@surreality said:
@Coin Same -- but there are people who do continue to press the issue, and will use the argument that 'if you avoid me, you're cheating, because you lurve me now!'
I'm pretty sure Bryn Hartman loved Phil as well. We all know how that ended up.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@Ganymede said:
@surreality said:
@Coin Same -- but there are people who do continue to press the issue, and will use the argument that 'if you avoid me, you're cheating, because you lurve me now!'
I'm pretty sure Bryn Hartman loved Phil as well. We all know how that ended up.
...except then you've got all the citations above about how that is cheating, too. (See all the references to reacting to advances with hostility of any kind.)
Oh fucking well.
@surreality said:
...except then you've got all the citations above about how that is cheating, too. (See all the references to reacting to advances with hostility of any kind.)
It's not cheating to shoot the people you love to death. That's pretty much the M.O. for most murder-suicides.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@Ganymede said:
@surreality said:
...except then you've got all the citations above about how that is cheating, too. (See all the references to reacting to advances with hostility of any kind.)
It's not cheating to shoot the people you love to death. That's pretty much the M.O. for most murder-suicides.
I'm not disagreeing with you on this one. It's just another manifestation of the 'any outcome that isn't exactly the thing I want is cheating' problem that makes this issue a disaster on the whole.
@Ganymede said:
@surreality said:
@Coin Same -- but there are people who do continue to press the issue, and will use the argument that 'if you avoid me, you're cheating, because you lurve me now!'
I'm pretty sure Bryn Hartman loved Phil as well. We all know how that ended up.
TOO SOON! 
How many people (besides me) think that people who treat all RPGs as a PvP situation, or a potential PvP situation, are people who need to be asked to leave. It strikes me as the kind of person who logs into a D&D game and wants to be Drizz't and refuses to play anything else.
There's ways of having fun with PvP -- but it needs to more be CvC + Pw/wP. (PC vs PC + Player working with Player.)
I think that kind of misses the context, @surreality. I don't want to get into the whole horrid discussion of being RP Police, but it is, I think, a dangerous thing to let people constantly game the game, breaking the flow, instead of playing inside it.
Reading what another might do in reaction to what you do and acting to best maximize your desired results (Yomi in head to head video game terms) starts at social interaction and continues all the way through to actual player versus player (not character vs character) tactical decisions, contained in a game system, in a local (read game) social contract, and the larger world social contracts.
It's hard to draw a line.
I have a waggish sense of humor.
@Misadventure said:
It's hard to draw a line.
It's very easy to draw a line. The line is "be consistent". If people know what to expect, then when the line is crossed everybody knows that's what just happened. All you need to do is stop yourself from wanting to give in to being nice, and to be self-aware enough to keep from being manipulated.
Easy.
Sociopathy is go.
Thumbs up!
@Coin said:
TL;DR: Social systems only work well if you're not hyperparanoid and/or a dick. You know, same as most everything else.
This right there is exactly why I am in the camp of the one roll people. It lets you find out if you are dealing with a dick a lot quicker.
I may be misreading the general notion; I'm not super familiar with the specific reference, which is definitely a thing.
I don't know if I would necessarily place the marker at PvP and approaching a game in that way, though I think it gets to a larger issue.
Namely, 'what is this game about/for?'
The answer to that is going to vary from game to game and player to player. To some folks, it's absolutely about that -- but if you don't want your game to be about that, you also need to say so up front to avoid players who want that from the games they're playing.
I'm not real fond of the 'the first thing I consider when I meet someone is how to remove that character from play' mindset, obviously.
Recently, I (and so many others) ran into a player who proudly stated they were there for their own fun and if their fun stepped on anyone else's face, fuck them, they were going to do whatever they wanted and if somebody didn't like it, they could suck it up because they were playing wrong because -insert their personal interpretation of what the game is for/about and insisting it's a universal fact for all here-. If someone not wanting to do what they wanted cropped up, it was time to apply whatever IC and OOC force was necessary to get their way.
This is a glaring example -- and it's easy to point to that and say: that is a toxic presence on the game. (Yeah, now you know why I needed that info about sitebans... cough) Not everyone is that overt about their bullshit, though.
@Coin said:
@surreality said:
@Coin Same -- but there are people who do continue to press the issue, and will use the argument that 'if you avoid me, you're cheating, because you lurve me now!'
Which is more or less a giant disaster for players who are ethical and honest and want to play fair.
No, what it really is is a dick that needs to be pimp-smacked in the kisser.
And how often in our hobby does staff actually pimp smack the dick?
More often then not a complaint like this results in the complaining player being told handle it yourself, or worse told they are cheating.
The Doors system is fine assuming not asshats, but in a mush that is not a save assumption my any means.
True combat works that way as well but from what i have seen staff is a hell of a lot more likely to involve themselves when combat is involved when asked where when it involves social rules they tend to try and dodge involvement.
Well, almost anything is fine assuming 'there are no asshats'. We probably wouldn't need a system at all if we could count on that one. (So much wistful sigh.)
A 'system' for this needs not just game mechanics, but game mechanics and game policy working together, since both are functional parts of 'the rules' for this environment. It's not terribly different from the kind of rules that aren't in the book but that are present at any gaming table, like, 'Don't scream at other players or you won't be asked back,' or whatever that table's acceptable standards of behavior are. A lot of the stuff people get away with on MU*s would never pass muster at a table without someone getting dice bounced off their foreheads.
To be honest, I think the "handle it yourself" mentality has largely been a product of older MU*s and WoD games. If you want staff to be better, then be the change you want to see.
I love you all for your passion, even though this discussion went in like 12 directions and I have to admit to totally having lost my way by now.
We're quoting Ghandi though, so somewhere it got really real. PvP or don't with a heart full of love for your fellow man, guys.
Oh shit I accidentally quoted Ghandi. So that's where I heard that.
PvP is a mixed bag, and setting dependent. Some settings PvP should absolutely be a hazard, such as Dark Sun, for example. Other games it might not work so well on, such as a ship based Star Trek game, killing crew members is frowned upon.
I also think we have to discuss different types of PvP, there is a lot more to PvP than: I want you dead.
There is I want you ruined.
I want your significant other.
I want your money/empire.
I want your daughter (I've come for your daughter, Chuck).
So and so forth.
Not all PvP is bad, some of it can lead to great stories, so I don't think the type of person who likes or wants PvP is necessarily bad but I do believe in putting the boot down on the throat of those who defy theme/setting/system in order to do so.
Yes, PvP mainly comes down to what sort of setting you're playing. For instance I think that trying to play Vampire on a MU* without embracing the concept of player conflict is a rather silly endeavour as one of the most central themes of Vampire is conflict with other Vampires however in other settings there may be fundamental concepts of cooperation that makes direct character conflicts out of place.
However I strongly believe that PvP in RPG's only makes sense if you're trying to tell a good story with conflict, it shouldn't be done in an attempt to 'win'.
@surreality said:
@Coin Same -- but there are people who do continue to press the issue, and will use the argument that 'if you avoid me, you're cheating, because you lurve me now!'
I'm pretty sure Bryn Hartman loved Phil as well. We all know how that ended up.
