***Disclaimer*** I am not, have never been, and doubt I will ever be a roleplayer.
I play mmos to PvP. That's the entire purpose of the game for me. Sure other things are fine for biding my time, but PvP is the focus. I don't agree with PvE only players, but I can at least understand that they just want to fight mobs.
One thing I do not understand is the PvE only roleplayer. I know some RPers pvp, but from my experience, the vast majority do so very seldomly or not at all. Meanwhile, they stay completely in character and always adhere to the lore of the game........
Does anyone else see the glaring hole in that?
Most games have some sort of conflict embedded in the lore. Hell, most of the time it's the central point of the game. So how can a roleplayer who has chosen to roleplay a heroic knight for the "good guys", completely ignore fighting the "bad guys"?
How can he potentially see a fight break out between his faction and another, and just ignore it? Doesn't that kind of shatter the whole character they're playing?
Someone help me out here........
PvPers are roleplayers as well but they just don't know it.
Once you log into a MMO, you're a roleplayer. PvE - PvP, it doesn't matter.
Because pretty much in every single game I only belong to that faction because of game mechanics, not because I actually identify with the faction in any sort of way.
I can ignore it because most of the time, pvp is functionally meaningless to the game. You'll either aquire 'points' which you can use to buy items (which I can simply craft anyway) or gain nothing at all.
The only games that have meaningfulness to pvp is EVE and DF. If only because dying is so punishing.
The reason why I don't pvp is because I have nothing to gain from pvping that I wouldn't be able to gain from doing an equal amount of pve. With the added benefit that the PvE would have some sort of storyline or objective attached to it. PvP is often just trying to bash your cock into the other person's face and waste their time.
***Disclaimer*** I am not, have never been, and doubt I will ever be a roleplayer.
I play mmos to PvP. That's the entire purpose of the game for me. Sure other things are fine for biding my time, but PvP is the focus. I don't agree with PvE only players, but I can at least understand that they just want to fight mobs.
One thing I do not understand is the PvE only roleplayer. I know some RPers pvp, but from my experience, the vast majority do so very seldomly or not at all. Meanwhile, they stay completely in character and always adhere to the lore of the game........
Does anyone else see the glaring hole in that?
Most games have some sort of conflict embedded in the lore. Hell, most of the time it's the central point of the game. So how can a roleplayer who has chosen to roleplay a heroic knight for the "good guys", completely ignore fighting the "bad guys"?
How can he potentially see a fight break out between his faction and another, and just ignore it? Doesn't that kind of shatter the whole character they're playing?
Someone help me out here........
I can remember my years in LOTRO and *many* RPers PvPing out on the Moors, and this was across two servers.
PvP has nothing whatsoever to do with the lore of a game / world. It is merely a mechanism set up to appease certain elements that like to "duke it out", video-game style, and who don't really give a damn about the game's lore, period. Sure, there are RPers that do partake, but they are the exception.
as a person surviving the zombie infection and fighting for the survival of humankind i find that killing humans doesnt quite serve my purpose. that is why i dont pvp much even if the story says theres a dispute between "bandits and cops" in the game; the enemy i see is the zombies and not the players
Last time I tried to RP on a PVP RP server was in aoc. While there were a few good moments engaging in PVP where RP was involved most of the time PVP took place because it was a PVP server not because RP had led to conflict. The problem is, most PVP is mindless and pointless when taken in the context of why you would engage in a fight. For RP to work people need to understand who their character is and what makes them tick. Unfortunately most of the PVP on RP servers is usually due to imagination deprived excusing killing everything they see as being evil psycho's.about the lamest,most overused and pathetic reason possible.
for PVP to work on an RP server people need to forget it is PVP enabled and RP things first. The problem is most PVP first and then try to justify it using RP. Than means on any given RP PVP server you have 90% of the population acting like homicidal maniacs which mean it isn't worth trying to RP.
Yeah Clan Koragg was hideously bad for that. I'm spawn camping your corpse because uhh... Krom! Yeah that's the ticket. Let's head back to the guild hall for some ERP.
Most games have some sort of conflict embedded in the lore. Hell, most of the time it's the central point of the game. So how can a roleplayer who has chosen to roleplay a heroic knight for the "good guys", completely ignore fighting the "bad guys"?
