Non-toxic PvP
-
One system I’ve been thinking about which I’d like some feedback on:
Would you play a game where:
- Ordinarily, character death requires consent. Your character can get into serious fights and someone can even try to assassinate them in theory, but the setting’s magic prevents them from falling into the red without prior staff discussion/approval from both parties.
- Players can permanently toggle a setting that makes their characters killable when they roll in; the flag is publicly visible and is intended as an “I’m up for anything do your worst” signal. In exchange they enjoy slightly accelerated XP gains (think in the realm of 10%), but obviously it means staff won’t rescue them from open PK unless there’s a very obvious/overt sign of OOC-motivated abuse.
I’m mainly interested in how people who wouldn’t turn it on would feel about this sort of system. Would it make you feel like a kind of second-class citizen that some people are getting more XP by being more willing to risk their characters? Would you feel pressured to turn it on even if the idea of open PK makes you uncomfortable? Do you think it would create a toxic subculture within the game’s wider community?
-
@Faraday said in Non-toxic PvP:
I think that the more immersed you are with your character, the more likely there is to be bleed and OOC competitiveness.
This is very true. It’s a difficult balance for both players and staff to feel immersed while managing bleed and OOC competitiveness.
For me, I think bleed is just going to happen, it’s how we as players and staff work together to deal with it in a healthy fashion that’s important.
-
I know it doesn’t apply for a MU, but one LARP I was in had a particularly fun way to deal with bleed. Ice cream socials. After every session of the LARP, we would all gather in the main room we were using for the LARP and break out ice creams of various flavors and an assortment of toppings. We would sit around eating ice cream and discussing stuff that gave us bleed, making sure to point out positive instances and negative. Usually everybody would go home feeling good about it, and over the year of the LARP’s storyline, OOC drama only sparked up twice, and in both cases because of external events to the LARP.
Proud Member of the Pro-Mummy Alliance
-
@Kestrel said in Non-toxic PvP:
One system I’ve been thinking about which I’d like some feedback on:
Would you play a game where:
- Ordinarily, character death requires consent. Your character can get into serious fights and someone can even try to assassinate them in theory, but the setting’s magic prevents them from falling into the red without prior staff discussion/approval from both parties.
- Players can permanently toggle a setting that makes their characters killable when they roll in; the flag is publicly visible and is intended as an “I’m up for anything do your worst” signal. In exchange they enjoy slightly accelerated XP gains (think in the realm of 10%), but obviously it means staff won’t rescue them from open PK unless there’s a very obvious/overt sign of OOC-motivated abuse.
I’m mainly interested in how people who wouldn’t turn it on would feel about this sort of system. Would it make you feel like a kind of second-class citizen that some people are getting more XP by being more willing to risk their characters? Would you feel pressured to turn it on even if the idea of open PK makes you uncomfortable? Do you think it would create a toxic subculture within the game’s wider community?
I wouldn’t turn it on. I’m the kind of player who is up for basically anything except death. I’d definitely be interested in some kind of flag to encourage people to enjoy some conflict with me, but the story abruptly ending because ganked ain’t it.
On staff side I immediately foresee people turning it on for XP gains, insisting they are cool with it, but then being so unpleasant when targeted that everyone steers clear and they essentially get that +10% xp for free.
-
@Juniper This was exactly what I anticipated.
I also think that some people might turn it on thinking they are okay with conflict & want to present as ready for anything but then shit gets real and they are not as together as they think.
-
I would turn it on and immediately request to staff that I not be given the bonus XP for doing so. I have no interest in incentives of that kind and also have no problem with my PCs dying or being permanently maimed or whatever as long as it makes good story and the Staff and other Players are all dedicated to making whatever happens the best story possible.
-
@MisterBoring said in Non-toxic PvP:
After every session of the LARP, we would all gather in the main room we were using for the LARP and break out ice creams of various flavors and an assortment of toppings. We would sit around eating ice cream and discussing stuff that gave us bleed, making sure to point out positive instances and negative.
I think that’s great, but also an example of what I mean about systems not being scalable. Ice cream socials, debriefs, etc. work great for managing bleed with small groups of friends and/or modestly sized LARP groups. I think it would be virtually impossible to do that for a mid-sized MU with players scattered across a dozen different schedules and timezones.
-
@Kestrel said in Non-toxic PvP:
- Ordinarily, character death requires consent. Your character can get into serious fights and someone can even try to assassinate them in theory, but the setting’s magic prevents them from falling into the red without prior staff discussion/approval from both parties.
I think this should be the standard. Non-consensual character death is the least fun and most toxic outcome.
- Players can permanently toggle a setting that makes their characters killable when they roll in; the flag is publicly visible and is intended as an “I’m up for anything do your worst” signal. In exchange they enjoy slightly accelerated XP gains (think in the realm of 10%), but obviously it means staff won’t rescue them from open PK unless there’s a very obvious/overt sign of OOC-motivated abuse.
I think that’s a setting I’d only be comfortable turning on some months in to my character when I feel like I’ve played out their story completely. I also think it should only be allowable by other characters who have also turned the flag on, for fairness. Turning it on during character creation sounds like a recipe for toxic players to be predators.
Early on in Silent Heaven’s development, I played with the concept of allowing only specific characters to kill your character. Ultimately, I scrapped it and decided that character death can only happen in dangerous zones that are only accessible through Storyteller involvement.
Game-runner of Silent Heaven, a small-town horror MU.
https://silentheaven.org -
@Faraday said in Non-toxic PvP:
I think that’s great, but also an example of what I mean about systems not being scalable. Ice cream socials, debriefs, etc. work great for managing bleed with small groups of friends and/or modestly sized LARP groups.
We did it with 55 players at our largest session. A few of the players would stop playing early to set up the ice cream buffet and we made sure to let everybody have a voice during the debrief. I could see it definitely being an issue in larger games though I would also compartmentalize the debriefs into smaller subgroups in that situation.
-
@Jumpscare said in Non-toxic PvP:
Non-consensual character death is the least fun and most toxic outcome.
I think this differs player by player. There’s a small subsection of players that are fully okay with non-consensual character death because they (myself included) chose to allow that as a potential for their PC’s plot line. Death requiring consent should be the standard, but with the ability to opt out if one chooses.
