Post/Author/DateTime	Post
catsclaw 06-11-07, 01:41 AM	I was playing a Cabal of Shadows mod, and my obscura mission completely conflicted with the obscura mission of another PC. The only thing I could think of was to forceably wrest the item I was supposed to get from the other person, but the GM rules that grappling another PC was an attack, and therefore was not allowed. Is this correct? It seems insane to specifically write in character conflict, and then to tell people they can't resolve it in-character.
Marcus Majarra 06-11-07, 02:04 AM	See, the Cabal cannot afford dissension in the ranks. As such, you cannot attack fellow brothers and sisters, even if it's to further your Obscura's goals (the last thing the Cabal needs is open in-fighting). Nonlethal tactics are legitimate, although being underhanded works best.
Lilinthra 06-11-07, 02:30 AM	Here's another thread where this has been discussed: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=821127
Timlagor 06-11-07, 04:53 AM	Any attempt to grapple starts with a touch attack. Most nonlethal damage requires an attack roll. Nothing with an attack roll can conceivably be called "not an attack". Most GMs would count anything that drops an Invisibility Spell to be an attack. More debatable (but actually less reasonable) is claiming that a summoned creature or other animal could attack for you. IN any case I entirely agree that it's silly in the extreme (said combat could easily have happened away from witnesses and the (my) death attributed to someone else.
Harliquinn 06-11-07, 09:47 AM	Personally I think it's getting frustrating to put in directly conflicting goals and then have the rules stating "you cannot attack or harm another PC." I've been fortunate in most cases that I've been able to complete missions, but I've seen it many times where a PC has to stand by and watch their goal taken away while being able to do nothing because of the rules. I hope the rules are amended in 3.0 to allow non-lethal damage at least, otherwise anyone with a "kill the NPC" will always succeed over someone with "save the NPC" goals, unless they are outnumbered heavily. Typically with 4-5 obscura/subfactions in Cabal, it is likely that each person at the table will be the only one from their faction. By the nature of character classes, any one character cannot be the good fighter, diplomatic, healer, offensive caster, rogue. Many missions require a couple different skills to achieve, which already makes them difficult at times. Adding an additional restriction of "you cannot attack a fellow PC in any way" just means that any 'combat oriented' class is at a disadvantage. You can't really bluff, diplomacize, intimidate or otherwise 'persuade' a PC to do or not to do something (free will and all that). This leaves non-lethal attacks (things like color spray, non-lethal damage, hold person, entangle) as a good means to achieve your goals without actually hurting the fellow members. However, if those are taken out, it comes down to who the DM wants to favor. I think Shawn described the situation of PC 1 wants to kill NPC and PC 2 wants to save them. There he said each side says what they are going to do and the DM rules. What options does the PC 2 have to save an NPC when they can't affect the other PC? There are no restrictions on attacking the NPC while there are numerous restrictions on attacking the other PC's. I suppose unless you can somehow teleport or fly away (hard to do at 4th level for most) then it becomes a moot point for the defender. Even if teleport or flying away (or other spells) were a good solution, that still means that casters are at a huge advantage because of their options. Combat-oriented characters handicapped in this situation. This also has nothing to do with the maturity of the players. It's a simple fact, if you cannot attack another PC, and that PC is about to kill an NPC there is really nothing you can do long term that will prevent it without some powerful magics. I'm not trying to complain here, but I do see a fundamental problem with putting in opposed goals and then saying you can't attack other PC's (even for non-lethal damage). I agree with Shawn that there were major problems allowing PvP at GenCon last year. Disallowing PvP is fine, but you cannot also have conflicts that must be resolved with some type of combat. Harliquinn
Harliquinn 06-11-07, 09:48 AM	See, the Cabal cannot afford dissension in the ranks. As such, you cannot attack fellow brothers and sisters, even if it's to further your Obscura's goals (the last thing the Cabal needs is open in-fighting). Nonlethal tactics are legitimate, although being underhanded works best. Unfortunately a lot of the conflicting goals (kill or save an NPC) are almost impossible to do by being underhanded. Social skills don't work on PC's. There also seems to be some disagreement on whether non-lethal tactics are allowed or not. Harliquinn
smerwin29 06-11-07, 10:29 AM	We Factionmasters need to get together and make sure the XECS spells out exactly how this works in its next iteration.
Shadai 06-11-07, 11:18 AM	Pirate? I see why you are frustrated about it. If I was in that position I also would be frustrated. However, lets take a step back and see things from the larger scope. Perhaps only then can we draw references. Your playing an evil campaign. K, well its not technically evil, but it have evil undertones. You do deeds that would be considered by most to be fringy activity at best. Your allowed to play evil characters. Most players may actually choose this route (just as an aside, they choose that to their folly, as most don't have enough rp experience to actually do the deeds it requires to keep that Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil character well... evil). Being an evil campaign things aren't going to be handed to you. Hell, things aren't handed to you in a regular campaign when your playing HEROES. You have to work your way thru using whatever you have at your disposal. That being said.... Personally, I think they SHOULD allow PvP. However, that experiment had already happened, and apparently with disastrous results. As true for anything, a few bad apples spoils the bushel and we are left with the results. Its easy to make the link here. PvP was allowed, players had different goals and one kills the other as the easy solution. Why would that be? Undertowing the Rules, Tool(s) at your disposal Maynard James Keenan sings it best. Lie, Cheat and Steal. You're at best a shady character, and at worst, an evil one. These three things should come as naturally to you as breathing. And here's the best part: EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE STATS. To lie and cheat is essentially a bluff roll. Steal? Well, slight of hand, but could be bluff if you have a good DM who listens (and you do it the right way). But these are only important if the DM calls you on it. As long as he doesn't, lie your head off. And generally, he'll only ask for those kind of rolls when dealing with NPCs.... NOT other PCs! Lets put it this way. We'll take your example. PC Bob has Item X that you both need for two very separate reasons. The first thing you MUST do is feign indifference. You can't let Bob know that item is worth alot to you, as he will be automatically suspicious the entire session as soon as he figures that out. Then you