PvP in LARP

From: www.knightrealms.com/forum/Off-Topic/838...-in-larp.html#133998

Templar Aldric wrote: I would be interested in hearing about a way pvp would not be detrimental. I consider the social opposition a form of pvp, I suppose. But when it comes to actual strikes against pcs, I cant see that ending well and without some bad blood on both sides.

I can explain how PvP is not detrimental with one question: At its core, how is PvP different than PvE?
And the answer to that question is: It’s not. PvP and PvE are the same… when PvP is done right.

To fully explain my position, there needs to be some clear definitions.
Firstly, there are two types of thought when it come to PvP: there is the abundant, and oft thought of, Online PvP and the less understood, and often forgotten, LARP PvP.
Online PvP is popular in MMOs and MOBAs (e.g. World of Warcraft, League of Legends) where the entire point of PvP is to eliminate the other faction. This is born from the fact that there is no other way to interact with the other faction. The game’s only PvP design is combat (or Physical PvP, which I will explain later) and that is the only way that factions ever interact, when allowed. And in games where there is a social aspect (i.e. you can talk to the other faction), there is no consequence for PvP, since it is the ultimate end goal of the game design. This idea of Online PvP where the only way to accomplish anything is through the outright destruction of the opposition is nothing but detrimental to a LARP.
But to add a little perspective, Online PvP is also the method in which most PvE encounters go. Many Player Characters (PCs) will just outright “kill” Non-player Characters (NPCs) because there is no consequence to these actions. After all, NPCs are meant to “die,” right? There only for the PCs enjoyment, in whatever way that seems to manifest? While the answer to these questions is "yes" in a video game, that is not the case at a LARP.
LARP PvP is difficult, and it involves both In-Game (IG) character actions and Out-of-Game (OOG) player actions. LARP PvP consists of two aspects: Physical PvP and Social PvP.
Physical PvP is pretty self-explanatory; it is the physical (or combative) contact between characters using IG mechanics that can result in the “death” of a PC. Phyiscal PvP is solely an IG mechanic, and should be restricted to such, since two players should never make physical contact without clear and expressed consent. Unlike in Online PvP, Physical PvP at a LARP can be catastrophic since, at a game such a Knight Realms, a character is limited to the number of time in which it may “die” and having an unwanted or uneventful PC death is a waste both IG and OOG. That is not to say PCs shouldn't ever "die" when it's unwanted, it's more so to say that the PC death should leave the player with a positive story.
Social PvP is the roleplay between two conflicting characters. As such, it should remain between characters and not spill over between players. This should be avoided by insuring all things said are in reference to the character and game world, and not the player (but that is another discussion). There is no way to avoid Social PvP in a game system that allows different factions as conflict will be a main factor in the RP.

The main thing someone has to remember about LARP PvP is: You have to see this person, as a person, and everything you do has a direct impact on their life. They aren’t a nameless, faceless toon whom you may or may not ever encounter again. They are an actual flesh-and-blood person who wants to be there as much as you do and enjoy the same things you do, and you should want to see them month after month partaking in the same activity you are. As such, if you want to engage in Phyiscal PvP…
TALK TO THE OTHER PERSON ABOUT IT!
Pull them aside, OOG, and talk to them. Inform them that your character has a problem with their character and create a story with it, open an OOG dialogue so you both get enjoyment from the interactions, can form an understanding that it's between characters and not players; use it to entertain yourselves, use it to entertain others. Most importantly: if an agreement can’t be made, don’t engage in Physical PvP. Walk away from the interaction.

Just as NPCs aren’t sent out with the expressed directive of “killing” a PC (Okay, maybe sometimes they are but that is few and far between and normally the PC is given a bit of a heads up), a PC shouldn’t just “kill” another PC because they can. Just because PvP is allowed, does not mean it should be exercised. There is a huge power gap at Knight Realms, and those on the high end should be a little more OOG conscious of their actions. An example: As Dennis, I severely crossed another PC, and in a real medieval-fantasy world he had every right to kill me; however, because of the level difference, he could have killed Dennis in a matter of seconds. But he did not, we talked about it OOG, came to some PvP ground rules (btw, if you ever find my PC stumped and tied to a tree in the middle of the night, please save me), and proceeded with the character interactions. Because of our OOG conversations, I am confident that he will not outright “kill” my PC, and I am equally as confident that if he does initiate Physical PvP that it will leave me with a positive roleplay experience.

((moved from previous thread!))
www.knightrealms.com/forum/Off-Topic/838...-in-larp.html#134026


I think Pvp can be done well, and adds a level of realism and consequence to actions and RP in game. Fear of actual danger or consequence adds meaning to our characters deaths, and conviction to their actions when our lives are really in danger, either through physical challenges or social (eg: standing to a light/dark clergy/sorc god/monser)

Learning characters are volatile or actually dangerous is apart of the experience and can add to the complexity and depth of the world and RP.

There is a point in my opinion where that type of conflict can be un-enjoyable for players, and could be easily solved by being able to "flag" yourself for PVP.

But pvp is a two way street, there are those like me who really enjoy the threat, the complexity, and extra layer to the game, the ability to defend my honor, god or safety at a moments notice, the fear of an assassin in the night, really adds a special quality to the game for me.
With that said there are the latter, and I would maybe even venture to say the majority(?) who would rather not have the looming threat of an assassin, or the chance of a conversation going sour to the point of violence or death.

