So if you do Warhammer 40k, you could just have the game on Fenris. Then every couple of months or whatever time period, have the whole 'Fenris burns to a crisp' thing and reset the territories. Lore friendly and self enforcing way to make sure no faction is ever stronger than the other.
@Alzie I'd play a 40K game. For da Emprah!
@lordbelh The problem I'm having with 40k right now is that Dark Heresy is great, but 2e doesn't really give a lot of room for CvC unless it's small factions within the imperium itself. 1e has more books (A ton more) and is compatible with the other place settings (I can use the Chaos Marines from Black Crusade next to the rules in Dark Heresy and no one will bat an eye). So it comes down to how to structure the game. Allow further options for antagonism or make it an Imperium only game where the antagonism is from the different factions within the imperium.
@Alzie said:
an Imperium only game where the antagonism is from the different factions within the imperium.
I would go with this. It both provides room for PVP scheming, and lets you take some of the steam out by throwing occasional mutual enemies into the fray.
@Alzie said:
So if you do Warhammer 40k, you could just have the game on Fenris. Then every couple of months or whatever time period, have the whole 'Fenris burns to a crisp' thing and reset the territories. Lore friendly and self enforcing way to make sure no faction is ever stronger than the other.
Fenris is an interesting idea. The idea would then be that all the player characters are part of some sort of Space Wolves training exercise?
I'm reminded of the days of yore when telnet clients for MUDs were rated by the speed and effectiveness of their scripts for speed walking and combat reaction.
@AmishRakeFight said:
This also works because MUDs are generally hardcoded for combat. Garbage mobs spawn as part of code and you run at them and your PC dies or the NPC dies and if so, you pick up their drops or their pennies or whatever the reward. Or Arrgh! The Ninjapirate attacks you by typing in 'attack Bob' and you either defend or mash your keyboard as hard as possible as you frantically attempt to flee.
The key thing about making PvP work in a MUSH environment is to make sure that the conflict isn't about stabbing the other characters to death, but rather about trying to get some advantage and while killing your opponents might be helpful, it's also likely not.
On RfK this worked by the fact that killing another vampire was against city law, however murdering all their friends, family and businesses was not and torpor provides a good means to prove you could kill someone but choose not to.
The problem that RfK ran into was that the administration of territories, allies, influence etc didn't scale well at 100+ players, which is something a future conflict centred game can solve during the design stage.
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to me and vice versa.
@groth That sounds fun. I wish I would have played there.
@Alzie said:
@Groth The only problem I see with limited slots is everyone will just pile on their most experienced players and leave the low level PCs out to dry.
Well, the goal should be to make them spread out. One system I'd like to try out is a system where each additional participant only adds (skill/current number of participants) to the roll and each participant needs to use a different skill.
That provides sharp diminishing returns on piling on and since everyone has to use a different skill it provides incentive to have broad skillsets in your faction.
Mmmmmmm, I love Mu*'s with PVP aspects. For me I love it even if I'm the underdog. Nothing makes things interesting like if you talk shit in court as a vampire you could find yourself getting your teeth kicked in when you step outside.
@Groth said:
@AmishRakeFight said:
This also works because MUDs are generally hardcoded for combat. Garbage mobs spawn as part of code and you run at them and your PC dies or the NPC dies and if so, you pick up their drops or their pennies or whatever the reward. Or Arrgh! The Ninjapirate attacks you by typing in 'attack Bob' and you either defend or mash your keyboard as hard as possible as you frantically attempt to flee.
The key thing about making PvP work in a MUSH environment is to make sure that the conflict isn't about stabbing the other characters to death, but rather about trying to get some advantage and while killing your opponents might be helpful, it's also likely not.
On RfK this worked by the fact that killing another vampire was against city law, however murdering all their friends, family and businesses was not and torpor provides a good means to prove you could kill someone but choose not to.
The problem that RfK ran into was that the administration of territories, allies, influence etc didn't scale well at 100+ players, which is something a future conflict centred game can solve during the design stage.
I support this best practice in theory. Punch someone all day long if its justified in character. If you're being a heinous shitlord in character, then you should expect that other people's reactions to this behavior in character could very well include getting clapped about the ears for being a giant asshole.
But.
I don't think the practice gets a lot of successful play. I don't think it has a lot to do with scale. We, as a species, are not good at conflict. We're not programmed as overdeveloped mostly hairless apes to avoid the nuclear button in conflict. Socialization and cultural expectations have conditioned us to appeal to logic and reason in order to avoid conflict. A lot of that of goes straight out the window on the internet, though. Honestly, I think the reason why people avoid PvP in Mushes is because its a total pain in the ass to deal with most of the time. One party rarely if ever takes it well and almost any interesting things that might happen IC are totally washed away in the flood OOC anger and upset that generally results.
So all that's left is negotiated PvP which neuters the entire thing. This neutering isn't a bad thing but it does sort of require people to invent artificial reasons why your PC wouldn't just end this conflict, up to and including straight up murder. That might be fun for a while but a fatigue sets in and it becomes a boring sort unpleasant drudgery. There's little interesting things to be had after a certain point if all you're doing is retreading the same toothless bickering and shade throwing in scenes. You eventually just give it up or avoid each other all together.
Lastly, and I think this is key: I recently read somewhere that as people we want the maximum penalty when people wrong us and the maximum of understanding and forgiveness when we do wrong. I'd say this very much applies to MU conflict.
It's a rare player who can say 'yep, my PC is terrible and deserved what happened'. Most are blind to the effect that their PCs behavior have on other people and its often a shock when they're not responded to as a precious and beloved flower even when they're being a rancid asshole. So, when the pushback comes, they are often upset and stung by another player not being in agreement with their perceptions about how they behave in character.
I've gone back and forth on this in my own thoughts for a long time and I don't think there's much of a middle ground for PvP in Mu. You either plunge forth and take it as it comes or just avoid it entirely.
"...and a single tube of glorious MAC Russian Red lipstick because I am a fancy motherfucker." - Muffy Bolding
@AmishRakeFight I think the problem most games come across with PvP is that they lack mechanics for alternate conflict resolution, let alone incentives for them. On RfK there were both, which is why I think it worked so well. You had boons as a way of settling matters and backing off, or by way of making a loss or a win mean something, and proxies in the form of actual territories/influences you could attack instead of blowing the person up. Then you had further incentives to avoid killing anyone because it was against City law. Vampires being vampires (with all manner of ways to ferret out a secret), and players being players (mostly incapable of keeping secrets, IC or OOC), if you did do a PK you'd probably lose the character.
Sandboxes are ruled by combat thugs because inevitably all conflict boils down to a question of if you can PK the other, and the only consequences come from the possibility of some buddies seeking revenge.
So if you do Warhammer 40k, you could just have the game on Fenris. Then every couple of months or whatever time period, have the whole 'Fenris burns to a crisp' thing and reset the territories. Lore friendly and self enforcing way to make sure no faction is ever stronger than the other.
