@somasatori This totally looks like Rick Sanchez wrote a TTRPG review.
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
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.
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
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.
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
@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:
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
@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.
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
Yeah, I don’t think this is about the low xp cafe worker who is in the correct faction.
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
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.
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
@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.
-
RE: Non-toxic PvPposted in Game Gab
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.
