@Jumpscare That has nothing to do with these people playing pacifists. It sounds like you have some jerk players. But there are jerk pacifists and there are jerk combatants and there are jerk everythings. It’s not a pacifist thing.
Secret Society
For access to the SECRET SOCIETY SUB SECTION
Posts
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
There’s social conflicts, espionage, vandalism, and more on SH. But just because something is IC doesn’t mean it’s automatically fun. Here are three examples of when a PP became too much effort to allow them to continue playing.
One PP was secretly exploiting code to stalk other players in order to show up immediately where the RP was happening in order to get in the way. I’ve since patched those exploits.
Another PP had been given a no-contact request from a number of characters who were tired of their shenanigans. (A no-contact request is a last resort when two people’s RP styles are untenable with each other. It means no direct RP, no plotting against each other, and to keep interactions minimal in public events.) The PP then sent their friends to get in on the scenes on the PP’s behalf, then report back so the PP could influence things nearby (e.g. vandalism) in an “I’m not touching you” plausible deniability manner, giving the people on the no-contact list zero recourse to react.
A third PP was asked to tone down the snark. When the snark was not toned down, we said to stop the snark entirely. This resulted in the PP repeatedly saying IC something along the lines of, “I have no opinion I can voice on this matter,” as a way of getting around the snark ban.
In all three examples, their goal isn’t to provide fun conflict, it’s to wear down the other players by getting in the way as often as possible, while also denying any satisfying resolution. They typically don’t care about the win or the loss in the plot, because they score a win simply by disrupting the scene and forcing everyone to deal with their antics.
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
@Jumpscare Makes sense, thanks. I think you should’ve included that detail in your scenario above to paint a clearer picture of what was happening.
But idk man. At the end of the day, people aren’t assholes for using in-game mechanics to create a story, so if it had ended like Jumpscare initially said it did? I don’t see the issue. The issue is when people take it way too far, cross a line, and act like dicks because they can’t take the L and move the fuck on.
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
@bear_necessities said in Non-toxic PvP:
MH is hoarding the item and soley determining where it goes,
PP offered an alternative and was ignored.
Why did MH run to staff and win after ignoring PP entirely in the first place?
This is all very loaded language and not how I read the example as laid out.
MH has the item, they get to choose what happens to the item. That’s not “hoarding”, it is obviously a contest designed by a storyteller and one that MH is currently winning. PP’s choices to influence the outcome are diplomacy or violence.
It looks like MH and PP are both been crystal clear with each other about the outcome they’d prefer. That’s good. But they still disagree. PP failed to persuade MH to abandon MH’s plan and follow PP’s plan. What then?
There has been some chatter that in this example MH didn’t need to fight PP, they chose to. I disagree, and this may be a quirk in the design of Jumpscare’s game specifically. You should assume that PP used conflict mechanics to physically block MH in the room until combat is concluded. MH’s only choices are to attack PP or just stand there. Forever.
At what point do we acknowledge that PP cannot have their cake and eat it too? They want the moral high ground of not using violence (technically. kind of? not really), but can’t accept that relying on diplomacy doesn’t mean guaranteed success in a scenario with multiple participants. Nobody is entitled to get the result they want in a plot, least of all the person whose plan amounts to forcing their opponent to hit them and then crying.
PP could have easily handled the situation in a way that stays true to their character without being a cretin. They could have stood aside and said “You’re making a huge mistake/I wish you could have seen things my way/David would be disappointed to see the person you have become”. They could have begrudgingly come along to protect the MacGuffin from the Murder Imps in the Danger Pit. They could have bribed, manipulated, or blackmailed someone else into doing what needs to be done to acquire the MacGuffin. They could have declared neutrality and come as a medic. Just… anything else.
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
@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.
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
@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.
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
@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.
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
@somasatori This totally looks like Rick Sanchez wrote a TTRPG review.
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
honestly not judging this idea you have, @Pyrephox, but it reminds me of this meme:
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
@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.
