Not quite.mtsmith wrote:You claim to be some sort of roleplay guru. Every popular roleplaying game I have ever seen, to include those made by TSR, includes some sort of player versus player option.
While the rules allow for players to fight each other it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the default mode of play. The players do not engage each other in combat the vast and overwhelming majority of the time and should they ever it is generally as an actual part of a plot, not for their jollies.
RPGs with inbuilt player Vs player content I can count at least on one hand and probably on one finger. Paranoia. Paranoia is a comedy game and the Player against player nature of it is explicit, the characters are more throwaway than in a standard RPG and long running campaigns are all but impossible. The only other one I can think of other than that would be Vampire the Masquerade and then only in a live-action set up, so I'm not counting it. (PS. TSR went bankrupt quite some time ago and their IP was bought up by Wizards of the Coast).
The model for an RPG is cooperative play to overcome challenges placed in your path by the GM. Not to fight each other.
Novels are not interactive experiences. The majority of characters involved in the battles on both sides are mere ciphers, instruments of storytellling. They do not have their own personalities, histories or anything else. They have no 'animus', no 'spirit'. The protaganists of the story however, those you do care about and the story loses cohesion and point with their meaningless deaths.mtsmith wrote:Every great fantasy novel in history includes conflict. The elves never like it when they are massacred by a troop of orcs, but we humans sure like to read about it.
I have zero objection to PvP as part of a good storyline but in order for it to be used as part of a storyline it actually needs to tie into the story. On a couple of occasions the guides have used the PvP areas in a story mode and on those occasions I have participated and had fun. Those are explicit instances where PvP is appropriate, well advertised and tied into the story well. The latest developments however are decreasing ease of choice on how to play and giving more tools to the griefers, gankers and problem children that have already plagued the trouble spots of the roots, the bandits and even the arena (though generally, if you go to the arena there's no reason other than PvP).mtsmith wrote:Just think of in-game PVP as a good addition to the storyline and you'll understand my way of thinking.
This doesn't add to the storyline, it just increases grief and the oppotunity for someone to act like a plum.
It isn't everything in regard to RP, but it is the basis of just about all forms of story.mtsmith wrote:However, conflict is everything in regards to roleplay,
The Kitin thread is enough if it is played up.mtsmith wrote:otherwise there would be no reason to play the role in the first place. Everybody from the lowliest stable hand to the most illustrious warrior in history has some opinion on war, aggression, and the opposition. The Kitin threat just isn't enough and I'm a man of action, not one to sit about talking my enemies to death. I'm done here and I would hope that holds true for the rest of you. Go play and have fun!
Look, if you're a PvP fan, find other PvP fans and play with them. Leave everyone else the hell alone. Your pleasure and fun is not more important than their pleasure or fun. Find people that share your playstyle, play with them and your fun will be multiplied and won't come at the expense of someone else.
Nevrax - STOP linking cool 'stuff' with PvP, it just causes grief. Provide multiple options for involvement.
Conflict doesn't require that players have to kill each other, this isn't Unreal Tournament its an RPG, people invest time and thought and emotion into their characters and don't want the hassle all the time. Event based PvP and _fully_ consensual PvP, disengaged from other content can give the PvPers plenty to keep themselves happy.
As suggested elsewhere outposts could be consensual PvP everywhere but the existing PvP areas could be non-consensual - providing for both styles of play. Non PvP area ones could come under attack and be lost during Kitin raids or irregular random raids from tribes.
There doesn't have to be a conflict of playstyles if the PvPers are responsible and mature and a little bit of thought goes into how the PvP is set up.