almost every morning when I am trying to finish my bathroom routine and get ready for the day, this lump just plops himself right down in the sink
Secret Society
For access to the SECRET SOCIETY SUB SECTION
Posts
-
RE: Pets!posted in No Escape from Reality
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
I think that a core problem is that upwards of 90% of players in this hobby want their characters to be Cool. There are players who enjoy playing weird little gremlins or satirical characters they see as totally separate from themselves, where they get to have fun at that character’s expense. These tend to be my favourite players, but they are in the minority. Mostly people have fantasies about being Sexy or Strong or Smart or Cool that these characters, and their wins, are meant to fulfil.
So as much as we can look down on people who see their character’s loss as their loss, for having trouble separating IC and OOC, the reality is that this is most people. And even if you are someone who enjoys playing the foil or the weird little gremlin, I’ll wager that at some point you’ve realised that what most people enjoy about your characters is they get to feel Cool in comparison, when they’re putting your character down or beating them up or being morally upstanding in contrast to your character. And you’re OOCly giving them the thumbs up that no feelings are being hurt in the process. That’s why playing what most people consider a “good villain” is basically a service you’re providing other players, because they get to feel Cool rooting for their own character against yours, while you’re always holding back just enough that it never feels humiliating or futile. This is CvC, but you’re serving the needs of P through a C veil, and if you stop doing that, the feelings that arise are PvP.
So staff can call it CvC, but they need to understand that it’s still ultimately a balancing act of managing player egos.
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
I don’t know that the term CvC solves any problems, but I also don’t see it as spin. In my mind, calling IC conflict where everyone is working together to tell a good story CvC reframes the conflict to one where the players can be cooperative.
PvP doesn’t suggest to me that the players are going to start hitting each other. To me, the difference is that in PvP, the players are trying to one-up one another OOCly as well as ICly. They aren’t cooperating to tell a story, they’re pitting their OOC wits against one another as well as their IC wits (there could even be some situations where there’s OOC competition even though there’s IC cooperation, maybe two characters are working together one a project and are ICly cooperating, but the two players each want to one-up the other and come out looking “best” from the cooperation).
And PvP can be fun as hell, don’t get me wrong. There is indeed a different rush to knowing that you got one over on another real person, not just that your character won the dice rolls.
I don’t think that CvC should suggest that something is more or less messy than PvP, I think that it should suggest that the players are cooperating even though their characters are competing.
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
@howyadoin said in Non-toxic PvP:
I don’t think using the term “PvP” for decades contributes to the problems we’re discussing, and I don’t think changing it to “CvC” solves any of the problems we’re discussing.
I don’t think changing it to CvC is intended to solve problems, just clearly delineate IC vs OOC. For some people PvP bears the distinction that indeed the player of the character wishes to end the fun of other players.
Also, if you approach IC conflict in a fully RP MU (so a MUSH or MUX or whatever) as though it’s a round of all slappers in Goldeneye, I would suggest that you’re in the wrong place and would better be served by a PvP MUD.
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
On a total tangent, I have mixed feelings about the term CvC and I don’t generally use it. Whilst I totally agree that conflict should be between characters and not players, I think that in reality it’s often messy in ways that aren’t necessarily obvious, provable, or fixable, and I’m not convinced that asserting there’s a distinction does anything to ameliorate these issues.
When players get salty over conflict not going their way, they will rarely actually say that. Instead they’ll say stuff like “I’m upset that this other player cheated/used an exploit/is being unthematic/is unpleasant OOCly/is hogging scenes/can’t write for shit/has a super generic character/only cares about the mechanical win” etc. even when whatever complaint they’re making is provably untrue.
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
@Faraday said in Non-toxic PvP
OK, but… why are you constantly having that argument? Why aren’t you like “pfft whatever” to that guy? Why isn’t he being ostracized by the other pirates? For that matter, why is the captain even keeping him on board the ship?
I don’t fundamentally have any objection to a PC going around saying that pirating is bad actually. But it seems to me that there are a million ways to deal with this issue ICly.
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
@Faraday said in Non-toxic PvP:
@Roadspike said in Non-toxic PvP:
The pacifist is a player archetype who will join a moderate or high conflict group, then do as much as they can for their faction without engaging in the central conflict.
This is what I’m reacting to.
But you cropped out half the definition. It doesn’t make sense without the second half:
Then, when they get backed into a position where they’re called upon to resolve a conflict by fighting it out, they’ll agree to the fight but refuse to fight back, letting the opposing side win, in order to give the other players the most unsatisfying resolution possible.
There have been plenty of pacifists in SH that don’t act as the proverbial rock in the shoe. They don’t stand in the way of scenes, they don’t unnecessarily prolong assured victories, and they don’t make the resolutions agonizing.
By removing the second half of the definition, you’re missing the core problem of the player archetype I was describing.
I’ll digress, though. We’ve discussed this example thoroughly.
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
Building on the mention I made earlier about taking a revisionist stance to a raison d’être…
Basically, if I’m in the Pirate faction being a menace on the seven seas, I don’t want to be constantly having arguments with another pirate who believes a REAL pirate never takes another person’s property without permission, and I’m making life hard for pirates by giving them a bad name.
Like… what?
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
@Faraday said in Non-toxic PvP:
It is someone whose very existence is predicated on being part of a moderate to high-conflict group and then avoiding conflict.
I think we have to clarify whether we’re talking about someone playing an IC pacifist and the narrative of such a character. The character should strive to avoid conflict, sure, but at the same time, in order to create amazing story out of that, that pacifism should be tested by them being backed into a situation where they either maintain their pacifism and have to escape harm, or their personal ethics break and they evolve as a character.
On the other hand, you could have someone who’s character isn’t a pacifist, but they as a player choose to avoid CvC whenever possible, and also wish to stop the rest of their group from participating in such narratives with their PCs, regardless of their players intentions.
I think we need to really separate the IC pacifism vs OOC pacifism in this context, because I can totally see amazing narratives coming out of someone playing an IC pacifist in a CvC heavy faction, but can also see how OOC pacifism can lead to other OOC pitfalls.