watch and wait. Don't push the issue. I don't care if you have a 3-quarter tons of intimidate or bluff. The minute you leave things to opposed rolls your shooting yourself in the foot. Just like the wild west, there is always someone better (or luckier), and the minute he makes that sense motive check and wins, hes going to be alerted that something is not quite right. Its why we GMs ask for random rolls for no reason at all. Nothing gets the players hogtied faster then a room a with random spot/search/listen check(s). But Shadai.... I f1gh73r w/ no skillz.... I just crush things... its not fair! First of all, life isn't fair. Why should a game designed to "simulate" it be any different? (simulate being used loosely, I DO realize it is a fantasy after all) Secondly, you rolled the character. You made your bed. Lay in it for a while. You wanted a character that could beat things over the head. You got it. If you wanted to deftly take things and manipulate a party, you should have been a bard. Or a beguiler. Or maybe a classy rogue. So how does that fighter get that item. Let me hit you with some knowledge. You might not be able to. If not, you deal with it and move on. However, if you wait, bide your time you might see an opening. Perhaps you are outside the city. He's asleep, you're on watch. Steal it. If its in a bag, replace it with a rock. Do whatever you have to do. Call false alarm. Let him die when your being attacked. Take if off his body when he's dead. Hire someone to steal it. Possibilities are endless. Obscure Obscura I may just be spitballin here, but I don't think they intended Obscura missions to be the be all, end all quest. Those of you who play video game RPGs know what these missions are intended to be by a different name: The Sidequest. Why would they want you to pick an Obscura? Its not the shiny quest reward. (Silent Portal at will, woot). Its the motivation. Any... hell damn near all evil characters have it. Think of any villain in any book/movie/session/rl. They all had something that was driving them on. Their own agenda. And THAT is what the Obscura is intended to be. Think for a second of Die Hard with a Vengeance. Jeremy Irons is wonderful in that movie and illustrates the point I'm trying to hammer home. He plays a character in the movie determined to steal hundreds of billions of gold. However, thru out the movie he's determined to do one more piece of dirty laundry.... killing John McClane. Now, did he have to kill him in order to get his money? Hell no. In fact, had he not roused McClane from his drunken stupor, he prolly be billions richer. But he was determined to finish this little "sidequest" at the behest of the true mission itself. Wrapping it all up What is my point in all of this? Before leveling blame on designers and GMs, lets look at your own pitfalls forthcoming. First of all, you chose the character to play. Second, you chose your Obscura. Perhaps you should have made a wiser decision. And thirdly: I was playing a Cabal of Shadows mod, and my obscura mission completely conflicted with the obscura mission of another PC. The only thing I could think of was to forceably wrest the item I was supposed to get from the other person, but the GM rules that grappling another PC was an attack, and therefore was not allowed. Lets highlight the important sentence in that bit of whambulance. my obscura mission completely conflicted with the obscura mission of another PC I guess I have to draw the obvious conclusion here. Someone was going to win. Someone was going to lose. YOU'RE IN AN EVIL CAMPAIGN! Its not all roses and everyone wins. Even if you managed to steal it... someone would lose. Am I going to come to the boards and see that guy on here complaining about the same thing, 'cept from the opposite point of view? Its all about giving your character motivation and an agenda to complete in game. Bands of evil guys don't just hang out all the time. They are too different, with different goals and different ways to do things. Why should our characters be any different?
Marcus Majarra 06-11-07, 12:58 PM	Unfortunately a lot of the conflicting goals (kill or save an NPC) are almost impossible to do by being underhanded. Social skills don't work on PC's. There also seems to be some disagreement on whether non-lethal tactics are allowed or not. Harliquinn Killing can be done in an underhanded fashion. It's called premeditated murder. It usually works best when you trick the ones who want to save the NPC into believing that you too want to save the NPC (and then having him killed while the others look away).
catsclaw 06-11-07, 01:30 PM	Lets highlight the important sentence in that bit of whambulance.I understand it's difficult for some people to avoid tossing around personal insults, but please try to check that impulse when posting on the boards. I take personal insults personally, and so does my 8' tall flying praying mantis.I guess I have to draw the obvious conclusion here. Someone was going to win. Someone was going to lose. YOU'RE IN AN EVIL CAMPAIGN! Its not all roses and everyone wins. Even if you managed to steal it... someone would lose. Am I going to come to the boards and see that guy on here complaining about the same thing, 'cept from the opposite point of view?I don't object to losing. I object to not having a fair fight. The situation came down to me trying to prevent a teleporting halfling from entering a building. As I mentioned before, I have a giant flying praying mantis. He's very good at grabbing things. I was hoping to grab the halfling, and fly straight up far enough that teleporting would be suicide. If I can grapple, I've at least got a slim shot of stopping the halfling. If I can't, I'm basically forced to stand next to him saying "Don't do that" while he picks the lock, pilfers the MacGuffin, and teleports away. That's frustrating and ridiculous. It's a bad rule. Once in, the halfling attracted the notice of a guard. I was seriously considering casting Snake's Swiftness on the guard. I've no idea if that would follow the "no attacks" rule -- but the GM seemed to think that would be allowed -- and any policy which encourages more deadly PvP in the name of ensuring less deadly PvP seriously needs a review.
Hellcast 06-11-07, 03:02 PM	You also have to think in rp terms. By being in an obsucura you have to keep your obscura missions secret. If you had to really get that item, you should wait and plot (as others pointed out). If i was running something like this in my own campaign if your obscura was found, i would make an NPC from an opposing obscura try to kidnap you and take information out of you, that's how it normaly goes for bad guys.
catsclaw 06-11-07, 03:21 PM	You also have to think in rp terms. By being in an obsucura you have to keep your obscura missions secret. If you had to really get that item, you should wait and plot (as others pointed out).I've been deliberately vague as to exactly what the setup was and I was trying to do, as it's still an active module. Rather than give all the details (and thus, massive spoilers) can we just assume I tried four or five different tactics to avoid the direct conflict, I had already completed the main mission before I turned to the Obscura mission, and I did not reveal anything particularly noteworthy about what I was trying to accomplish to the other players?
