-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Why are people so uncomfortable with PvP?
- Thread starter Wilphe
- Start date
Blue_Kryptonite
First Post
For me, its just a case of dislike of that kind of conflict.
I actually do run my games like a TV series. There's no unplanned PC death, things are described in terms of acts and scenes, we go for bathroom and soda breaks "on the commercial", etc.
In this environment, there are occasional PvP moments. Like Dylan Hunt coming to blows with Tyr, Kirk Fighting Ponn-Farr Spock, and other cinematic things that advance our shared plot.
So in essence, PvP is fine, if consented to OOC by all involved players as properly advancing the story. Lethal PvP is a no-no, unless its a plot point and the inevitable ressurection is coming, or the player is leaving the group or changing characters.
In a more traditional game, as a player, were I to find it allowed, my character sheet would be neatly torn into strips, I would thank my hosts for their hospitality, and depart.
Segue to mhacdebhandia:
I don't "move my guy" or "script my scenes" even if we are a virtual show. Neither do my players. Rouge Emerelda the Elven Rogue does not do "what his player, thinks he should". At that moment, he is thinking as and for and within the confines of Rouge. And sometimes, we surprise ourselves as our characters, like those of many authors, assume a life of their own beyond their plans.
Does this lead to PvP? Yes. Does it fit the guidelines above? Yes. Because these people we briefly become were formed by us to be the kind of people who, like many friends and family, sometimes disagree, sometimes violently. But never lethally.
That's not what Heroes with a capital H do, after all.
I actually do run my games like a TV series. There's no unplanned PC death, things are described in terms of acts and scenes, we go for bathroom and soda breaks "on the commercial", etc.
In this environment, there are occasional PvP moments. Like Dylan Hunt coming to blows with Tyr, Kirk Fighting Ponn-Farr Spock, and other cinematic things that advance our shared plot.
So in essence, PvP is fine, if consented to OOC by all involved players as properly advancing the story. Lethal PvP is a no-no, unless its a plot point and the inevitable ressurection is coming, or the player is leaving the group or changing characters.
In a more traditional game, as a player, were I to find it allowed, my character sheet would be neatly torn into strips, I would thank my hosts for their hospitality, and depart.
Segue to mhacdebhandia:
I don't "move my guy" or "script my scenes" even if we are a virtual show. Neither do my players. Rouge Emerelda the Elven Rogue does not do "what his player, thinks he should". At that moment, he is thinking as and for and within the confines of Rouge. And sometimes, we surprise ourselves as our characters, like those of many authors, assume a life of their own beyond their plans.
Does this lead to PvP? Yes. Does it fit the guidelines above? Yes. Because these people we briefly become were formed by us to be the kind of people who, like many friends and family, sometimes disagree, sometimes violently. But never lethally.
That's not what Heroes with a capital H do, after all.
MusedFable
First Post
Whaaa? PC vs PC conflict (including fights to the death) aren't anything out of the ordinary for my group, but I've noticed we play very different then most groups. The main focus of every campaign is never "the group". It's always something that you could base a TV show off of. Like a location (moving or otherwise) or a chain of events. We change characters (not with each other unless permission is given) mid session sometimes. Every game session is usually starts with an event that triggers activity. Like a flood happens and then the characters of the world all react to it. Some opportunist characters might take advantage of the situation while others try and fix it. Sometimes they work together grudgingly while other times they conflict. Normally we try and have each player have one "main" PC and only bring in others if there main one is doing something, but player controlled NPC's are quite common (they have to be in the same place as a PC to get "screen time" though; they can't effect the plot by themselves).
How would any of you reproduce: Deadwood, M*A*S*H*, Buffy, or daytime soap opras (don't laugh they're great for stealing ideas)?
How would any of you reproduce: Deadwood, M*A*S*H*, Buffy, or daytime soap opras (don't laugh they're great for stealing ideas)?
Storyteller01
First Post
Wilphe said:
It either stems from a personal issue between players before the fight, or becomes one after. Either way, it's detrimental to the party.
mhacdebhandia
Explorer
Why do you believe it's necessary to identify with a character to understand them?Crothian said:
I understand the ideas, beliefs, and motivations of my best friend without identifying myself with her - we're different people in dozens of crucial ways. How much better will I understand the ideas, beliefs, and motivations of a character when I'm the one who created them?
I'm very far from the superficial, war-gaming stereotype as a roleplayer; the fact that I never identify with my character, never think like them, never pretend to be them, has nothing whatsoever to do with this.
Hell, going back to the original point: one of the best roleplayers I know from the perspective of pretending to be someone else and getting deep into character (he happens, like me, to be an amateur actor, and prefers to speak in-character as much as possible) was one of the two players involved in the most drawn-out and exciting (to watch and peripherally participate in) example of intraparty tension and eventual outright conflict - again, in that Planescape game that was my introduction to Third Edition.
So even for those players who do strongly identify with their characters, conflict between PCs is not necessarily a problem.
Perhaps it's actually identifying to the point of wish-fulfillment that makes PC conflict unattractive for some gamers? It's perfectly valid, of course - I just dislike seeing people universalising their own assumptions about how gaming works or what gaming is, even when they're in the majority, because their way is not universal.
DragonLancer
Adventurer
In my experience PVP is detrimental to the game and can cause bad feelings among players. Not to mention that entire sessions can be wasted on this if its taken too far. IMO characters should be working together and trust one another, so that they can attempt to solve the current scenario/module/plot.
I have only had one proper PVP situation in one of my games, and that came about because of the actions of one character that I couldn't ignore for the sake of continuity and realism. After all was said and done, it turned out that the characters actions came about because of a misunderstanding but by then 3 weeks worth of sessions had passed and it wasn't feasible IMO to undo all that, so I had the outcome stay. As it was the character wasn't dead and so may reappear somewhere down the line should we return to those characters.
I have only had one proper PVP situation in one of my games, and that came about because of the actions of one character that I couldn't ignore for the sake of continuity and realism. After all was said and done, it turned out that the characters actions came about because of a misunderstanding but by then 3 weeks worth of sessions had passed and it wasn't feasible IMO to undo all that, so I had the outcome stay. As it was the character wasn't dead and so may reappear somewhere down the line should we return to those characters.
Similar Threads
