Possible LotR Successor Game discussion thread

[TinCow]

Will comment in more detail in a few hours, but for now I heartily approve of Zim as GM. I cannot think of many people who would do a better job.

[TinCow]

There are some very interesting comments being made, particularly on the static Houses and RBGs. Both of these were major complaints people had with KotR. The lack of avatars made the game somewhat inaccessible for many people in the beginning. While Northnovas is a sparkling example of someone who waited a long time for an avatar and thus enjoyed playing one even more, I think we lost about half a dozen players before then simply because they couldn't do anything but twiddle their thumbs for months waiting. This was why we introduced RBGs into KotR, and everyone thought those were an improvement at the time.

At the end of KotR, we had 19 players and it would have been difficult to accommodate many more than that for most of the game. LotR regularly exceeded that number. The problem in LotR was keeping everyone interested. I think the solution should be fixing that problem, not adopting a system that will reduce the player base back to its old level

Regarding the static Houses, this was a complaint as it limited peoples' freedom. First, it severely limited peoples' ability to choose which House they wanted to join. Austria was heavily handicapped for most of the game because the game simply doesn't spawn avatars evenly on the family tree. People wanted avatars, plain and simple, and if there wasn't one available in their House of choice, they weren't likely to join that House.

Second, the static Houses made it very difficult to handle RBGs when they were finally introduced (again, this was considered a massive improvement by most people at the time). Since Houses depended on the family tree, a RBG adoption into the wrong spot could pose serious RP problems.

Third, static Houses made a lot of internal conflict very difficult. There was almost no competition amongst the Houses throughout the game until the Illuminati came along. Prior to that time, we made various missions here or there and debated what to do, but there weren't really an repercussions outside of arguments in the Diet. We were just a large group of often-bickering individuals who were playing an elaborate version of a successor game, just like in WotS. Real internal conflict existed in only three circumstances: (1) Heinrich's attack on the Pope, (2) Ignoramus' Rebellion in Swabia, and (3) The Illuminati.

Of these, #2 doesn't even really count, because it was only possible due to the Cataclysm which broke all the rules and essentially introduced a prototype of the LotR PvP system. 1 and 3 had nothing to do with the rules at all, they had to do with various players making a determined attempt to rile things up.

In my opinion, LotR's failings are two-fold:

(1) Complexity. This was something I was afraid of when I created the rules and I tried to reign it in, but I totally failed. The current rules are a monstrosity, and they just kept getting bigger and more complex at nearly every Senate session. Initially, the biggest problem was the army system which made the job of Megas an extraordinary burden. Fortunately, this actually WAS solved with the improved army rules, which were much simpler and everyone has loved since then. However, by that time the damage had been done and we had already lost several veteran players due to the earlier complexity.

In my opinion, we need to vastly strip back the rule set, keeping the freedoms where we can, but restricting them elsewhere. The University and Rebellion systems were interesting ideas, but I think they caused more problems than they added in value. The PvP system also needs a total and complete overhaul. It needs to be re-written from the ground up and it needs to remove in-game movement from the equation. This has been properly identified as the major roadblock for PvP.

(2) The Players. We are responsible for what happened in LotR. For many different reasons, people just did not get into the game. They weren't passionate about it like in KotR, so for the majority of the game they didn't develop their characters and they didn't cause any conflicts. I do agree that Byzantium as a faction was a bit difficult to get into for most of us, especially with the names. It personally took me months just to remember a handful of them. The complexity issue was also a major cause of this in the beginning as well. The game was too hard to play, and this sapped the will of a lot of veterans who just drifted away.

However, regardless of the reasons, the lack of player interest in the game was its greatest failing. For most of the game, there was only one person willing to play the villain, the ever dependable Ignoramus. A game simply isn't entertaining when everyone is trying to get along. KotR was the exact same way. It was generally unexciting except when players went out of their way to cause problems and play the bad guy. In LotR, it took a long time before anyone really embraced that role and in the meantime the complexity problems were doing permanent damage. So, it was boring at the start, and hard to understand. Eventually people did realize the fun they could have being antagonistic, but they were hindered by the PvP rules which made the actual conflict difficult.