Shadai 06-11-07, 06:25 PM	I understand it's difficult for some people to avoid tossing around personal insults, but please try to check that impulse when posting on the boards. I take personal insults personally, and so does my 8' tall flying praying mantis. Nothing personal. I just feel you are being irrational. Crying here on the boards because you failed doesn't mean its bad design. Welcome to the Dark Side. You're playing an evil character like everyone else. And that situation you were in, and I agree it was tough, was just how your cookie crumbled. I don't object to losing. I object to not having a fair fight. The situation came down to me trying to prevent a teleporting halfling from entering a building. As I mentioned before, I have a giant flying praying mantis. He's very good at grabbing things. I was hoping to grab the halfling, and fly straight up far enough that teleporting would be suicide. If I can grapple, I've at least got a slim shot of stopping the halfling. If I can't, I'm basically forced to stand next to him saying "Don't do that" while he picks the lock, pilfers the MacGuffin, and teleports away. That's frustrating and ridiculous. It's a bad rule. Once in, the halfling attracted the notice of a guard. I was seriously considering casting Snake's Swiftness on the guard. I've no idea if that would follow the "no attacks" rule -- but the GM seemed to think that would be allowed -- and any policy which encourages more deadly PvP in the name of ensuring less deadly PvP seriously needs a review. Again, you were in a rough situation. If you tried everything you could, well, sorry man. You lose. If you tried everything within your power (and then some) then you have nothing to complain about. Well played to the other guy, sorry 'bout your luck. Its not a bad rule. It became a bad rule because once people hit that wall where they have tried everything (or nothing, they were just lazy) it resulted in player death. This isn't World of Warcraft here. There actually IS a penalty when you die. And nothing sucks worse then dying like that. Besides. If you wanted him dead you really didn't have to defend him. Hell, if the DM was going to let you cast the spell on the guard you should have done it. Then feigned indifference as the guard beat the halfing senseless. Hobbit wannabe prolly had it coming. Don't say you object to losing. By posting how you don't like opposed obscura or tha fact you can't PvP when you were in a situation you happened to lose, doesn't look very good mate.
pedr 06-11-07, 06:56 PM	I've never been in a difficult PvP situation in XE - not really played enough Cabal modules - but I agree wholeheatedly with catsclaw. The rules don't work - to the point where Shawn has had to say "work it out through discussion with the GM rather than by using your character's abilities." Now I don't like the idea of lethal PvP in the RPGA. It's not helpful, I don't think. But I've said it before and I hope people won't mind me saying it again: the Living Greyhawk campaign rules are very different from the XE ones and essentially freely allow non-lethal PvP and allow consensual lethal PvP (particularly useful for 'can I include you in the fireball?' issues). With the Cabal (and potentially Expeditions adventures) you have a problem. 'Realism' would often have the strongest or fastest PC win in conflicts - depending on the type of conflict. The current rules have the sneakiest win, I suppose, because one you have your hands on the mcguffin, no-one can forcibly take it from you. Perhaps there's no way of solving this - the alternative would have the dedicated heaing character up in arms because he could never complete a mission due to the bigger and stronger PCs beating him up and stopping him succeeding. But it would feel better, more realistic, I think, and a player who built a character to help others should expect that sometimes being good (or neutral with good tendencies) will get you trodden on from time to time - that's the nature of the Cabal.
catsclaw 06-11-07, 07:31 PM	Nothing personal. I just feel you are being irrational. Crying here on the boards because you failed doesn't mean its bad design.What makes you think I failed? I actually succeeded in my mission, although by a pretty indirect route.Don't say you object to losing. By posting how you don't like opposed obscura or tha fact you can't PvP when you were in a situation you happened to lose, doesn't look very good mate.Where did I say I didn't like opposed obscura? Imagine this situation: You are playing a brutish half-ogre. Your group is assigned to search a castle, while your secret mission is to deliver a package to a given address at noon. Your group is searching the last room, a 10' square room with thick stone walls and a single exit, when the halfling steps into the doorway and announces "I'm supposed to prevent a package from being delivered at noon, so I'm not letting anybody past until 1:00." You can't grapple him and set him aside. Can't knock him unconscious with the pommel of your greataxe. Can't overrun. Can't bull rush. Do you think "Oh, well played! You have bested me with your clever tactics!" Or do you think "This is, in a word, idiotic. That rule needs fixing."
Shadai 06-11-07, 08:32 PM	Where did I say I didn't like opposed obscura? Imagine this situation: You are playing a brutish half-ogre. Your group is assigned to search a castle, while your secret mission is to deliver a package to a given address at noon. Your group is searching the last room, a 10' square room with thick stone walls and a single exit, when the halfling steps into the doorway and announces "I'm supposed to prevent a package from being delivered at noon, so I'm not letting anybody past until 1:00." You can't grapple him and set him aside. Can't knock him unconscious with the pommel of your greataxe. Can't overrun. Can't bull rush. Do you think "Oh, well played! You have bested me with your clever tactics!" Or do you think "This is, in a word, idiotic. That rule needs fixing." uh, you step over him? Sorry for pointing out the obvious you fail to grasp but here's how I see it. You explain to your DM that you are 3 times his size and are simply going to walk over or thru him. If your DM thinks this is PvP, he's an idiot. Common sense (the rules for which I base my GMing when I'm at the helm) would dicate if you were the half ogre and you told me you were walking thru him... I'd side with you. Why? Your bigger, and hes going to have one hell of a time explaining how hes going to attempt to stop you. Now the shoe's on the other foot and the halfling has to figure things out. Don't come at me with stupid scenarios you haven't thought out before hand. On top of that, you seem to think I'm against you, when I'm only trying to point out the other side. If your too foolish to grasp it, I have nothing more to say to you. Its important to figure out why something is the way it is before you can grasp a way to fix it.
pedr 06-11-07, 09:43 PM	I don't really understand your post, Shadai. The general way that RPGA games work is that we use the D&D rules to work out what characters (player and non-player) can do. What you are suggesting is that we suspend those rules - because the rules say that a halfling can stop a half-ogre from moving through his space, unless the half-ogre uses the overrun action. Which would be disallowed PvP under the current rules. It's not a matter of anyone being 'too foolish' (a rather unnecessary statement to make on a message board) - it's a matter of believing that conflicts in D&D ought to be resolved by the D&D rules, not GM fiat.
Diablo05 06-12-07, 12:16 AM	This scenario would be worked out VERY easily with D&D mechanics. While I like Shadai's explanation, heres an even simpler way for you people who like mechanics. YOU CAN MOVE THROUGH A SPACE OCCUPIED BY AN ALLY! And yes, opposing obscura or not, he is still an ally, and thats why you cant attack him. But like Shadai said... stupid example. Sorry Catsclaw, but your plan of picking up the halfling and flying really high is fairly uninspired. Sounds to me like the other player had the perfect character for the job. You'll have to be a little more creative than that if your going to out do him. Perhaps buffing that guard would have been a good idea. Yes, its more lethal PvP... but aren't you supposed to be evil? You say its unfair because the combat characters dont have a fighting chance. Well, what if they could PvP? Then ONLY the combat characters would have a chance. The halfling could pull off the most amazing heist ever, only to be smashed flat by the teams half-orc. And lets face it, if the mission is to steal some object, dont you think the halfling rogue should have a little bit of advantage over the face masher? And as Shadai wonderfully pointed out, combat characters have plenty of chance, you just have to get creative and underhanded. Seriously, I know its called the d20 system and all, but its okay to put your dice down now and then.
