PvP in LARP

Dennis Brand wrote:
Except that doesn't teach anyone a lesson IG, it just pisses people off OOG.

{Poor choice of words on my part, by "Teach them a lesson" I am thinking more of the way some mafia head honcho would "teach someone a lesson" - I agree with THIS TYPE of PVP being a dick move}

Dennis Brand wrote: Except you, as Mike, can't look at someone and judge how powerful they are. At KR, in the game setting, you most certainly can since PvP is as much an IG calculation as it is an OOG one.

Fenri cannot tell how powerful anyone is, he doesn't see damage being swung, he figures that all weapons do the same amount of damage but it's the experience of a fighter that determines the damage from the blow. Outside of the Count, Baron and Nobles, both Fenri and Mike really don't know how powerful anyone is. At best I can think "I saw that person kill a monster pretty quickly!" and just determine from there if I could take them in battle or not.

Dennis Brand wrote: If I, as a level 30 warrior character, happen to get pissed off at a brand new character, I know full well that I can decimate a level 5, regardless of class. I know I probably have twice, if not three times the hit points and swing twice as hard. I know that I have Superior tag skills that they can't defend. I know that I will win... everytime. That isn't even mentioning skills like Disguise and Contacts and Alibi that Rogues have access to and can all but guarantee you don't get caught after the fact.

In the real world however, I can look at someone who I think is weaker than me but for all I know, they are a blackbelt in Krav Maga, or are an ex Army Ranger, or have a knife or a gun. And it doesn't matter how much (or little) they are trained, since with one lucky hit it's all over.

KR is a game of rules and mechanics that the real world just doesn't have.

I am not condoning slaughtering innocent low level players and giving them a 5 Phokus shuffle, I think what I am trying to express may be getting lost in translation.

I came to KR fully expecting PVP, I DO NOT expect any of the 5 Phokus shuffle BS to happen because that's a bit insane, that's personal vendetta level of being an asshole (and there are certain people that, if they ever show up to game, I will do that to. Screenshot and pre-print my rules violation right here.....not that those people will EVER show up).

I dislike COMBAT but I can't simply decide to flag or unflag myself for combat scenarios, it's there, I understand it has to be done and I try to the best of my ability...sorry if I am using extreme scenarios in my examples.

If someone were to wrong Fenri and he believes that that person should pay for their transgression, killing them any more than once is too much. Mike understands that probably more than 90% of the players here can kill Fenri, and when that happens, I hope to go down swinging.

I know there are people that have been going to the game for so long there's no chance in hell I can ever beat them in a PVP encounter....but if Evrat gives Fenri a reason where Fenri feels that combat would solve the problem....Fenri is going to get killed because in his mind, Evrat is just some "Londwyn trash". (Sorry JD but when I think "Who can kill Fenri by sneezing", you come to mind), there's no cards, there's no skills, there's no periods there's just Fenri and Evrat (and a marshal).

I came to KR fully expecting PVP, I DO NOT expect any of the 5 Phokus shuffle BS to happen because that's a bit insane, that's personal vendetta level of being an asshole (and there are certain people that, if they ever show up to game, I will do that to. Screenshot and pre-print my rules violation right here.....not that those people will EVER show up).

I just want to address this: If someone comes to game that you have the urge to do this to, please choose instead to simply not interact with them. To do otherwise will most likely result in MORE than just a Rules Violation.

Fenri Kantaris wrote: ...he doesn't see damage being swung...

I'm pretty sure the damage call is as much as OOG mechanic as an IG representation. I will ask on the Rules Forums for a clarification.

Question on the Rules Forum

Fenri Kantaris wrote: I dislike COMBAT but I can't simply decide to flag or unflag myself for combat scenarios, it's there, I understand it has to be done and I try to the best of my ability...sorry if I am using extreme scenarios in my examples.

there's no cards, there's no skills, there's no periods there's just Fenri and Evrat (and a marshal).

Well, that's not exactly what I was suggesting with flags. I was suggesting flags as a form of pre-consent to any and all physical PVP and RP within reason. Otherwise, you could still engage in PVP in such, only through the avenue detailed above by Dennis, where you pull eachother aside, talk to one another about the IG issues, and talk about how you two are comfortable handling the issue, whether that's through actual PVP or some heavy-ass RP.

You can't hide behind not having a flag, but you can talk it out OOG and determine what's best for both parties. A flag would just make it easier for people who would rather just cut to the chase, and are totally fine with taking a tag for some good PVP.

