@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).
