One word: PentaguishineSo, your saying if I created a character, sole intent to try and build a ladder to heaven on the corpses of the innocent, and I managed to kill 90% of Haven, you would have no problem with it?
PVP and how it adds to the Game
Moderator: Admin
Nope wouldnt have a problem. May even try and help you a little.
Why? Because you created a character that I don't have to create which takes a burden away from NPC camp.
Eventually you will die or driven from town. It is not possible for 1 person to kill 90% of the people in town. You will be lucky to get past 2 or 3
Why? Because you created a character that I don't have to create which takes a burden away from NPC camp.
Eventually you will die or driven from town. It is not possible for 1 person to kill 90% of the people in town. You will be lucky to get past 2 or 3
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
-
Kale
- Site Admin
- Posts: 236
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 9:07 am
- Location: lurking in the shadows
- Contact:
I got past 40. Possible, just not easy.GM_Chris wrote:Nope wouldnt have a problem. May even try and help you a little.
Why? Because you created a character that I don't have to create which takes a burden away from NPC camp.
Eventually you will die or driven from town. It is not possible for 1 person to kill 90% of the people in town. You will be lucky to get past 2 or 3
The problem with hypothetical questions is they’re seldom realistic. We had a homicidal maniac PC once before – Pentag – he was nearly killed and had to flee town after murdering one PC. You try to play a PC who’s trying to kill off all other PCs and you’re not likely to get far.
Answer One: There can be no difference because they are one in the same.
Answer Two: Depends on the reasons behind the Pking. Not bad at all if the killed PC had it coming. Very bad for the PC doing the killing if he hasn’t a good reason to do so – as Pentag discovered in the above example.
What brings this up?Dredge and Doug,
Please tell me the difference between one of pentag's crew and me telling one of my NPC's to go out and kill main, and murder without mercy.
Why is it bad when the PC does it and Plot when the NOC does it?
Answer One: There can be no difference because they are one in the same.
Answer Two: Depends on the reasons behind the Pking. Not bad at all if the killed PC had it coming. Very bad for the PC doing the killing if he hasn’t a good reason to do so – as Pentag discovered in the above example.
Death is the threshold to immense possibility
While I think this is a good conversation, I would like to point out that Not everyone felt this way and I know of at least one player who has not returned to final haven because of the particular event referred to above.Kale wrote:
Indira Al'Estrella wrote:
I don't think random killing for all PCs is cool. So how do you limit the numbers of Psychos running around? No Idea.
Personally, I think that would eventually work itself out after people got tired of killing eachother.
As for PvP, what about half the town vs the Orcs? We almost had a full out war between PCs, what was it, two years back?
And it made for some of the best events EVAR!
Im not in anyway implying Erik and Brad are wrong, just that he is simply stating his opinion and that their are those who have very opposite opinions who no longer frequent the game because they felt the situation above made for some of the worst events evar, and I think that their point of view deserves to be expressed as well in this conversation.
Evan
As was said some people hate PvP some are indifferent, some think it is nessissary, and some are no RP'er stick jocks.
As a GM of FH if you are VERY against PvP and hate it in all its forms I would strongly encourage you to go to another game like say CARPS.
CARPS is a very high fantasy, skill based system, (I like skill based), it is alot more mature in its development. Infinite advancement and as far as I know there is NO PvP allowed.
We at FH believe very strongly in PvP. We see no difference between a PC and an NPC killing someone. As for this last event I know some people didnt like it because it appeared to be PvP. If it makes you feel better I will lable them all as NPC's.
As a GM of FH if you are VERY against PvP and hate it in all its forms I would strongly encourage you to go to another game like say CARPS.
CARPS is a very high fantasy, skill based system, (I like skill based), it is alot more mature in its development. Infinite advancement and as far as I know there is NO PvP allowed.
We at FH believe very strongly in PvP. We see no difference between a PC and an NPC killing someone. As for this last event I know some people didnt like it because it appeared to be PvP. If it makes you feel better I will lable them all as NPC's.