Timlagor 06-12-07, 01:29 AM	DIABLO: whether he's your ally is entirely up to the person occupying the space -it's not some weird magical law. The GM can invoke the 'not well modelled' rule on that one quite easily though. In the case of allowing PVP the halfling would simply have to be sneakier -though in fact the whole team would probably have smashed Catsclaw into a pulp about 30 ic-minutes earlier. Shadai you seem to be missing the point ...odd with a character called Shadai present at the scene. It's not an RP issue. It's not a planning issue. There was no way that Catsclaw could have prevented my "teleporting halfling" from going after the McGuffin*. If he couldn't grapple/pin/knock me out then there was no way he could get it off me again. Buffing the guard wasn't a practical option. HE WAS MUCH BIGGER AND STRONGER THAN ME. He had the PC who could hit things hard and stop them but the campaign rules completely neutered that ability. It should be the case that sneaky characters can succeed by being sneaky but the brute force guys will win if it comes to a showdown. This is not the case in XE. I'd like to have another shot at allowing full PvP -or at least the option to agree to that at the beginning of play- but I don't know what happened when they did try it. Seems to me that Cabal members wiping each other out should not be a big problem for the players so long as they don't do it at the beginning of modules -especially in XE with the Level bumps etc. There could certainly be some IC pressure to leave other Cabal members alive to fight again -and major displeasure if you kill teammates off and then fail the main mission. I have thought pretty hard about this and there is no satisfactory place to draw the line: - Allow only non-lethal damage and the blasty-arcanist is completely stuffed (even if he could take out the entire rest of the party easily). - Allow only non-damage options and the non-grappling tank is stuffed (and grappling stops working effectively against lots of people fairly soon). - Allow 'anything short of death' and you have major potential to accdentally cross the line. Tossing a coin is as good as any of these options in many cases. All of which is aggravated by not being completely clear about the rules in advance -in this case I was mostly down to direct damage spells. Ultimately if there is no good way of doing PvP I'd rather simply see the diametrically opposed goals removed (which incidentally wouldn't have directly solved the problem in this case). In any case it needs addressing much better than the current version and I look forward to XECS3.0 improving the rules. * That sentence is misleading in at least 3 different ways but it serves the purpose nonetheless.
catsclaw 06-12-07, 01:55 AM	Sorry for pointing out the obvious you fail to grasp but here's how I see it.I'll thank you not to insult me again on this board. I've asked you once nicely, and since you continue to do so I have to assume you've got a personal issue with either me or my question. Your condescension is completely unwarranted, and if it's such a pain to continue the debate then feel free to stop posting.You explain to your DM that you are 3 times his size and are simply going to walk over or thru him. If your DM thinks this is PvP, he's an idiot. Common sense (the rules for which I base my GMing when I'm at the helm) would dicate if you were the half ogre and you told me you were walking thru him... I'd side with you. Why? Your bigger, and hes going to have one hell of a time explaining how hes going to attempt to stop you. Now the shoe's on the other foot and the halfling has to figure things out.Promise me you'll never judge an RPGA event. We've got more than enough judges here who don't understand the rules and just "wing it" based on "common sense". They are, almost to a person, reviled. If it makes you feel better, assume the half-ogre has to squeeze through the doorway, and there isn't room for him to go around the halfling. Of course it's obvious the half-ogre should be able to push past the halfling. That's exactly my point. It's as dumb to say the half-ogre can't get past the halfling as it is to say my praying mantis can't immobilize a halfling. But the rules covering both situations -- overrun and grapple -- require attack rolls. You can't just arbitrarily say the first is an attack and the other isn't. Actually, I guess you can say that (since you just have) but that distinction isn't based on any principle you've explained here.
smerwin29 06-12-07, 07:44 AM	First of all, all sides need to drop the personal insults right now. Let's leave words like "foolish" out of it: even if you think you are calling an example foolish, it still reflects on the person providing the example. The problem with giving an example, especially the example with the halfling and the half-ogre, is that people are going to come up with counter examples until the end of time. In essence, that's the whole problem with PvP. For example, overrun is not really an attack. In fact, the halfling is the one who would have to be the aggressor here, not the half-ogre. The halfling would be the one at fault and should not be allowed to block. If he does, the recourse is not an attack but an opposed Str/Dex check. Summarizing: Eliminating plots that promote PvP goals would certainly help, but they do not eliminate the problem. Even normal adventures bring PCs into conflict about certain things (kill/release/imprison the defeated NPC, go this way versus that way, etc.) Allowing PvP does not work. The very few players on this list may think that it could, but trust me when I saw that a majority of players do not want it. Trying to delineate what can and cannot be allowed in "controlled" PvP just leads to more arguments and a near-infinite number of corner cases and discussions. No matter what method is used, some type of player or another is going to feel slighted because of abilities. Everyone is not going to be happy, no matter what choice is made. Feel free to continue to discuss, but keep the conversation civil. Shawn
Harliquinn 06-12-07, 09:29 AM	There is no good way to resolve it that will please everyone, that is true. As long as the adventures promote intraparty conflict, there will need to be ways to resolve it that is at least as fair as possible for all characters. I do think the non-lethal damage route may be a good compromise. I know there were problems at last year's GenCon. However, I believe a lot of those problems were from a lack of definition about what is and what is not allowed in terms of PvP. Each GM was handling things differently, which caused a lot of confusion when you went to another table. If you allow non-lethal only PvP, then everyone is on equal footing at least. A few simple rules could be implemented for the Cabal of Shadows only if needed. I'm not sure it could work well with the other factions or even in Expedition Games, since 3/4 of the factions don't really involve PvP. Whatever is decided though, explicit rules must be put into the Campaign Standards. It is not enough to say "Leave it up to the GM" since even when the adventures are written identically for each judge, there are always differences; it would be the same way with PvP. One judge would allow certain things that other judges did not. This would create at least a fairer playing field than exists now. 1) Characters who's primary strength is physically combat-oriented can resolve conflicts in a way that plays to their character's strengths. Anyone can attack non-lethally with a penalty to attack. Therefore, the warrior types can now attempt to either complete their mission with force or stop another with force if needed. 