Quote from: estar;805583RPGs are poor tools for collaborative fiction. There are better ways of doing collaborative fiction that doesn't require the hassle and setup of a tabletop RPG.

Agreed. This idea of "story before characters" in a type of game specifically centered around roleplaying a character, I don't get it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;805599Heh those shame-culture warrior societies, gotta love 'em.  I wonder how all the "never PvP" crowd do playing Vikings or Samurai.  Do you not allow PCs to insult other PCs honor either?   What about their family's honor?  Someone to who you didn't know they had giri?  Hell, how do you even think about running a Roman campaign without the possibility of PvP?

Vampire, it's always Vampire. And ESPECIALLY Mage, if done right.

(Full disclosure: currently hosting M:TAw game at the club)

Quote from: Old Geezer;805601First, very often they don't.

Second, honor cultures often have very definite and elaborate rules around honor, and many people who don't like PvP don't like it because a significant number of assholes use it as an excuse to dick around with people rather than play a character with a strong sense of honor.

Third, can we not go down the "we are manly men playing manly games full of manly PvP" route?

Fourth, different people like different things.

We are men! Manly men!

So, in other words, you're saying escapism takes precedent over how stuff works in real life? Even if that would mess with the core concepts of a given RPG?

Quote from: CRKrueger;805604I didn't say "If you don't like PvP, you don't have the stones to play a Samurai, Viking or Roman." What I asked was how do you deal with playing with cultures that can require the defense of honor and reputation through combat if players are actually banned from PvP.  Doesn't have to be those cultures either.  

Renaissance Italian city states seems like another tough one.  "Players are all family members." Ok, is primogeniture banned too?  

Say goodbye to an entire genre with cyberpunk, etc.

If every session turned into The Reservoir Dogs, I'd get new players before I'd go meta on the restrictions, seems to defeat the whole purpose of role-playing, no different then the railroading GM who says "No, you can't turn left, you go right."

Mr. Pink!

It really is saying "I don't care what it says this game is about in the book, fuck you if you think we're going to play even somewhat close to this, even if that original materials is why you even got into it in the first place".

Quote from: Kiero;805606PvP is tedious shit that slows the game down for no fun reason. Except usually for the arsehole who thinks it's fun for them, because it isn't for anyone else at the table.

I have no time to indulge some twat's love of messing with other people at the table, just because they can.

That's not my experience at all. In fact, complete opposite, it intensifies the gameplay experience for all involved.

What exactly made it slow in your case? Any prominent examples come to mind?

Quote from: estar;805609I have had quite a bit of experience in collaborative fiction specifically alternate history. I understand it quite well. Games are useful to decide the outcome of a plot point when the group doesn't have a consensus on what to do with it. But gaming is not the focus, working on a story is.

Tabletop Roleplaying is designed around player agency. This is what makes tabletop a poor fit for collaborative fiction. When a player is stopped from doing something he can do as his character for a out of game reason it is metagaming.

Again, agreed.

Even stuff like a PC acting in a way that might have been affected by learning info that the PCs themselves would not normally know and said actions affecting the agency/potential outcome of another PC's scenario has caused upset among my players and caused some instigatory behaviour which I had to shut down hard. A very good reason not to metagame.

Quote from: Will;805610I'm sorry that storytelling games touched you in your no-no place.

But, you know what? At my table, 'collaborative storytelling' has pretty much been synonymous with 'focus on players having fun.' Only 30 years, not 42, but hey.


I have an extremely low threshold for people pulling the 'you are having fun wrong,' whichever flag it happens to be flying under.

No-one pulled that flag?

You're closer to doing that so far than most others in this thread from what I can see. "Fun" is a relative term in RPG context and you are practically saying "I don't care, other types of gameplay satisfaction don't matter, story over characters everyday and anyday". A lot of anti-PvP responders seem to feel that way here or at least partially.

Quote from: Will;805612And so?

Metagaming can work totally fine. It has in nearly every game I've run. Metagaming helps cut down on stupid player blowups.

Metagaming is pretty much the same as 'GM and players agree not to do X because it'd suck.'

Suck for who? This is where this gets real divisive. Would it truely suck for everyone involved or is someone having to compromise on their satisfaction in the game, maybe even missing out on game elements they might really enjoy or like the sound of?

