Dice wrote:What worries me a bit about this is that the requested player doesn't know what they're agreeing to.
Somebody uses 'conflict' on you and then proceeds to engage in RP that in any circumstance really WOULD make you PK them in return... and now you're bound, sight unseen, not to do so. Now, generally I don't want to PK anybody anyway, but I can see a real potential problem there in that this limits the ability of the 'requested' player to respond to the conflict initiated by the other.
Having not run any STs myself yet, maybe this isn't a great comparison but I'm kind of seeing this command as ST-Lite - a way that a player can stir up a little trouble with the safety net of player consent, without the need for staff permission.
The way I'm interpreting this command, a player
should know what they're agreeing to up front, and it wouldn't override policies already in place that restrict pkilling already.
For example, as a Lithmorran I might stumble across a Vavardi that I think is just a little too full of himself. So I decide, hey, I've had some drinks, my tongue is loose, I'm gonna give that pompous so-and-so a piece of my ale-addled mind. So I type something like '
conflict Vavardi I'm a belligerent drunk eager to cast aspersions on you and your entire family line.'
Maybe that character flies off the handle when people talk about his mother so he declines, knowing that such a situation, for him, WOULD be a pkill situation. Alternatively, maybe he agrees to go along with it but the trading of barbs is starting to seem like it will come to blows so he wants to opt out.
I like it as a rough draft so far. I think that as long as there's a way to 'resolve' the conflict command too, so people can signal that it's time to wrap up, this could be a really nice and relatively no-fuss way of encouraging and supporting more everyday conflicts between PCs.