new FearRP changes is confusing people.

[Demonmit1]

So... clearly there is a significant divide on the current interpretation of the new fearRP rules between criminal players, vs law enforcement and server staff. so, what's the issue?

"...however, if you choose to not surrender you must be willing to RP the full consequences of your actions."
"Players ... are encouraged to comply with demands..."

These two parts from the fearRP rule, are the center of disagreement. Criminal players are taking this section and interpreting it as a "get out of jail free card." they're "choosing not to surrender" and are "Willing to RP the full consequences of their actions" as the justification to ignore deadly force being threatened against them from Law enforcement. Its being understood as, they could shoot me, but im willing to get shot in an attempt to flee, but because they have rules, both IC and OOC they need to follow, they are not allowed to shoot me, so I can just ignore the deadly threat against my life, because its not real.

This is not how its being handled in reports, and obviously not the intention from my understanding.

My understanding is the new rule change is specifically focused on fixing a somewhat common issue, of "who pulls the gun first" winning the fearRP battle. My understanding of the rule is, if you have the means to retaliate, having a gun pointed at you doesnt instantly force you into full compliance, you can chose to retaliate. But, if you're unarmed, and dont have the means to retaliate, you're still expected to comply with the fearRP rule.

Can staff clarify the intent of the new rule changes and clear it up, and potentially go back to the fearRP rule and re-write it so its more clear on the intended goals of the new fearRP rule changes? also, defining what "reasonable" non-compliance looks like for a criminal at gunpoint by law enforcement should look like would go a long way to improving roleplay quality for everyone involved.

[Eliza]

3 hours ago, Demonmit1 said:

My understanding is the new rule change is specifically focused on fixing a somewhat common issue, of "who pulls the gun first" winning the fearRP battle. My understanding of the rule is, if you have the means to retaliate, having a gun pointed at you doesnt instantly force you into full compliance, you can chose to retaliate. But, if you're unarmed, and dont have the means to retaliate, you're still expected to comply with the fearRP rule.

This is the intention. If you have the means to retaliate or flee, you can try, but your safety should ultimately be prioritized first, along with taking into account if you're outnumbered or not if you intend to fight back.

3 hours ago, Demonmit1 said:

Its being understood as, they could shoot me, but im willing to get shot in an attempt to flee, but because they have rules, both IC and OOC they need to follow, they are not allowed to shoot me, so I can just ignore the deadly threat against my life, because its not real.

A firearm is a firearm no matter who wields it, a police officer could disregard their IC protocols and just shoot you, they would be risking IC disciplinary for it, but they could. 

The intention of the change isn't meant to be a free pass to not value your wellbeing, but to allow more dynamic roleplay to occur, because paraphrasing what you said, the old system was a "whoever put the other under fearRP first wins", and allowed for very powergaming-esque situations.

[AnnoyingOne]

People were also focusing on one part of the rule, instead of taking the whole rule as is.

 

As it's clearly written still in the rule that you still can't run while at gunpoint, but people pick and choose stuff to understand and follow.

 

This is a full on reading comprehension failure on the part of our players, which would imply our player base is stupid, or they intentionally decided to try and play the rules.

Edited September 25, 2025 by AnnoyingOne

[Toxine]

The issue lays on the poor wording and lack of examples provided for certain rules, which leaves ample room for interpretation.

And when it comes to reports, interpretation shouldn't be a factor, as reports should be black or white, yes or no, valid or invalid. Reports are supposed to be objective decisions, therefore a subjective interpretation of a rule has no place in that context.

It would literally take less than an hour for staff members to create 10/20/30 second videos of what exactly entails a rule that isn't very well defined, so players can go back to it.

But as of right now, it seems like the poor wording and lack of effort from the party tasked with creating and overseeing rules, isn't going to be able to provide a better definition of said "misunderstood" rules.

 

Due to that void left that us filled only with interpretation, a large number of players have been (and will be) punished. Which if you ask me, is not fair (am I biased? I don't think so).

 

[Aezeryst]

A particular issue I've run into (before the new rule) is you could have a shitty pistol aimed at a cops head from behind (to which they were unaware), give them demands and they still turned around and drilled me with a marksman rifle I guess not based on the RP knowledge that they had a gun at their head point-blank but the fact they had better weapons and armour. As it stands the new fearRP rule in my experience has weakened the state of the server yet again by disallowing rp opportunities and going straight to death matching each other. 

https://forum.eclipse-rp.net/topic/168531-id-89-fearrp/#comment-560338

But even where the fear rp rule applies, it's still being reported and accepted so it becomes even more difficult how it's meant to be interpreted.

