Don’t forget we moved!
https://brandmu.day/
IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance
-
@kalakh This.
Honestly, I think the thing PvP needs above all else is clarity, transparency, and systems. Hope for good actors, expect bad actors, but plan for the majority of people in the middle who can be good as long as they feel secure and like they understand their options and risks.
Don’t rely on IC ‘consequences’ to stop bad actors. Because what you see as IC consequences meant to discourage behavior, a griefing player sees as attention focused on me me me me me. The toxic PvP player LOVES to play the ‘villain’ and LOVES to experience (certain forms) of consequences because it means everyone else has to stop what they’re doing and Deal With This Guy. You can practically feel them on the other end of the screen, wanking furiously while everyone else’s fun grinds to a halt so that ‘IC consequences’ by means of imprisonment, trial, or punishment can take place - and they’ll drag it out as long as they can, because that’s longer focus and more spotlight. It won’t ever stop the IC behavior, because that player got exactly what they wanted from it: attention.
If you don’t want characters killing each other or only want it within specific bounds, then just state it clearly and make it clear that anyone breaking those bounds will be removed from the game without fuss or fanfare. Create transparent systems, do your best to make sure players understand the systems and outcomes, and ruthlessly cull bad actors the first time they step out of line.
-
@Pyrephox Yup. a Social Contract type framework is probably even more important for PvP than it is for more traditional STed roleplay. https://shatteredmu.com/wiki/ooc:policies
-
@Polk said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
The way I think of it is, some people just want to hole up and tell their own story arcs. They don’t want to mess with you and they don’t want you messing with them.
But there are also players (fewer, but they exist in substantial numbers) who feel empty if they can’t “influence the grid” in some way. They want consequences to exist.
I feel like you’re describing one extreme and then somewhere in the middle of a spectrum and trying to set them up as diametrically opposed when I’m not sure that they are. It feels to me like the majority of players want to have significant control over their own character’s story arc, but still influence the game world as a whole.
Or maybe that’s just me and I’m projecting. I certainly don’t see the latter group as being PvP-advocates (they certainly could be, but they don’t have to be). I also don’t know why a MUSH would particularly want players who are just going to hole up in their rooms and tell their own stories, except for the illusion of activity. But if you step off the extreme on that point of the spectrum and get to the players who mostly want to tell their own stories within a greater world – I think that those players work very well with the players who want to influence the grid, and I don’t think there’s much threading of the needle to be done.
@Alveraxus said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
Let’s say the player of Helen wants to have a fun little plot where she gets kidnapped by the character of Paris.
I don’t think that theoretical Helen-player is the hide-in-their-room type, and has to know that running off with the wife of a proud king is going to have major impact on the grid.
@Alveraxus said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
Actual violent acts between characters should be few and far between because there will be law (strict law) that governs things.
In my experience, PvP-eager players tend to be very bad at determining the “right” level of response to a threat. I know that I’m generalizing very broadly, but from what I’ve seen, even in social situations, the tendency seems to be to go from 0 to 100 immediately, because if you don’t go scorched earth, they’ll just come back and attack you. Never mind that a back-and-forth antagonism makes for great RP as long as both players are onboard for winning some and losing some.
I would suggest being very, very explicit in what is allowed/encouraged and what is not, and perhaps even putting in very clear bumpers like “This society is highly-policed and security-conscious, if your character attacks or murders someone, they will be caught and removed from the grid as they are held for trial, put on trial, and sentenced to imprisonment.” That’s probably too strong, not knowing the theme you’re looking at, but it would probably be good to have something in policy that makes it very clear that you’re looking for social violence, not physical violence, and that those going over the top into physical violence will not be tolerated. – Oh look, @Pyrephox got there before me!
-
@Roadspike said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
In my experience, PvP-eager players tend to be very bad at determining the “right” level of response to a threat. I know that I’m generalizing very broadly, but from what I’ve seen, even in social situations, the tendency seems to be to go from 0 to 100 immediately, because if you don’t go scorched earth, they’ll just come back and attack you. Never mind that a back-and-forth antagonism makes for great RP as long as both players are onboard for winning some and losing some.
Once Upon a Time, back on WORA, I remember having some very baffling conversations with people about PvP. Strong voices in the WOD community were completely unapologetic about the fact that they would escalate to PK as soon as possible, whenever possible. In their words, it was “stupid” to accept any outcome other than the destruction of your IC enemies, because the assumption was that if they didn’t, their enemies would. The whole point was to use as much violence, preferably in as stacked a conflict as possible (even better if you could kill by +job), because there was no fun in conflict, there was only ‘removing this obstacle to my fun’.
It’s a completely different mindset from anything I’d ever been interested in, but it explained a lot about the situations I was running into with WoD games of the time.
-
One of the greatest relationships I ever played was enemies to grudging allies to friends and my only regret is that both characters were our secondary “alts” so we didn’t get as much screentime (so to speak) as we could have. I paid for art of them at one point which was clearly @Tez’s character about to stab mine with a broken bottle. (sorry this is clearly me doing the tangent about myself thing, hello adhd - but here’s the art: https://64.media.tumblr.com/3d2d241f9b0da3c151dd6feca676288c/tumblr_nbcjhfqI2r1rj81qdo1_1280.jpg)
I prefer PvP that is character versus character, not player versus player. I don’t want to be combative with other players. It is not my jam.
