<<If the point is to initiate roleplayed conflict and not steal for your gain, when the conflict is over do you give the items/silvers back?

Avaia, player of>>


That would depend entirely on the interaction. I can tell you that I would attempt to signal my intentions to the other player in some subtle way as an invitation to roleplay. I can also tell you that I'm not a huge fan of contrived roleplay. I prefer my conflicts natural. So I would tend not to return the silvers after the fact simply to appease the player because it is my expectation that they understand and value what I'm trying to do. The silvers are not really relevant to that at all, but it would be out of character to give them back unless the IC resolution of the conflict required it. Having said that, if I were a thief and you were a mark, and you indicated to me OOC that what I'm doing bothers you? Then absolutely I would apologize and give back whatever I had stolen. And from that point on, I would choose to avoid you as a target for roleplayed conflict in the future.

But for the record, I don't currently play a thief. The only character I play is Tav, and he's just your everyday ordinary halfling wizard.

~Taverkin

<<<<I think what you aren't understanding>>>>

Oh, pray tell.

<<<<is the distinction between the action of the character and the motivation of the player.>>>>

You know, for a second I thought maybe we could engage in a discussion where you're not making asinine claims about what I understand or don't understand. I was clearly wrong. If you are incapable of sticking to the topic without making it personal, stick a fork in me, I'm done.

And yes, I understand the distinction between character actions and player motivations perfectly well. Obviously.

<<<<You don't see a difference between the player perspective and character perspective. They're apparently one and the same to you, so that when the character steals it is assumed the player initiates the conflict with the intent of "preying upon weaker players for the singular enjoyment of the attacker.">>>>

That is absolutely ridiculous.

I've made it perfectly clear, over and over again, that there are always exceptions and that sometimes stealing can be a legitimate RP device. My contention all along has been simple and indisputable: I don't enjoy roleplaying the victim of theft. For some reason, you can't accept that.

It's not that I can't separate myself from my character, or think I AM my character, or don't understand the difference between characters and players, or whatever other idiotic accusation you guys can make that fly in the face of everything I've written on the subject. It's my preference. Period. I'm not alone in that preference. I've proposed very reasonable solutions, and instead of discussing those suggestions, you have continually focused on shooting me down as some sort of over-emotional, delusional crackpot who can't separate reality from fantasy. Nice.

<<<<What if I steal with the intent of initiating roleplayed conflict? In that case I am not initiating conflict with the intent to prey upon weaker players for my own enjoyment. Is that not the difference between CvC and PvP? But it does require that you be stolen from. Sorry!>>>>

We've been over this time after time. I don't care to roleplay that scenario. It's not how I enjoy spending my time. I've explained why in considerable depth. I've even given examples. If you can't be bothered to debate the things I've actually written, rather than make up outrageous crap about how I can't understand simple concepts, or distinguish between fantasy and reality, then you either have low reading comprehension skills, or you're being intentionally inflammatory. Either way...

...goodbye.

~ Heathyr

Seriously, though. I'm glad we can get to the bottom of this and define your position as simply your preference, rather than attempt to construct an illogical premise to defend it in toxic debate on the forums. We should just cut to the chase next time and be done with it.

~Taverkin

It makes perfect sense to me, Scribes. If the other player(s) involved in a conflict are upset, then I'm not happy with the way the interaction is going. It suggests to me that either I'm working with people who don't separate themselves from their character sufficiently to handle the sort of conflict we're involved in, or I've dropped the ball somehow and have failed to properly communicate my intentions.

I think that this gray area - determining how much of the responsibility falls upon the antagonist to communicate his intentions to other players vs. how much responsibility should be assumed by the other players involved insofar as recognizing the scenario for what it is, and what it isn't - is where the disagreement stems from.

