Non-toxic PvP
-
@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.
-
@howyadoin said in Non-toxic PvP:
On SH, you can collab offscreen resolution.
I have no idea what game SH is. I thought we were speaking in generalities. There are certainly places where offscreen resolution isn’t always an option.
@Kestrel said in Non-toxic PvP:
But actually, they are both engaging in PvP. PP is using social tools, MH physical ones.
Oh absolutely. They were both in direct conflict over what should happen with the mcguffin.
@Kestrel said in Non-toxic 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.
I don’t agree. Imagine if PP did fight back, and then lost. I don’t think people would be judging them for then acting pissy (ICly) with MH afterward. There was a conflict and now there’s some IC bad blood. All seems completely expected to me.
I can imagine this exact scenario played out with me and a buddy and it would all be completely fine if we just kept it IC. My PC beat up theirs at the danger pit, then theirs badmouths mine about how things went down, then mine concocts some way to get back at them, etc. etc. Maybe they end up mortal enemies, maybe they find some common ground, who knows. The IC drama itself isn’t the problem, which is why I have a hard time faulting PP in this situation.
-
@Kestrel said in Non-toxic PvP:
One system I’ve been thinking about which I’d like some feedback on:
I think that this is incentivizing the wrong behavior. I think the behavior that you want to incentivize for both CvC and PvP conflict is proportional response. One of the issues with it that I’ve seen is when one character “wrongs” another, the second character (or player) turns their response up to 11 and immediately goes for the kill in order to remove the threat. That might be an effective strategy, but it doesn’t tell an interesting story.
I would find ways to incentivize (whether through XP, FS3 Luck points, public acclaim, or whatever) minor escalation that furthers the story rather than ends it. If someone says something nasty about your outfit at a gala, you don’t send a herd of cattle stampeding through their next gala, you bribe their modiste and have their next dress be the wrong shade or cut.
From a PvP perspective, that leaves the other character to respond and perhaps defeat your character… but from a CvC perspective, it leaves the other character still with the power and influence to continue telling the story with your character.
I think that the main goal is to prevent CvC or PvP to reach a story-ending point (death, utter dishonor, etc) until the story has actually come to a satisfying ending (as agreed upon by all players involved).
To @Juniper’s point about Pacifist characters and @kestrel’s addition, I don’t think the problem is characters who are pacifists, it’s players who play a particular trope of Pacifist who constantly wrongfun their fellow characters for “allowing violence to control them” or something like that, even when ICly there’s damned good reason for that violence (like the other side is trying to eat you).
ETA: It’s like the idjits in World War Z who want to go out and negotiate with the Zeds… except in this case, they just talk about how horrible the other PCs are for NOT negotiating with the Zeds, they never actually go out and get their well-deserved and story-appropriate comeuppance or moment of realization.
-
@Roadspike said in Non-toxic PvP:
@Kestrel said in Non-toxic PvP:
One system I’ve been thinking about which I’d like some feedback on:
I think that this is incentivizing the wrong behavior. I think the behavior that you want to incentivize for both CvC and PvP conflict is proportional response. One of the issues with it that I’ve seen is when one character “wrongs” another, the second character (or player) turns their response up to 11 and immediately goes for the kill in order to remove the threat. That might be an effective strategy, but it doesn’t tell an interesting story.
I would find ways to incentivize (whether through XP, FS3 Luck points, public acclaim, or whatever) minor escalation that furthers the story rather than ends it. If someone says something nasty about your outfit at a gala, you don’t send a herd of cattle stampeding through their next gala, you bribe their modiste and have their next dress be the wrong shade or cut.
From a PvP perspective, that leaves the other character to respond and perhaps defeat your character… but from a CvC perspective, it leaves the other character still with the power and influence to continue telling the story with your character.
At one point, I had been kicking around the idea of an escalating relationship system that would work for both friendship/allies and enemies/rivals, where if you and the other player agreed that your characters were in that relationship, you would get a series of benefits based on the length and depth of that relationship, where some of the greatest rewards would come from the biggest sacrifice - i.e. when you lost a major conflict with your Rival, you would get some significant meta-bennies (what those were would really need to be worked out on a theme basis) so long as you accepted the loss gracefully on an OOC level.
I never got as far as fully mechanizing it, but I do like the idea of incentivizing difficult relationships. (On the allies side, the benefits came from taking risks or losses to help your ally/friend.)
-
honestly not judging this idea you have, @Pyrephox, but it reminds me of this meme:
-
@somasatori This totally looks like Rick Sanchez wrote a TTRPG review.
-
@Faraday said in Non-toxic PvP:
There was a conflict and now there’s some IC bad blood. All seems completely expected to me.
I can imagine this exact scenario played out with me and a buddy and it would all be completely fine if we just kept it IC.
now imagine this person is not your buddy, just some rando who doesn’t intend to plot out a fun and engaging “arch rivalry” or “enemies to friends” or whatever. it’s just someone who comes into every scene until the end of time and makes it about this and will never shut the fuck up about it or move on because their OOC ego was hurt that everyone didn’t choose their solution instead.
I’ve had to deal with people like that and I totally get it, just speaking personally. they are pretty far up there in the Most Annoying Player list.
-
@Wizz said in Non-toxic PvP:
it’s just someone who comes into every scene until the end of time and makes it about this and will never shut the fuck up about it or move on because their OOC ego was hurt that everyone didn’t choose their solution instead.
Sure, that sounds annoying. See also: why I don’t think that PVP with rando strangers is a good idea.
My point is simply that you could get that same outcome EVEN IF both PCs pummeled each other in open conflict. It has nothing to do with one of them being a pacifist. That’s why I think a zero-tolerance policy to pacifist characters is kind of silly. But if someone wants to do it on their game, obviously that’s their prerogative.
-
@Jumpscare said in Non-toxic PvP:
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.
I think this is the real issue, and I honestly do not understand why you would ban PP in this situation. You have two characters who are fundamentally opposed about something, MH is hoarding the item and soley determining where it goes, PP offered an alternative and was ignored. It resulted in IC conflict. The fact that PP stood there and took it, and then snarked about it afterward, is IC. Unless there was bleed and MH was being harassed OOC? There shouldn’t have been a banning.
But also, why can’t there be a conflict? Why can’t two people disagree about what to do about a thing? Would this have been better had PP fought MH? Why did this result in an OOC banning, when it was an IC conflict, and story was created? Why did MH run to staff and win after ignoring PP entirely in the first place? Imma be honest, this story paints MH in a worse light than PP.
I think we’ve maybe gotten way too gunshy as a community. I’ve seen far too many games recently where any sort of conflict over the plot, no matter how small, results in immediate shutdown, both ICly and OOCly. Usually the vocal majority wins, and the one or two people who disagree or want to go at the plot another way either a) get ignored AT BEST, or b) don’t want to ‘rock the boat’ so they don’t say anything at all. That isn’t really about PvP - I don’t play on PvP games so my experiences are entirely on PvE - it’s just about how we treat conflict overall.
-
@bear_necessities said in Non-toxic PvP:
The fact that PP stood there and took it, and then snarked about it afterward, is IC.
And the 3rd and 4th time PP stands in the way and says, “Let’s just get this over with,” and continues with the snark? Snarking over 20 times a week, often in pose after pose.
I think that’s what was missing from my explanation. PP does this with great frequency. It isn’t just a one-time thing. It’s a pattern of PP’s daily activities consisting of standing in the way and snarking. If your character wants to do something that PP opposes, your choices are to either give up and walk away from the conflict, or fight and give PP more snark ammunition.
It wears MH’s player down, as well as a decent portion of the playerbase, to witness that act day after day.
