Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805396Sounds quaint. No shade but it does, hah hah.

And honestly, that doesn't sound like an emotionally healthy group on all sides. Lacking self-esteem and having anger problems. It sounds like defending aganist the man-eating plant rather than pulling out its roots before it grew teeth.

I am afraid but you need to explain yourself on this one.

Quote from: Bren;805348Feeling stuck with the hand you are dealt socially is another version of the primary geek social fallacy. But you can't fix people problems with game rules. There are a million books that try to teach you how to manage, lead, communicate, assert yourself, and deal with conflict. Why would anyone look to game rules to teach them how to better interact with other human beings when there are so many other resources available that are specifically targeted to that purpose?

It's also a fallacy that you need more than two people to roleplay. If you can't find one other person in your village who isn't an asshole, then you probably need to find a new hobby, move to a new location, or realize that maybe you are the problem. (Generic you, not you in particular.)

When you making a commercial product it is vital to include rules and tips how to play the game. In my view including tips how to deal with problems is part of those rules because new players do not necessarily know how to play RPGs at all.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805396I wish I could be that naive but GM'ing domestically and for clubs (i.e. the real world) knocks those ideas outta ya head real quick. 'Thankful for that, though.

You think a WoD club is the real world? You are incredibly naive.

QuoteSo you're advocating for what Ravenswing is saying, then? With the headshotting and shit.

Why would you think that? Did you actually read what I wrote to Ravenswing? It would really help if you read the quotes before responding to them.

QuoteTo an extent. Seems short-sighted, though. Fuck with the assholes who are disrespecting your players and yourself in-game and they ragequit or get the message and take a seat. Everyone wins.

Smarter to not play with assholes. But there are some people who just can't resist fucking with other people. Usually those people are assholes. Fortunately they are very easy to spot and there is no need to play with them.

Quote from: Nikita;805400When you making a commercial product it is vital to include rules and tips how to play the game. In my view including tips how to deal with problems is part of those rules because new players do not necessarily know how to play RPGs at all.

While I agree that getting along with other people is important to enjoying a game, I don't see tips on how to get along with other people as something necessary or even desirable to include in the game rules - whether that game is Monopoly, Risk, Diplomacy, or an RPG.

Perhaps we just want different things in our game rulee or maybe we have very different ideas of what such tips would look like. Do you have examples of the sort of tips you are wanting to see?

I've seen a lot of players who excel at PCvPC, power-gaming, and other munchkinry — but!, will rein it all in by a GM holding a strong, tight leash and pre-game chat. Because one has the talent to excel in being that asshole player does not mean they will choose to be that asshole, especially if you can talk to them about your game expectations beforehand.

I have openly started games before where I said PCvPC is allowed, but, for example, I: a) don't want you messing with so-&-so because new player training, or b) am starting you elsewhere with different responsibilities because campaign reasons, or c) reward alternate PCvPC solution because desired mood, etc. and so on.

Not every player will have the same player skill. Not every group will blend, mesh (I'd like to call it blesh!), with player styles. Not every table will share the same assumed expectations. That's where my job as GM comes in. I openly talk about these things, stating what is allowed, restricted, assisted, and expected.

Dealing with a people problem through removed layers, be it game mechanics, group expectations, or social punishment, just leaves room for confusion. Real world problems require real world solutions. And the best way to start is ask real world people to not be a problem, and then explain how for your group or game.

Personally, I don't go for PvP combat. I've never seen it end well. Conflicts between the PCs are fine but I like to stop to short of out and out violence (or really too much conniving). It works for others but its not my thing.

Quote from: Bren;805414Smarter to not play with assholes. But there are some people who just can't resist fucking with other people. Usually those people are assholes. Fortunately they are very easy to spot and there is no need to play with them.

I think I've only managed to play with a small handful of outright assholes. More often problems arise from chemistry between players that percolates over time... friction between revealed play styles and preferences and just coming to realize you don't like Bob because he's reminds you of your ex-girlfriend's brother Rufus... or whatever.

Quote from: Nexus;805422Personally, I don't go for PvP combat. I've never seen it end well. Conflicts between the PCs are fine but I like to stop to short of out and out violence (or really too much conniving). It works for others but its not my thing.

The corollary to that is you also probably do not find yourself attracted to Machiavellian schemer, Byzantine politics, games, yes? I've noticed it as a pattern among those who tend to dislike oWoD or IN SJG internal friction campaigns. I'm guessing, but trying to place a pattern.

Quote from: Simlasa;805425I think I've only managed to play with a small handful of outright assholes. More often problems arise from chemistry between players that percolates over time... friction between revealed play styles and preferences and just coming to realize you don't like Bob because he's reminds you of your ex-girlfriend's brother Rufus... or whatever.

You can talk to people who aren't assholes and they will adjust their behavior. See Opaopajr's comment below for how to do that.  Weird chemistry of the Bob and Rufus variety you may be able to get over by talking and getting to know the person as Bob who is actually different from Rufus. If not, well then you should opt out of playing with Rufus.

