Quote from: Emperor Norton;806062I wouldn't say no one said it. I'll say that Krueger didn't say it though.

Well, damn. Someone did say those exact words. But I didn't claim Krueger said it but there has been allot of this kind of thing thrown around here. I apologize if I've contributed it. I have to admit now I don't think there is much of a discussion left though.

Quote from: jibbajibba;805820Again play Amber.

I did, ran a game for a while... 9 months maybe? I think that plays into my point, however, that there are games where PvP is baked in rather than being a possibility.

Heh, haven't thought about that group for a while....

They never really threw down against each other for a couple of reasons, I think. All real world reasons.

Player A was never sure he could take out Player B. And, since he was intimidated by Player B (since he was everything A was not), Player A was waiting for the Sure Win.  He also wanted to get into the pants of Players C or D.

Player C was hot for B (and getting it), so she would start some shit with him (B) from time to time, but only to be mischevous. When Player A got too big for his britches, she would psi-strike him down a peg.

Player D was indifferent to A, liked B (but not that much, certainly not enough to tangle with C), and got along with C.

Player B was a badass, and his self-confidence was sufficient that he didn't have anything to prove. He also knew that the whole group could take him down, but not A alone.

Then there were the characters... Amber was the only game that I have found mentally exhausting to run.

As I think on it;

A - Strength 1st, Endurance ranked
B - Warfare 1st, Endurance ranked
C - Psychic 1st, Warfare ranked
D - Ranked in all (?), advanced pattern, legion of followers in shadow

Quote from: Nexus;806061Seriously. I never said that. I said IME, it never ends well and creates ongoing issues over time and that I don't like the tone PvP conflict creates around the table.

I did say "you guys", so was lumping in the more hyperbolic Kiero, Sommerjon, Rawma et al.  However you did just say...

Quote from: Nexus;806061I don't allow a PvP as it pretty quickly snowballs into something unpleasant even it starts minor. Grudges built up, people get mad or hurt.

"Quickly snowballs" is kind of going from Frodo and Sam to Driz'zt and Entreri, isn't it?  In any case, you're clearly saying if you allow PvP, with your group, it gets out of control, and people don't keep it confined to characters.  You just said that.

I never said carebear or anything, what I did do was ask how do you deal with settings, scenarios, whatever, that as a natural and accepted by-product, may include PvP.  Couple of people like you and Ravenswing have answered, they just don't go there, or just don't instigate what might kick off PvP.  Ok, asked and answered.

I almost feel like Rob, Jibba and myself should PodCast some sessions, because apparently it's in doubt (again maybe not by you) that the mere existence of PvP as a natural option doesn't turn the game into the WWE any more then allowing players to break the law turns them into terrorists. I allow characters to kick puppies and rape nuns too, no one's ever done it.

Anyway Merry Christmas to Serial Killers and CareBears alike!

Quote from: Nexus;806064Well, damn. Someone did say those exact words. But I didn't claim Krueger said it but there has been allot of this kind of thing thrown around here. I apologize if I've contributed it. I have to admit now I don't think there is much of a discussion left though.

Well not quite those exact words

I said if you look for a setting where there is no PVP in popular culture you would probably have to look at the carebears I was kind of taking the piss though right , you know using hyperbole to make a rhetorical point.

You are right the discussion seems to have played out.

There might be one thing I wonder about if there any correlation between imposing a PvP ban and other RP restrictions, such as no evil PCs.
The restrictions on certain classes and races are not the same at all as they are determined by the setting. If a setting has no elves then you can't plan an elf that isn't a restriction on roleplay that is just a setting feature like you can't play superman in a game of Boot Hill.
I would also be curious to look at Sandbox versus railroad and other types of play.

Quote from: CRKrueger;806070I did say "you guys", so was lumping in the more hyperbolic Kiero, Sommerjon, Rawma et al.  However you did just say...

"Quickly snowballs" is kind of going from Frodo and Sam to Driz'zt and Entreri, isn't it?  

No, its not.

Its certainly not the same as turns instantly (or was it nanoseconds) into Game of Thrones of whatever.  My experience has been that it just builds grudges, OOC vendettas and hard feelings around the table. Even if starts off reasonable or unobtrusive.

