PvP in LARP

Fenri Kantaris wrote: I meant realism within KR in regards to interacting with people.

And KR gives that realism. You are free to talk to whomever you want and say whatever you want. And you are free to react however you want, within the constraints of the system.

Fenri Kantaris wrote: We can't all play carebears, some people just want to watch the world burn, some people know that you can be pulled through the Phokus and want to teach a lesson to someone by making them take that trip (and hope that Soul Harvesters get to them first).

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

PvP as a result of an argument or disagreement between characters will stifle role-playing and make players shy away from talking to others whom they do not know for fear of character death. We are all supposed to be in this together, as a community both IG and OOG... why deliberately ruin it for someone?

Fenri Kantaris wrote: If I, as Mike, were to go out and steal someones computer I would most certainly expect to get stabbed or beat up or something, those consequences should apply for Fenri as well.

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.

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.

When you think about another character as their card ... then you are meta-gaming. Meta-gaming + PVP is a pretty good recipe to equal griefing, or to set yourself up to never challenge the bigger card if you are the smaller card.

last event there was an RP showdown between a light clergy no combat list holding priest and a dark clergy much death wielding priest. The dark clergy could have squashed the light clergy like a gnat. But instead he stood down. After the event the players talked about how awesome it was. This is exemplary RP that got nowhere near griefing.

If you truly want to RP, leave the cards out of it.

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.

All too true. It is a game of rules and mechanics. PvP is going to happen- the rules are actually written to allow for it and for it to happen anytime and often but it is on the player base on if they are going to be that way or not. 95% of them, PvP will be incidental, if if happens.

Unfortunately, there are players here that will take that OOC knowledge of PC level and use their much more powerful card to bully the smaller/newer PC's here.

So yeah, PvP happens... very true. And as much as it is not talked about, there *are* card bullies among the player base which is where problems with PvP really start. For the most part, folks who have been here a little while know who the bullies are and when they see the obvious bullying happen, step up to end it or interfere with it... (which is a bit of a far cry from RL stopping bullies but then, a bullying victim has a better chance of fighting back if they choose to, in my opinion). Here... unless there is a marshal nearby that believes it to be a case of card-bully PvP, there is no recourse other than bitching about it, getting a posse together for protection, just dealing with it or not playing the game.

Even when the PvP Card Bully is caught, repercussions have a chance of not happening, for whatever reason (busy marshal, backburner the case for later and then forgotten, the perp whining his way out of trouble, etc...). Its a sad truth of ANY social game- more so with Larp I think, than any other social game. I saw this a lot in OWbN... and avoided games because of it. (btw- I lost two PC's to OOC shenanigans/bullying in the Org; one of the reasons why I have chosen not to return to it)

I've seen PvP/Card Bullying so bad to some players, it has colored the judgment of those people towards the fairness and even-handed marshaling/Storytelling of all larps in the negative. And I want you to know this is a hard thing to sell to some folks, that KR is not like some of the other groups out there.

And for the Most Part, the folks who play this game and the people who run it are awesome at keeping the crappy stuff from happening.

I *KNOW* KR does NOT tolerate the card-bully/needless PvP... but I also know sometimes the checks on bad apples get circumvented. It gets bad when its the same person flipping the bird to accepted social niceties and inferred rules without punishment or correction. It is that which can create a negative atmosphere or impression. Same goes with the Social Justice Warriors out there... which is also a form of PvP bullying- mostly on the OOC level... but it or the most part is dealt with and dealt with well at KR- for which I applaud the staff for dealing with.

AND that is where the problem with PvP lies, I believe and why its such a tough and touchy subject. When a higher goes after a lower (or a Marshal after a player), is it happenstance (as in most cases) or is it card bullying (the rest of the cases... which is more common than anyone would like.) and is it Malicious in nature? Maliciousness and Card Bullying are usually hand in hand but not always. The importance is knowing if its meant to be mean or not. Hard line to find/delineate and I am not certain where the line is.

Are you?

This whole thread is, I believe, one of the reasons that James recently changed the opening ceremonies talks to be focused on our Community Statement posts.

www.knightrealms.com/forum/Straight-Talk...nity-statements.html

To help people realize what kind of game that we on the staff want KR to be and I believe most of the players want this kind of game too.

It takes all of us to work towards those goals, but it is work worth putting in.

Yeah, James and the rest of High Staff (and the marshals in general) work hard to make sure that PvP is limited and that needless PvP is squashed, especially when it's against new players or its excessive. (I've been at game only 6 months and I know of two cases since I got here of James stepping in on PvP and saying "this stops now")

I think one of the most important thing with PVP is the idea of IG and OOG separation. Players involved in PVP need to check up on one another out of game afterwards, often times after lay-off, or sometimes right after the pvp thing happens, and make sure that both of them are ok, and that ig conflict does not, and will not, translate into oog conflict. Last thing we need is players not liking each other just because of an ig altercation. And same the other way around. Don't make an out of game conflict into an In game one. Seen that happen too. It's not pretty. If you're going to pvp someone's character check up on them, and make sure the line between out of game and in-game is clearly drawn, and that there's no real life hard feelings. I would honestly recommend that if your character has an issue with another character, make sure the player knows out of game, so there are no hard feelings.

