One of those games should change their name. Some MU shit-fuckery could occur on one or both of them, and we need to be able to delineate which is which when the eventual discussion thread(s) starts here.

So no tea?

@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.

@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.

@somasatori This totally looks like Rick Sanchez wrote a TTRPG review.

@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:

@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.

@Jumpscare said in Non-toxic PvP:

Non-consensual character death is the least fun and most toxic outcome.

I think this differs player by player. There’s a small subsection of players that are fully okay with non-consensual character death because they (myself included) chose to allow that as a potential for their PC’s plot line. Death requiring consent should be the standard, but with the ability to opt out if one chooses.

@Faraday said in Non-toxic PvP:

I think that’s great, but also an example of what I mean about systems not being scalable. Ice cream socials, debriefs, etc. work great for managing bleed with small groups of friends and/or modestly sized LARP groups.

We did it with 55 players at our largest session. A few of the players would stop playing early to set up the ice cream buffet and we made sure to let everybody have a voice during the debrief. I could see it definitely being an issue in larger games though I would also compartmentalize the debriefs into smaller subgroups in that situation.

I would turn it on and immediately request to staff that I not be given the bonus XP for doing so. I have no interest in incentives of that kind and also have no problem with my PCs dying or being permanently maimed or whatever as long as it makes good story and the Staff and other Players are all dedicated to making whatever happens the best story possible.

I know it doesn’t apply for a MU, but one LARP I was in had a particularly fun way to deal with bleed. Ice cream socials. After every session of the LARP, we would all gather in the main room we were using for the LARP and break out ice creams of various flavors and an assortment of toppings. We would sit around eating ice cream and discussing stuff that gave us bleed, making sure to point out positive instances and negative. Usually everybody would go home feeling good about it, and over the year of the LARP’s storyline, OOC drama only sparked up twice, and in both cases because of external events to the LARP.

@Faraday said in Non-toxic PvP:

I think that the more immersed you are with your character, the more likely there is to be bleed and OOC competitiveness.

This is very true. It’s a difficult balance for both players and staff to feel immersed while managing bleed and OOC competitiveness.

For me, I think bleed is just going to happen, it’s how we as players and staff work together to deal with it in a healthy fashion that’s important.

@Kestrel I feel like that comes down to personal experience. For me, I’ve seen fully cerebral Jesper Lynd / James Bond style conflicts go rather well even in a fully transparent situation. In those cases, the players of the character locked in CvC use the transparency to make the conflict a better watch for those people just on the outside looking in. Big reveals and stuff still happen, but both sides of the conflict are in on it from the start so that the story gets more detailed.

I think there’s a number of people who believe that CvC automatically involves the entire playerbase whether they want to be involved or not, and really, it should only involve the players of the characters directly fighting in the narrative, be it a crowbar duel in an alley behind a bar or a long drawn out series of espionage plays that result in the PC that is the King of Royalland being assassinated quietly in his private library.

@bear_necessities In games where I’ve experienced it, it works something like this:

• Staff are open with players regarding upcoming plots and players are open with staff as to how their character would respond to those situations.
• Players regularly debrief with each other (and staff) before and after scenes to work together on crafting a narrative all can enjoy and ensure that bleed is handled in a healthy fashion.
• PVP Conflict scenes are heavily discussed by the players before the IC interactions begin. Staff is on hand through all of this to ensure all parties are being heard in the OOC discussion and to make sure all of the games various rules are being followed fairly. Doubly so for any scene resulting in the final resolution of a PC’s storyline (aka death or other permanent change to the character that renders them unplayable).

In one LARP I’ve participated in, a particularly brutal PVP scene ended in the players of the two conflicting PCs having a big happy cry and many tales being told at dinner after the game that night because debriefing techniques were used for the whole game.

@Kestrel said in Non-toxic PvP:

So, if you were designing a game where PvP is meant to be part and parcel (it doesn’t have to involve actual combat or risk of character death), how do you go about mitigating any risk of OOC toxicity?

100% OOC Transparency across the board is the common factor among the few games (mostly LARPs) I’ve played in where PVP didn’t cause resentment at all. In any given game, the players and staff are working together to collaboratively tell a story for the enjoyment of all. The moment the players are OOCly obfuscating their plans and actions, then resentment can creep in.

@sao I’ve done that very thing myself.

Brain meats failing happens.

@Aria said in LFRP: Light and support character acceptable places?:

Honestly, I don’t think anyone really expects people to be online and available every single day anymore.

Totally, the only expectation I have these days from fellow MUers is that if you sign up for some special event in advance, and do a bunch of RP prior to that in preparation for that, then no showing it (or even worse, jumping into a totally unrelated scene at the same time) is pretty uncool.

There are exceptions of course, but if you don’t have any emergencies or OOC drama on the game, why for aren’t you in the planned scene?

I think most games these days are open to whatever your schedule is. Just explain it in the OOC comms channels before you get super deep into it so that nobody’s setting incorrect expectations for your attendance.

The whole website looks like the text was generated by an LLM