Proposal: No PvP

KenHood · Mar 20, 2009

There.

We've talked around it. Let's get it over with...

CaBaNa · Mar 20, 2009

Ha

Agreed, no PvP, it has too many chances to open player enmity.

Although there seems to be a large demand for it... and if done right, could really add to the living world setting.

Possibly no PvP (insert special conditions that allow PvP here)

For those of you not in the know PvP is Player vs. Player

garyh · Mar 20, 2009

No PvP. If you want PvP, find a way to do it over in Talking the Talk / Playing the Game in a stand-alone event. Trying to make it work in an existing shared setting where people are attached to their characters is asking for trouble.

ukingsken · Mar 20, 2009

Gotta agree Garyh. Especially in play by post where we all invest so much time in every level we eke out of a character. PVP would just lead to fun destroying rage.

Lord Sessadore · Mar 20, 2009

Yeah, I have to agree as well.

I would be ok with explicitly non-lethal (as in, because of the conditions it is physically impossible to deal lethal damage, and so it is not possible to kill the other PC) duels for fun, but at that point I'm not sure I see the point of it. If two PCs really want to duke it out, they can always take clones of their characters to a thread outside of L4W and have at it without creating any permanent repercussions in the living world.

renau1g · Mar 20, 2009

If a PC goes PvP on another PC, perhaps the other PC's in the party turn against the offender and incap him. He/She can be brought back to Daunton for a summary punishment (either imprisonment or execution, same thing for a character).

There are PvP game looking to start shortly there so if you want to, check out Talking the Talk soon.

covaithe · Mar 22, 2009

To be honest, I'm not 100% comfortable with this proposal, for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. I'm gonna think out loud here for a bit, so beware; what follows may not be entirely coherent.

So there's rules, one the one hand, and there's that thing that they talk about in DMing blogs called social contract. I feel like "no Pvp" is a social contract thing, and the proposal mechanism is a rules thing. Rules, we need everyone to be using the same set of rules, but... the social contract in place for Closed Eye, for instance, wouldn't be appropriate for many groups. As a DM and a player, I'm not really interested in exploring intraparty conflicts in this setting, but as a judge, I don't know that it's within my duties/prerogatives to tell some other DM and his players that they can't have PvP if that's what floats their boat.

Oni · Mar 22, 2009

I pretty much agree with corvaithe.

I would suggest something more general, that doesn't really step on the DM's toes or people that want to pursue certain interest.

A player should ask permission before proceeding with any action that directly harms another person's character. It's courteous and a natural extension of what was adopted for the Dark Pact warlock I believe.

CaBaNa · Mar 22, 2009

hehehe

The bard is going to be misdirecting marks left and right, it doesn't hurt, but it could, I wonder if they'll have to ask permission?

I think IC PvP can be great fun and a nice way to create in-game tension. OOC PvP is no good and should be avoided, but it doesn't happen often, and can usually be spotted when it is happening.

I'm into PvP so long as it stays friendly OOC. Death saves, and having such a large (negative bloodied) margin for insta-death, lend toward PvP ending without a PC death, just some tense unconscious moments.

Hard feelings are hard to come by on these boards (and when I have found them, they were dealt with quickly and efficiently).

In the end I like PvP, with a watchful eye, and lots of open OOC communication. Understanding what you're agreeing to before agreeing is important.