@Arkandel said in PC antagonism done right:
@Lisse24 said in PC antagonism done right:
In my opinion one of the main hurdles in MU* is we can have our pie and eat it. It's more fun when we can't.
This right here. Lots of us enjoy overcoming the hurdle of failure. We go to do something, but end up in med bay. Some realizes its a well spring of RP more than the one win would of been worth. We know some players thrive off this. Its a string of failures after another such that the one time it is someone elses turn to fail, they are upstaged by the regular.
Not my point, but failure is fun. More so, for everyone one that has more fun with failure, there are those who just want to win. The game mechanics/rules lawyer that gains mathematical superiority, the player who thinks their RP logic is superior and can win by pose alone.
For those who can accept failure and make it fun, there are those who just want to win. Both are great RP'ers. A day late and a dollar short as this thread has derailed but I'm in the boat. Long term sustained PC antagonism doesn't work even if the player is good, separates OOC/IC, tries their best to get along with everyone OOCly.
Not everyone agrees on what makes successful PvP conflict. If it worked it would need to be in the system and I don't think staff have time to monitor this as a playable system - PCs choosing to be antagonist to other PCs and both sides playing it up. Its a question of could staff maintain control, at the loss of their own RP?