I was actually talking with Steve and Matt this weekend about it because someone grabbed me at game physically without checking consent first. I don't like the assumption of "this flag means all physical contact is okay" because I, as a woman who has been assaulted several times, react differently to different people, situations, comments made, what my mindset is, etc.

95% of the time I'm fine with physical role play/touching for spells/healing, etc. the problem is that if I'm in that other 5% of time, don't touch me. Not unless you want me to have an OOG panic attack. It's not something I can pre-determine ahead of game, or at lay on, or even an hour ahead of time.

It's not feasible to have a "I'm okay with this" ribbon or list or identifier of some sort because it sets a dangerous precedent of not asking consent EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. And not checking in during serious scenes or RP because "oh they're okay with it they have the ribbon", etc

Interesting topic - I hope you don't mind me butting in as a - future - KR newbie from overseas.

Where I play (Germany), I've never even encountered the separation of PvP vs. PvE in terms of rules. I.E. "You can attack this character, but not this one". To my knowledge, this has never been regulated, and in fact it's very much encouraged to make no separation between PCs and NPCs. And while certain games certainly are more geared towards one or the other (by having a horde of npc enemies - or by either having no enemy npcs at all or putting the players in fractions with opposing goals), in none of them PvP would be seen as out-of-place. For example - in one game I'm playing as a musketeer mercenary in a 30-Years War inspired fraction. Duels amongst ourselves are common. Or even being on opposing sides of the battlefield - and it's never been a problem. Making enemies as well as friends is regarded as a good thing for a well-rounded character, and meeting their opposite in a dark alley, getting captured and/or tortured by them or having an impromptu duel in the middle of a battle (no matter what sides you're on) can be the highlight of the game for some.

Of course, our background in terms of rules differs in some important ways: Rules are usually light to non-existent, and the difference in power level between players is low (or more accurately - mainly determined by how many followers and friends you have). Also, players can almost always choose to have their characters die or not. We call it the "victim rule": Whatever happens to your character, you choose what the consequences for them are (usually with the unspoken disclaimer of "within reason"). Think movie hero cliché: "Just a flesh wound" / "You got lucky, the assassin missed the heart". This way of playing goes for the would-be killers as well. Typical movie villain mistake fare: You don't slit someone's throat when they're down, or bash their heads in - you just leave them barely alive so they will "bleed out anyway", or "don't give them the mercy of a quick death". Or they're not "worth getting your knife dirty". With the OOG thought that someone will find them and patch them up. Equally, the assassination of sleeping characters is just not done. And even if so, would very likely simply be ignored by the victim - which, I think, almost no-one would protest. Assassinations are more commonly played just as the threat of assassination. Say, by putting a black flower or note on someone's pillow during their sleep. Which, so it's hoped, will generate more role play by having that character act angry, or paranoid from then on, making an investigation, hiring bodyguards, and so on. As opposed to...just being dead.

Consequently, character deaths are rare - but keep in mind that resurrections are almost non-existent outside of some of the larger games, and magical healing is not that popular (We tend to prefer bandages, needles, leeches, splints - and lots of fake blood). So a grieveously harmed character might spend quite a bit of time just healing up. I've had people breaking their character's arm in their first fight, and spending the rest of the game no longer fighting and walking around with their arm in a sling. Admittedly though, that sort of dedication is uncommon.

As for the law - there's usually some kind of law enforcement around, so any aggressive act between players might be stopped, depending on the situation. This would be done by local law enforcement (whatever guards there are), the most high-ranking visiting noble and their troops, or, lacking those, whoever cares enough.


I know full well that most of these approaches will not work with your game, as it depends on certain actions having certain consequences. (Spell x must always substract y body points). I just wanted to share our way of playing. Still, I think if you do have a problem with PvP, meaning that too many player characters die because of it, maybe you could encourage the would-be killers to rethink "finishing off" their victims. Not by introducing rules, but rather by giving role play based alternatives. which, I guess, boils down to avoiding to metagame: There's no reason your character would know that someone is at -1, 0 or 1 body, and for all you know there's just no reason to "kill them even more" or "make sure they're dead".
As a side note: I think a big reason for players over here starting to invest more heavily into their character's equipment - instead of keeping generic for re-use - was the discouragement of forced player deaths that started some ~15 years ago, and is more or less the norm now. I think you don't invest thousands of Euro/Dollars in personalized armour and clothing if you ran the risk of being perma-killed by anyone with a knife each game.