Quote from: estar;805613Throughout history the main reason violence was checked was due to rules, mores, and laws. The problem that arises in many tabletop campaigns is the lack of law enforcement.

I don't mean that the referee forgets to add a legal system his campaign. What I am talking is the lack of the feeling that the one's character is in a society with laws. A society with the means and the will to go after those who engage in assault or murder.

The type of problem PvP behavior that people are talking about here I call Maddog syndrome. Because that what the player act like; a frothing bat shit insane dog biting everybody in sight. However it is something binary. The behavior exist along a sliding scale. Most players will only engage in PvP if they think they can get away with it.

My approach is give the players a sense that they are part of a in-game society. It will not stop the mad-dog but it will isolate that kind of player from others who are more of a opportunists type. Making it easier to deal with without having an explicit no PvP rule.

90%. This is one of those few examples where genuinely you can't make a generalisation on players. It's not most, it's some. Getting away with it implies being a dick: that's definitely most likely not the case most of the time. More likely is one PC beating the crap out of -- to them -- an annoying shithead PC across the table for the reason PvP happened.

Quote from: Old Geezer;805634The biggest problem in this thread is the original




Asshole behavior is not corrected by more asshole behavior.  Asshole behavior is corrected by telling somebody to stop being an asshole followed by refusing to play with them if they don't stop.

Life's too short for cheap beer or gaming with assholes.

No, it's not. Don't get mad because the pro-PvP crowd in this thead has more backing behind it than your POV and then try to refocus what has already been supported as valid attitude or means of dealing with an asshole successfully in a way that's chastizing. That's lecturing and English as fuck (although there's a surprising amount of us in this thread!).

Also, telling someone to stop and then don't play with them? Come on, that's real hippie. Nobody does that -- especially RPG gamers/nerds who are notorious for being quiet and non-confrontational.

Quote from: Sommerjon;805637In a traditional game life and death is all around the PCs.  Why in the flying fuck would you want to hitch your life to someone you can't trust?

Keep it simple: got no other choice.

Hell, crime syndicates thrive and prosper all the time all around us and ain't nobody trusting anyone inside those arenas.

There's plenty more reasons but it's uncommon to see a ride-or-die situation until a PC group is well established. Hunter is such a fucking awesome game for exploring this concept.

Quote from: Kiero;805630Emphasis mine. That right there is fucking boring, I play RPGs to explore a world and the stuff going on in it, not scheme against the other people sitting at the table.

No need to "force" anything when there's mutual agreement between the players that we aren't going to waste everyone's time with PvP bullshit.

I can't see that working on the large scale. In fact, I KNOW that doesn't work on a large scale. I've had too many players across different games and different environments that, despite being well-meaning and cool about other stuff, will have and have had their PCs showdown impromptu with other PCs because an in-game line got crossed. Didn't have to get violent but it weren't passive in any way shape or form.

Quote from: Old Geezer;805619I'm glad it works for you.  Anything other than "story is what happened to happen" has sucked for me consistently.

The problem is not styles, the problem is when styles collide.  Not all people can have a fun game together.  This is neither good nor bad, it simply is.

It is when it starts making its way into gamebooks, even implicitly, as an attitude or mindset or protocol or whatever.

Quote from: estar;805620It negative, what you been describing is a bunch of prohibitions. Don't PvP, etc, etc. What I find works better is to get the players enlightened self-interest going. They don't PvP because group cooperation is clearly worth more in my campaigns than the reverse. And it for the same reason as it works in real life, people acting together as group are able to do more and get more.

And the little things I do to keep things in-line are because the Adventuring Party is at its heart a gang of thugs even if they are a bunch of Lawful Good Paladins. And without a sense of in-game society they will eventually end up acting like thugs.

I do what I do in my games because I assume the worst of my players. I live in a rural area and do not always have the best when it comes to players. So I have to come with ways that allow everybody to have fun without resorting to metagaming and least common denominator out of game rules.

Yeah I allow PvP in my campaigns, but last month was the first PvP fight in years. For a variety of reason fucking with other PCs is way down the list of my players even they are notorious for it in other campaigns.

It's all about the benjamins.

