Quote from: Nikita;805399I am afraid but you need to explain yourself on this one.

That whole group dynamic sounded bad. I felt like I should have been there, put the fear of god into those "bullies" and picked up the frightened players and gave em' some hot coco or something.

Quote from: Bren;805414You think a WoD club is the real world? You are incredibly naive.

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.

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.

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?

Yo, I wasn't attacking you. Chill. What you're saying is fine but to me it's a little optimistic. Especially when you're telling Ravenswing how he's saying what he's saying "lacks nuance". Come on man.

Yes, I do. It ain't gaming with your friends 'round your house. These gamers are coming to game -- its a different level. Wildly different personalities, really great guys, all know exactly what they want. And they're paying for a quality game which directly supports the club which is awesome.

Your first mistake statement. Equivalence of the backstab reaction, i.e. kill them immediately without mercy, even if the motive/mindset behind it is different.

Nah, on a similar note to Natty, it's not always immediately apparent who the shitstick's gonna be, especially if they're "good" (we're ironing out the exact definition of that term here). They got poker faces, some of them.

Quote from: Opaopajr;805419I'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.

Boom! Good man. Like CK, this guy gets it. If your GM's a dweb, the game's a bust. Only problem is that last statement. Hybrid approach is what I would seek 'cause the examples given so fair seem more one-on-one, interview style type affairs.

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.

Respect it.

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.

That sounds ratchet as shit.

Quote from: Opaopajr;805428The 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.

I feel like it's something about this too. I don't even think its their playstyle. I think these players just don't like conflict, point blank. And that's fair... when kept to themselves. It not necessarily a good thing when that attitude gets reflected in the gamebooks. It doesn't make sense in a hobby where roleplaying a character is the core.

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.

More than I would have thought, surprisingly. A lot these guys and girls are invested in their characters, or at least their value as a tool to be used outta pocket. Some of these fish need water, son.

If you've got something to teach, I'm all ears. Otherwise, cut the condescending granpappy crap with the smarm on the side.

Quote from: Omega;805444Hes a troll. He isnt going to learn because hes not here to learn.

I am. That's the entire point of this thread. Looking to see what's behind the sentiment, then discuss it and agree or disagree. Simple, really.

Quote from: Phillip;805453PvP 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.

I really get that whole referee angle. I think you've gotta be sharp, concise and assertive when it comes to judgement calls and keeping the peace. There can be no doubt who's in charge.

See, even some of the players I've had in the past outside of my club have shared that oft-quoted idea. I don't agree with it at all. In fact, I see it as a crutch, honestly. It's not hard to manage a table of 10 players splitting off into cliques of 2-3, with their own side missions and dialogues going on. It's something I've literally been praised for in reviews of my club. Management is a thing in this game, logistics as well.

Quote from: jibbajibba;805479RPGs 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.

Now there we go. That's reasonable expectations. Very much along the lines of my own posts in this thread.

Quote from: Larsdangly;805480PvP 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.

Right!

I don't particularly like PVP in my RPGs, although under the right circumstances I suppose it could be alright (if all parties involved were fine by it and having fun). I wouldn't use it to resolve player issues though -- if someone is a dick, I'd prefer to get rid of the player than the character.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805501Yo, I wasn't attacking you. Chill. What you're saying is fine but to me it's a little optimistic. Especially when you're telling Ravenswing how he's saying what he's saying "lacks nuance". Come on man.

Aggression seems to be your shtick. Which makes a lot of what you are saying sound like you are attacking someone. If you don't want to give that impression, a less confrontational and jargon laden approach would really help.

I'm aware that gaming with friends is different than gaming with chance met acquaintances. I've done both. Overall, I prefer gaming with people I know well. It allows a depth to the experience that isn't available in the club gaming scene. But the same methods for dealing with assholes work with people who are mere acquaintances. Tell them what behaviors are unacceptable. If they comply great. If not, tell 'em not to let the door hit them in the ass on their way out.

QuoteYour first mistake statement. Equivalence of the backstab reaction, i.e. kill them immediately without mercy, even if the motive/mindset behind it is different.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. No idea whatsoever.