How can he potentially see a fight break out between his faction and another, and just ignore it? Doesn't that kind of shatter the whole character they're playing?
Because today PvP in MMOs is generally a KoS (Kill on Sight) matter.
There is no real reason to PvP in MMOs, if something moves has to be killed.
This sort of PvP is perfet in Multiplayer games like Battlefield and CoD where every player is equipped the same and it's all about player skills.
In MMOs PvP is generally about higher level (or better geared) players that grief lower level player knowing that they have gear and stats advantage which give them the edge, rarely is about player skills.
So while I can play for hours CoD, I tend to avoid MMO PvP because they are hardly balanced fights and tend to be griefers paradise.
This.
And so, from an RP perspective on PvP, you're moreless forced into RP'ing an unhinged murderous psychopath. Even in full blown outright war people take prisoners. At least with games like CoD the theatre and situation justify the KoS gameplay. But take a game like Rift where you have 2 factions that are not really defined as good or evil, who fight a common enemy that threatens them both. Where's the RP justification for killing the other faction on sight the moment they step over the border?
So in most MMO's, there is absolutely ZERO conflict between being an RP'er and not wanting to PvP.
To tell you the truth, I was PvPing every day in an RP guild out in CoH. But only a small amount of it actually took place in the PvP zones.
I text fought with other RPers. And we could text fight for hours. Is that "PvP" the way the PvPers WANT us to PvP? It isn't, but it's PvP, nevertheless, to we RPers.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Most games have PvP systems based on absolutes: you are a dwarf so you are supposed to kill tauren.
You are from Albion descent so you must kill all Hibs and Mids
That just makes zero sense at all. When the US was at war with Japan did every american and japanese person run out and kill each other on sight?
A game like SWG, on the other hand, made much more sense. Everyone was inherently neutral. But there was a war around you and you could choose to take a side. And tons of RPers in SWG PvPed.
I'm not a big roleplayer, but I respect those that do, and usually try to play on a Roleplay server in an mmorpg because (excluding World of Warcraft) it's usually a more mature server. I don't care if they pve or pvp, they roleplay how they want to and that's fine with me as long as they're not interfering in how I'm playing in an mmorpg. It's none of my business if they want to roleplay in pve or pvp or both.
There is no need for a role player to engage in PvP in order to role play the part they've chosen. Conflict is built into most MMORPG worlds, but there are also NPCs and quests that are built into the world's conflict as well.
I would also call into question the observations of a single individual who is taking those observations and then generalizing them to a group that makes up thousands of people. We have no idea of the amount of PvP that role players in general engage in. We know there are more than zero. There are certainly enough of them that in many games there are RP/PvP servers, so it seems they number in the thousands, and they are playing on PvP servers specifically. That doesn't seem like a "vast majority" of role players are not engaging in PvP to me.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I have RP'd in PVE and some in PVP but I will admit PVP is much harder to eek out some RP and usually not worht the effort.
Not enough time to type while fighting if you are in character to coordinate attacks. If there is an enemy pvper nearby this forces you to be on the attack or defense no time to play it out or savor the moment like you could do with an NPC fight
Unless in a RP-PVPer vs RP-PVPer duel the time to kill is too fast to make it flavorful RP wise
Death comes too easy and is hard to explain or "play off" every few minutes
Game mechanics become much more visible in PVP that may interfere with most peoples characters. Basically you can't play the "tough" guy if you get your face smashed in by a superior equipped, fotm, or skilled opponent every 12 seconds lol.
Overall just RPing in PVP, rather during PVP is just not worth it unless you intend on dying alot lol. Decent time to RP in a PVP environment is like World vs World or an Open World PVP zone that isnt too active...then it all takes a backseat for a moment usually during the pvp with the consequences considered in the RP later.
***Disclaimer*** I am not, have never been, and doubt I will ever be a roleplayer.
I play mmos to PvP. That's the entire purpose of the game for me. Sure other things are fine for biding my time, but PvP is the focus. I don't agree with PvE only players, but I can at least understand that they just want to fight mobs.
One thing I do not understand is the PvE only roleplayer. I know some RPers pvp, but from my experience, the vast majority do so very seldomly or not at all. Meanwhile, they stay completely in character and always adhere to the lore of the game........
Does anyone else see the glaring hole in that?