This exactly why metagaming, prohibitions, whatevarthafuck just ain't good large-scale, long-term. So far in this thread, I haven't seen any real arguments as to why PvP shouldn't be allowed unrestricted (although I def agree new players should get the 4-1-1 before entering but it should be coming from a place of PvP is expected first).

Quote from: jibbajibba;805629No.
This is only the case if you believe that only the npcs are allowed  motivation and goals. I have run fantastic games where pvp became the whole of the game.
I ran amber at GenCon and the game ended with one PC bound and gagged being tortured by the other PCs because of his part in a coup. I felt it was a particularly  successful game and the players were embarassingly glowing with praise about it.
The gms job is to create a believable world populated with believable people. You don't get to force the PC's through your maze like lab rats. They are free agents and that means they are entirely allowed to plot scheme and kill each other.

Absolutely 100% agree. This is in part what keeps all my players in all my games coming back and it's what they get pissed off about when I'm not able to GM because they 9/10 times genuinely don't get those "worlds" where they're truly free to act and actually get tangible feedback back that takes their choices into account anywhere else. Sad but true.

Quote from: Bren;805632I found the juxtaposition of rules are the method people use to check violence and rules shouldn't be used to check violence ironic.


I also think most people commenting either have a very extreme experience with immature assholes in mind and or they approach this issue wrong - or should we say less than effectively.

Step 1 should be a discussion about the players' levels of comfort with PCs with opposed goals, intraparty bickering, intraparty threats, and PvP violence. Almost all the problem stories occur because the players don't agree on these points combined with a too rapid escalation to deadly force. (Some groups, especially mature or long running groups can skip step 1 or do it during play and go straight to step 2.)

Step 2 should be an agreement that everyone is there to have fun so some agreement about how conflict should be handled works best. One tactic I have found successful is for players to escalate conflict gradually rather than immediately jumping to poisoning food or daggering fellow PCs in their sleep.

Example: A difference of opinion about what to do with prisoners. Here one player is at odds with some or all of the party.

• Start with "I don't think we should kill the prisoners."
• If that doesn't work, escalate "Killing prisoners is dishonorable and I won't stand for it."
• If necessary make it clear your PC is serious and willing to do what it takes to defend his point (and honor). "Over my dead body." Draw sword and stand between would be killer and prisoners.
• Hope your comrades will back down and rediiscuss if they know you are serious. Try not to kill them. "Stay back. I don't want to hurt you." Fight defensively.
• At a certain point, if nothing else has worked you are at full out PvP. "OK then. You've been warned." Fight offensively.

Obviously different systems and styles of play may either facilitate this or make it more difficult. But a staged approach of escalation is more likely to resolve conflict without killing. Probably why police forces use a staged  approach to violence.

Step 3 follow two simple further rules (1) don't be an asshole and (2) don't continue to play with assholes.

I'm curious whether people who are extremely anti PvP never have serious conflicts amongst their PCs or if they do, what method they use to resolve those serious conflicts.

Respect the list but most responders on here don't seem to have had an extreme set of experiences with PvP gone wrong as much as their own responses and attitude to PvP is extreme or biased or potentially hypocritical.

Staged approach is so they don't get sued or thrown in jail themselves. Wouldn't know it in the UK though 'cause you can't sue the police (policy decision by the government, same with the NHS even if they leave a scapel in your body during surgery). Also wouldn't know it from the Eric Garner and Michael Brown shootings, though.

(Digressing...)

Quote from: jibbajibba;805638But the players loved it.
In all my years roleplaying I find Amber gives the deepest roleplaying experience and the deepest level of immersion and Amber is the most PvP game out there. Even Chargen is constructed round PvP....

The other PCs are part of that world. Ragar the Bold is just as much a part of the world in motion as Count "Obvious Antagonist" and making the PCs only focus on GM constructed threats and oposition is a false premise that restricts role-play.

I can site multiple examples from the CoC game where one of the PCs was, unbeknownst to the rest of the party, a serial killer and whose crimes became the centre of their investigation, to an incident where one PC was sent to kill another in her appartment in 1920s NY, to an Amber PC with multiple personality syndrome and advanced shapeshift who was his own arch nemesis, to a bunch of Holy knights working with some Camerilla Vampires in Texas to eliminate a Sabbat threat, and hundreds of others where the PvP stuff became more than just a petty arguement betweeen asshole PCs but where it became the entire focus of the game and a created the sort of RPG moments that are talked about in reverential tones 30 years later down the pub.