QuoteNah, on a similar note to Natty, it's not always immediately apparent who the shitstick's gonna be, especially if they're "good" (we're ironing out the exact definition of that term here). They got poker faces, some of them.

In my experience, assholes are always fairly obvious and easy to detect. Apparently that ability is not universal since I am sometimes surprised when other people seem to take what seems eons to notice that shit.

What's easy logistically depends on priorities that may not be the same as yours or mine: The final verdict comes from players whose enjoyment of the game (or lack thereof) is what it is regardless of any theory of what it "ought to be."

Also, splitting the party was just one example of many potential difficulties.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805297There seems to be this general notion going around that PvP in RPGs is inherently bad, whether in and of itself or as specifically applied to rolling dice to headshot a muthafucker -- muthafucker being that degenerative-asshole-across-the-table-from-you's character.

I don't understand this.

I condone and even encourage this shit all the time in any and all games I host. Puts players on edge and makes em' think twice, ramps up intensity and emotional/economical buy-in value and autocorrects asshole/escapist behaviour at the table: this being my experience, of course. Run several different systems in my modest time as a GM and none of them seem to change how the above plays out -- death is a legit outcome in all cases. Much fun had by all every time which I'm very thankful for.

So what's the deal?

A civil war in the setting, turned into a civil war among the player characters. It was the damnest thing too.

This particular incident started when the PCs returned to the City-State of the Invincible Overlord from a dungeon adventure. While they were shopping and spending their gold, they heard the bells ringing at the Cathedral that signaled an important the announcement.

The PCs joined the crowd, and out comes the priest, who announced the high priest was dead. He was elderly so this was expected at some point. What was unexpected was that immediately afterward the priest announced that the Invincible Overlord was a enemy of the church. That all the faithful to rise and overthrow him. That they should support the nobles who also risen up against the Overlord.

Then immediately people started fighting each other in the cathedral square. The city guard allied with the temple guard and then started fighting the Overlord's troops. Then bells starting ringing a call to arms from a rival temple.

The PCs initial reaction was of stunned confusion. When they saw people being hacked down, they rushed in and started to separate the combatants and calm things down. And they were making some headway. Until one of the Rogue PCs who was nominally a Overlord loyalist, politics wasn't big with this group, went after the priests instigating the riots.

This drew the attention of the paladin of the party and the cleric who were followers of the same deity as the temple. The Rogue wouldn't back off and attack the Paladin standing between him and the priest. Granted the Rogue wasn't attacking to kill but to get the Paladin out of the way. But the Paladin PC finally had it and the two started to hack into each other.

Meanwhile the Priest PCs was trying to rally temple guards and city guards and get them to retreat to the temple.  But finally lost it after a group of opportunists (NPCs) fighting with the Overlord's forces got in the way of the retreat. After this he was full out fighting on the temple's side.

Which brought him into conflict another PC who was a Knight of the Overlord. The knight decided to run his group down and the two of them went at it.

Of the remaining two PCs, a dwarven wizard and a human female Rogue. The Dwarven Wizards popped an Invisibility Ring and hunkered down. The Female Rogue rode a Broom of Flying doing nothing but healing party members with potions and magic items if they went down regardless of which side they were fighting on. She also stopped a rape, and several assaults in nearby alleys.

What caused all this is a result of one of the ways I run my campaigns. I have a timeline of events that I keep updating in light of what the PCs do and not do. One of the things that been going on is a civil war involving the Invincible Overlord. The war is in its early stage and until confined to the periphery territories of the Overlord.

In any campaign what I primarily focus on depends on the interests of the players. But whatever they are doing it part of the larger world of my Majestic Wilderlands. Throughout the campaign they avoided politics. Which is fine. Instead they focused on scrounging up rumors, lore and finding all the ruins and dungeons in the area of City-State.  Including megadungeons like Tegal Manor and the Majestic Wilderlands.

Along the way, they had some effect, and made some contacts, but nothing that would alter the fact that on this particular day in the campaign, the High Priest would die, that his underling, now in control, would throw in their support in with those rebelling against the Overlord to try to take control of City-State.