Quote from: Opaopajr;805419Dealing with a people problem through removed layers, be it game mechanics, group expectations, or social punishment, just leaves room for confusion. Real world problems require real world solutions. And the best way to start is ask real world people to not be a problem, and then explain how for your group or game.

Very, very well said.

Quote from: Bren;805429If not, well then you should opt out of playing with Rufus.

And I did... though he didn't remind me of anyone he did annoy me for reasons that were beyond his control.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805396You didn't say that though, hah hah. But I get where you're coming from. Thinking we may be on different tiers now, though. Unrestrained PvP is lovely -- see below.

Who said anything about playing favourites? I positively encourage assholes to show their cards. What happens is that 9/10, the threat of PvP being for real in the game from the get-go tends to end it before its even thought of because now they're sticking their neck out. It ain't a gag no more (see above). Just like in real-life, 'start waving a gun at people, prepare to get shot.

If you think a real asshole is more invested in the survival of their character than being an asshole, then you haven't met a real asshole.  We were all once big fish in little ponds, though. So, as you say, no shade hah hah, right?

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805396I'm not 50yrs old, though. What kind of supposition is that? Hah hah! Who says that, really...

Welcome to the hobby, kid. Stick with it and stick around and you might learn a thing or two.

Quote from: Simlasa;805425I think I've only managed to play with a small handful of outright assholes. More often problems arise from chemistry between players that percolates over time... friction between revealed play styles and preferences and just coming to realize you don't like Bob because he's reminds you of your ex-girlfriend's brother Rufus... or whatever.

Oh man. Rufus. What a tool!

Quote from: Natty Bodak;805435If you think a real asshole is more invested in the survival of their character than being an asshole, then you haven't met a real asshole.  We were all once big fish in little ponds, though. So, as you say, no shade hah hah, right?

Welcome to the hobby, kid. Stick with it and stick around and you might learn a thing or two.

Hes a troll. He isnt going to learn because hes not here to learn.

PvP can be a great part of a large campaign on the Blackmoor/Greyhawk model,  to which for instance Gangbusters (as I recall) seemed to be geared. The GM's role becomes more that of a referee. Alignment was originally included in D&D I think primarily because of its utility in that context.

It can even be fundamental to a specific scenario, the thing that makes the zing.

The logistics of the most common rpg-playing arrangements, though, make it more usually a problem than an asset. "Don't split up the player-characters" for instance is conventional wisdom for practical reasons of the headaches it can create, and splitting up is one likely consequence of conflict.

Quote from: Nikita;805322RPGs are based on implicit assumption that players form a group that works together for a common goal. Thus they are co-operative by nature. Subsequently pitting players knowingly against each other does not work in long-term campaign but it can work in a single shot adventure (perhaps played in a convention).

Players are human and thus they often do things that either accidentally or by nature go against each other and groups I've played have been mature enough to accept it as part of their characters' behaviour.

All actions in my game table are done face to face with each other (including plotting each other) this seems to be the order of the day. However, at the same time I've noticed following (this is from my own experience only): Players can "screw" each other in a campaign while being part of same group is entirely possible but it works when stakes are not important. They are always frown upon when stakes are vitally important to group survival or greater task at hand.

I have seen a couple of times some immature players to blow up on player versus player actions but they are banned from gaming since they frighten some players (and I do not like bullies). Main reason to this seems to be player seeing him versus others attitude and thus not embracing the co-operative nature of game.

I also believe that any action done behind other players back actually heightens psychology of players potentially acting against each other (although I do not have academic studies to back this up).

Thus I suggest following: allow players to do what they wish as long as they do it openly to all. This causes self policing that both allows and even condones actions and reactions based on character actions but also diminishes more aggressive behavior. I do also assume that my players are adults.

RPGs are based on implicit assumption that players form a group that works together for a common goal.

I don't agree with this. The implicit assumption is that players take on the roles of people int eh the environment and these people have their own goals, aims and foibles. Some times the objectives of al of them will overlap you might find a couple of PCs so well suited that they can form a strong partnership must most of the time therte will be tension. It's no different to any group, shit its no different toteh players sitting round the table playiong the game. A group of individuals who share a common goal.

So PvP to me isn't even a consideration. Its part of the weave and weft of the world. A PC can always pull a blade and kill another PC. Or poison their food, or steal their purse of course that is possible. However, just like in the real world actions have consequences. If your PC kills another PC other PCs may find out and then they may take revenge, etc etc ...

Now if a Player just turns up with PCs whose aim is to kill the rest of the party you have an issue (well unless you actually set him up as an assassin hired to kill the rest of the party... AKA an Eiger Sanction Scenario) if they do it all the time then you don't have roleplayers.

So a degree of maturity round roleplaying is expected and maturity implies subtlety and complexity which implies a greyer morality.

PvP interactions were essential parts of two of my formative table-top roleplaying experiences: En Garde! and Melee/Wizard. The tension and competition greatly increases player engagement with roleplaying and adds much excitement to the table. I find games a bit dull when there is nothing like this going on in the campaign.