So, I think the next game will be successful if we (1) dramatically simplify the rules, stripping out everything that isn't necessary and completely re-do the PvP system and (2) have people who join the game from the very beginning with the intention of being power-hungry villains who are going to cause chaos.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Will comment later, but for now:

have people who join the game from the very beginning with the intention of being power-hungry villains who are going to cause chaos.

I'd be happy to reprise that role.

[ULC]

Awww...I like being the good guy

In any case, Zim asked me about my mercenaries idea - the whole concept would solve a couple problems and easily be understandable.

One of the major issues with the game as a whole is that the Chancellor controls the funds for the Military - this usually is not an issue, except when we come to PvP conflict. It is much easier to be buddy buddy when you know you will suffer severe consequences for falling out of favor with someone or a an entire House. It creates a sense of fear about losing all you have worked for ingame and IC that makes anyone hesitant to commit oneself to either righteous rebellion or pure unadulterated villiany, and it keeps you from becoming attached to what otherwise might be an intriguing and amazing persona.

However, what if we allowed our little rebel to recruit mercenaries freely? This gives the incentive to rebel, because in many ways mercenaries are superior troops, and you can get a mass of them quickly and cheaply.

But what about the monetary aspect? I don't think it will detract really at all, and might even represent the tough time the Chancellor now has of properly collecting taxes and the sporadic raiding and theft from a rebellion or civil war.

Also, it provides incentive for people to quickly pick a side - this little rebel is taking YOUR money for that new stone wall, that new barracks, those shiny new troops, taking it from you and draining the coffers...unless you bring him to justice.

Just as well, we can limit the hiring of Mercenaries to edicts otherwise so as to make it something "special" for rebelling - if you want those Free Company soldiers, you might just want to rebel and nab them for yourself...

Also, we need (although we might have) rules for capturing an opponents men - if you can resupply yourself by taking from the defeated (land, men) then the incentive increases even more, possibly dragging others into it as your rebellion continues to grow in power.

On the note of Static versus Fliud Houses, we I think, need a mix. Static Houses allow someont to identify with (all LotR Houses looked the same to me except for the Order), but Fluid Houses allow the freedom to move about.

Possibly a fusion of the two would be best, including Flyd's suggestion - a true spilt between RBG's and Family Members. Family members create the House - if your Father was a Lancastarian, you are one as well. RBG's are "Houseless" nobles, providing incentive for players to rally around the house nobility for soldiers and land that would be otherwise be unobtainable. This allows fluidity and the recognition we need.

We could even designate by ranks - Earl or Duke for head of household, Count for family members that are within the House, and Baron for those RBG's who have been inducted into the House. This eliminates the vast numbers of ranks while still keeping them, and allows for some Upward Mobility - marrying into the family tree makes you a Count, being appionted Head of Household makes you Earl or Duke. Maybe allow for recruitable Princesses if possible for this?

New Houses could be founded, but only by Family Members I suppose.

And I still support England with VanillaMod as the game setup.

[Ituralde]

Really a lot of the failuers were due to the players and a villain is needed especially at the beginning. Or someone that wants to cause friction for the sake of it. I pretty much played Pavlos too close to the old Leopold. A moderate figure, too moderate for LotR, but then it probably helps me get into the game when I can relate more to the motivations of my character. This should be avoided in the next game and that's what my intention was for the House backgrounds. Set up some things in the beginning.

Previously we took this background from the history and there of course KotR was much more interesting with the Pope interaction, while in LotR we focused too much on Manzikert and by following the parole of "No more Manzikert" we drained a lot of conflict out of the game.

[TinCow]

Regarding mercenaries and financing rebellions, I see this problem as a broader failure to plan properly. As has been noted, the Megas position is extremely powerful, and controlling it can bring massive advantages. A proper rebellion should take this into account and plan accordingly. Spontaneous rebellions should be highly likely to fail, while well-planned long-term rebellions have a much better chance of success. A good rebellion plan can take decades in game-time to organize. You play nice and buddy up with whoever you need to in order to either become Megas or get a Megas who is sympathetic to your devious goals. Then, once you have the power, you exploit it heavily to get what you want. You immediately use the time you have to build up your forces and conquer your enemies. If you do it properly, you can make sure that your armies are so strong that even if you lose the Megas position to other people, you will be too powerful to be defeated.