Now the party is split and one group of PC attacked the other. I am prepared to run separate session if need be. But I suspect they will find a way to get back together. A lot of their dungeon exploration is outside of City-State territory and there are things that the group is dealing with that are actually more important in their mind than the fact that City-State has gone up in flames. I am sure they will surprise me next session.

Quote from: Ravenswing;805331I despise PvP.  I always have.  It's the most unforgivable sin at my table, and any act of backstabbing greenlights the rest of the party to kill your character, no questions asked, with the explicit warning that a second offense means ejection from the campaign.  Period.

A rigid attitude like that brings with its own problems.

Personally what I find works better is enlightened self interest among the players as their characters combined with a setting that has a life of its own.

Players that are "backstabbers" in most negative sense bring with them a bunch of other problems both in-game and out of game. While dealing with out of game issues is its own special brand of fun. It take longer because it usually complicated by social dynamics.

But luckily for me as the referee, poor out of game behavior is often attended by poor in-game behavior. And because I run my various setting as places with a life of it own that means the characters of these players often run afoul of the in-game law or social network. And frankly they are often idiots in-game as they are out of game.

As a result, I wind up killing or incapacitating their character by the rules with total fairness. The most creative punishment in my campaign, thanks to a co-DM, was turning an elven character into a donkey sentenced to offer rides  for a hundred years. He was turned into animal because he treated others like an animal. The final incident was the fireballing, multiple times, of a village to fuck with another PC. Mind there were several less dramatic incident where the character was warned of his behavior by his fellow elves.

Needless to say, the next character was considerably more sedate.

I despise rules like no PVP because it is a metagame mechanic that breaks the game. More importantly doesn't work, because it doesn't address the asshole who is a social manipulator and other various types of group dynamics. A PC should have think twice about his actions in light of the fact he can get ganked.

I will say in most cases this is an non-issue for a typical tabletop campaign as they are about a small group who know each other. It is only in LARPS and Organized Play I have seen this be an issue. Situations where in essence strangers get together.

You guys all need to play more Amber....

Some people do quite loathe treachery in games: One game of Diplomacy is for them too many, though they may  be fine with openly cutthroat competition.

Others resent collusion in multi-player games, and even have a hard time keeping their cool when foiled in a "Euro-game" situation in which a player was not even aware of that negative consequence of positively furthering his own progress.

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

Are you fucking kidding me?

I eat GMs like that for breakfast. I'm fucking serious, that pisses me off

That sounds like a weak GM at the head of that game, total honesty.

You didn't say that though, hah hah.

I'm not 50yrs old, though. What kind of supposition is that? Hah hah! Who says that, really...

Fucking A! Now there we go.

Nah, you sound 15.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805501More than I would have thought, surprisingly. A lot these guys and girls are invested in their characters, or at least their value as a tool to be used outta pocket. Some of these fish need water, son.

If you've got something to teach, I'm all ears. Otherwise, cut the condescending granpappy crap with the smarm on the side.

All ears, and it looks like it's starting break through to you. You're coming to realize that your world / local ecology might not hold all the fish in the sea. Depending on how sefl-aware you are you may embrace this, or you might defensively tell yourself you knew that all along.

Either way, condescension can be quite the proper attitude and tool in order to work out the hierarchy so we can further educate you as needed.  One day when you grow out of the teen poseur nwod stuff you might be prepared for something a bit more satisfying.  I hope the process treats you well, and that your ub3r l337 supernatural strike commando anti-asshole assassins follow in your footstips and develop a mature sense of how all this does work in the real world.

Prost!

Quote from: jibbajibba;805479RPGs 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 in the environment and these people have their own goals, aims and foibles. Some times the objectives of all 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 there will be tension. It's no different to any group, shit it's no different to the players sitting round the table playing the game. A group of individuals who share a common goal.

I don't agree with this.

Quote from: jibbajibba;805479So 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 ...

It's too easy to get away with PCicide.