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.

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

PvP as a result of an argument or disagreement between characters will stifle role-playing and make players shy away from talking to others whom they do not know for fear of character death.

There seems to be the -general- attitude or consensus on the thread that PvP as a concept has to result in the death or detriment of at least one player. My opinion is that PvP should be employed by a system of checks and balances personal to each player/character. If your first thought of PvP as a player is 'killing new players/shuffling anyone', then as a responsible player, I wouldn't seek PvP out. If your first thought of PvP is 'how will this develop my character/their character' then it might really be for you.

Bottom line is that KR is a game; games are meant to be fun. PvP is a great *tool* to use, to cultivate that fun, not ensure it. Unfortunately, PvP as a tool, can cause some players real OOG stress, which is not fun. Everyone pays to play, everyone deserves to leave the weekend absolutely 100% satisfied with their experience. It's important to remember that behind EVERY character, there is a player just trying to enjoy themselves, whether they're the one actively engaging in PvP, or not. That being said, I believe OOG communication between the engaged players should be left completely open, possibly even mandatory, as to combat OOG conflict.

Rook wrote: 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

That is a concern I share with you, I was merely bringing the flags back up for discussion, entertaining the thought.

Really I prefer Dennis' player's idea, which is what already should be happening, where people pull one another aside and talk it out. A coupling of the two ideas would be if people wore flags to signify that they may be receptive to physical RP or PVP, and thus are open to talk about it OOG. Or, the other way around, wearing the flag signifies that you are right now 100% not okay with physical RP or PVP.

I am almost positive that no one will ever be 100% receptive to physical RP from every source so that shouldn't be apart of this discussion. This discussion is about PvP where the only contact is with swung boffer weapons and thrown spell packets.

So let me share a story with everyone about how PvP actually advanced my character goals. I have been the victim of a total of five PvP instances in 15 years of playing. Back a number of years ago, I as Rayven was wavering as to whether or not I wanted to be a Templar. A returning player came to the game late and said to me he needed a place to stay the night, so my first thought was to give him the extra bed down in the Monastery (now the Guard Barracks). We began talking IG about a bunch of stuff, and how I was on the fence as a Gaian (a lot stuff just went down that made me consider giving up Cleric even), and halfway through the conversation he calls a Master Warrior skill that allows him to swing for Body Damage against me for a whole battle (cant remmeber the skill). I realized what was about to go down, and we fought. I lost, not realizing how much stronger he was than me. Prior to calling a killing blow, we had a quick 20 second talk about whether or not I was ok taking a death due to PvP. I said "As long as you make my death worth it." His response was simple. "I'm a Glamachian, and this is part of my test for a higher list". I was sold right there. He role played the torture scene out awesome, killing me in broad moonlight, so close to the path that two players LITERALLY walked over my feet when they were passing by. Few people knew about the scene because the player managed to do such a good job at hiding both me and himself. That was an instance of not only amazing RP, but fantastic PvP that actually made me decide I need to stay on the path to becoming a Templar. Just my two copper.

If the PvP advances the story being told, absolutely. But a quick Oog convo needs to happen to make sure there's no hard feelings or miscommunications.

Exactly. And sometimes if there is an opportunity, a quick 15 second conversation as all that's needed. Granted, this doesn't happen all the time, but when it can that's great.

From the prior posts, premeditated PvP is good as long as both parties are ok (wow, only time the word premeditated stands for something good). We've all played the MMOs where we are a new character in the lowbie zone and we get the duel/challenge/PvP request from some complete stranger out of nowhere and the challenger is triple your level.

If everyone who is a part of it are ok, then there's no issue. I think the issue many have about PvP is when both parties are not ok. Or when we think the PvP is stemming from reasons/intent that are not IC/IG related.

I kinda like the flag idea, but it is not suited for everyone, as stated prior.

Can we attempt PvP plots? By that I mean where we have a plot/mod/side quest people can take part in, but they must know going in that it will involve PvP, and that they risk something happening to their character. This could fulfill those with a desire for more "risky" playing, & as well as hopefully a chance for more cool IC/IG driven story. Only those who sign up for the plot will be involved and you cannot get friends to join in without them also risking PvP. They must know as well.

As many have stated, much PVP-related grief can be avoided simply by checking up with a player beforehand. This check-up can either happen in the moment (right before a killing blow or a torture scene, etc) or longer beforehand via proxies (are you OK with assassination attempts from an unnamed player during upcoming games?)

I think many folks avoid asking OOG because they fear hearing the word "no" when in my experience more often the players I contact are very gung-ho and receptive to PVP scenarios if asked.