This was how LotR was designed, but in reality only two people actually did this. The first was Ignoramus, who intentionally exploited his first Megas term to his own advantages. No one was seriously prepared to block him in his moves though and his moves also involved some unfortunate difficulties with following the rules which resulted in a period of time in LotR that is best dumped in the East River and never spoken of again. The second was Zim, who did exactly what I imagined a person should do when I designed the game. Zim intentionally buffed the forces of the side he backed very heavily, giving them immense military power. At the same time, he intentionally bankrupted the Empire, thus preventing his successor from fixing the situation quickly. This was perfectly designed and executed to gain long-term power for a specific faction.

The lesson to be learned from this is that rebellions should be planned slowly and carefully. If you just randomly declare war one day and have no allies prepared to support you, the rules make it exceptionally difficult for you to be successful. You'd essentially have to be a military genius. IMO, this is proper, and the failing is not in the system's inability to accommodate player rebellions properly, but in the inability of players to plan a proper rebellion in the first place.

Heed the advice of Sun Tzu. "Every battle is won before it is ever fought." "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

[ULC]

Well, we need to make the Houses a rallying flag to gather around. Say we have one that still holds onto the Old English ideals before William (Me, please, oh please, pick me for this one!) One who wishes to strength French ties, another who wishes to soldify power in England by eliminating Scotland, etc.

It appears we have several villains available (does my Heroic need to go back to the Old ways count me as a real Villian? ), and I might as well make a banner out of it - LETS PLAY AS ENGLAND!

I like Sicily and Denmakr as close seconds, leaning more towards Denmark. But the Issues with both are as summed up IMHO -

Denmark
Faces England, HRE, and Russia at most really, maybe Scotland as well. However, they have a rather linear path to fight that also results in a colony Empire - this would be counterproductive to PvP. They have nice units though.

Sicily
Again, many enemies to face, but a sharp dependcy on boats for ANYTHING unless we want togo at the Pope, whcih again reduces PvP because of distance, not really an issue with England.

I also would like the Vanilla mod as well, I've played it, and I like it.

-Edit: While I agree with your assertion that Rebellion should not truly be a dime a dozen, I am looking at it more from an emotional perspective and attachment perspective, not necessarily from a logical one. I want to eb able to rebel with a plan obviously, and limits based on rank could be imposed for recruiting mercenaries, but IMHO, the idea should be looked at first before being discarded entirely. I mean, what about those that simply do not wish to listen to a sudden mandate from their Lord that goes againt their principles? It's far to suddent to have planned anything, but by limiting their ability to repsond, you are eliminating the chance for players to dynamically choose HOW and for what reasons they wish to rebel, and thus reducing the opportunity for good fast paced story and PvP.

Again, IHMO.

[mini]

If you wanna play england, Ignoramus is considering starting an england PBM in the throne room

[TinCow]

-Edit: While I agree with your assertion that Rebellion should not truly be a dime a dozen, I am looking at it more from an emotional perspective and attachment perspective, not necessarily from a logical one. I want to eb able to rebel with a plan obviously, and limits based on rank could be imposed for recruiting mercenaries, but IMHO, the idea should be looked at first before being discarded entirely. I mean, what about those that simply do not wish to listen to a sudden mandate from their Lord that goes againt their principles? It's far to suddent to have planned anything, but by limiting their ability to repsond, you are eliminating the chance for players to dynamically choose HOW and for what reasons they wish to rebel, and thus reducing the opportunity for good fast paced story and PvP.

Again, IHMO.

There's nothing that limits that currently, it only makes success in that situation difficult. It just doesn't seem right to me that we should make a system where someone who rebels spontaneously and without any other support would have just as much of a chance of succeeding as someone who planned their rebellion for a long time and enlisted the support of many people.

This is just my opinion. I will NOT be running the next game, so these decisions are up to whoever takes on that job.

[ULC]

There's nothing that limits that currently, it only makes success in that situation difficult. It just doesn't seem right to me that we should make a system where someone who rebels spontaneously and without any other support would have just as much of a chance of succeeding as someone who planned their rebellion for a long time and enlisted the support of many people.

This is just my opinion. I will NOT be running the next game, so these decisions are up to whoever takes on that job.

True, and I would wish to reward said players just as much, but I found that one of the main reason I never openly rebelled - I had nothing to do it with, no resources, and could never gain any. Having only a bodyguard the vast majority of the time limitd me being threatening at all.