-
@sao said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
I prefer PvP that is character versus character, not player versus player. I don’t want to be combative with other players. It is not my jam.
I remember a push a while back for PvP to be renamed to CvC to emphasize exactly this point. I think it’s a great point that needs to be made and feeds into @Pyrephox’s point above: if you’re actually playing player-versus-player you might as well be playing Team Fortress Classic, because the only acceptable move is to obliterate the other person as soon as you can, so they don’t do it to you.
If you’re playing character-versus-character, there’s room for infinite intermediate steps that can build a relationship between the characters, even if it’s one based on hatred and mistrust. It leads to ongoing stories, not an orgy (or a whimper for said job-based kills) of destruction that then ends the storyline of at least one character.
Formerly known as Seraphim73 (he/him)
-
@Pyrephox said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
it was “stupid” to accept any outcome other than the destruction of your IC enemies, because the assumption was that if they didn’t, their enemies would
If you’re a thief, you’re worried about being robbed. If you’re infidelious, you’re worried you’re going to get cheated on. If you’re a murder hobo, you’re worried about being ganked at spawn.
-
@Roadspike said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
I remember a push a while back for PvP to be renamed to CvC to emphasize exactly this point. I think it’s a great point that needs to be made and feeds into @Pyrephox’s point above: if you’re actually playing player-versus-player you might as well be playing Team Fortress Classic, because the only acceptable move is to obliterate the other person as soon as you can, so they don’t do it to you.
I get where you’re coming from, but I think most people ARE playing player-vs-player. It’s just baked into gaming at this point. It’s like a battle of wits where someone “wins” and someone “loses”.
When you’re just talking about organic story antagonism, I think that leads to a more cooperative sort of environment where you’re not really doing either PvP or CvC–you’re just telling stories and sometimes characters are acting cross-purposes with each other.
-
@Solstice said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
Mostly, PvP punishes you for giving a shit.
Hahah. Yeah.
Hell, a lot of dealings regarding ‘OOC Acceptance’ do too. There’s a tendancy to vilify player investment as not chill and reward indifferent players as chill.
Over-investment is certainly a thing, but there’s also some cases where it seems like that the meta-game of the MU is to get what you want by making yourself look like the more easy-going and thus ‘better’ player in any conflict.
Abelard: “Uh, hey Awesome, Bridget RPed setting fire to my PC’s lawn. At that IC time he would have been at home staring out the front window with an uzi in his lap, like he does every night, but at the OOC time I was at work. So this is kind of a problem.”
AwesomeStaffer: “All right, how do you guys want to resolve this?”
Bridget: “Oh, I’m fine with anything. Whatever you like.”
Abelard: “Cool, how about option A?”
Bridget: “That would damage my character’s shoes, and isn’t acceptable to me.”
AwesomeStaffer: “What would work?”
Bridget: “How about I set fire to Abelard’s lawn and he just sat there? But you know, I’m good with anything.”
Abelard: “Abelard’s lawn is supremely important to him and he just would not behave that way. How about option B?”
Bridget: “That would delete all our scenes of planning to burn Abelard’s lawn, so, no.”
AwesomeStaffer: “You can’t have option A or B. Abelard, what do you want to do?”
Abelard: “… I don’t know.”
AwesomeStaffer: “You’re being a pain.”
'You ride the mechanical bull, you do not fight it.'
-
@Gashlycrumb God yes, some games are DEEP into the meta-game of making themselves seem reasonable to gamerunners as a way to win PvP scenarios. Putting on a super chill act during conflict is early stage manipul-itis - then players start designing their moves in anticipation of future staff arbitration. At that point the experience is basically dead and it’s time to get out.
-
@Gashlycrumb said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
Bridget: “How about I set fire to Abelard’s lawn and he just sat there? But you know, I’m good with anything.”
I feel this in my bones. I SEE YOU, BRIDGET.
-
@Gashlycrumb said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
@Solstice said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
Mostly, PvP punishes you for giving a shit.
Hahah. Yeah.
Hell, a lot of dealings regarding ‘OOC Acceptance’ do too. There’s a tendancy to vilify player investment as not chill and reward indifferent players as chill.
Over-investment is certainly a thing, but there’s also some cases where it seems like that the meta-game of the MU is to get what you want by making yourself look like the more easy-going and thus ‘better’ player in any conflict.
Abelard: “Uh, hey Awesome, Bridget RPed setting fire to my PC’s lawn. At that IC time he would have been at home staring out the front window with an uzi in his lap, like he does every night, but at the OOC time I was at work. So this is kind of a problem.”
AwesomeStaffer: “All right, how do you guys want to resolve this?”
Bridget: “Oh, I’m fine with anything. Whatever you like.”
Abelard: “Cool, how about option A?”
Bridget: “That would damage my character’s shoes, and isn’t acceptable to me.”