Most games have some sort of conflict embedded in the lore. Hell, most of the time it's the central point of the game. So how can a roleplayer who has chosen to roleplay a heroic knight for the "good guys", completely ignore fighting the "bad guys"?
How can he potentially see a fight break out between his faction and another, and just ignore it? Doesn't that kind of shatter the whole character they're playing?
Someone help me out here........
I've raised htis problems with games like Day Z. It's impossible to actually simulate a role playing game with PVP unless there are embedded game mechanics that reward , to be frank, "acting human". In RPGs, single player, your characters are designed by writers and designers who attempt to make characters act realistic. In MMOs, particuarlly when it comes to PVP, there is no incentive for acting normal, rational or human.
Even in an area that is PVP, what sense doesi t make for people to randomly attack people of the opposition. In real war, plans are setup, tactics used, some type of battle plan before engaging the enemy. In adventuring games you frequently will meet rival factions but you don't instantly attack them all. There's something at steak, not just killing the other opponent but capturing a particular point or weakening the enemies supply lines or destroying the enemies food chain.
***Disclaimer*** I am not, have never been, and doubt I will ever be a roleplayer.
I play mmos to PvP. That's the entire purpose of the game for me. Sure other things are fine for biding my time, but PvP is the focus. I don't agree with PvE only players, but I can at least understand that they just want to fight mobs.
One thing I do not understand is the PvE only roleplayer. I know some RPers pvp, but from my experience, the vast majority do so very seldomly or not at all. Meanwhile, they stay completely in character and always adhere to the lore of the game........
Does anyone else see the glaring hole in that?
Most games have some sort of conflict embedded in the lore. Hell, most of the time it's the central point of the game. So how can a roleplayer who has chosen to roleplay a heroic knight for the "good guys", completely ignore fighting the "bad guys"?
How can he potentially see a fight break out between his faction and another, and just ignore it? Doesn't that kind of shatter the whole character they're playing?
Someone help me out here........
In Ultima Online RP'ers were THE pvp'ers. RP'ers only stopped pvping when the pvp community became inhabited by the scum of the internet world.
Daoc was an awesome pvp-rp experience, but Ultima Online was hands down the best RP experience I ever had. I was in Defenders of Justice and we were allied with a few other RP guilds. We had a ongoing war against the Orc guilds who were players that would wear the same armor as the npc orcs and wore orc masks. They would orc-speak and hang out in the npc orc forts where we would attack them. The most awesome thing about this is they would only use orc armor and weapons to stay in character, even though it was not the best stuff available. Had some epic fights and it was fun and kept at a respectful level. You just don't see that these days and probably never will again.
Today pvp is about wtfpwndun00b and all that kind of crap rp'ers rather not be involved in. You can have it.
And if all you want to do is PvE, why not go play a single player game? Want to do it with a group? There are plenty of online co-op games to play where none of those pesky PvPers will be around to "tarnish" your gameplay.
Because it is suboptimal to artificial restrict my choices?
If a MMO let me pve, and the game setting is fun, is there a reason not to play it just because there is some optional pvp?
Wow. It was an honest question and I was looking for a real answer. I wasn't "waving my pvp Epeen" around.
No I don't think you were waving your e-peen around.
I'm curious, you start out saying that you don't role play and don't ever have any intention of role playing. Yet I think there is a comment/question in this thread about how you can play a "rpg" and not "role play".
I don't see an answer, just the reasons why you enjoy pvp.
I imagine it's because you don't like it, it's not part of what you find fun, it makes you uncomfortable, etc.
Why couldn't you just adapt your answers to those who role play and don't pvp? I imagine they are similar.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
***Disclaimer*** I am not, have never been, and doubt I will ever be a roleplayer.
I play mmos to PvP. That's the entire purpose of the game for me. Sure other things are fine for biding my time, but PvP is the focus. I don't agree with PvE only players, but I can at least understand that they just want to fight mobs.
One thing I do not understand is the PvE only roleplayer. I know some RPers pvp, but from my experience, the vast majority do so very seldomly or not at all. Meanwhile, they stay completely in character and always adhere to the lore of the game........
Does anyone else see the glaring hole in that?