A possible cap on the number of Mercenaries you can keep would limit it's impact without making someone feel...well, utterly impotent. We need to give people the initiative to start to rebel and the power to do so without making it rather depressing when you are constantly denied even the ability to try to gain advantage and utterly slant the game in anothers favor.

I'd like to see 3-4 sides actively battle each other out in the Council sessions for control, and the ability of one side to tip things in their favor without it being utterly one sided - a dynamic civil war, rather then a brutally crushing one, makes people want to play them more. Nothing should be certain - one could have planned the whole thing, set it all up, and have everything go according to plan - one side loses out horribly and the other side dances on their graves. Not really exciting.

However, lets say that one side did prepare, and attacks - giving the otherside a slight ability to repsond dynamically, and possibly changing the tide, makes for a much more exciting and dynamic game.

However, one has to watch out for civil wars that go on forever - Dynamic can turn to static pretty quickly if it dissolves into constant warfare. This is why I think mercearies answer that problem. They are few in number usually, and with Caps on recruitment, one can make sure you can't get a full stack. They replenish slowly, making them a bit one shot. They are expensive, prompting one side to try and destroy the enemy faster. They are available everywhere. They lack the ability to build them up.

I just see it as a good compromise, and if anyone is willing, I will gladly test it out, to see if it works well or as intended. If not, then I drop it.

[Zim]

The second was Zim, who did exactly what I imagined a person should do when I designed the game. Zim intentionally buffed the forces of the side he backed very heavily, giving them immense military power. At the same time, he intentionally bankrupted the Empire, thus preventing his successor from fixing the situation quickly. This was perfectly designed and executed to gain long-term power for a specific faction.

Shhh, that was supposed to become known after the game officially ended.

The funny thing was Iggy was able to make peace with TheFlax surprisingly easily removing most fears about the next Megas. I spent the last few turns of my term trying to fix things but with the capital in Jerusalem we couldn't make any money until some of those massive armies finally ran into and depleted eachother (well, that or all of us suddenly deciding we could get along).

I really like the fluidity of the LotR rules. Personally I didn't find the House structures to be much of a problem, and loss of members did provide some interesting results (the Asteri-Tagamata alliance).

On the other hand I see a lot of calls to make Houses more stable, and even some suggestions to make them more like KotR.

I agree with TinCow that tying Houses completely to families could cause problems, as fickle as the AI is about where new births go. It gets even worse when rgbs are thrown into the mix, since you never know where they'll be adopted to.

So, some possible changes for Houses:

1. Fewer ranks: I think this would encourage a larger number of smaller Houses. I think smaller Houses would also work better for the number of players we're likely to have, and be more stable.

2. One thing somebody mentioned was only having family members be able to start a House. I think this could provide some interesting interaction between likely related House leaders. On the other hand, I don't think House spam was a problem in LotR, so it might be a case of limiting options when they don't need to be.

3. Strengthen penalties for leaving Houses.

One other thing I've been thinking about that's been suggested a couple times is strengthening the monarch (and one poster also thought the Megas could use a boost). I think this would be a pretty good idea. Early on Houses are likely to be smaller and weak, but as they strengthen they can challenge an unpopular monarch. In the meantime he could provide a good counter balance to the Megas. If a faction was out of favor with the Megas he could curry favor from the Monarch, although possibly at a high price. Of course, if both monarch and Megas dislike you you better be very well prepared for any ensuing war.


Lastly, regarding rgbs, I think at the very start of the game we should remain small. Maybe hire enough to bump us up to 4 or 5 starting characters. We could call this early stage the test game for the new rules, but instead of starting over at the end of the test, we open it up to all the rgbs that wish to join and use that save for the real game.

This would allow for a semi established setting for when the bulk of players join and prevent the oddity of a 2-5 province nation with 20 generals.

As far as mercenaries go, perhaps they could be tied to money gained for winning battles and taking settlements, as had been done for Helarionas.

Edit: As far as a lack of villains I think we inadvertently discouraged them. Edicts legislating whether settlements could be exterminated, the penalties faced by Hypatios, etc. likely had a strong impact. Coupled with the vast majority of those of us who had played KotR going for more cooperative characters, and I think the early game had a strong impact on the lack of development of more villainous characters.