AwesomeStaffer: “What would work?”
Bridget: “How about I set fire to Abelard’s lawn and he just sat there? But you know, I’m good with anything.”
Abelard: “Abelard’s lawn is supremely important to him and he just would not behave that way. How about option B?”
Bridget: “That would delete all our scenes of planning to burn Abelard’s lawn, so, no.”
AwesomeStaffer: “You can’t have option A or B. Abelard, what do you want to do?”
Abelard: “… I don’t know.”
AwesomeStaffer: “You’re being a pain.”
This sort of thing is precisely why ‘simulationism’ is a dirty word with me. This veers toward the very worst of the RPI MUD experience, which is some of the most toxic stuff in the entire hobby.
-
@Gashlycrumb said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
AwesomeStaffer: “You’re being a pain.”
I mean… both players are kind of being a pain in that scenario so I’m not sure who I’m supposed to be rooting for here.
Abelard is refusing to compromise because it would damage something important to their character. Bridget is refusing to compromise because it would mean they failed at their goal.
That’s because they’re both viewing it from a PVP perspective. Someone wins and someone loses.
If either would come at it from a STORY perspective, they might realize all the possibilities that could come from it ICly.
Abelard could agree it happened. He has angst from the loss of his prized lawn, blaming himself for breaking his routine of nightly uzi-guarding or falling asleep on the job or getting up to go to the bathroom or whatever. Now he has to figure out who’s responsible and make them pay! And/or rebuild.
Bridget could agree she failed and figure out how Bridget would deal with that. Maybe she and her co-conspirators try again. Maybe there are some other consequences. Maybe she’s doubly mad at Abelard now because her shoes were damaged and she has to figure out how to repair/replace them.
But no. Every flipping thing has to be all or nothing. And that’s why I do everything in my power to avoid PVP setups on my games.
-
@Faraday eh i don’t think that’s fair. at least not for the scenario as described.
it’s probably not reasonable to expect someone to happily incorporate a hostile action that happened when they weren’t even online. You can’t rp with someone while they are not around. If I log in and find out pyrephox has set my prized lawn on fire while i was sleeping? I can roll with that and be delighted, I know how pyre does conflict. I trust pyre! I like pyre!
If I log on and someone I don’t much like has done that? Doesn’t feel like fun that includes me. Bridget needs to get in her fkin lane and consider for two seconds if her IC actions are going to be at all enjoyable for anyone else to interact with.
fr fr
(she/her) -
@Faraday That is one of the biggest hurdles of a PvP game. Even if you try to rebrand it as a CvC game, it requires a very mature player mindset for everyone involved. It’s really hard for everyone to do something for the greater good of the story, especially when everyone’s vision of the story is different. Even if the staff lays out a clear direction or goal, everyone’s path in that direction or to that goal can differ, which will impact how much they are willing to give to have their vision of the story reshaped.
Another level of difficulty is that the longer the characters last, the richer the character’s story becomes as it continues to build over time. That also means it is much harder to give up on a character or “lose”. It may happen where in a scene, two characters with very lengthy experiences and rich stories clash, and whichever side loses or has to give way, can impact what they have built up rather negatively moving forward. Then a “loser” will result and can even leave a bad experience for them, which sucks for not only that person but also for characters whose stories are heavily involved with that character who lost.
So PvP games may work best on games with short episodes, where characters are “wiped” or killed off in each episode, without consequences that are long lasting. If you lose or die, it’s fine because in a month or two, the slate is wiped clean and a new story is created.
-
@hellfrog makes a note to set all the lawns on fire
-
@Pyrephox one time in firan i set a piece of furniture on fire on someone’s lawn and got GAME FROZEN as Leia and The Council decided whether or not to yank my character away from me because that was really immature and crazy behavior!
My character with like Sanity/Maturity 1. That Leia wrote and statted.
-
@hellfrog said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
If I log in and find out pyrephox has set my prized lawn on fire while i was sleeping? I can roll with that and be delighted, I know how pyre does conflict. I trust pyre! I like pyre!
If I log on and someone I don’t much like has done that?In a PVP game, I don’t think your like of the other player should factor into what consequences are acceptable to inflict.
I agree that it would be preferable to resolve things with RP, but that isn’t always possible due to conflicting timezones/schedules/etc.
ETA: Of course a game can enact whatever policies they deem fit re: off-camera consequences, from “none at all” to “anything short of death” to “you may die from the plague while offline”. I was assuming no specific rule existed in the example given.
-
@Faraday said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
In a PVP game, I don’t think your like of the other player should factor into what consequences are acceptable to inflict.
I mean, this is certainly a cogent argument, but I do not think it is based in reality. ‘Should’ is not really the metric when it comes to human emotion and human emotional reactions - which are very nearly universal, in spite of some folks’ claims to be logic robots.
fr fr
(she/her) -
@hellfrog said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:
‘Should’ is not really the metric when it comes to human emotion and human emotional reactions
Quite true, but to be clear I was referring to “should” in terms of what we are willing to accept in terms of PVP policy. People can feel what they feel, but that doesn’t mean staff has to accommodate that.