On the one hand, I completely understand the purist position that players in a true roleplaying game should already be aware that they are essentially playing a part. From that perspective, it is assumed that the antagonist is behaving responsibly and any anger on the part of players involved is due to their misinterpretation of the scenario. In other words, they feel that the antagonist is simply griefing rather than attempting to roleplay. If you applied this same outlook to acting on stage, it would not seem reasonable at all to ever assume that the other actors are out to get you.

Having said that, this is not acting on stage. We're working with all manner of players here, and there really is no obligation on them to know or care about any of this. So the expectation should be that some people will get it and some people will not. That shifts some of the responsibility over to the antagonist to demonstrate in some way to other players that he is playing a role rather than griefing you.

I can only speak for myself, but I tend to take all of that responsibility on myself. I certainly appreciate it when the other player "gets it", but I don't expect it (even though I feel I should be able to!). As I've said before, I'll try to use subtle cues to indicate my intentions. If that doesn't work I'll be more direct, using OOC whispers. If at that point the other player is still upset, I'm just going to apologize and end the conflict right there. It's never been anything but a misunderstanding, and it's no skin off my back to just tell them that I meant no harm and I'm just going to go do something else.

~Taverkin

A GM perspective on this discussion.

C v C = Characters fighting each other. Players are cool with the fighting and conflict.

P v P = Characters are fighting each other. One or both players are not happy (and/or mad) over the fighting and conflict.

Make sense?

Sure, but that is an arbitrary definition. You are choosing to ADD meaning to the term PvP that isn't actually there. PvP literally means Player vs. Player. If you'll remember, for a long time PvP was the only term used. CvC is a relative newcomer, and it was created to specify a particular type of roleplay-driven PvP that is generally acceptable, as opposed to other types of PvP that may or may not be (such as OOC or disruptive PvP).

CvC may be used when you want to specify any competitive interaction between players that is roleplayed and generally considered acceptable.

PvP generally has a negative connotation, but it does not necessarily mean the players are angry, OOC, or disruptive. As clearly defined in the official documentation someone else was so kind to post, there are acceptable forms of PvP. These are now generally referred to as CvC, but that shouldn't change the core definition of PvP.

Character vs. character always entails PvP, because characters are always played by players. That's simply logic. The term "Player vs. Player" makes no judgment on the emotional state of the players. The only difference is, when we reference only the characters, we know we're talking about the game-world, exclusively, which implies roleplaying. This is not to say PvP may not also be perfectly acceptable and roleplayed, it is simply a broader term. It literally refers to any competitive scenario between players. It needn't necessarily be negative.

So why the distinction? Why, indeed. I feel the introduction of a second term was largely redundant. But since we're stuck with it...

When I refer to a PvP scenario, I can refer to a situation where the intent of the players is not known. It doesn't automatically mean it's unacceptable or "bad", but it might be. The judgment good/bad must be made independently.

If I instead choose the term CvC, we all know we're talking about the characters, and only the characters, leaving any potential player motivation out of it. Even then, there are situations where CvC may be deemed unacceptable.

Simply because a situation is roleplayed and character-driven doesn't automatically mean it isn't against policy. You could be perfectly in-character roleplaying a serial killer in a dark alley, but that doesn't mean you have the green-light to kill any unwilling characters that come along. If such a killing is agreed upon and consensual, it may be okay. But BOTH situations are both CvC and PvP.

I simply see no reason to change the definition of a term, when it's really quite simple. PvP = Player vs. Player. Nothing more, nothing less. The term makes no value judgment on what's happening. It is descriptive and logical, as terms should be. It's got nothing to do with being "happy" or "mad" or any other emotional state. Heaping a subjective judgment regarding the emotional state of the players on the term PvP opens the door for misinterpretation and confusion (like the kind we've seen in this thread).

Even though CvC is generally used to describe "acceptable" conflict, while PvP is generally used to describe "unacceptable" conflict, there are clearly exceptions to both cases. So essentially, we have two terms that are no more useful than one, since ultimately, each case must be judged on its own merits.

~ Heathyr