Quote from: estar;805609Tabletop 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.

And 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.'

Quote from: Old Geezer;805601Second, 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.

Throughout 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.

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.

I'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.

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.'

It 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.

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

The correct phrasing is,

"Show us on the doll where storytelling games touched you in a bad way."

To which the reply is,

* points to RPGsite *

.....did I just compare RPGsite to my junk?

Quote from: Old Geezer;805619The 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.

Like I said earlier I live in a rural area so more often than not I have to deal with trying to mesh players with different styles in the same campaigns. The best way to deal with it I found is to focus on create interesting experiences.

I read a book in the 80s about an Mount Everest expedition and it talked about how the party didn't get along yet they managed to get to the summit. Of course afterwards they wouldn't have anything to do with each other.

So I figure I can get the group to agree on a goal and make achieving it interesting then the players will figure out how to paper over their differences while achieving it. This is one reason I focus on sandbox campaigns.

It not perfect but gets the job more often than not. And does it without a long list of out of game table rules.

Quote from: Old Geezer;805621
.....did I just compare RPGsite to my junk?

The big purple... well!

Estar:
I find it nice to put up clear flares of 'if you are contemplating crossing this line, something's dun fucked up.'

This is the result of a lot of experience, not just some armchair theorizing.

I fully accept other people have fun doing other stuff, if that wasn't clear.

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.

No.
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.

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 Gen on and the game ended with one PC bound and gagged being tortured by the other PC's because of his part in a coup. I felt it was a particularly  successful game and the players were embarrassingly glowing with praise about it.
Th 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 rates they are free agents and that means they are entirely allowed to plot scheme and kill each other.

Emphasis 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.

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.

Quote from: estar;805620It negative, what you been describing is a bunch of prohibitions. Don't PvP, etc, etc.

I 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.

The biggest problem in this thread is the original

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805297autocorrects asshole... behaviour

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.

Quote from: Will;805625The big purple... well!

No, TBP is Aqualung in this metaphor, not the place being touched.

In 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?

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.

But 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

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?

Idealism
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