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
I totally agree with Chris, not everyone enjoys every style of game. The key is to find the game you enjoy the style of (I play in 3 larps and enjoy each of them for different reasons, but I also knew this would be a heavy PvP event which was a large factor in my decision not to attend this event.) and then enjoy that game.
Also just as a small note/correction:
CARPS does not forbid PvP, we just make it more difficult and tend to discourage it more then FH does. PvP does happen in carps...just on a much smaller scale. (Characters take longer to advance, so PvP has an even bigger impact on our players is a big part of that reason)
Evan
Also just as a small note/correction:
CARPS does not forbid PvP, we just make it more difficult and tend to discourage it more then FH does. PvP does happen in carps...just on a much smaller scale. (Characters take longer to advance, so PvP has an even bigger impact on our players is a big part of that reason)
Evan
Just as a side note, if anyone is interested in CARPS, the website is http://www.carpsgame.com/ . I would encourage anyone who is interested to come out to an event. The first event is free just like at FH. You will see a lot of familiar faces including myself on the PC side of things. Its a fun game run by great GMs who tell some fantastic stories. If you need any help with characters or need more information, I am willing to help.
Wayne O
The Game Master Lite
Frag the weak, Hurdle the dead!
The Game Master Lite
Frag the weak, Hurdle the dead!
Well, hypotheticals aside, no one has answered my argument that NPCs and PCs are different.
And I hate unlimited advancement. There are reasons I say I like Final Haven's system and its setting. Now it seems I am having difficulty coming to grips with some of its philosophy. Like I said, some PVP good, some bad.
I know in normal tabletop "I was just playing my character" doesn't really work as an excuse for being an ass. I don't understand why it somehow becomes fine to do so in LARP.
And I hate unlimited advancement. There are reasons I say I like Final Haven's system and its setting. Now it seems I am having difficulty coming to grips with some of its philosophy. Like I said, some PVP good, some bad.
I know in normal tabletop "I was just playing my character" doesn't really work as an excuse for being an ass. I don't understand why it somehow becomes fine to do so in LARP.
Kill me out of hate, kill me for money, kill me for politics, but please kill me for a reason.
Its not easy to get away with one, let alone multiple PVP killings. If you think it is easy, give it a shot. We can talk theory until we are blue in the face but the data supports the fact that straight PVPers dont last in FH. In fact, how many PVP perma deaths have there been at FH? Since the first event I can only think of maybe three (Not including last event).
No single character is an army unto themselves. A 20th level character can get spanked by a 0 level character. Its all about timing and patience. Its about Physically getting away with it. Thats why its different than a table top game. You dont just slip a note to the GM saying "I slit my party member's throats in their sleep" you actually have to wait for the right time and do the deed. That is no small feat. Also, if you PVP a character in table top you may be killing 20% of the player base. If you PVP a character at FH you are killing less than 2% of the player base and have most of the remaining 98% after your hide.
Now, where I have a problem is a player who makes every character a homacidal maniac and is just in it to kill as many PCs as possible before his dies and then makes the same character again and repeats the process. Thats just plain BS and would be addressed by the GM staff.
Why are NPCs the same as PCs? Because they are characters in the same story with their own distinct goals and motivations. They are played that way too. We have had NPC groups come across each other in the woods and attack each other because thats what the characters would do. Where NPCs and PCs differ is that NPCs are first and foremost there to further the overall story of Final Haven whereas PCs are there primarily to further their own story. If that story ends with a sucking chest wound administered by your "Best Friend" then time to start a new story. Look at the things you wanted to accomplish and the emotions you wanted to explore with your character that died and make a new one that will allow you to strive for those goals and feelings from a slightly different angle. Pinning for a lost character or remaking the same one over and over does not help you grow as a LARPer or a person.