2) Characters who's primary strength is sneaking or social can still use their skills to do things the underhanded way. If something needs stolen, or someone needs killed, or protected they can do this more easily with their contacts, stealth, or cunning. 3) Characters who's primary strength is spellcasting would need a change. Non-damaging spells would work the same as always (There may be a few exceptions in the case of Dominate spells that cause you to attack something far above your level but there are only a few of those). Xen'drik would have to allow PC's to gain the 'use' of (not actually get) the non-lethal substitution for their damaging spells. This would only apply to PvP combat and there would be a penalty associated with it (something to mimic the -4 to hit without a feat that physical combat entails). This could be a -2 penalty on Saving Throw DC's, +1 spell level adjustment, etc. One thing, though as Shawn pointed out, there is always going to be differences of opinion in the games. However, most of that is player driven. The conflicting goals (which I think *can* add depth to the game if characters are allowed to response appropriately) are adventure driven. It is like telling two children not to fight and then setting a single piece of candy between them and telling them both they can have it. What is really expected? I praise the Factionmasters for giving us a lot of freedom in the new campaign and they have done a great job adminstering and refereeing. However, there are some valid concerns that will need addressed I think soon. Harliquinn
Timlagor 06-12-07, 10:14 AM	I really like the suggestion that all damage spells have the use of Nonlethal Substitution for PvP combat (with the proviso that this not be 'cheesable' when Fireballing the PvE melee zone): by far the best suggestion I've ever seen on this problem. Instead of trying ot mimic the -4 to hit I'd simply apply the same 'benefit' to all PvP damage (ie the fighters don't get the -4 to hit either). [I'd still like the table -as a whole: everyone gets a veto- to have the option of Lethal PvP but I'm willing to accept that it's not practical as a general rule.]
smerwin29 06-12-07, 10:37 AM	[I'd still like the table -as a whole: everyone gets a veto- to have the option of Lethal PvP but I'm willing to accept that it's not practical as a general rule.] The problem with this is that people feel pressured and bullied into allowing it, even when they don't want it. Too many people who want it give off an attitude that people who don't want PvP choose so because they "can't handle it" or "aren't mature enough." These are not situations I am making up: I have received emails and PMs from people who do not want PvP but aren't comfortable saying so at the table for these reasons. Shawn
Harliquinn 06-12-07, 12:02 PM	The problem with this is that people feel pressured and bullied into allowing it, even when they don't want it. Too many people who want it give off an attitude that people who don't want PvP choose so because they "can't handle it" or "aren't mature enough." These are not situations I am making up: I have received emails and PMs from people who do not want PvP but aren't comfortable saying so at the table for these reasons. Shawn I can concur with Shawn just based on my experiences at tables with Cabal and other factions. A lot of people don't want PvP but will likely concede due to pressure. However, in Cabal it can just be the accepted 'way' of things (the non-lethal version). I would hesitate to allow the voluntary "lethal" as well. Timlagor: Removing the -4 penalty to attack for non-lethal *only* for PC combat is a good suggestion. It *should* (I haven't thought through every possible scenario) make it fair on caster/melee sides.
Lilinthra 06-12-07, 01:16 PM	Hi, I was the GM/judge for this instance of the module. Now that I've had a chance to review the session logs (as this was an online game), I just wanted to clarify a few of the comments and pull the curtain back on some of the decision making. Some of this will be a bit vague, though, to stay away from spoilers. I'm not picking on anyone, but as catsclaw provided most of the scenario details, I'll mostly be quoting him. Just for ease in explanation, there were three PCs around when this went down: catsclaw had a druid (with giant praying mantis), Timlagor had a halfling mage, and a third PC had a rogue. It's a bad rule. Once in, the halfling attracted the notice of a guard. I was seriously considering casting Snake's Swiftness on the guard. I've no idea if that would follow the "no attacks" rule -- but the GM seemed to think that would be allowed -- and any policy which encourages more deadly PvP in the name of ensuring less deadly PvP seriously needs a review. I actually did not comment on the Mass Snake's Swiftness at all. You brought it up post-resolution as an "I was considering..." hypothetical. I've been deliberately vague as to exactly what the setup was and I was trying to do, as it's still an active module. Rather than give all the details (and thus, massive spoilers) can we just assume I tried four or five different tactics to avoid the direct conflict, I had already completed the main mission before I turned to the Obscura mission, and I did not reveal anything particularly noteworthy about what I was trying to accomplish to the other players? I just wanted to note that the tactics mentioned by catsclaw had significant impact on what occurred. The guard was already alert due to catsclaw's initial choice of actions on the scene, and catsclaw put the other PCs on a timetable by something he did when they arrived. On the other hand, effectively telling the rest of the party, "You're not going to do _____, because I said so" isn't the best tactic. Two of the party members had no stake in the conflicting Obscura missions, and the one that went there could have been persuaded. I object to not having a fair fight. The situation came down to me trying to prevent a teleporting halfling from entering a building. As I mentioned before, I have a giant flying praying mantis. He's very good at grabbing things. I was hoping to grab the halfling, and fly straight up far enough that teleporting would be suicide. PvP rules had nothing to do with this one. When the rogue and halfling arrived, we started getting into players wanting to perform actions in reaction to other's actions, so at this point we went into initiative. The rogue and druid both rolled higher than the halfling, took their actions, and the halfling then made it inside unopposed on his turn. PvP rules still aside, for an attempt to have the mantis grab someone without clawing them first, I would have required a Handle Animal check. Besides. If you wanted him dead you really didn't have to defend him. Hell, if the DM was going to let you cast the spell on the guard you should have done it. Then feigned indifference as the guard beat the halfing senseless. Hobbit wannabe prolly had it coming. He wasn't defending the halfling. The halfling just got very lucky that I was rolling so poorly. ------ I just want to be clear, there were some miscommunications between myself and the players, as well as at least one error on my part as well. That part of the module could have been run better, and I think it will be if I run this module again. That said, I am pretty open with feedback and questions, so if the players or a factionmaster wants to PM me, please do so.