It comes down to a few things
i) do you want to simulate a world in motion or a set adventure path for the Players
ii) Are PCs supposed to be fully realised people with complex motivations and objectives or just complex playing pieces in a board game
iii) Are the only obstacles that are valid GM constructed obstacles because the GM is the only valid generator of content

See, that's what I'm talking about. That sounds fun as fuck but yet some of the responders in this thread see this as absolutely fucking awful (or "boring") when it seems that the wider RPG playerbase has a taste for it. These prohibitions, as estar puts em', seem to require compromise for all players in a group that might be undue and/or unfair to some of them, usually because the prohibiting side had a bad experience or two and is applying to other people or groups. For these guys who are also advocating that it might "suck" or that its bullshit in view to the presumed greater good of the game (or however you wanna phrase it), it does seem dangerously hypocritical.

Quote from: jibbajibba;805639Idealism
Ego
Money
Power
Sex
Envy
Sloth
self preservation

The usual reasons Kids join street gangs, people join the army and folk sign up to join the circus

Add security and a sense of belonging in there, too. Real feelings and motivations: the kind that really lend a sense of authenticity to a character and enrich the story as a result.

Quote from: Ravenswing;805641Catching up with a few comments, I'm in complete agreement with this.  The notion that PvP is somehow the antidote to the asshole is farcical: it's the medium in which the assholes swim.  For every group where PvP is used to "autocorrect" assholes, I've seen a half-dozen where the assholes justify themselves through waving the PvP card.  The way to deal with assholes isn't to allow other players to kill their characters; the way to deal with assholes is for GMs and groups to have the basic maturity it takes to confront and deal with them, OOC, and to eject them from groups if they don't shape up.

Well aren't you just special.  So you've never before in your life encountered someone with a strong opinion on something?  I get to have a mad on for the things I have a mad on for, I'm unlikely to ask your permission, and I don't feel the need to justify that to smarmy assholes or anyone else.

I think you're missing the problem.  It's not that gamers can't ID assholes.  It's that so many gamers are GSK prisoners who'll go to huge lengths -- up to and including watching their groups disintegrate around them -- to do anything about them.

As long as there are people hung up on colloquialisms and slang, yeah.  I really don't feel the need to defend my word choices, either.  If you're hellbent on ascribing hidden meanings to simple words in an Internet discussion, yeah, whatever, knock yourself out.

I wasn't saying you can't have a hard-on for whatever pisses you of. I just was like, "what the fuck, he's acting like I took a dump on his favourite gamebook by simply making this thread".

I agree with the notion of gamers of putting up with bullshit rather than doing something about it or not having backbone when it would really come in handy. Luckily, a fair amount of my players don't have this problem and those that showed signs quickly lose that problem. For the very few that don't, they err... don't make it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;805643I wasn't expecting "we don't", but that sure answers my question.



Don't have a problem with that, just a little surprised that iconic cultures, tropes, genres, scenarios are off the table because of the belief that PvP always leads to Knights of the Dinner Table behavior, when it really doesn't have to.

 I don't think PvP or rules against PvP do anything against an asshole player.  You kick 'em out, then go ahead and play with non-assholes.  If someone's not an asshole, the mere option of the freedom to attack another PC isn't going to turn them into an asshole anymore then it turns you into a workplace shooter.

Right. The sentiment from the anti-PvP crowd starts to sound unreasonable past a certain point. At leasr, as far as I've seen in this thread.

Quote from: Old Geezer;805644The vast majority of players, honestly, don't give a shit about cultures, tropes, genres, scenarios, or anything else besides goofing around and maybe throwing some dice.

Sure, I'd be interested in a Samurai or Viking type game, and you bet your nuts I'd be careful about what I said in character.

Just like I'd love to play a Pendragon game.  But most gamers aren't interested in anything as detailed or involved as Pendragon.

90% of everything is crap, and that includes the population of RPG tabletop players.  And PvP becomes just another tool for them to express their crapitude.

The mere fact we're talking about this makes us part of a small minority, just like those of us model railroaders who actually try to run our basement empires like a real railroad are in the small majority.