I believe strongly in PVP. FH isnt a game run as constant PVP but the threat is there and has led to some great role-playing moments. Do you think Nuk would wonder of n the woods at night alone with Drugar (The Dwarven Man at Arms) whom she barely knows? She might though if she knew he couldnt kill her. I think alot of the current perception of PVP at FH is skewed by last event. Give it an event or two and then look back at it. It really doesnt happen often. PVP is hard to get away with and it really isnt all that fun. If you play a homicidal PC killing machine, you become an outcast quickly and dont really get much of the social interaction that is the key to LARP.
No single character is an army unto themselves. A 20th level character can get spanked by a 0 level character. Its all about timing and patience. Its about Physically getting away with it. Thats why its different than a table top game. You dont just slip a note to the GM saying "I slit my party member's throats in their sleep" you actually have to wait for the right time and do the deed. That is no small feat. Also, if you PVP a character in table top you may be killing 20% of the player base. If you PVP a character at FH you are killing less than 2% of the player base and have most of the remaining 98% after your hide.
Now, where I have a problem is a player who makes every character a homacidal maniac and is just in it to kill as many PCs as possible before his dies and then makes the same character again and repeats the process. Thats just plain BS and would be addressed by the GM staff.
Why are NPCs the same as PCs? Because they are characters in the same story with their own distinct goals and motivations. They are played that way too. We have had NPC groups come across each other in the woods and attack each other because thats what the characters would do. Where NPCs and PCs differ is that NPCs are first and foremost there to further the overall story of Final Haven whereas PCs are there primarily to further their own story. If that story ends with a sucking chest wound administered by your "Best Friend" then time to start a new story. Look at the things you wanted to accomplish and the emotions you wanted to explore with your character that died and make a new one that will allow you to strive for those goals and feelings from a slightly different angle. Pinning for a lost character or remaking the same one over and over does not help you grow as a LARPer or a person.
I believe strongly in PVP. FH isnt a game run as constant PVP but the threat is there and has led to some great role-playing moments. Do you think Nuk would wonder of n the woods at night alone with Drugar (The Dwarven Man at Arms) whom she barely knows? She might though if she knew he couldnt kill her. I think alot of the current perception of PVP at FH is skewed by last event. Give it an event or two and then look back at it. It really doesnt happen often. PVP is hard to get away with and it really isnt all that fun. If you play a homicidal PC killing machine, you become an outcast quickly and dont really get much of the social interaction that is the key to LARP.
Wayne O
The Game Master Lite
Frag the weak, Hurdle the dead!
The Game Master Lite
Frag the weak, Hurdle the dead!
-
Donovan Thynedar
- Town Member
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 2:18 am
- Location: With his beloved at the end of all things.
- Contact:
Dredge, I agree with you that people walking around and PK-ing just to prove their evil manliness is immature, but let's not mix up player and character motivations. Let me show you what I mean with this fictional example.
Two characters have been jockeying back and forth for political position since they both entered the game a year ago. On a plot one night they find themselves alone in the woods and get into a heated argument. One of them reaches the breaking point and draws his/her sword...
Here, the motivation for the PK is all in-game and is a necessary aspect of the world. The idea that the infuriated character has no way to act on his/her desire to kill the other character shatters the scene and totally changes the dynamics of interaction. Want proof that people act differently when they consider themselves above reproach? Look at the internet. People talk in ways they would never have the moxy to if they were face to face. Why? Because they can get away with it. Because there is no potential for consequence. This is why we need PK in this kind of game.
Sadly, this does open the door for cheese and abuse. See example number two.
Melvin shows up at FH having had a particularly bad week. His World of Warcraft raid went poorly and his girlfriend deflated, so he decides to take it out on the PC's. Melvin gets a cheap thrill from killing other players, and so his formerly haughty arcane starts blowing people out of their shoes when no one else is around. Claiming to have fallen to the dark side, he rampages around killing for no good reason.