taylorj 06-12-07, 01:18 PM	I was playing a Cabal of Shadows mod, and my obscura mission completely conflicted with the obscura mission of another PC. The only thing I could think of was to forceably wrest the item I was supposed to get from the other person, but the GM rules that grappling another PC was an attack, and therefore was not allowed. Is this correct? It seems insane to specifically write in character conflict, and then to tell people they can't resolve it in-character. The way I look at it - it's an Obscura mission. If it comes to open conflict, something has gone hideously wrong with your plan. Ideally you should be able to block the other group from accomplishing their goals without ever being visibly involved. If you allow the situation to deteriorate to the point where the only way to win is to throw down directly, then you should pretty much mark it down as a loss right there. As one of the 3 people involved in this particular bit of... conflict, the fact that I was the only one who knew the precise terms of the no-attacking provision until it came up was perhaps part of the problem. If it had been clear that simply trying to intimidate the other side with a giant flying bug was not going to work from the beginning, then it's possible that this might have been handled in an appropriately sneaky fashion. While it would be easy to respond with "rtf xecs lol", it might also be a good idea to put in the mods a note to make sure the DM has read the latest provisions in the XECS, and that he should make sure that the players know what they are. If we're going to be put in a situation of conflict with other PCs, then the rules of engagement need to be crystal clear to everyone involved before the mod even starts. If such a note is already in there, then maybe it needs boldface, font size +2 and italics. :D
taylorj 06-12-07, 01:20 PM	I just want to be clear, there were some miscommunications between myself and the players, as well as at least one error on my part as well. That part of the module could have been run better, and I think it will be if I run this module again. That said, I am pretty open with feedback and questions, so if the players or a factionmaster wants to PM me, please do so. I think you did fine, considering we were already in direct conflict with Online Gaming Rule Two: Thou Shalt Not PvP After Midnight. :P
taylorj 06-12-07, 01:23 PM	On the other hand, effectively telling the rest of the party, "You're not going to do _____, because I said so" isn't the best tactic. Two of the party members had no stake in the conflicting Obscura missions, and the one that went there could have been persuaded. Wait, what? So the PC who missed the conclusion of the mod had a stake in the whole thing? Yikes. That would have been... interesting... :eek:
catsclaw 06-12-07, 01:43 PM	I actually did not comment on the Mass Snake's Swiftness at all.No, but the XECS seems to imply it's possible (Cabal of Shadows PCs can let someone bleed to death, but not directly attack each other) and the ruling as it I understood it was "no attack rolls". At any rate, it didn't come up, so I didn't ask.I just wanted to note that the tactics mentioned by catsclaw had significant impact on what occurred. The guard was already alert due to catsclaw's initial choice of actions on the scene, and catsclaw put the other PCs on a timetable by something he did when they arrived.I had certainly hoped that was the case, but it wasn't totally clear (for obvious reasons) from the way things played out.On the other hand, effectively telling the rest of the party, "You're not going to do _____, because I said so" isn't the best tactic.Hey, my PC enjoys the company of insects. He's not very well versed in subtlety.The rogue and druid both rolled higher than the halfling, took their actions, and the halfling then made it inside unopposed on his turn.Sure, but I was expecting the halfling had to leave at some point. I was fully prepared to have to chase an invisible, glowing-purple-faerie-fire teleporting halfling through the streets of Stormreach.PvP rules still aside, for an attempt to have the mantis grab someone without clawing them first, I would have required a Handle Animal check.Wasn't an issue. I've got +13 on that check for my mantis.That part of the module could have been run better, and I think it will be if I run this module again.I don't have any big problems with the way it was run, especially given the lateness of the hour, and you could hardly have anticipated us spending an extra 3 (real-time) hours after the mission beating each other up. And if it wasn't clear to the other players, I really enjoyed playing the mod, and if I was frustrated in the final PvP section it was only because the ground rules weren't clear from the start. I was really looking forward to getting my claws on that halfling and shaking some sense into him.
Lilinthra 06-12-07, 01:53 PM	While it would be easy to respond with "rtf xecs lol", it might also be a good idea to put in the mods a note to make sure the DM has read the latest provisions in the XECS, and that he should make sure that the players know what they are. If we're going to be put in a situation of conflict with other PCs, then the rules of engagement need to be crystal clear to everyone involved before the mod even starts. If such a note is already in there, then maybe it needs boldface, font size +2 and italics. :D In the future, I'll be going over my expectations on this for any Cabal of Shadows modules that I run.
catsclaw 06-12-07, 02:09 PM	The way I look at it - it's an Obscura mission. If it comes to open conflict, something has gone hideously wrong with your plan.Well, that's why I loudly announced we weren't going back after completing the main mission, on my authority, and anyone that thought we were was going to have to go through me. I was trying to cut off a direct confrontation before it occurred.As one of the 3 people involved in this particular bit of... conflict, the fact that I was the only one who knew the precise terms of the no-attacking provision until it came up was perhaps part of the problem.Oh, I knew about the "no PC may attack another PC" part in the XECS. I just don't see things like grapple checks and overrun attempts as attacks, per se (and I've had them ruled differently in other games). I realize they both require "attack rolls" but, technically, so does landing a "cure light wounds" spell. ----- I'm not sure I like the solutions that have been presented (allowing non-lethal combat without -4 to hit; giving spellcasters use of merciful spells for PvP). There are in-game options already available for both -- saps for melee, color spray and ray of enfeeblement for casters. All I think is needed is to change the "no attacks" clause to clarify that: 1) you can't use any lethal options, including ones of the "charm him and convince him to jump off that building" variety 2) you may *not* jeopardize the main mission 3) the DM will warn you beforehand if you're about to cross a line, and give you a chance to reconsider 4) everything else is permitted
Harliquinn 06-12-07, 02:24 PM	I just want to be clear, there were some miscommunications between myself and the players, as well as at least one error on my part as well. That part of the module could have been run better, and I think it will be if I run this module again. That said, I am pretty open with feedback and questions, so if the players or a factionmaster wants to PM me, please do so. I was also a player here, though not involved in this part of it for several reasons (one was it was time for sleep and the other was because my character had no real interest in it and I had a feeling it was an obscura thing). However, I think the DM did a great job with the adventure and from what I could tell did a good job of trying to adjudicate the goings on between the characters. This was made easier (and harder I think in some ways) because it was an online game (So players could really hide their actions from other players and communicate just with the GM). Too many times at a table you see a player pass a note to the DM or say something and ears start perking and people get 'suspicious'. Harliquinn