There is a reason WoW is the way it is, and makes as much money as it does.  "The game that knows what you want, and gives it to you."

See, it's defeatist wank like this that just sours anything resembling not giving into bullshit and sours healthy discussion. Come on man.

You really just made it out like people got into RPGs because "Oooh! Funny-shaped dice!". Now that's just weak. If that were true, Pendragon, L5R, Kult, Earthdawn, Eclipse Phase and all those kinds of games wouldn't exist. No market for that, right? RPG's wouldn't exist past D&D -- like early D&D -- and I most likely would have never have heard of P'n'P as would genuinely most RPG gamers today.

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;805657It absolutely answered the question. Those are reel life things I see in the world everyday for the reasons why people are in relationships, endeavors, and business with people that would absolutely stab them in the back.

You could add:
Laziness
Hero complexes
Faith
Allegiance
And many others... but it doesn't mean that in the end you should expect characters vested in their goals will not do everything possible to achieve their goals for good or bad.

And why not let the players play it out if they want
Maybe the cleric is called to bring that nasty necromancer back to the light. Maybe the necromancer doesn't take kindly to that. The fighter just wants to keep the party together long enough to avenge his dead parents and doesn't care from there. But the thief needs the necromancer and priest to work together to beat the lich he knows is in this dungeon but the thief hasn't told anyone because he expects them all to die and he will keep all the loot.

Or something.

Realism theory. I like it. I'm not sure some of the other responders see it like that though, which makes me think they got a pretty good lot in life or have been playing with the same group for a VERY long time.

Quote from: jibbajibba;805660Yup ....

I trust you to cover me when I draw my nine and wipe the guy on the corner because we were both sent by Lizard to toast the dude. Doesn't mean that you haven't been told to then stick a couple in the back of my head and leave me in a burned out car wreck because I've been banging his girlfriend.

I mean these people have you know like read books, watched Movies and TV and live in the real world ....

That is almost exactly one of the cliques in my Mage game's Cabal roleplayed out. Now THAT was tense once all was said and done. Replace girlfriend with a suitcase full of Artifacts, though, and a pissed off NPC merc cabal, oh and a powerful mage street boss. Gritty as shit.

Quote from: Sommerjon;805686There is a slight difference in Billy stabbing you in the back to get the corner office and Billy literally stabbing you in the back.

Strange that you two are willing to use; Idealism, Ego, Money, Power, Sex, Envy, Sloth, self preservation, Laziness, Hero complexes, Faith, Allegiance as reasons to justify hooking up with someone you absolutely loathe when the easiest thing for you to do is say "Nope, bye"
I have little interest in games where David Duke is hanging with Al Sharpton cuz Conflict!

Why would your players do rapes murders and pillages in front of the city guard?  Do they also radio ahead to the local dungeon that they are coming?

How would they find out so easily?

Now you're just being disingenous.

Seriously, "cuz Conflict"? Get outta here.

You can't honestly believe that not one of those things motivates a PC -- and player behind them, by extension -- to act in the game and that these motivations won't at some point end up in a potentially violent conflict realistically.

Quote from: jibbajibba;805688Um don't know if we can be any clearer on this...
Start with the list I guess....
Idealism - You see the best in everyone and believe then can be persuaded to do right simply by seeing others charting that course
Ego - you know that anyone one they meet you will be won over by your charisma and charm. They simply wouldn't be able to imagine doing you harm.
Money - there is a huge pile of loot down in this dungeon somewhere and anyone that is prepared to help you get a share of it is in
Power - you need to recover the Lost crown of Ages and with it you will be able to rule the world. You will of course need some help any bunch of proles will do
Sex - you so want to shag this guy that you will put up with him coming along on a quest just if it gives you the chance to bang him later, even if it means you have to put up with his whining and moaning
etc
etc

I mean 90% of D&D parties form up ad hoc in a tavern cos some old geezer asked if any one there would be interested in going to a really dangerous place and bringing back a McGuffin  Do you really think they are all going to instantly be willing to lay down their lives for each other on the basis of a shared pint?

This is true. And funny as shit, too! Hah hah!