Most games have some sort of conflict embedded in the lore. Hell, most of the time it's the central point of the game. So how can a roleplayer who has chosen to roleplay a heroic knight for the "good guys", completely ignore fighting the "bad guys"?
How can he potentially see a fight break out between his faction and another, and just ignore it? Doesn't that kind of shatter the whole character they're playing?
Someone help me out here........
In Ultima Online RP'ers were THE pvp'ers. RP'ers only stopped pvping when the pvp community became inhabited by the scum of the internet world.
Daoc was an awesome pvp-rp experience, but Ultima Online was hands down the best RP experience I ever had. I was in Defenders of Justice and we were allied with a few other RP guilds. We had a ongoing war against the Orc guilds who were players that would wear the same armor as the npc orcs and wore orc masks. They would orc-speak and hang out in the npc orc forts where we would attack them. The most awesome thing about this is they would only use orc armor and weapons to stay in character, even though it was not the best stuff available. Had some epic fights and it was fun and kept at a respectful level. You just don't see that these days and probably never will again.
Today pvp is about wtfpwndun00b and all that kind of crap rp'ers rather not be involved in. You can have it.
One of those Orc guilds would have been Shadowclan, who carried on the tradition into DAOC however had to play Kobolds due to a lack of Orcs in the game, but the language (blah-speak) was still the same.
But you are correct, you don't see that much anymore.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
There is no need for a role player to engage in PvP in order to role play the part they've chosen. Conflict is built into most MMORPG worlds, but there are also NPCs and quests that are built into the world's conflict as well.
Yes, you can easily involve yourself in the world's conflict without engaging in PvP.
But as an RP-PVPer, the question I have is this: how do you, from an RP perspective, distinguish between the NPC and the PC on a consistent basis?
Though having asked that, I can see the easy answer: if you play in games where the system ensures that you never run into a PC who's working for 'the enemy,' you can avoid having to make that distinction yourself.
well you could but it was designed as a co-op game
D&D was never massive either.
Well, you could but it was designed for 4-6 players.
D&D invinted the word 'role playing' which was used in the question. Now people are asking why would anyone consider co-op in a role playing game? really?!
OP, simply put because PvP has nothing to do with role-playing. It's possible to PvP and role-play.... although I've met very few PvPers who even attempt to do so. However it's absolutely not required. Player Characters in most games focused on Role-Playing are usualy quite different from hostile NPC's. Player Characters from diverse factions OFTEN recognize that they may need to work together to accomplish some more important goal even if they don't like each other much. That's rarely the case with hostile NPC's....unless a GM is playing them, and then there may be some attempt at interaction....as usualy they just want to eat your characters face and are impossible to negotiate with.
The longer answer is that most role-players interest in playing the game is involved interraction with other human beings and PvP tends to prevent rather then promote involved interaction so it is usualy reserved for hostile NPC's/mobs.
Again, it is possible...depending upon the scenario...for roleplayers to PvP.....but it generaly doesn't happen with the frequency and manner that most PvP'ers tend to enjoy.....because it's not the fight that the RPers enjoy but the interesting interaction between characters....that's why we purposefully tend to gravitate toward scenario's where there is a over-arching rationale not to PvP (like the PC's all needing each other to save thier own necks) or where PvP occurs seldomly.
There is no need for a role player to engage in PvP in order to role play the part they've chosen. Conflict is built into most MMORPG worlds, but there are also NPCs and quests that are built into the world's conflict as well.
Yes, you can easily involve yourself in the world's conflict without engaging in PvP.
But as an RP-PVPer, the question I have is this: how do you, from an RP perspective, distinguish between the NPC and the PC on a consistent basis?
Though having asked that, I can see the easy answer: if you play in games where the system ensures that you never run into a PC who's working for 'the enemy,' you can avoid having to make that distinction yourself.
This question only makes sense if there is a need for players to engage in PvP. There isn't. If the real world is an important factor, look at the stories of combatants on either side of any war who decide to simply not kill each other when their military leaders aren't around. Look at the SodaStream factory, employing Israelis and Palestinians in the same factory. It is entirely normal for people, even in war zones to decide that they don't feel like engaging in warfare.
Running into an enemy PC and deciding to not kill them doesn't require any justification beyond the players not really feeling like killing each other. It is more realistic, not less for two people who don't really want to die to decide to skip combat and save it for another day.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Since when is PVP a part of roleplaying, do you expect every RP player to do tradeskill too? RP are allowed to do what they wanted last I checked, or are you telling them how they should play their game.