bertman4 06-12-07, 02:48 PM	I think too many players in the RPGA campaigns think that they must be able to win. LG is especially bad that you have your standard 2-5 encounters and you should be able to win every encounter if you have a balanced, cooperating party. For example, in LG, if you are asked to help a defenseless halfling village from an orc army. You think there must be a way for the PCs to win. Maybe we can assasinate the orc leader and the army will fall apart. Or maybe we can make the DC45 Diplomacy check to have the orc army leave the halflings alone. In a home game, maybe the right thing to do is round everyone up and run away. That's right, you don't win, you run. So I think it's personally okay for XE to have conflicting missions. And sometimes not all missions for various factions can be accomplished by the PCs. That's just life. Bertman
taylorj 06-12-07, 02:53 PM	Oh, I knew about the "no PC may attack another PC" part in the XECS. I just don't see things like grapple checks and overrun attempts as attacks, per se (and I've had them ruled differently in other games). I realize they both require "attack rolls" but, technically, so does landing a "cure light wounds" spell. That's where the XECS seems to diverge from the LGCS definition of things. All I think is needed is to change the "no attacks" clause to clarify that: 1) you can't use any lethal options, including ones of the "charm him and convince him to jump off that building" variety 2) you may *not* jeopardize the main mission 3) the DM will warn you beforehand if you're about to cross a line, and give you a chance to reconsider 4) everything else is permitted I could not disagree more. In an organization like the Cabal, allowing open conflict in "hostile" territory, even of a "soft" nature, is just asking for trouble. These are for the most part evil (or at least highly irritable) people and allowing a cycle of open retaliation to start is very bad. The only way this can work is if direct conflict is simply seen by all parties as not an option. You could always include a clause in the obscura mission to the effect of "and don't let people find out you have an outside motivation for doing this" to encourage people to plan ahead and not take the "don't do that... uh... because" option. Also I think it'd be perfectly okay to jeopardize the main mission for obscura or revenge purposes as long as you don't get caught. :D
Harliquinn 06-12-07, 03:09 PM	The only way this can work is if direct conflict is simply seen by all parties as not an option. You could always include a clause in the obscura mission to the effect of "and don't let people find out you have an outside motivation for doing this" to encourage people to plan ahead and not take the "don't do that... uh... because" option. For many cases, this might be able to work. However, for the cases of Obscura A wants NPC dead and Obscura B wants NPC turned over alive, there are often times not any options other than conflict, particularly when the NPC is discovered as part of the plot. This has occured in several Cabal adventures and there is never an easy way to deal with it. The 'defending' character is always at a huge disadvantage to start with (Since it's easier to kill someone than keep them alive), and if you disallow conflict or the use of 'attacks' to disable those who want the NPC dead, you are pretty hamstringed. Also this is one of those goals that has a pretty definite finality to it. If two obscura want the same item, there might be some stealing back and forth going on throughout the module; however, once an NPC is dead, they are dead. This is one of those areas that needs addressed I think. If you were going against NPC's, you could use social skills ("Hey, I really need that NPC alive for a sacrifice later") or other methods to get around it. However, those will not work on a PC whose goal is to "Kill that NPC." Unless the defender has a way to instantly get away from the group with the NPC or has several magical effects ready to bare, there are few ways to go about it. Now, if you know about the NPC ahead of time and can sneak off and do your thing early, great. However, if both PC's decide to do this and end up meeting up, you are again at the aforementioned stand off. Spellcasting classes have a lot more options at their disposal in this situation. With the number of sub-faction quests at 5 now, it's unlikely to have more than 1 ally at a table within your obscura to count on also. Some of this may work itself out in time as characters gain levels and are able to buy more magic items. I could see a time when PC's buy magic items to help them achieve their goals, but I don't know if this will solve the problem as it stands. Harliquinn
taylorj 06-12-07, 03:56 PM	For many cases, this might be able to work. However, for the cases of Obscura A wants NPC dead and Obscura B wants NPC turned over alive, there are often times not any options other than conflict, particularly when the NPC is discovered as part of the plot. This has occured in several Cabal adventures and there is never an easy way to deal with it. I think that's reason enough to stop writing that particular conflict into modules. The proper response when something doesn't work out is to stop doing it. :D
Timlagor 06-13-07, 12:51 PM	I knew what the XECS said. I wasn't sure how strictly the GM would interpret it. I also made a major mistake and althought the NPC was unlucky I don't think he had a massive damage output against me (he never actually hit though) ..and I had plenty of tricks... but he was certainly a major challenge (me having already used most of my spells). Catsclaw: that approach (a rule saying anything except lethal damage is allowed) significantly penalises the Damage-BDF and the Warmage since the BDF has penalties to hit (and not being designed for other tactics) and the Warmage (or simply blaster-mage) would have had to invest Feats (choose different spells in advance) to be able to do anything at all. Simply making PvP damage nonlethal would be weird but would have the major benefit of leaving everyone with the options and power level they would be if full PvP was allowed. This suggestion from Harliquinn (refined by me*) is by far the best suggestion for handling this sort of thing that I've seen and may actually allow conflicting missions to work well. Clearly it needs some refinement for situations involving NPCs as well but it could be 'handwaved' to some extent that thte NPCs are sufficiently friendly to the victorious PC that they will be able to keep the loser alive (if captured). * Trying to invent a penalty equivalent to the -4 to hit isn't practical while removing the penalty is very easy. The Cabal should certainly frown heavily on open conflict.. but an IC injunction is an entirely different thing to an OOC campaign rule. I don't think people who want to avoid PvP are immature.. mostly I think they think someone else (not necessarily with an individual in mind) is likely to be immature about it (or they just don't want the aggravation -but in that case they should probably avoid Evil campaigns). Could you give a bit more detail about what went wrong when PvP was tried? It's important to distinguish between 'Physical Laws' (hard XECS rules that can never be circumvented) and 'NPC Edicts' (Cabal banning stuff that you might get away with anyway). I hope the Druid will never be so foolish as to say "don't do it because I say so" to Cabal members again ;)
ajpopp 06-21-07, 07:59 PM	I've played a couple of Cabal adventures. I can see where PvP could be tempting. How about this: Allow lethal PvP, but no one really dies? So, if you win the fight, it's over. The loser is at -1 HP no matter what (disintegrated, poisoned, whatever). It's a little suspension of disbelief, but, umm, there's a lot of that going on in D&D (max of 20d6 falling damage anyone?). This way, each PC can use their primary abilities. Non-lethal PvP takes this away from too many PCs, and I'd hate to build a PC with some non-lethal combat ability just in case. So, yeah, it's the kernel of an idea. But what do you think? Allow the PvP, but losers don't die. And they can't come back 10 minutes later and re-start the fight--once they lose, it's over. I realize this could be problematic: what constitutes a "new" fight as opposed to restarting the "same" fight? But I'll leave it for other, greater minds to figure out. I don't have any interest in PvP myself.