Who are these people who randomly go on quests just because some tosser told em' "riches, bitches!" And that there be no other motivating factor apart from, "'cause it's the game dude, 'cause it's like for the story yeahhhhh..."

Quote from: chirine ba kal;805702I'm looking forward to going to Gary Con this year, simply for the chance to actually play for once...

You'll get that in spades.  Last year playing DGUTS with Bill Hoyt, Mike Carr, and Dave Wesley was a riot.

And if you get into Mike Reese's TRACTICS game, I'm going to show up with a lawn chair, a big bucket of popcorn, and a cooler full of beer.  It will be a wonder to behold.

A lot of posts since I last looked.

Quote from: Old Geezer;805644The mere fact we're talking about this makes us part of a small minority, just like those of us model railroaders who actually try to run our basement empires like a real railroad are in the small majority.

Who buys the tickets and ships the freight?

Quote from: Old Geezer;805658Is that "PvP" or "players have their own agendas?"

I tend more towards the latter interpretation myself, and it's what I prefer; I HATE this notion of "the player characters are ONE BAND OF HEROES TRIED AND TRUE."

I love the idea.

As a goal. As an ideal. As something certain characters want. As something other characters take advantage of.

I hate a game that enforces it as the only reality.

And by “hate” I mean, I don't care for it as anything other than an occasional change of pace since a steady diet is dull and puerile.

Quote from: tuypo1;805675i have to disagree geographic isolation is a bitch some people dont even live in what you could call a village some people live or far out farms and rarely interact with other people it can be really important to maintain friendships

Telephone, Internet, Skype, Google.

Quote from: Old Geezer;805685I'll consider that a challenge.

Maybe the players should have to steal the Lampshade of Obviousness?

Be sure to include a scroll with Detect Obvious on it.

Quote from: Old Geezer;805695What kind of clown doesn't know the difference between their and there?

Their, their, don't fret. His moniker is typo for a reason.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805706Respect the list but most responders on here don't seem to have had an extreme set of experiences with PvP gone wrong as much as their own responses and attitude to PvP is extreme or biased or potentially hypocritical.

No need to quote the entire thread just to make a few short comments.

But in reference to objections to PvP. One objection I can agree with is that PvP doesn't effectively deter assholes. Fortunately there are very effective deterents that do work.

Quote from: Bren;805717But in reference to objections to PvP. One objection I can agree with is that PvP doesn't effectively deter assholes. Fortunately there are very effective deterents that do work.

Yes PvP in and of itself will not deter assholes.
However, complex well realised games with consistent motivation, genuinely applied laws and so on, go over time deter assholes because they promote and reward active participation in the game world. The majority of assholes are looking for An Old Geezer game where they can turn up roll dice and not worry about the internal consistency of the world and so on. In this world they can be an asshole with no consequence and even PC death is a minor and expected outcome so no biggie.
In a more RP focused world the PC with the power tend to be the ones who's players commit more to the world because an alliance with the High Priest or a favour owed by the local Prince are more valuable than this feat/stat combo. Now this won't exclude all asshole types, shit some of them will love to wallow in such games, but it does get rid of the casual drive by asshole who is just there to fuck up a game and move on.

Quote from: jibbajibba;805722However, complex well realised games with consistent motivation, genuinely applied laws and so on, go over time deter assholes because they promote and reward active participation in the game world. The majority of assholes are looking for An Old Geezer game where they can turn up roll dice and not worry about the internal consistency of the world and so on. In this world they can be an asshole with no consequence and even PC death is a minor and expected outcome so no biggie.

While I agree with you that a complex, active world tends to reward engaged players (and assholes tend not to be engaged in the setting) I think OG was clear (and I believe him) that he doesn't favor no consequence play either as a GM or as a player.

The only way to discourage people from acting like assholes is to ask them not to act like assholes and then to boot them if they don't stop. Anything else that seems to work only does so because the method used indirectly asks them not to act like assholes. I believe in being direct.

Wow, one wonders how "PvP does not deter assholes" turned into "no consequence play."

* goalposts emit blue pseudoCherenkov radiation as they approach c *

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805706We are men! Manly men!

So, in other words, you're saying escapism takes precedent over how stuff works in real life? Even if that would mess with the core concepts of a given RPG?

Manly men in tights!