***Disclaimer*** I am not, have never been, and doubt I will ever be a roleplayer.
I play mmos to PvP. That's the entire purpose of the game for me. Sure other things are fine for biding my time, but PvP is the focus. I don't agree with PvE only players, but I can at least understand that they just want to fight mobs.
One thing I do not understand is the PvE only roleplayer. I know some RPers pvp, but from my experience, the vast majority do so very seldomly or not at all. Meanwhile, they stay completely in character and always adhere to the lore of the game........
Does anyone else see the glaring hole in that?
Most games have some sort of conflict embedded in the lore. Hell, most of the time it's the central point of the game. So how can a roleplayer who has chosen to roleplay a heroic knight for the "good guys", completely ignore fighting the "bad guys"?
How can he potentially see a fight break out between his faction and another, and just ignore it? Doesn't that kind of shatter the whole character they're playing?
Someone help me out here........
In Ultima Online RP'ers were THE pvp'ers. RP'ers only stopped pvping when the pvp community became inhabited by the scum of the internet world.
Daoc was an awesome pvp-rp experience, but Ultima Online was hands down the best RP experience I ever had. I was in Defenders of Justice and we were allied with a few other RP guilds. We had a ongoing war against the Orc guilds who were players that would wear the same armor as the npc orcs and wore orc masks. They would orc-speak and hang out in the npc orc forts where we would attack them. The most awesome thing about this is they would only use orc armor and weapons to stay in character, even though it was not the best stuff available. Had some epic fights and it was fun and kept at a respectful level. You just don't see that these days and probably never will again.
Today pvp is about wtfpwndun00b and all that kind of crap rp'ers rather not be involved in. You can have it.
Perfect.
I may add that in the UO age the MMO player comunity was naive.. It was like most people didnt want to be on a random act of griefing, it was like some misterious god would punish you if you griefed too much (of course there was tons of PK, but they were not the rule as we have on a FFA PvP game). The times of UO were a more ´pure´ time... You had some space to RP due to the ignorance (of the others and your own ignorance of the perils of a FFA game) and due to the more mature comunity.
Today you have the same kind of thinking of a CoD guy on MMO (kill on sight ), save a few exceptions.
MMORPG evolved to some kind of FPS (without being first person) game for the ones who want to play a massive game. The PvPer today, as the OP told us, just want the massiveness of the MMO on his PvP. And I find funny that he, with this thinking, he cant understand why a RPer do not join in, when we know that a CoD would be much more rewarding in this level than any MMO (I dont use MMORPG anymore to some games like DFO or MO). MMOs today are the land of n00bkilla213, not Antoine Du Lac (I have a char with this name ).
Originally posted by lizardbonesThere is no need for a role player to engage in PvP in order to role play the part they've chosen. Conflict is built into most MMORPG worlds, but there are also NPCs and quests that are built into the world's conflict as well.
Yes, you can easily involve yourself in the world's conflict without engaging in PvP. But as an RP-PVPer, the question I have is this: how do you, from an RP perspective, distinguish between the NPC and the PC on a consistent basis?Though having asked that, I can see the easy answer: if you play in games where the system ensures that you never run into a PC who's working for 'the enemy,' you can avoid having to make that distinction yourself.
This question only makes sense if there is a need for players to engage in PvP. There isn't. If the real world is an important factor, look at the stories of combatants on either side of any war who decide to simply not kill each other when their military leaders aren't around. Look at the SodaStream factory, employing Israelis and Palestinians in the same factory. It is entirely normal for people, even in war zones to decide that they don't feel like engaging in warfare.
The real world is a weird analogy here, because in the real world there are no "NPCs." Yes, people who are 'supposed' to be enemies will choose not to kill each other for various reasons, and most of them are perfectly normal. But when you've got (for example) a sniper who's making the decision on whether or not to take the shot based on the color of his target's aura... eyebrows would be raised.
Originally posted by lizardbones Running into an enemy PC and deciding to not kill them doesn't require any justification beyond the players not really feeling like killing each other. It is more realistic, not less for two people who don't really want to die to decide to skip combat and save it for another day.
