Non-toxic PvP
-
Can you please clarify this and maybe give it an example? It doesn’t seem inherently toxic to either play a non-combat character in a conflict org or to refuse to give Mr. Big Fighty their ego ups in beating on a weaker character. I can actually think of several ways this would be intriguing.
In good non-toxic PvP environments, the game is designed with a lot of built in conflict invitation flags so players can signal to other players what they want. The health of the environment absolutely depends on players using these flags accurately.
Someone who joins a high-conflict faction is signalling that they want to participate in that conflict and should not do that if they can’t OOCly handle it. Pacifists don’t just sit out, they tend to belittle everyone participating and take a revisionist approach to the faction’s raison d’être. Just hope they weren’t given a high value macguffin to protect, they might just hand it over because fighting is wrong.
If your game has an area called Murder Alley and it’s well known that going there signals that you are interested in being mugged… sometimes pacifists will wander up and down and snap OOCly at anyone who steps in front of them, and eventually it stops being a reliable signal to find RP.
It’s absolutely infuriating for everybody trying to participate in the game’s design as intended. It would be SO easy for the pacifist to join the kittens and hugs faction and avoid Murder Alley.
Not to mention that standing there condemning violence while someone punches you in the face is something only video game characters can do. Please… don’t.
-
@Juniper I dunno, that sounds like wrongfunning someone for playing the game differently. Pacifists literally do exist, and a pacifist trapped in a high-conflict faction could be an interesting character concept if done well.
Of course there should be IC consequences. Beyond the immediate butt-kicking, maybe they get in trouble, get kicked out of the faction, etc. But if there’s a reason for it, who cares? It’s still a story. I can’t see how the opposing character is harmed just because the scene didn’t go the way they wanted.
Now there’s certainly a line where what you describe can become trolling. If they are violating established rules on the game (like if it says you MUST fight) or if staff have told them they can’t play a pacifist - that’s different. But a blanket prohibition against pacifist chars seems weird to me.
-
I don’t know the situation @Jumpscare was alluding to, but I immediately assumed — along, I think, with @Juniper — that the issue being described was actually a player who wrongfuns other people for engaging in the established conflict theme, rather than the other way around.
I’ve dealt with this type of player and it’s incredibly frustrating to have someone treat you like you’re a bad mean person OOCly for, say, trying to rob people while being a member of the Thieves’ Guild, lurking in a shifty alley no one is forced to go to. Especially when you’re being compared to other members of the Thieves’ Guild who don’t steal because stealing is wrong, and they just joined to vibe with their friends, but now everyone is treating them like established representatives of the Thieves’ Guild and saying no one is forcing you to be the kind who steals, that’s just you being a jerk. Expecting people to uphold the theme they signed up for isn’t wrongfun, IMO.
I thought @Jumpscare’s suggestions were pretty useful and I ended up making some notes: have clear expectations for how factions engage, and I think I might even write up an OOC newbie guide on “which faction should you join” that spells stuff out like, if you don’t like combat then Engineers or Cooks’ Guild is a good fit, and if you aren’t comfortable with high risk then don’t join the Militia.
-
@Kestrel said in Non-toxic PvP:
Expecting people to uphold the theme they signed up for isn’t wrongfun, IMO.
To a point, I agree, but defining that line can be tricky. Like I agree that wrongfunning the cutthroat thief is wrong, but so is wrongfunning the thief who just got pressured into it by their friends and is actually conflicted about it. BOTH are playing within the theme, they’re just playing differently.
If staff doesn’t want a conflicted thief because it isn’t in line with their vision of the theme, they shouldn’t approve that character in the first place. Similarly if they’re worried about the hard edge of the Thieves Guild being diluted by too many “exceptions”, they can control that too.
-
Yeah if the intended message was “people who OOCly wrongfun players for following the literal theme and are a tax on staff with their complaints about how the murder guild murders people and won’t reform” that makes way more sense.
But if you’re a mousey accountant for the murder guild and all you do is launder money and you don’t want to be murdering people but the cops come and don’t have enough fun shooting you in the face because you just lay down and die, I don’t see a problem.
-
@Faraday said in Non-toxic PvP:
Pacifists literally do exist, and a pacifist trapped in a high-conflict faction could be an interesting character concept if done well.
There’s a difference between being an IC pacifist and being an OOC pacifist that prefers everyone be pacifist, which I think is the version @Juniper was commenting about.