I think this falls into the "what a load of crap" pile. I would certainly hope that the other PC's would be able to stop Melvin, but that's the only way he could be stopped. No rules system can compensate for a bad player. Luckily, the GM's have the ability to make their own calls in a situation like this and facilitate a solution. If they think that a PK was particularly bad form they could introduce a plot that could allow the PK'd character to return in some way or be otherwise significant in order to give the victimized player some satisfaction. This sort of thing is (in my opinion) far preferable to restrictive rules or time rewinds.
Here's another example.
Englebert makes a character, Rufus, who is a sadistic freak. Rufus enjoys killing and destruction, but is loyal to Clan McMillan and Duke Whompum. The Duke keeps Rufus generally in line, but quite a few people dislike him. The Duke is encased in jello on a plot and Rufus finds himself alone with several wounded characters and two healers - all of Clan O'Doyle.
Here is a situation in which the PC has a great deal of justification to PK. His character is an evil bastard, the check to his baser urges is gone, and he's among people who he has a measure of animosity towards. I wouldn't fault Rufus for whacking the whole lot of them, nor would I fault Englebert for making that decision. That's part of the game.
In a world that allows characters of all types (good, evil, indifferent, etc.) this sort of thing is going to happen. The only way to prevent it would be to prevent the sort of character that would engage in such an action. Since I don't think that's an option, it needs to stay as is.
Just to run the gambit, let's look at a situation that happened just last game.
A character is discovered to be in league with the enemy. The extent of this person's treachery is not known, nor can his/her claims of innocence be verified. The enemy is bearing down on the town, and a PC is faced with the decision to let the traitor live or kill them on the spot.
This, in my opinion, is why PK has to stay. The danger of the betrayal, the tension of the decision, and the potential consequences of the execution are all lost if PK isn't an option. The situation becomes cheap. We've all played video games like that, where the dragon is coming to destroy the town and some schlep shopkeeper won't part with the dragon slaying sword for anything less than 10,000gc. It destroys the immersion that is so critical for the game's success.
In the end, it truly sucks to have a character die for no good reason. It sucks even more when that death comes at the hands of a PC rival. We all want our character's death to have meaning, but that's not always going to happen. The same realism and richness that makes us so attached to our characters also deems that some of them will die in vain.
Two characters have been jockeying back and forth for political position since they both entered the game a year ago. On a plot one night they find themselves alone in the woods and get into a heated argument. One of them reaches the breaking point and draws his/her sword...
Here, the motivation for the PK is all in-game and is a necessary aspect of the world. The idea that the infuriated character has no way to act on his/her desire to kill the other character shatters the scene and totally changes the dynamics of interaction. Want proof that people act differently when they consider themselves above reproach? Look at the internet. People talk in ways they would never have the moxy to if they were face to face. Why? Because they can get away with it. Because there is no potential for consequence. This is why we need PK in this kind of game.
Sadly, this does open the door for cheese and abuse. See example number two.
Melvin shows up at FH having had a particularly bad week. His World of Warcraft raid went poorly and his girlfriend deflated, so he decides to take it out on the PC's. Melvin gets a cheap thrill from killing other players, and so his formerly haughty arcane starts blowing people out of their shoes when no one else is around. Claiming to have fallen to the dark side, he rampages around killing for no good reason.
I think this falls into the "what a load of crap" pile. I would certainly hope that the other PC's would be able to stop Melvin, but that's the only way he could be stopped. No rules system can compensate for a bad player. Luckily, the GM's have the ability to make their own calls in a situation like this and facilitate a solution. If they think that a PK was particularly bad form they could introduce a plot that could allow the PK'd character to return in some way or be otherwise significant in order to give the victimized player some satisfaction. This sort of thing is (in my opinion) far preferable to restrictive rules or time rewinds.
Here's another example.
Englebert makes a character, Rufus, who is a sadistic freak. Rufus enjoys killing and destruction, but is loyal to Clan McMillan and Duke Whompum. The Duke keeps Rufus generally in line, but quite a few people dislike him. The Duke is encased in jello on a plot and Rufus finds himself alone with several wounded characters and two healers - all of Clan O'Doyle.
