of characters you can create for FREE in Shattered Kingdoms, so feel free to delete any characters that you are not enjoying and try again with a new concept.

The staff is evaluating these comments and what, if any, changes to make in response. It is also not too late for more feedback, either on these rules or the comments.

My one immediate comment to theDrifter is that you seem to have read this while envisioning a particularly hostile tone of voice, which was definitely not intended. And I would be curious to hear whether others also feel it is off-putting, particularly if you put yourself into the shoes of a first-time player who has no existing opinions about the staff.

As for Wheaton's Law, I had vaguely heard of it but had never considered it as a rule until it was proposed. (I was more familiar with John Gabriel's Greater Internet [REDACTED] Theory, which seems to have been a predecessory influence.) So yes, I thought it was a bit shocking but it did grow on me. Former Rule #1 (The Golden Rule) has long been criticized as meaning different things to different people and therefore too vague to be a rule. I am not sure if Wheaton's Law is less vague, but at least it is more direct to the point.

Finally, while being uplifting is fine and all, let's concede that the point of rules is to prohibit bad things from happening. If that means they do sound a bit negative, I guess that is part of their job. There are other helpfiles such as 'help roleplay' that can be responsible for having a more positive tone and provide helpful guidance.

My two cents (not the final word).

Yeah, my two main gripes about Wheaton's law as the rule around player interaction is that A) It's not as mature-sounding as I'd like staff of a game to be and B) It's not a clear statement in an environment where having a dual-personality is an inherent part of the experience.

In CoD (The system Wheaton used when describing the origin of his phrase), you -are- your voicecomm, and so it's across the board absolutely out of line to tell someone to apologize or you're going to cut their head off, or tell them that you had sex with their mother, or call them a low-life scum that needs to drown themselves. Presenting a false personality in CoD, while possible, is not normal and is mostly used for fun or trolling people.

In SK, however, you -have- to maintain a difference between your in-character persona and your out-of-character attitude. People usually get the most upset when they take things that happen to their character as attacks on them personally. I've gotten some great laughs when PCs have told my characters to go drown themselves in Lake Everclear, despite the fact that saying something like that in most other gaming arenas would be wholly unacceptable.

Reciting Wheaton's law as the introduction to the entire ruleset is simply confusing for that reason: Really it should say "Don't be a dick out of character whether or not you're being a dick in-character" or something similar, but at that point you're taking a statement that prides itself on being concise and made it too complicated. I simply don't think it's a good way to describe the theme of the rules, and that's what the first rule will always do: Set the theme.

There is a HUGE difference between death at the hands of the game environment and death at the hands of another player. If you walk up to another character in the game and type a command that will result in his or her death, you owe role play to that character. Period. That is role playing conflicts.

We took out "before," and I feel like that's appropriate. But, it's inexcusable to just roll up on another character and kill them with no explanation. I'm not at all for removing this verbiage.