Why are people so uncomfortable with PvP?

[DonTadow]

Totally untrue. PK is player killing. PvP is player versus player action. PvP was a term actually created to distinguish itself from the ones who would just run out and kill other (unwilling) players.

WoW has at least one PvP server. One of the main draws for WoW is its PvP. It isn't seen as a negative thing.

EQ2 has a duel system just implemented. Two characters can agree to a match where they fight it out. This is PvP, and it is completely voluntary on both accounts.

Yes, these games have PvP whose goal is death, but that's mostly because there's nothing else in the game. The games are about killing things. There's no other way to fight amongst each other. Don't confuse PKing with PvP.

Bad comparsion. In both mmorpgs you mentioned the penalty for death in pvp is not the same as death by a horde of monsters. The penalty is usally much lighter (in wow's case there is no penalty for death just temporary displacement). Plus mmorpgs have weaker penalities for death anyway tha nreal rpgs. A player killls you in an mmorpg you instantly teleport to the graveyard, in d and d you die have to be resserected and lose a level.

 

[ThirdWizard]

How does that make it a bad comparison?

That is why in MMORPGs fights to the death are the way to go. If you suffered full XP loss (the normal death penalty in MMOs) when you died, then I can gurantee you that killing your opponent in a duel (say in EQ2) would have a stigma attached to it. Thus, you would have more fights to half life or some other non-lethal combat.

Like PvP in D&D should be.

EDIT: Here's the point:

PvP is combat that is fun for both parties.
PKing is killng the other person when they don't want it.

That is the distinction I was trying to draw. There's a difference between PK and PvP. PvP isn't, in my mind, defined as antagonistic behavior that is only done to rile up others or make youself feel bigger. PKing generally is.

 

[Henry]

I don't think he's confused, he's simply using the terms the way the majority of people on this board do.

I'm with her. To me, light inter-party conflict isn't PvP - it's just gamin'.

 

[jester47]

people take it personally because they typically have one character in the game. One players character attacking another players character is interpreted as "I want you out of the game" and it thus taken personally.

The other factor is that oftentimes people create characters very carefully. Long gone are the days when everyone rolled stats and then picked thier race and class according to what they rolled. When you randomly generate the character, the attachment is lower.

The only way PCvPC works is if the players control multiple randomly generated PCs in the campaign and the campaign itself has a high attrition rate.

I would also suggest that before you start playing D&D with a group, try a simple multiplayer board game where it is the objective to eliminate the other players. You will quickly find out how people will react to player vs player situations and just loosing in general.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm with her. To me, light inter-party conflict isn't PvP - it's just gamin'.

Your good gaming is other people's problem, though. Your light inter-party conflict is banned in other games.

That's why I don't like to draw a distinction.

 

[DonTadow]

Who's trashing role playing again??

Not verbally trashing but trashing in the since of gutting the rpg rules and rebuilding the game as an wargame. Then the wargame rpgers are so use to playing the game by the altered rules they come on the boards promoting things like pvp and in game player killing (even earning xp for it).

 

[ThirdWizard]

Not verbally trashing but trashing in the since of gutting the rpg rules and rebuilding the game as an wargame.

Isn't that exactly what D&D minis is?


EDIT: As an aside, this reminds me about railroading threads. Noone has the same definition, and noone agrees on how much or how little is just right. But, everyone wants to make sure they're having fun.

 

[Crothian]

Not verbally trashing but trashing in the since of gutting the rpg rules and rebuilding the game as an wargame. Then the wargame rpgers are so use to playing the game by the altered rules they come on the boards promoting things like pvp and in game player killing (even earning xp for it).

What's wrong with that though? There is nothing wrong with going "Hey, we play differently then you and its fun. You might like it". There are many ways to play these games and when you staret labeling certain ways as wrong, you start to get in trouble and limit the usefulness of the boards.

 

[DonTadow]

How does that make it a bad comparison?

That is why in MMORPGs fights to the death are the way to go. If you suffered full XP loss (the normal death penalty in MMOs) when you died, then I can gurantee you that killing your opponent in a duel (say in EQ2) would have a stigma attached to it. Thus, you would have more fights to half life or some other non-lethal combat.

Like PvP in D&D should be.

EDIT: Here's the point:

PvP is combat that is fun for both parties.
PKing is killng the other person when they don't want it.

That is the distinction I was trying to draw. There's a difference between PK and PvP. PvP isn't, in my mind, defined as antagonistic behavior that is only done to rile up others or make youself feel bigger. PKing generally is.

AHHH Third, why are we always on the opposite side of these issues. Will the North and South ever get along.

IN mmorpgs you choose to pvp. Meaning you choose the time yo're going to pvp. You chose the area. In both games you mentioned, you can not be on the same team with a player of an opposing factor. Meaning you will never be on a team with a person whom could attack you.

In d and d if pvp is allowed you never know when it is coming. One player is obviously moe agressive than the other and in essence is being forced into the pvp. In the mean time valuable playing time is wasted while the other party members either watch or join in if they want something to do.

 

[DonTadow]

What's wrong with that though? There is nothing wrong with going "Hey, we play differently then you and its fun. You might like it". There are many ways to play these games and when you staret labeling certain ways as wrong, you start to get in trouble and limit the usefulness of the boards.

But theres a difference between playing a certain way and then playing a completely different game. Wargaming it is completely different . There are many stiles of rpgin, rpgers, hack and slashers, strategists, but all still incorparete all of the other elements of the game. If you totally eliminate the roleplaying you just are not playing aroleplaying game anymore. Its fine but clarify.

Yo're not playing a variant of an rpg, you're playing a wargame you converted from dungeon and dragon. Big difference that would lead to less confusion on the boards.