As for escapism, depends on the game.  I could run D&D using actual medieval concepts of government and justice and most people would hate it.  Been there done that.

Superheros live in a world of automobiles and stuff, yet fly around in spandex tights.  Realism?  Bah.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805706No, it's not. Don't get mad because the pro-PvP crowd in this thead has more backing behind it than your POV and then try to refocus what has already been supported as valid attitude or means of dealing with an asshole successfully in a way that's chastizing. That's lecturing and English as fuck (although there's a surprising amount of us in this thread!).

As near as I can tell, the previous paragraph quoted is from some other thread.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805706Also, telling someone to stop and then don't play with them? Come on, that's real hippie. Nobody does that -- especially RPG gamers/nerds who are notorious for being quiet and non-confrontational.

Fuck that shit.

Life is too short for bad gaming.  If you wish to argue that too many gamers are addicted to Geek Social Fallacies I'd be first to agree.

On the other hand, I've been telling people "I don't run a game like that" since 1976 and continue to do so.  Yet my games are always full.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805706I can't see that working on the large scale. In fact, I KNOW that doesn't work on a large scale. I've had too many players across different games and different environments that, despite being well-meaning and cool about other stuff, will have and have had their PCs showdown impromptu with other PCs because an in-game line got crossed. Didn't have to get violent but it weren't passive in any way shape or form.

And in 42 years my experience is that the vast majority of players do NOT want PvP.

My irrelevant anecdote parries your irrelevant anecdote.  Neener.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805706You really just made it out like people got into RPGs because "Oooh! Funny-shaped dice!". Now that's just weak. If that were true, Pendragon, L5R, Kult, Earthdawn, Eclipse Phase and all those kinds of games wouldn't exist. No market for that, right? RPG's wouldn't exist past D&D -- like early D&D -- and I most likely would have never have heard of P'n'P as would genuinely most RPG gamers today.

Okay, this one is just funny.  Not intentionally, I think, but frickin' hilarious.

The tabletop market is "D&D" and "other stuff," just like our solar system is "the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, and assorted debris."  It's worse in the online world; to millions of people "gaming" is "World of Warcraft," which CATERS to the "goof off and throw funny electronic dice" gamer.  All those other games mentioned are a drop of piss in the ocean compared to D&D.

Go work for a game company and spend a few years going to conventions.  Most gamers are idiots.  Sturgeon's second law.

The University of Minnesota gaming club had 30 to 40 members attending for the better part of 15 years.  Most of them wanted to goof around and throw dice.  Same with every game shop and convention I've ever been to.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805706Realism theory. I like it.

Realism theory?  HAR!  I MIGHT give you "verisimilitude."  But I'm playing a guy in a bathrobe who can jump twenty feet and waves around a sword made of light and travels in a ship that goes faster than light.  Realism my ass.

Quote from: Old Geezer;805781Realism theory?  HAR!  I MIGHT give you "verisimilitude."  But I'm playing a guy in a bathrobe who can jump twenty feet and waves around a sword made of light and travels in a ship that goes faster than light.  Realism my ass.

Dude, buy some Jedi pants to go with that robe. Nobody wants to see your PC junk dangling in the breeze everytime he jumps around.

I wonder if it makes that light saber shwoon sound when it flops about.

Quote from: Bren;805734While I agree with you that a complex, active world tends to reward engaged players (and assholes tend not to be engaged in the setting) I think OG was clear (and I believe him) that he doesn't favor no consequence play either as a GM or as a player.

The only way to discourage people from acting like assholes is to ask them not to act like assholes and then to boot them if they don't stop. Anything else that seems to work only does so because the method used indirectly asks them not to act like assholes. I believe in being direct.

I agree the direct method works better, also, I think the direct method addresses the true issue: the player/GM in question.

Pick a pet peeve, table rule, behavior that causes the end of all gaming as we know it and it usually follows a pattern...

1. Disruptive player acts disruptively
2. Here is where the trouble starts - Disruption is attributed to a mechanic/situation/playstyle/gaming behavior instead of the player in question.
3. New mechanics/table rules/avoidance of situation is created to disallow/prevent/ban or otherwise curtail it from happening again.
4. Because whatever the original player did is no longer allowed, by definition it can't happen again, and so the "cure" come up with in #3 reinforces the incorrect belief in #2.  As a result, you get "in 40 years it's always this way" when in fact it was two or three times, then the over-reactive correction took place and has been in place since.