WolfStar76 06-22-07, 08:07 AM	While that's not a horrible suggestion, it still has the technical problem or wearing down the party's resources - in this case by an entire character, or at the very least the healing spells needed to bring them back. While I don't know what the right solution IS, one thing that must be kept in mind is that the party as a whole still has the goal of getting through the module together. I really like the idea of internal conflict, I really like the suggestions of how people can be sneaky more often than not to accomplish most of their obscura goals (by simply not drawing attention to their goal, or by sharing their goals with a trusted player or two). I really like the RPGA is experimenting with an evil campaign (I still see it as an experiment - these discussions show, I think, that it's going well, with consistent tweaking and refinement). I especially like that in the last few modules (CBL-6 and I think CBL-5) the "conflicting" obscura goals have been less mutually exclusive. Instead of "I want X to live, he wants X to die" or "Steal this vs Hide this" - they've been conflicting goals that both parties can share equally. (Can't say more for obvious reasons). Kudos to whoever came up with those latest obscura goals (Greg?).
Harliquinn 06-22-07, 08:27 AM	I especially like that in the last few modules (CBL-6 and I think CBL-5) the "conflicting" obscura goals have been less mutually exclusive. Instead of "I want X to live, he wants X to die" or "Steal this vs Hide this" - they've been conflicting goals that both parties can share equally. (Can't say more for obvious reasons). Kudos to whoever came up with those latest obscura goals (Greg?). Wolfstar, Not sure what Cabal Modules you've read but CBL-4 and CBL-5 had definite conflicting obscura while even one of the DM's Marks (4 I believe) had conflicting goals. It's possible that without all the obscura represented they don't manifest, but I haven't seen a lack of these lately (Though maybe CBL-6 has had fewer). Harliquinn
WolfStar76 06-22-07, 03:16 PM	Wolfstar, Not sure what Cabal Modules you've read but CBL-4 and CBL-5 had definite conflicting obscura while even one of the DM's Marks (4 I believe) had conflicting goals. It's possible that without all the obscura represented they don't manifest, but I haven't seen a lack of these lately (Though maybe CBL-6 has had fewer). Harliquinn I'd have to review CBL5, but my point isn't that they don't conflict, it's that (at least in CBL6, they're not (necessarily) mutually exclusive. Just because Conflicter1 meets their goal, doesn't mean Conflicter2 HAS to be shut-out (and vice-versa). It's well done. :) (EDIT) - upon further review, this isn't the case in CBL5, I'm just crazy. :)
Harliquinn 06-22-07, 03:18 PM	I'd have to review CBL5, but my point isn't that they don't conflict, it's that (at least in CBL6, they're not mutually exclusive. Just because Conflicter1 meets their goal, doesn't mean Conflicter2 is shut-out (and vice-versa). It's well done. :) Ah, well in CBL4, CBL5 and CBL 4 DM Mark they are mutually exclusive (Sometimes with 2 different sets of conflicting goals). If goals aren't mutually exclusive I don't consider them conflicting usually. Harliquinn
WolfStar76 06-22-07, 03:24 PM	You know. . . this might be heretical, but one of the issues I've seen at tables with conflicting obscura orders (to slightly derail the thread a bit) has been that with one conflict there's typically ONE player who gets shafted. If Conflicter1 wins, Conflicter 2 is left out, while the other 5 players (typically) get their rewards. I'd like to propose the concept of actually introducing MORE conflict into modules. That way no "one" person feels like they got the shaft for that mission "Man, my Obscura gave crappy orders that time" - instead there's more likely to be a couple people who do or don't complete their goals. Of course, this has the risk of leading to more "why can't we PvP" situations, and possibly delaying the module further, but it was an idea I'd like to toss out there. I'm gonna go hide while you jackals rip the idea to shreds. :hides:
WolfStar76 06-22-07, 03:25 PM	Ah, well in CBL4, CBL5 and CBL 4 DM Mark they are mutually exclusive (Sometimes with 2 different sets of conflicting goals). If goals aren't mutually exclusive I don't consider them conflicting usually. Harliquinn Won't say anymore about CBL6 to avoid spoilers, but I'd consider 6 to be different from the norm. :)
Harliquinn 06-22-07, 03:32 PM	I look forward to playing CBL 6 at Origins then :)
lostgunman 06-29-07, 01:37 PM	Unfortunately a lot of the conflicting goals (kill or save an NPC) are almost impossible to do by being underhanded. Social skills don't work on PC's. There also seems to be some disagreement on whether non-lethal tactics are allowed or not. Harliquinn Can you tell me where the rule is that says "Social skills don't work on PCs"? Because I just cannot find it. Eberron ruls say "no attack" but nothing says that you cannot "bluff" them into not doing something or into doing something.
WolfStar76 06-29-07, 01:53 PM	Can you tell me where the rule is that says "Social skills don't work on PCs"? Because I just cannot find it. Eberron ruls say "no attack" but nothing says that you cannot "bluff" them into not doing something or into doing something. It's a fine line. Personally I treat (rolled) social skills not unlike a character being feared/charmed or otherwise having their choice of action removed/limited. "Yup, you're pretty sure he's telling the truth, he really doesn't have the MacGuffin" (even if the player herad the other player state it's in his backpack - the character bought the lie, so he should react accordingly). That's how I've always run it anyhow. ~shrug~
Harliquinn 06-29-07, 03:23 PM	Can you tell me where the rule is that says "Social skills don't work on PCs"? Because I just cannot find it. Eberron ruls say "no attack" but nothing says that you cannot "bluff" them into not doing something or into doing something. Well in Diplomacy it flat out says: You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check. I checked some other skills (Bluff, Intimidate) and they do not have that line. However, most players are not going to allow their characters to be affected and controlled by another player.