A solution? A flag of some sorts. A purple wrap on the wrist or something of the sorts. Because conflict (arguments, and slander IG) without consequence (regardless of the faction) really isnt what develops in depth and interesting RP (Imo of course . Unless of course PVP is blanket removed from the game, which would change the expectations and gameplay of pvp-ers and non.

I am a big fan of treating NPCs and PCs the same. They are characters. They are played by players. So that makes them Player Characters. Sure, an NPC has been given motivations by the game world and Storytellers instead of just by the player, but the player is still bringing the character to life.

Now then, rarely will a short term NPC being killed (PvE) cause the player of that character any long term distress, with a PC being killed (PvP style) can actually put the Player out quite a bit of money because of the costuming and props they have invested time in. It can also sour a players desire to return to the game. It can also ruin friendships.

But character conflict done well can also MAKE friendships stronger. I like what has been said before in this thread, just wanted to add on a bit more.

Larps are about players working together to have a good time, ultimately. In the end, if everyone is having fun and goes away fulfilled then it doesn't really matter if you were stabbing each other in the back or confounding each other's plans or arresting each other or fighting side by side against a horde of your friends who happen to be skeletons for 4 hours. Just take care of your fellow players, check with them to make sure they are on board and having a good time and then do whatever makes the most fun for the most people.

To expand a little on what Joe said, character conflict done well can make interactions more poignant, intense and cause significant character development. The distinction I make is that Character Conflict is not necessarily physical PvP. Social PvP is a thing as well, with the fight being fought over ideology or reputation rather than hitpoints. That right there is what roleplaying is to me.

This thread originally started over my wanting to discuss Religious roleplay, specifically Light vs. Dark, and as PvP was considered a consequence this thread was separated out. I am not sure if you can really, as the social pvp aspect is the meat of religious roleplay.

It took me some time to really think about this, and I finally settled in what I want to say. This is meant to be a general consideration of the topic, and not a specific analysis of KR. Please note that when I refer to experiences with pvp, I'm not always referring to KR, but other larps I've played, helped run, as well as some stories I know from close friends.

To me, pvx means players trying to get rid of or kill x. Everything else is rp or story.

I do not consider huge theological debates or political arguments pvp or pve. They are the social equivalent of sparing or having a contest. What would cross the line to social pvp for me would be social interaction aimed at having the person executed, exiled, or stripped of all ig authority or position to the point the character is no longer fun to be played (I can expand on that if need be).

Because of this, I see all pvp as something that should be at a bare minimum, and only if the rp truly drives it. I agree with what has been said about consequences, but I have also experienced my fair share of pvp because "it's fun" or "because I can". If someone is robbing you, should they take a life tag just because they can? Is it OK for a barbarian to drop and kill a mage because they used magic on them? Is it sufficient to say "I'm making a psycho who wants to inspire terror by randomly killing people?" when pvp aimed at removing characters from the game (I consider any taking of a tag an attempt to remove the character from the game) is not based in something substantial it harms fun, rather than supports it. Pvp not aimed at killing or removing tags (knocking out our wounding the person you rob, but not killing then or barbarian drops the mage, but get him healed) can hold just as much impact if not more.

Even when there may be some basis in rp, the power levels and realities of the game should be taken into account. There are characters significantly more powerful than others,who can easily pvp someone with no chance of resistance. Are you comfortable with the possibility that your 20th level character may have unknowingly crossed or insulted a level 100 assassin, who can easily take all of your lives while you sleep, and so you have to make a new character? Do all characters have to make pvp concessions in their build, because others may choose to pvp them? Sadly I have known instances where players make their pvp decisions because of what they know about their targets sheet or card oog, be it level, defenses or lists.
In one of my first larps, I was subject to unbalanced, unjustified pvp aimed at killing my character ... A high level Warrior landed I had screwed his people out of their share of money 2 events prior when he wasn't there. (the gold divide wasn't even, and in KR terms 8 people each got 10 gold, I took 11 as leader) He proceeded to attempt to kill all of us on the spot, and only failed because ree had armor and played dead with 1 body and ran for help. The player demanded a card check to see if she was cheating.

Also, when deadly pvp is rampant a game needs to have methods for responses. It is not sufficient to have 'always get away with it' type skills, or have no skills or rules to allow for investigation. I know of one Sci first larp that fell apart for just that. Stealth and setup skills allowed murders to be performed unseen by traps cameras or other security, and the game had no rules for any sort of investigation, so no assassin could be caught. On the other hand I have seen games where divination, S crying, fortune telling, advanced tracking, deduction/research skills and the like have been allowed to pursue pvp, making for fun aftermath regardless of whether the per is caught. . But if characters can be built who can pvp with no repricussions because they can always get away untraceable, it becomes merely a system for griefing or trolling.

Just my two cents.

Cyndra Stagsblood wrote: ((moved from previous thread!))
www.knightrealms.com/forum/Off-Topic/838...-in-larp.html#134026

There is a point in my opinion where that type of conflict can be un-enjoyable for players, and could be easily solved by being able to "flag" yourself for PVP.

A solution? A flag of some sorts. A purple wrap on the wrist or something of the sorts. Because conflict (arguments, and slander IG) without consequence (regardless of the faction) really isnt what develops in depth and interesting RP (Imo of course .

I second this. If you're up for spontaneous PvP, then the obligation should be on you to wear a flag of some sorts to indicate such. This precludes New Players who may or may not know, and takes the responsibility off of people who are OOG totally not OK with PvP.