Oh, sure.
But when you go charging after the enemy NPC fifteen seconds later... it looks more like a metagame decision than an RP one.
There are a few reasons probably. The main one probably has to do with FoTMs. RPers (like my brother) don't like to be pigeonholed into certain specs etc to compete. It's a loose argument really, I pretty much stick to my idea of a fun set up and do fine (most of the time). They get people telling them what is best and they should change this and that and say forget that and back out of pvp.
Originally posted by lizardbonesThere is no need for a role player to engage in PvP in order to role play the part they've chosen. Conflict is built into most MMORPG worlds, but there are also NPCs and quests that are built into the world's conflict as well.
Yes, you can easily involve yourself in the world's conflict without engaging in PvP. But as an RP-PVPer, the question I have is this: how do you, from an RP perspective, distinguish between the NPC and the PC on a consistent basis?Though having asked that, I can see the easy answer: if you play in games where the system ensures that you never run into a PC who's working for 'the enemy,' you can avoid having to make that distinction yourself.
This question only makes sense if there is a need for players to engage in PvP. There isn't. If the real world is an important factor, look at the stories of combatants on either side of any war who decide to simply not kill each other when their military leaders aren't around. Look at the SodaStream factory, employing Israelis and Palestinians in the same factory. It is entirely normal for people, even in war zones to decide that they don't feel like engaging in warfare.
The real world is a weird analogy here, because in the real world there are no "NPCs." Yes, people who are 'supposed' to be enemies will choose not to kill each other for various reasons, and most of them are perfectly normal. But when you've got (for example) a sniper who's making the decision on whether or not to take the shot based on the color of his target's aura... eyebrows would be raised.
Originally posted by lizardbones Running into an enemy PC and deciding to not kill them doesn't require any justification beyond the players not really feeling like killing each other. It is more realistic, not less for two people who don't really want to die to decide to skip combat and save it for another day.
Oh, sure.
But when you go charging after the enemy NPC fifteen seconds later... it looks more like a metagame decision than an RP one.
So then the real world cannot or possibly should not be used as a barometer of validity for a video game. Very good. You reached that point much faster than most people.
In that case, the only justification needed is that it's a game, and people play games the way they want to. If they don't feel like PvPing, the only justification needed is that they don't want to. Any RP reasons would be up to the players themselves. There are many examples within the video games themselves of people on either side of the in game conflicts not killing each other. In WoW, the Argent Tournament had leaders from both sides of their conflict in a neutral area, just talking. Jaina Proudmore is often a peacemaker in WoW's lore rather than a war machine. I would think there are many RP reasons for not engaging in PvP all the time.
So again, there doesn't seem to be any justification for the idea that RPers must PvP, and the idea that RPers do not PvP in general is very suspect, as others have noted in this thread.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
PvPers are roleplayers as well but they just don't know it.
Once you log into a MMO, you're a roleplayer. PvE - PvP, it doesn't matter.
It's really that simple.
Because pretty much in every single game I only belong to that faction because of game mechanics, not because I actually identify with the faction in any sort of way.
I can ignore it because most of the time, pvp is functionally meaningless to the game. You'll either aquire 'points' which you can use to buy items (which I can simply craft anyway) or gain nothing at all.
The only games that have meaningfulness to pvp is EVE and DF. If only because dying is so punishing.
The reason why I don't pvp is because I have nothing to gain from pvping that I wouldn't be able to gain from doing an equal amount of pve. With the added benefit that the PvE would have some sort of storyline or objective attached to it. PvP is often just trying to bash your cock into the other person's face and waste their time.
I can remember my years in LOTRO and *many* RPers PvPing out on the Moors, and this was across two servers.
PvP has nothing whatsoever to do with the lore of a game / world. It is merely a mechanism set up to appease certain elements that like to "duke it out", video-game style, and who don't really give a damn about the game's lore, period. Sure, there are RPers that do partake, but they are the exception.
a simple explaination would be...
as a person surviving the zombie infection and fighting for the survival of humankind i find that killing humans doesnt quite serve my purpose. that is why i dont pvp much even if the story says theres a dispute between "bandits and cops" in the game; the enemy i see is the zombies and not the players
Yeah Clan Koragg was hideously bad for that. I'm spawn camping your corpse because uhh... Krom!