[ULC]

Hmmm...I like Zim's idea a lot, which is better then mine actually, because it avoids the need decide who should get the mercenaries in the middle of a war. I think we should also include captured soldiers if the enemy general is also killed as well as reinforcements. The number that is gained could be based upon the charisma of the person - authority, dread, or chivalry, whichever is higher. How about 1 unit per 2 points of Authority/Dread/Chivalry? With an additional unit for every 5 Command?

What does everyone think of a Knight(Unaligned RBG)->Baron(Aligned RBG)->Count(Family Member)->Earl/Duke(Head of House)? Obviously, some refinement, but I like the possibilities of it.

The House system needs to be looked at a little more IMO. I think sticking to Family members won't be to much of an issue, but I think Houses need to be commissioned by edicts at the very least.

I would be concerned about simply strengthening the Monarch - things could simply devolve into Monarch Versus Chancellor wars.

[KnightnDay]

One suggestion which in retrospect should have applied here, large deficits should not be allowed. At some point, soldiers who are not paid will desert, so some sort of mandatory disbanding should be implemented.

[ULC]

The primary issue with that is it makes it unecessarily complex - since the deficiet is shared by all, who's soldiers should be disbanded? How many?

[TinCow]

I like the interest and passion that is going into this thread. For this reason I am inclined to say that LotR come to a final end after the impending 'Tabletop Campaign' to end the Civil War. Instead of rebooting LotR, I think more could be accomplished by having the game restart with a new faction and improved rules.

[ULC]

I may have to leave just so said rules can be implemented

I'll fight tooth in nail for increased civil wars (even petty ones) and to make them more dynamic, that what I really want. I mean, if were going to play the Danes, why can't I take out my loathing for someone the good, oldfashioned, right way?

[TinCow]

There definitely needs to be a mechanism for civil wars/rebellions/whatever. The key is to do it in a manner that is easier to implement than the current system. In my opinion, the best solution is to remove all or most of the in-game movement from the PvP situation. Instead of forcing people to march on each other and encounter each other on the in-game map, I think a declaration of war should result in a battle between both sides either instantly or within a turn or two. A 1 turn lag seems like a good period. Both sides have 1 turn to gather their allies and decide which of their armies and garrisons will show up at the battle. Then a single battle occurs with all allies and all armies appearing on the field together, regardless of where they are on the game map.

This battle could resolve the war completely if all players on one side are defeated then and there. If other allies do not show up to the battle or if the Umpire decides that part of the losing army escapes intact, another battle would be fought the following turn. This would continue with a battle every turn until one side was defeated or surrendered.

I also agree that the rank system needs an overhaul. No one ever achieved the rank of Exarch and many of the rank powers were never used by anyone. While the 'time in rank' option was designed to encourage stability, it made the rank system hard to keep track of and difficult to understand at times. I think a lot of this could be removed without harming the game at all.

[ULC]

Sorry had edited my above post just as TC replied, better to repost it I suppose

Hmmm...names for things as well would be nice. I am sure our senate would become an Althing, correct, for the Danes, and a Council for the English? Should we stick with "Knight-Baron-Count-Earl/Duke"? Is there any consensus about Houses, such as requiing an Edict to create them? Mercenaries as well - should they fall under the Chancellor's power, the Kings, the Earl's and Dukes (my preference)? Should we impose a cap? Should none Civil War hiring of mercenaries be relegated to Edicts as well? Should we change how ships are managed? Could they be instantly created, but for Edicts only?

I will say that I dislike the idea of simply instantly resolving it - it removes part of the fun of laying siege and facing down a specific opponent of yours. Small, intermittent Civil wars are okay, and I'd rather see a mchanic that says that speed is doubled for thos in a civil war as long as it is towards a civil war target, and that if two avatars who are engaged in civil war are within one turns movement of each other, a battle is fought.

Otherwise, why not simply whole up in my castle, or aviod fighting if outnumbered? Only a madman would want to fight against an enemy who has been preparing for a long time.

[ULC]

Hmmm....it just came to me.

What would everyone think about letting the Head of a House recruit mercenaries, but no more then 1 per turn, with either a maximum limit, or better yet require them to pass legislation to keep their mercenaries (up to 3?)?