Quote from: jibbajibba;805479So a degree of maturity around roleplaying is expected and maturity implies subtlety and complexity which implies a greyer morality.

That subtlety and complexity is too hard to replicate playing make believe with dice.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;805518All ears, and it looks like it's starting break through to you. You're coming to realize that your world / local ecology might not hold all the fish in the sea. Depending on how sefl-aware you are you may embrace this, or you might defensively tell yourself you knew that all along.

Either way, condescension can be quite the proper attitude and tool in order to work out the hierarchy so we can further educate you as needed.  One day when you grow out of the teen poseur nwod stuff you might be prepared for something a bit more satisfying.  I hope the process treats you well, and that your ub3r l337 supernatural strike commando anti-asshole assassins follow in your footstips and develop a mature sense of how all this does work in the real world.

Prost!

You really think it will?  

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805396That's why it's one of my biggest gaming pleasures to fuck with those who get off on fucking others.

Quote from: Bren;805348You jumped from PvP conflict immediately to backstabbing without any intermediate steps at all. It seems like a number of people who have rules against any PCvsPC conflict seem to equate all conflict with backstabbing. That doesn't correspond to my experience and it lacks nuance, but at least you make your preferences really clear.

I may be misunderstanding what you are saying due to the very strong aversion you have, but are characters allowed to disagree in game and if so how are the characters supposed to resolve their disagreements?

My overwhelming experience with PvP, both in gaming circles with which I've been familiar and the comments of others, is that for every upfront face-to-face PC vs PC duel, there are fifty backstabs or other acts of theft or treachery.  The notion, as many a defender of the practice has stated to me, that this is just healthy conflict, is bullshit.  Most practitioners aren't after "healthy conflict," they're after the sure thing.

Disagreements, that's another matter.  Groups take the consensus, and they go on from there.  That's an entirely different situation from "My thief steals his Amulet of Uberness when he's sleeping," and I think everyone here knows that.

Caveat: this is, of course, a social compact thing.  Someone playing in a Vampire LARP, where PvP is an expected part of the landscape, oughtn't whine when he gets the short end of the stick, and if he can't hack PvP, he has no business playing Vampire.  (Which since I can't, I don't.)

And folks?  How about we don't get hung up any more on the term "backstabbing" than we're being asshole pedants who smarmily say "But it can't REALLY be 'PvP' unless the players themselves are having fistfights!"

Quote from: estar;805513A rigid attitude like that brings with its own problems ... I despise rules like no PVP because it is a metagame mechanic that breaks the game. More importantly doesn't work, because it doesn't address the asshole who is a social manipulator and other various types of group dynamics. A PC should have think twice about his actions in light of the fact he can get ganked.

It most certainly does work, and has worked for over 35 years.  I don't think it's any more out of line to explain that up front than any other behavior that shouldn't take place at my table, and in fact it's my responsibility to do so: it's desperately unfair for a new player to join my campaign and not be informed what is and isn't expected.

Does it address your social manipulator?  No, it doesn't, and neither does any other hard-and-fast rule, nor does anyone expect it to do so, any more than we expect the "You have to roll the dice where at least one other player or the GM can see the result," "Don't spit in the snacks" or "Show up on time or call to explain why you can't" rules don't deal with that either.

And how does a rule like that "break the game?"  It does nothing of the sort: it's one of a number of guidelines that restrict the kind of character you're allowed to play, that's all.  If I've decided that the kind of campaign I'm doing is that everyone's playing a wizard -- this being, as to that, what my current party wanted to do -- then you can't play a gutter rat, and you can't play someone who doesn't speak the language, and you can't play a Nazi stormtrooper, and you can't play a Wookie.  Those are all of a piece with "... and you can't backstab your fellow PCs."

The game is somewhat straitened if player-characters can never be rivals in anything, from romance to promotion. I personally prefer a group of players who can engage in competition in a game without animosity in real life, and that was obviously desirable in the wargame hobby of which rpgs were a part in the early days. If I'm playing the Russians, then the player invading with French or Germans had better be doing his best to confound me or it won't be much of a game!