That's quite a bit different than claiming it immediately turns things into an arena or the adventures of The Mountain and the Hound.


Also I believe that quote from after your assertion about what I think.  

QuoteIn any case, you're clearly saying if you allow PvP, with your group, it gets out of control, and people don't keep it confined to characters.  You just said that.

Less out of control than it gets personal, really personal at times That is still different from you're claiming I said: that it always is like that for everyone, everywhere. I've never said that. Hell I've heard of it working for others (here for example). It does not work for me or for most of the people in my gaming circle so we avoid it.

That's the sum total of what I feel about it. If other people find it a positive element in their games I have nothing to say about it.

Quote from: Nexus;806061Speaking for myself, we have a large group of players. Some of them enjoy PvP type conflicts, others don't. So its best to get the ground rule straight up front.

Whatever you think of PvP along the spectrum this is something we can all agree is a good thing.

Quote from: Nexus;806061I don't allow a PvP as it pretty quickly snowballs into something unpleasant even it starts minor. Grudges built up, people get mad or hurt and it doesn't contribute anything to the game that I find worth the trouble.

Quote from: Nexus;806074Its certainly not the same as turns instantly (or was it nanoseconds) into Game of Thrones of whatever.  My experience has been that it just builds grudges, OOC vendettas and hard feelings around the table. Even if starts off reasonable or unobtrusive.

...

Less out of control than it gets personal, really personal at times That is still different from you're claiming I said: that it always is like that for everyone, everywhere. I've never said that. Hell I've heard of it working for others (here for example). It does not work for me or for most of the people in my gaming circle so we avoid it.

That's the sum total of what I feel about it. If other people find it a positive element in their games I have nothing to say about it.

This is yet another very clear rebuttal (not like we needed any more, but what the hell) to our teen bravo OP (who eats GMs for breakfast, and gets off on taking down assholes, etc.) that you can navigate a crowd of players, and have done so, without having to GLOCK A BITCH, DAWG.

In my experience direct PvP combat (or PCvPC to be more precise) certainly can cause RL friction, even when seemingly grounded entirely in-character, but it's rarely a big escalation. For me and mine, the experience outside of the PvP activities are made richer for possibility and few occasions of PvP.  These things are true of PvP of the non-combat variety as well.  

And this is where I side with CRKrueger in that it's clear that others navigate PvP without it escalating to mutually assured destruction (or long-standing irritation, to be less hyperbolic), so it's not entirely the PvP switch in the game, it's the people & preferences as well.

Quote from: CRKrueger;806058Of course no one actually said the Carebears thing, while on the other side we have had everything from "murdering psychos" to the mating call of the terminally hyperbolic, "toxic", if you can believe that.

Quote from: CRKrueger;806070I did say "you guys", so was lumping in the more hyperbolic Kiero, Sommerjon, Rawma et al.

I'm surprised that you find my saying "toxic" more hyperbolic than someone's earlier "sin", to the point of describing it as the "mating call of the terminally hyperbolic", which isn't itself at all hyperbolic.

But all I said about something being toxic was:

Quote from: rawma;805996PvP as such is toxic; it's player versus player, not character versus character, and that has already ruined any roleplaying advantage it might confer.

I distinguish PvP from PCvPC here, hence the "as such"; the resulting bad feelings from the former bleed over onto other characters of the same players, or even into conflict between the same players in entirely different games. This OOC conflict ends up ruining the role-playing advantages you might get from the natural conflict between two characters.

(I also later said I was mostly OK with the conflict between characters if the players involved accepted it. When somebody doesn't like it, then it's a bad idea. I do ban evil player characters in games I run, because they generally are not fun; I don't ban PCvPC conflict outright but I do try to defuse it before it ruins the fun for the players who don't like it.)

I have no problem with PvP if it makes sense in the context of the world/genre, and it makes sense for the PC in question.  

I also have no problem with the rest of my players asking me to kick out an asshole from the group. Those two things are sometimes related, sometimes not.

Quote from: RPGPundit;806974I have no problem with PvP if it makes sense in the context of the world/genre, and it makes sense for the PC in question.  

I also have no problem with the rest of my players asking me to kick out an asshole from the group. Those two things are sometimes related, sometimes not.

This.