Here is a situation in which the PC has a great deal of justification to PK. His character is an evil bastard, the check to his baser urges is gone, and he's among people who he has a measure of animosity towards. I wouldn't fault Rufus for whacking the whole lot of them, nor would I fault Englebert for making that decision. That's part of the game.
In a world that allows characters of all types (good, evil, indifferent, etc.) this sort of thing is going to happen. The only way to prevent it would be to prevent the sort of character that would engage in such an action. Since I don't think that's an option, it needs to stay as is.
Just to run the gambit, let's look at a situation that happened just last game.
A character is discovered to be in league with the enemy. The extent of this person's treachery is not known, nor can his/her claims of innocence be verified. The enemy is bearing down on the town, and a PC is faced with the decision to let the traitor live or kill them on the spot.
This, in my opinion, is why PK has to stay. The danger of the betrayal, the tension of the decision, and the potential consequences of the execution are all lost if PK isn't an option. The situation becomes cheap. We've all played video games like that, where the dragon is coming to destroy the town and some schlep shopkeeper won't part with the dragon slaying sword for anything less than 10,000gc. It destroys the immersion that is so critical for the game's success.
In the end, it truly sucks to have a character die for no good reason. It sucks even more when that death comes at the hands of a PC rival. We all want our character's death to have meaning, but that's not always going to happen. The same realism and richness that makes us so attached to our characters also deems that some of them will die in vain.
One should rather die than be betrayed. There is no deceit in death. It delivers precisely what it has promised. Betrayal, though ... betrayal is the willful slaughter of hope.
To an extent, NPCs are different from PCs. Where there is leeway, a PC will try to bend the rules toward their favor. An NPC won’t mind when a PC foe does this – if the outcome is within the rules but is bent to favor the PC, the NPC doesn’t mind – indeed the NPC is probably sympathetic toward the PC and will encourage the ‘bend’.
However, in PvP conditions, both opponents will try to take advantage of any leeway offered in the rules – attempting to bend them in different directions. This is where arguments and game-stops can go crazy.
A good rule set will limit the amount of leeway encountered, but there are always loopholes. When two armies of PCs go at it, you’re far more likely to encounter ‘bendibility’, and thus get into arguments and hard feelings.
Another problem with opposing armies of PCs was encountered at the event – when neither side can gain the upper hand, nothing happens.
Giving a name and face (and personal attachment) to everything doesn’t really work out very well game-wise.
However, in PvP conditions, both opponents will try to take advantage of any leeway offered in the rules – attempting to bend them in different directions. This is where arguments and game-stops can go crazy.
A good rule set will limit the amount of leeway encountered, but there are always loopholes. When two armies of PCs go at it, you’re far more likely to encounter ‘bendibility’, and thus get into arguments and hard feelings.
Another problem with opposing armies of PCs was encountered at the event – when neither side can gain the upper hand, nothing happens.
Giving a name and face (and personal attachment) to everything doesn’t really work out very well game-wise.
Death is the threshold to immense possibility
Doug,
There were not any more game stops this event than others. Infact there were less. LASt year event there were more game stops and more arguments.
Now as for the personal stake thing. I really believe that was we tried is what is needed to take the event to the next level. It failed, but it was the first time it as tried and I can see what went wrong. The personal stake thing PREVENTED pvp thus the stand off.
Basically I really believe is pitting groups against each other but making sure they rely on each other or there is some need for both people to be around.
We missed the boat, but only just missed it
There were not any more game stops this event than others. Infact there were less. LASt year event there were more game stops and more arguments.
Now as for the personal stake thing. I really believe that was we tried is what is needed to take the event to the next level. It failed, but it was the first time it as tried and I can see what went wrong. The personal stake thing PREVENTED pvp thus the stand off.
Basically I really believe is pitting groups against each other but making sure they rely on each other or there is some need for both people to be around.
We missed the boat, but only just missed it
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them