-
For clarification, here’s a re-enactment of the Problematic Pacifist. Assume that the Problematic Pacifist has much higher stats than the MacGuffin Holder, making it so the MacGuffin Holder can’t get around the Problematic Pacifist without engaging in combat.
MacGuffin Holder: It’s time for me to bring the MacGuffin to the danger pit.
Problematic Pacifist: That’s a bad idea. You should take it to the safety pit where my faction wants it to be.
MH: I’ve been vocal about my plans to do this for the past week.
PP: And my protests have gone ignored.
MH: If you have a problem with it, meet me at the danger pit and try to take it from me.
PP: I’ll meet you there, but I won’t fight you.
MH: I’m not giving it up without a fight.
PP: Too late, I’m already here and standing in your way.
MH: Move.
PP: No.
MH: sighs, attacks
PP: Now you can all see how much of a bloodthirsty villain MH is!
MH: (Having to fight a rival who isn’t fighting back just so you can use it against my character isn’t fun.)
PP: (I’m sorry but I’m just playing my character.)
MH: keeps going just to get this plot point resolved
PP: gets KOed, recovers later
MH: The deed is done. The MacGuffin has exploded.
PP: Sure, you feel proud now, but how many innocent people who weren’t fighting back did you enjoy stabbing at the danger pit?
MH: goes to Storytellers to get this behavior to stop
In this way, the Problematic Pacifist is able to weaponize their pacifism against their rivals and generally bring the mood of the game down by holding those forced situations against the person who attacked them.
Game-runner of Silent Heaven, a small-town horror MU.
https://silentheaven.org -
@Jumpscare I mean, maybe we come from different gameplay styles or something, but as a storyteller I wouldn’t have any problem with that. It sounds like PP had raised objections to the plan originally, was clear about their goals and intentions, and presented an obstacle that MH had to overcome. Seems like a fine story to me.
That’s assuming the flak MH is getting is IC and not OOC. Like it’s fine for PP to ICly grumble about getting beaten up at the danger pit, but they can’t OOCly go around trashing MH’s player for playing in-theme.
All you’ve described is just two players having different ideas of what is “fun” for them. Staff is certainly within their rights to say “no” to the PP type of character, but IF they are approved, it seems like fair drama.
-
Yeah. I’m not trying to be dense but I don’t see this as rising to the level of zero tolerance and inherently toxic.
On SH there is plenty of the opposite and arguably worse:
Low XP cafe worker: <very mild joke>
SuperStat McFighty who Never Takes Shit From No One: OMG WHAT DID YOU SAY?! I’M GOING TO STAB YOU!!!
And some of that is funny but a lot of it is eye roll inducing.
And the best defense is:
Low xp cafe worker: Okay come stab me quick then because I got shit to do today.
So honestly I think some weaponized ‘not gunna fight you’ balances things out.
I don’t think you can tolerate it one way and not the other. Many times the only way to defend against Big McFightster or UnChecked EgoBro is going to be removing any satisfaction in having beef with you.
-
Yeah, I don’t think this is about the low xp cafe worker who is in the correct faction.
-
@Juniper Yes. What I’m meaning to point out is that the opposite unsatisfying situation is allowed and common: Murder Bro senselessly ramping up conflict with pacifist who joined the correct faction. Being threatening over petty slights to brand newbies who haven’t even joined a faction yet also happens and is treated IC and all part of the story and we work through it.
I don’t see how those can stand but being manipulative in the way illustrated in a high conflict faction can’t?
Again - if this is all about OOC nattering then fine, I get it and it makes sense. But it does seem like she is targeting the IC action itself in her example, whereas I think it’s a skill issue on McGuffin Holder’s part they can’t think their way through it and have to complain to staff.
-
@Faraday said in Non-toxic PvP:
That’s assuming the flak MH is getting is IC and not OOC. Like it’s fine for PP to ICly grumble about getting beaten up at the danger pit, but they can’t OOCly go around trashing MH’s player for playing in-theme.
In this scenario, PP isn’t grumbling, PP is purposefully taking a loss at the danger pit in order to be able to bring it up IC whenever MH says anything. Not only was the conflict void of excitement, but PP now uses it as ammunition to ICly derail anything MH tries to talk about afterwards.
@howyadoin said in Non-toxic PvP:
Being threatening over petty slights to brand newbies who haven’t even joined a faction yet also happens and is treated IC and all part of the story and we work through it.