Yeah that's the ticket. Let's head back to the guild hall for some ERP.
This.
And so, from an RP perspective on PvP, you're moreless forced into RP'ing an unhinged murderous psychopath. Even in full blown outright war people take prisoners. At least with games like CoD the theatre and situation justify the KoS gameplay. But take a game like Rift where you have 2 factions that are not really defined as good or evil, who fight a common enemy that threatens them both. Where's the RP justification for killing the other faction on sight the moment they step over the border?
So in most MMO's, there is absolutely ZERO conflict between being an RP'er and not wanting to PvP.
To tell you the truth, I was PvPing every day in an RP guild out in CoH. But only a small amount of it actually took place in the PvP zones.
I text fought with other RPers. And we could text fight for hours. Is that "PvP" the way the PvPers WANT us to PvP? It isn't, but it's PvP, nevertheless, to we RPers.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Most games have PvP systems based on absolutes: you are a dwarf so you are supposed to kill tauren.
You are from Albion descent so you must kill all Hibs and Mids
That just makes zero sense at all. When the US was at war with Japan did every american and japanese person run out and kill each other on sight?
A game like SWG, on the other hand, made much more sense. Everyone was inherently neutral. But there was a war around you and you could choose to take a side. And tons of RPers in SWG PvPed.
What happens when you log off your characters????.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
Dark Age of Camelot
There is no need for a role player to engage in PvP in order to role play the part they've chosen. Conflict is built into most MMORPG worlds, but there are also NPCs and quests that are built into the world's conflict as well.
I would also call into question the observations of a single individual who is taking those observations and then generalizing them to a group that makes up thousands of people. We have no idea of the amount of PvP that role players in general engage in. We know there are more than zero. There are certainly enough of them that in many games there are RP/PvP servers, so it seems they number in the thousands, and they are playing on PvP servers specifically. That doesn't seem like a "vast majority" of role players are not engaging in PvP to me.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I have RP'd in PVE and some in PVP but I will admit PVP is much harder to eek out some RP and usually not worht the effort.
I've raised htis problems with games like Day Z. It's impossible to actually simulate a role playing game with PVP unless there are embedded game mechanics that reward , to be frank, "acting human". In RPGs, single player, your characters are designed by writers and designers who attempt to make characters act realistic. In MMOs, particuarlly when it comes to PVP, there is no incentive for acting normal, rational or human.
Even in an area that is PVP, what sense doesi t make for people to randomly attack people of the opposition. In real war, plans are setup, tactics used, some type of battle plan before engaging the enemy. In adventuring games you frequently will meet rival factions but you don't instantly attack them all. There's something at steak, not just killing the other opponent but capturing a particular point or weakening the enemies supply lines or destroying the enemies food chain.
In Ultima Online RP'ers were THE pvp'ers. RP'ers only stopped pvping when the pvp community became inhabited by the scum of the internet world.
Daoc was an awesome pvp-rp experience, but Ultima Online was hands down the best RP experience I ever had. I was in Defenders of Justice and we were allied with a few other RP guilds. We had a ongoing war against the Orc guilds who were players that would wear the same armor as the npc orcs and wore orc masks. They would orc-speak and hang out in the npc orc forts where we would attack them. The most awesome thing about this is they would only use orc armor and weapons to stay in character, even though it was not the best stuff available. Had some epic fights and it was fun and kept at a respectful level. You just don't see that these days and probably never will again.
Today pvp is about wtfpwndun00b and all that kind of crap rp'ers rather not be involved in. You can have it.
Because it is suboptimal to artificial restrict my choices?
If a MMO let me pve, and the game setting is fun, is there a reason not to play it just because there is some optional pvp?
No I don't think you were waving your e-peen around.
I'm curious, you start out saying that you don't role play and don't ever have any intention of role playing. Yet I think there is a comment/question in this thread about how you can play a "rpg" and not "role play".
I don't see an answer, just the reasons why you enjoy pvp.
I imagine it's because you don't like it, it's not part of what you find fun, it makes you uncomfortable, etc.
Why couldn't you just adapt your answers to those who role play and don't pvp? I imagine they are similar.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
One of those Orc guilds would have been Shadowclan, who carried on the tradition into DAOC however had to play Kobolds due to a lack of Orcs in the game, but the language (blah-speak) was still the same.