An example is the recent report from PD against multiple bank robbers, the criminals outweighed the police in numbers, they all came running out the bank with 3 armed officers pointing guns, some of them got away BECAUSE there wasn't enough to handle them or point a gun at them

My conclusion is that the fearRP is far too open to interpretation that everyone views it differently from eachother which apparently is causing lots of confusion.

Edited September 25, 2025 by Aezeryst

[Requiem]

There is far too much emphasis being put on a single line in the rule rather than looking at the overall intent of the rule. Players must still show fear and must prioritize their characters health and safety first and foremost.

The new FearRP rule simply allows players to react and choose the option that gives them the best odds at preserving their life, where as the old version of the rule forced the player to always choose "comply" if they were given demands under gunpoint.

This means that if you have an option available to you that could put your character in a SAFER state, you are allowed to take it. For example, if someone pulls a gun on you and aims at you and based on your past interaction with this person, you know they are likely to kill you in the end, you may have better odds and pulling your gun and fighting back to try and save yourself. Under the new rules, this is allowed. This does not mean you should be choosing to not surrender because it will save your items/assests. This does not mean you should choose to not surrender to try and win a situation. It is simply about preserving your characters life and choosing the option that gives them the best odds at surviving.

Take the same example above, but now make it three people pull up and pull guns on you and you are alone, it would no longer make sense to pull your gun and fight back because you are heavily out numbered and you would not be putting your character in a potentially safer place by making that decision. 

Taking the same logic above, if you are put under gun point while UNARMED, would it put your character in a safer state to turn around and run and risk getting shot in the back? Absolutely not, so this should not be the choice made. 

To specifically address the OP's questions/concerns:

13 hours ago, Demonmit1 said:

"...however, if you choose to not surrender you must be willing to RP the full consequences of your actions."
"Players ... are encouraged to comply with demands..."

This goes with what I stated above. Players are encouraged to comply with demands because this will likely be the safest option for them most often, but not always. When there is an option available to choose not to surrender that would reasonably put your character in a safer position to preserve their life, they are allowed to take that option, but they must be willing to accept the consequences of that. You choose to pull your gun instead of surrender, then prepare to potentially get shot and lose that situation. 

 

13 hours ago, Demonmit1 said:

also, defining what "reasonable" non-compliance looks like for a criminal at gunpoint by law enforcement should look like would go a long way to improving roleplay quality for everyone involved.

As Eliza mentioned above, a player with a gun in hand should be treated equally, no matter who it is. Doesn't matter if its a cop or criminal. You don't know if a cop has corruption permissions or will make that IC choice to shoot regardless of circumstance. If a criminal is unarmed and a gun is being pointed at them by law enforcement, they must choose the option that keeps their character safest and alive, which in this case since they are unarmed, is compliance. If the criminal is armed, it is the same interaction as mentioned above. If its a one on one situation with only one officer and one criminal, the criminal may choose to not surrender. If they are heavily outnumbered though, then they must comply as trying to fight back would be certain death. 

6 hours ago, Toxine said:

And when it comes to reports, interpretation shouldn't be a factor, as reports should be black or white, yes or no, valid or invalid. Reports are supposed to be objective decisions, therefore a subjective interpretation of a rule has no place in that context.

It would literally take less than an hour for staff members to create 10/20/30 second videos of what exactly entails a rule that isn't very well defined, so players can go back to it.

But as of right now, it seems like the poor wording and lack of effort from the party tasked with creating and overseeing rules, isn't going to be able to provide a better definition of said "misunderstood" rules.

Interpretation must be a factor in many rules when it comes to RP and IC interactions. If rules are made too rigid where its either yes or no, then it heavily restricts roleplay capability. A great example of this can be seen in the old FearRP rules. Under the old ruleset, it was simply "are you under gunpoint? Yes? Comply." This created unfun and stale situations where whoever pulled and pointed their gun first simply wins and there is no counterplayer or fluidity to the situation. The rule was opened up to allow for more freedom of roleplay options, but as a result, is now open to slightly more interpretation. 