If you ban PvP, you will indeed not have to deal with PvP from assholes, you'll have to deal with other behavior from assholes.

If you ban PvP, you will indeed not have to deal with an "unfun" or "boring" situation that develops, you will also miss out on any excitement, character growth, or anything else that someone might find "fun" or at least rewarding coming out of PvP.

One of my friends had a weird string of luck where significant others coming to the table led to bad experiences, so he banned them, including players who wanted to come as couples, they had to attend at least once individually each.  Are couples problems in an of themselves or was it those specific couples?  

He definitely no longer runs into any couple related problems, but I highly doubt people would think the problem was couples, period.

Eh, its been covered.

Quote from: jibbajibba;805722Yes PvP in and of itself will not deter assholes.
However, complex well realised games with consistent motivation, genuinely applied laws and so on, go over time deter assholes because they promote and reward active participation in the game world...

In a more RP focused world the PC with the power tend to be the ones who's players commit more to the world because an alliance with the High Priest or a favour owed by the local Prince are more valuable than this feat/stat combo.

I have found this attitude towards running a game decreases PvP to nil. Once players realize that there is an active, complex world to play in they have a lot less interest in screwing around with each other.

To answer the original question, I allow PvP but it is discouraged. The majority of the time, when one PC has been violent towards another it is something between the people, not roles. Now that I think of it, my discouragement is little more than telling the players "if you aren't a team the monsters will eat you."

That said, the style of the game, known at the outset, changes my attitude a lot. D&D always seemed to be a team sport. Now, when I played Vampire the milieu is different. There may have been excursions where people worked together, but it was allways allies of the moment. You were free agents when you got back in the city.

Quote from: Nexus;805792Sorry for the snark, but that post came across as incredibly condescending.

OG said the same thing pretty much, but then he read my response.  Dunno if you have yet.

I'm not saying you're a little whiny girly man, I'm asking how do you stay true to a Samurai setting if a Samurai cannot avenge a slight by another PC through violence?  Same with gunfighters, gang members, norseman, whatever.  It's not me who is saying if you don't fight you're not a whatever, it's the culture of the PC that's saying it.  I'm just wondering how you deal with it?  

Conan says "I've killed better men for lesser insults" a lot and lets it slide for other "party members", but he doesn't let it slide every time.  Does the barbarian player just say "C'mon guys, we've agreed to no PvP, so obviously my barbarian is not going to use his culturally appropriate response, so how about you guys let up a little on your culturally appropriate insults"?  

If so, that's fine, works for you, for me it looks like now we're starting to stack more and more behavioral metagaming modifications to "fix" something that has always seem to be handled well by "Don't be/Stop being a Dick."

As I mentioned upthread, if we decide we're gonna stick together and be a united family in Borgia-era Italy are we gonna go with an equal inheritance for all male and females no matter how historically inappropriate it may be?

Or do you just not play campaigns where it comes up?

I don't particularly *enjoy* PvP, and I certainly don't like PvP death anymore then I like death to a monster, a failed saving throw, or random encounters with Rocs.

If you're playing a Mafia game, though, and you eliminate the chance of getting whacked by those next to you...it's an...interesting variation of a Mafia game.

I'm not a "LOVES ME SOME PVP" guy, I'm a "you're banning a type of character behavior the character certainly is capable of doing and in fact may be perfectly logical under the circumstances?  Huh, how odd." guy.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;805682Not all women don't not have dicks.

Sheesh.

Google Futanari. It will change your life (and possibly drain your SAN).

QuoteDon't have a problem with that, just a little surprised that iconic cultures, tropes, genres, scenarios are off the table because of the belief that PvP always leads to Knights of the Dinner Table behavior, when it really doesn't have to.

I've played in Feudal Japanese settings and "honor" based societies without there being PvP violence It takes the players agreeing to moderate their own behavior. And not every trope has to be played absolutely hardcore, no allowance balls out style that every slight, real or imagined, must be avenged in an immediate blood duel. Even in the eras emulated every gathering didn't end in a bloodbath because of some minor faux pas or imagined insult.