But you are correct, you don't see that much anymore.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Yes, you can easily involve yourself in the world's conflict without engaging in PvP.
But as an RP-PVPer, the question I have is this: how do you, from an RP perspective, distinguish between the NPC and the PC on a consistent basis?
Though having asked that, I can see the easy answer: if you play in games where the system ensures that you never run into a PC who's working for 'the enemy,' you can avoid having to make that distinction yourself.
That is not actually the question being asked.
OP, simply put because PvP has nothing to do with role-playing. It's possible to PvP and role-play.... although I've met very few PvPers who even attempt to do so. However it's absolutely not required. Player Characters in most games focused on Role-Playing are usualy quite different from hostile NPC's. Player Characters from diverse factions OFTEN recognize that they may need to work together to accomplish some more important goal even if they don't like each other much. That's rarely the case with hostile NPC's....unless a GM is playing them, and then there may be some attempt at interaction....as usualy they just want to eat your characters face and are impossible to negotiate with.
The longer answer is that most role-players interest in playing the game is involved interraction with other human beings and PvP tends to prevent rather then promote involved interaction so it is usualy reserved for hostile NPC's/mobs.
Again, it is possible...depending upon the scenario...for roleplayers to PvP.....but it generaly doesn't happen with the frequency and manner that most PvP'ers tend to enjoy.....because it's not the fight that the RPers enjoy but the interesting interaction between characters....that's why we purposefully tend to gravitate toward scenario's where there is a over-arching rationale not to PvP (like the PC's all needing each other to save thier own necks) or where PvP occurs seldomly.
This question only makes sense if there is a need for players to engage in PvP. There isn't. If the real world is an important factor, look at the stories of combatants on either side of any war who decide to simply not kill each other when their military leaders aren't around. Look at the SodaStream factory, employing Israelis and Palestinians in the same factory. It is entirely normal for people, even in war zones to decide that they don't feel like engaging in warfare.
Running into an enemy PC and deciding to not kill them doesn't require any justification beyond the players not really feeling like killing each other. It is more realistic, not less for two people who don't really want to die to decide to skip combat and save it for another day.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Since when is PVP a part of roleplaying, do you expect every RP player to do tradeskill too? RP are allowed to do what they wanted last I checked, or are you telling them how they should play their game.
If you like PVP, go PVP, if you don't, don't.
Perfect.
I may add that in the UO age the MMO player comunity was naive.. It was like most people didnt want to be on a random act of griefing, it was like some misterious god would punish you if you griefed too much (of course there was tons of PK, but they were not the rule as we have on a FFA PvP game). The times of UO were a more ´pure´ time... You had some space to RP due to the ignorance (of the others and your own ignorance of the perils of a FFA game) and due to the more mature comunity.
Today you have the same kind of thinking of a CoD guy on MMO (kill on sight ), save a few exceptions.
MMORPG evolved to some kind of FPS (without being first person) game for the ones who want to play a massive game. The PvPer today, as the OP told us, just want the massiveness of the MMO on his PvP. And I find funny that he, with this thinking, he cant understand why a RPer do not join in, when we know that a CoD would be much more rewarding in this level than any MMO (I dont use MMORPG anymore to some games like DFO or MO). MMOs today are the land of n00bkilla213, not Antoine Du Lac (I have a char with this name ).
Oh, sure.
But when you go charging after the enemy NPC fifteen seconds later... it looks more like a metagame decision than an RP one.
such a valid argument .
So then the real world cannot or possibly should not be used as a barometer of validity for a video game. Very good. You reached that point much faster than most people.
In that case, the only justification needed is that it's a game, and people play games the way they want to. If they don't feel like PvPing, the only justification needed is that they don't want to. Any RP reasons would be up to the players themselves. There are many examples within the video games themselves of people on either side of the in game conflicts not killing each other. In WoW, the Argent Tournament had leaders from both sides of their conflict in a neutral area, just talking. Jaina Proudmore is often a peacemaker in WoW's lore rather than a war machine. I would think there are many RP reasons for not engaging in PvP all the time.
So again, there doesn't seem to be any justification for the idea that RPers must PvP, and the idea that RPers do not PvP in general is very suspect, as others have noted in this thread.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.