If specific examples are provided for every single rule, players will mistakenly use those as end all be all and expect that if something falls within those examples, its a rulebreak. If not, then its good to go. But its not that simple as there are too many different types of situations to capture in a list of examples. Players simply need to understand the intent of the rule and act with common sense, and the rest will come naturally with their IC actions. 

28 minutes ago, Aezeryst said:

A particular issue I've run into is you could have a shitty pistol aimed at a cops head from behind (to which they were unaware), give them demands and they still turned around and drilled me with a marksman rifle I guess not based on the RP knowledge that they had a gun at their head point-blank but the fact they had better weapons and armour. As it stands the new fearRP rule in my experience has weakened the state of the server yet again by disallowing rp opportunities and going straight to death matching each other. 

If someone already has a gun out, they have always been free to react and fight back, even under the old FearRP rules. This has not changed. If in your above scenario, you mean they did not have their weapon pulled and they were put under gunpoint to the back of their head, they would choose to comply in this instance as their option to pull the gun and choose not to surrender would not necessarily put them in a safer state since they could easily be shot from behind by the time they try anything. 

28 minutes ago, Aezeryst said:

An example is the recent report from PD against multiple bank robbers, the criminals outweighed the police in numbers, they all came running out the bank with 3 armed officers pointing guns, some of them got away BECAUSE there wasn't enough to handle them or point a gun at them

The report conclusion should be referenced to understand why the report was accepted as it was. Ultimately, this goes back to what I said above about choosing the option that puts your character in the safest spot. In this situation with the bank robbery, the criminals may have had more numbers, but most of them were unarmed. The front doors of the bank were surrounded by armed officers. Ask yourself, is your character's life in a safer position staying inside the bank and surrendering to the demands, or to run out and run past heavily armed officers? This is why the report resulted how it did. 

[MrSilky]

I understand where the confusion comes from, but it is kind of obvious when you consider the totality of the rule.

So how about I make this edit to the rules to make the confusing section more clear?

Old:

• Players whose life is in direct danger must RP adequate fear and are encouraged to comply with demands when faced with a weapon, however, if you choose to not surrender you must be willing to RP the full consequences of your actions.

New:

• Players whose life is in direct danger must RP adequate fear and are expected to comply with demands when faced with a weapon. Choosing not to surrender is only appropriate if you have a reasonable means of resistance or escape (e.g., possessing a weapon or a viable and immediately accessible getaway). If you do choose not to comply, you must be prepared to RP the full consequences of your actions. Simply attempting to run on foot without such reasonable means does not qualify.

[JWIT1]

6 minutes ago, MrSilky said:

I understand where the confusion comes from, but it is kind of obvious when you consider the totality of the rule.

So how about I make this edit to the rules to make the confusing section more clear?

Old:

• Players whose life is in direct danger must RP adequate fear and are encouraged to comply with demands when faced with a weapon, however, if you choose to not surrender you must be willing to RP the full consequences of your actions.

New:

• Players whose life is in direct danger must RP adequate fear and are expected to comply with demands when faced with a weapon. Choosing not to surrender is only appropriate if you have a reasonable means of resistance or escape (e.g., possessing a weapon or a viable getaway). If you do choose not to comply, you must be prepared to RP the full consequences of your actions. Simply attempting to run on foot without such reasonable means does not qualify.

[Demonmit1]

1 hour ago, MrSilky said:

I understand where the confusion comes from, but it is kind of obvious when you consider the totality of the rule.

So how about I make this edit to the rules to make the confusing section more clear?

Old:

• Players whose life is in direct danger must RP adequate fear and are encouraged to comply with demands when faced with a weapon, however, if you choose to not surrender you must be willing to RP the full consequences of your actions.

New:

• Players whose life is in direct danger must RP adequate fear and are expected to comply with demands when faced with a weapon. Choosing not to surrender is only appropriate if you have a reasonable means of resistance or escape (e.g., possessing a weapon or a viable getaway). If you do choose not to comply, you must be prepared to RP the full consequences of your actions. Simply attempting to run on foot without such reasonable means does not qualify.

this is really good, but i have a suggestion to add in to fix a potential issue this new wording will make.

