PvP

[sesquepadalia]

So, the question of PvP in Anticthon has been raised. I'm torn on the subject, and want to write a game that enough people will enjoy, so thought I might throw this open to the floor.

Points against PvP

•  If your plot's good enough you shouldn't need it. 
•  It often creates OC resentment and feuding between players. - Counterpoint: It's just a game, grow up
•  Said feuding can spoil the game for others, even if it's just IC - I've had games (mostly tabletop though) where the plot got ignored for the sake of two characters constantly playing stupid pranks on each other. This got very boring very quickly.
• It makes it hard to get the plot done when you can't trust the rest of the players
• The player party's supposed to be The Heroes- Counterpoint: There were heroes on both sides of the Trojan War too...

Points in Favour of PvP

• With PvM, often player success feels inevitable. There's no real challenge. And if it is a real challenge, players will bitch that it was unfair.
• Personally I'd rather be killed by someone actually trying to kill me rather than accidental monster-to-the-face.
• PvP =/= character death. There are many other fun ways to compete without actually losing a character, and that makes so much game.

Essentially...

My personal opinions are that death in LARP should be meaningful. People get invested in their characters, often spend a lot of time and money creating kit for them. Meaningless and random death is horrible and not something I want to encourage in any larps I run.
PvP grants the opportunity for the best and the worst kind of larp deaths. 
On the positive side, I've always held that assassination is the highest form of flattery. I don't like the thought of dying to a random monster-in-the-face, but if there's no PvP, the only threat comes from the chance of dying to RMITF. I remember just how much plot was created by Nefertiri's assassination, and it was fantastic. 
On the negative side, I also really hate the kind of cheap deaths that you saw so often at Maelstrom - muggings on the way to the loos, random murder in the dark, shiving people up for loot, etc. It pisses me off when death is that cheap.


I like the idea of FvF play - faction vs. faction, knives turned outwards. Much less bitchy. 


My current plan is to:

a) Create non-lethal opportunities for PvP.
b) Create IC consequences for lethal PvP.
c) Make PvP available, but not actively encouraged.
d) Give the players enough plot to keep them occupied so they don't just go on a killing spree.
e) Make most things reversible - albeit with a lot of effort - thus creating game.


This is all subject to change, but I want to open up the discussion. 

Comments

[fearmeforiampink]

The player party's supposed to be The Heroes

There are two things here; firstly that is its own assumption; that they're the heroes (rather than just medium or big fish in a world that contains other fish of similar and larger sizes, as well as many smaller fish). I'm guessing in the game in question, it is the case that they are the heroes.

Secondly, what do you mean by 'heroes'? The word originally meant 'demigod' to the Greeks, with no moral overtones. Whereas now it's much more associated with being a goodie, with risk and sacrifice for the greater good. I'll admit this question comes largely from my interest in Exalted, where the exaltation seeks heroes, but in that context that essentially means 'people of consequence who will make use of this power'.

I'd say if your heroes are more modern heroes, they're meant to be the good guys, then you want to disencourage PvP, at least somewhat. Whereas if they're merely people with the power to change the world, then that's more a situation where some PvP makes sense.

My personal opinions are that death in LARP should be meaningful. People get invested in their characters, often spend a lot of time and money creating kit for them.

This is less of a overall point, more of a noting of personal preference — my preferences run more to risk and realism. That in the rather Wild West setting that Maelstrom was, if you walk around on your own at night, you risk death. One of the things I always want in the LARPs and tabletop games I'm in is risk of failure, of things not going your way.

As a semi-related point, you've made me think of something I'm now curious of — you're not fond of random murder in the dark, of being mugged and sacrificed for the fact that you walked around on your own in the wrong place, but what are your thoughts on slightly more directed death?

Specifically, I'm thinking of at Maelstrom, the people who weren't considered up to standard to be initiated to the Native Religions. People that had expressed an interest in converting, but hadn't impressed the people they spoke to enough (or had actively unimpressed them in some way), and thus were taken into the forest or a tent to be initiated, the next sight of them being them walking out with their yellow armband on, having just been sacrificed.

I was never an initiator, so I have no idea of the relative success rates (and would guess it varied quite a lot by individual Native god). But it certainly happened a fair amount, and I'm wondering how someone who's not fond of mugging in the dark would view it.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

You might just as well say, "if your plot's good enough, players should want to kill each other's characters to get involved."

I am a big fan of FvF (which might be obvious from Insurrection). We balance it using our XP system so that in order to get the absolute best outcome, you have to co-operate in general but screw each other over at the pivotal moment.

[knightclubber.livejournal.com]

I have mixed feelings about violent pvp (contrary to my reputation amongst people who know me only from Maelstrom, a pvp system). In my local system I really dislike it, as it just gets too personal and breeds bad feeling. Not amongst everyone, but among enough people that it isn't healthy.

Also, you touched upon a nerve of bad memory in your OP, with the 'pranks' between characters in tabletop. I have poor memories of what was in hindsight just bullying when I was a young tabeltop gamer, where pvp can just be a way of players establishing dominance. PvP as a macho pissing contest is the worst kind IMO (and characterised what I disliked about some of the pvp in the last year of 'strom).

Having said that, I am all for conflict between consenting players (which is why I liked the Huntress game- you are targetting people who have themselves killed others, so I have no sympathy if they get upset when it happens to them. Most of those players thankfully have the good grace to take it well though).

Equally, I tend to think that pvp may be a consequence of people caring a whole lot about the game- they are willing to take extreme measures to achieve character goals. Thus making it possible, but with consequences and some difficulty, is my ideal state.