[TheFlax]

Edicts in their current shape are only in effect for one turn if I'm not mistaken. If you need an edict to create a House, do you need to make a new one each term? (That could get tedious)

I think its best for civil war to have a mix of options, but if both side want to fight, there should be a battle right away. There should also be an option for strategical maneuvering before the battle, giving more movement to civil war armies like YLC proposed could be a fix for parts of the problems we had in LotR.

[ULC]

Thats a good point - Admendments then? In effect until nullified later?

[TheFlax]

Why vote for Houses in the Senate though? To prevent the creation of too many Houses? For more stability? I'm sorry but I simply don't get it.

Most people seem to want some sort of semi stable House structure, but if we look at LotR, most instability in the Houses were not caused by members leaving but by player inactivity. Asteri waxed and waned throughout the game due to new players arriving and then some of those new players disappearing a few weeks later.

[ULC]

Oh well, maybe not then, I am really just throwing ideas out there to see what is thought of them.

Yes, the basica idea was for House Stability - something the Houses had to fight for, kind of like someone who is working towards your political extermination.

The original idea came from wanting to keep every last person from creating a House, and restricting it to family members for realism I suppose, or to a rank. But I suppose that would be achiveed ingame either way.

Since we have no way of keeping people from dropping out, what is your suggestion for improved House stability?

[TheFlax]

Less ranks, which was already proposed, so we don't have to recalculate ever 5 minutes who is what rank.

Start small, like Zim proposed. Establish the foundations of the game with a core group of dedicated players and then build upon that to expand the player base.

Personally, I'm talking with Zim about making sure every player is involved in some way and I'm dedicating myself to that objective for this game. Hopefully this will help in maintaining a more stable player base.

[ULC]

I feel sad because I no longer can get on MSN to talk to you guys.

I really hope I manage to squeak in on the successor game, and I'd like to volunteer to do the history for the game as well.

[mini]

I'm curious to see how the next game is going to look!

[Zim]

Hmmm, we've covered quite a bit of ground in just a couple pages.

It sounds like most people agree on going west faction wise and changing up the ranks a bit (and possibly having fewer).

There also seems to be strong agreement that Civil Wars need an overhaul, specifically to make them easier on the players. I'm torn between TinCow's idea of fighting it swiftly in rounds, and something more like YLC's idea or the way the current event is being done where maneuvering still counts for something. I'd be interested to hear any preferences people have on this subject.

One issue people have disagreed on (with one of the main opinions mostly expressed in the Throne Room so far) is whether to keep the system in LotR or go back to something more like KotR. I personally like the system in LotR, although I sympathize with people who liked it when the family tree was more relevant to the game. I wouldn't be completely adverse to making Houses harder to leave or more stable in other ways, but I'd not that the most interesting developments Housewise in LotR were when players used their freedom and a decent amount of scheming to create entirely new Houses, like the Egyptian one or Woad's Order.

If people strongly prefer KotR's House structure we should figure it out now, since that's the change brought up that would likely result in the biggest rules overhaul.

I strongly agree with TinCow on cutting down the rules a bit, likely starting with the University (sadly) and secession rules, at least for now.

I still believe we should start smallish, with a one term length test with 4 or 5 players opening up into the full game. I'll probably push that idea until such a time as I decide a strong majority hates it.

If we're starting to come together on the types of changes we want it might not be a bad idea to start with rules proposals. I'll be looking the rules over this weekend.

Also, we can always continue discussing some of the "lighter" subjects like faction and mod choice. They have a much bigger effect on the game (especially the former) than I had ever expected.

Personally, I like Milan and Spain, although I'm partial too all of the factions suggested.

[TheFlax]

Personally, I like Milan and Spain.

Likewise for me, although I have a clear preference for Spain.

[mini]

milan does have better options concerning expansion.. spain can only go north or south


milan can go all directions and meet a different faction everywhere.

[TinCow]

I still believe we should start smallish, with a one term length test with 4 or 5 players opening up into the full game. I'll probably push that idea until such a time as I decide a strong majority hates it.

Don't decide on a test game until you've hammered out the rules. If there's nothing radically different in the way the game operates from LotR, you probably don't need one. Test games are necessary when you're not sure whether a rule system is going to function properly in the short term. If the only changes you are making are non-mechanical in nature or would take a long time to evaluate, a test game isn't going to provide you with much insight. The LotR test was done mainly due to the new PvP rules.