I would change, "...if you have a reasonable means of resistance or escape (e.g., possessing a weapon or a viable getaway)."
and change it to:  "...if you have a reasonable means of resistance or escape (e.g., possessing a weapon, reasonable chance to disarm your attacker, or a immediately accessible getaway)"

this would solve a couple issues with fearRP, and still allow some specific RP.

What i mean by an immediately accessible getaway is, A player is standing next to the open door of their running car and dives in to escape. this should be an acceptable action. If you get picked up by a friend with their car door open, jumping in should still be acceptable, and not a breach of fear RP. if you're standing right next to your motorcycle, getting on it and attempting to evade should be an acceptable option. its an immediate choice available, this is to prevent arguments of what is logically an unacceptable action, for example: "A player with a gun aimed at them has to sprint 20-30 feet across an open area to reach their parked car. (This is not immediately accessible, and they are still running on foot under direct threat)."

and then the second note, "reasonable chance to disarm your attacker," would still allow for very close quarters RP to play out. Tackling is a scriptly supported action, and if a player is reasonably able to get a tackle off to ragdoll their attacker by being close enough when the gun is pointed, then fight them for control of the gun, that should still be a viable option for players and not be a breach of fear RP. I feel this would keep hostage situations, and close quarter interactions from breaking fearRP, and allow reasonable RP to play out.

for example: An attacker is holding you at gunpoint but is standing very close. You decide to take the risk and tackle them to create an opportunity to escape. This is a dynamic, high-risk action that fits the spirit of the rule. this should be an acceptable action.

and for an unacceptable action example: An attacker is 15 feet away, and you attempt to charge them across an open space. This is not a "reasonable chance" and would be a clear breach of Fear RP.

I believe this small change in wording will give players different, circumstantial options for "reasonable" non-compliance without forcing them into full surrender if they are unarmed. It reduces the potential for ruleplaying from the aggressor while letting valid, natural RP play out.

[MrSilky]

19 minutes ago, Demonmit1 said:

this is really good, but i have a suggestion to add in to fix a potential issue this new wording will make.

I would change, "...if you have a reasonable means of resistance or escape (e.g., possessing a weapon or a viable getaway)."
and change it to:  "...if you have a reasonable means of resistance or escape (e.g., possessing a weapon, reasonable chance to disarm your attacker, or a immediately accessible getaway)"

this would solve a couple issues with fearRP, and still allow some specific RP.

What i mean by an immediately accessible getaway is, A player is standing next to the open door of their running car and dives in to escape. this should be an acceptable action. If you get picked up by a friend with their car door open, jumping in should still be acceptable, and not a breach of fear RP. if you're standing right next to your motorcycle, getting on it and attempting to evade should be an acceptable option. its an immediate choice available, this is to prevent arguments of what is logically an unacceptable action, for example: "A player with a gun aimed at them has to sprint 20-30 feet across an open area to reach their parked car. (This is not immediately accessible, and they are still running on foot under direct threat)."

and then the second note, "reasonable chance to disarm your attacker," would still allow for very close quarters RP to play out. Tackling is a scriptly supported action, and if a player is reasonably able to get a tackle off to ragdoll their attacker by being close enough when the gun is pointed, then fight them for control of the gun, that should still be a viable option for players and not be a breach of fear RP. I feel this would keep hostage situations, and close quarter interactions from breaking fearRP, and allow reasonable RP to play out.

for example: An attacker is holding you at gunpoint but is standing very close. You decide to take the risk and tackle them to create an opportunity to escape. This is a dynamic, high-risk action that fits the spirit of the rule. this should be an acceptable action.

and for an unacceptable action example: An attacker is 15 feet away, and you attempt to charge them across an open space. This is not a "reasonable chance" and would be a clear breach of Fear RP.

I believe this small change in wording will give players different, circumstantial options for "reasonable" non-compliance without forcing them into full surrender if they are unarmed. It reduces the potential for ruleplaying from the aggressor while letting valid, natural RP play out.

This is very well thought out and I like it, especially the "immediately accessible" element to getaways. I also like the idea regarding disbarment, but I don't think that should explicitly be in the rule as an example else we will fall into the rabbit hole of listing all possible outcomes. I feel tackling a sole hostile and fighting for control of the weapon would fall under "reasonable means of resistance" so long as contextually it makes sense such as being next to the hostile and making a swift action to disarm, not running at a hostile aiming a gun at you to tackle.

[Eliza]

The fearRP rule change has since been further clarified