Please DM me with what this is about. Conflict should be fun for everyone involved. I’ll look into it.
-
@Jumpscare said in Non-toxic PvP:
…but PP now uses it as ammunition to ICly derail anything MH tries to talk about afterwards.
Okay I think -this- is the actual crux of the issue, then, and I agree it is very not okay.
-
@howyadoin said in Non-toxic PvP:
Okay I think -this- is the actual crux of the issue, then, and I agree it is very not okay.
Why? Isn’t it entirely appropriate that PP would be grumbling (again, ICly) about getting beaten up at the danger pit when all they wanted to do was find a better solution for the mcguffin? Isn’t it an entirely legitimate beef that they have with MH over a clash of IC goals?
It’s being portrayed like MH was somehow baited into something that is now being used agains them, but MH didn’t need to fight PP in the first place. There were a zillion other ways that conflict could have gone. All I see here is MH getting bent out of shape because it didn’t go the way they wanted.
This whole thing, by the way, is emblematic of why I don’t think PVP can ever be done in a constructive way among strangers on the internet. We can’t even agree on what’s appropriate behavior in a purely hypothetical scenario where nobody has any actual skin in the game.
-
@Faraday Here’s what I don’t like when I say pacifists shouldn’t join CvC factions, using the same two characters @Jumpscare made up:
MH: I’ve secured the Staff of Power for our faction. We must be prepared to defend it, because the Winter Hills Clan will kill to claim it for themselves. The war will be long, we must be prepared to defend the Staff with our lives, and unfortunately, we will have to take theirs, as they are willing to give their lives to take it.
PP: Yeah, I joined this faction because I like the color scheme of the faction on my PB. I wasn’t aware this was a CvC faction and have no intent in helping anything ICly.
MH:
-
@Faraday Not really, because PP didn’t HAVE TO get beaten up in the danger pit.
On SH, you can collab offscreen resolution.
Here, PP manipulated MH into an onscreen solution that was theme appropriate for MH, and theme-bendy for PP, that MH wanted to avoid actually. This was not satisfying to MH. (Fine - who cares. I agree this is whatever).
But now PP takes this as some opt-in to a long term, unresolvable grudge which MH actually tried to avoid, that PP uses to shit on anything further MH wants to do that is theme appropriate.
This essentially preys on the OOC empathies of other players which now come into play and start diluting the theme - requiring staff to come in and constantly assure the community that MH is acting in accordance with the theme of Faction X, so please stop DMing each other on discord about what an asshole he is and please stop messaging powerful NPCs to get rid of him.
-
@Faraday said in Non-toxic PvP:
This whole thing, by the way, is emblematic of why I don’t think PVP can ever be done in a constructive way among strangers on the internet.
I mean it’s inherently a YMMV proposition no matter how you work it. Personally, PVP with strangers works fine and constructively for me ¯_(ツ)_/¯ so long as those strangers are opted-in and on the same page about what game we are playing.
-
I’m generally an advocate for broadening the definition of PvP for this reason. On the surface a lot of people will look at the scenario being described as MH being a meanie PvPer, and PP being a collaborative feelgood player. But actually, they are both engaging in PvP. PP is using social tools, MH physical ones.
I think that most of us will agree that it’s good manners for PvP aficionados to be selective about whom they engage in conflict and try not to bother people who don’t wanna be bothered. It’s obviously domineering arsehole behaviour of the geared up military man to challenge a low xp cafe worker to a duel at dawn. But subjecting the military guy just doing his job to moral shaming and social ostracisation after he shoved someone away from a security barrier is also PvP. And if he’s giving signals of, “I don’t really want to fight you, however I will have to per my role if you keep trying to sneak past the barrier” that is an attempt at conflict deescalation; ignoring it, and then socially persecuting him afterwards, is the same type of unsolicited ahole behaviour as trying to start a fight with a low xp cafe worker.
In text, hitting someone isn’t a worse offence than calling them names like it is in the real world. The latter is often a lot more effective at taking a character out of commission (by making them less fun to play).
So, PP is subjecting MH to unsolicited PvP, that’s just as bad as randomly attacking a character in any other way. A lot of bad feelings seem to arise anytime someone is attacked using something other than their weapon of choice, which they may innocuously pretend isn’t a weapon at all when it advantages them.
