Other things that bothers me is the need to use the cookie-cutter build of the week if you want to PvP, because PvP is a contest between 2 or more players. Nothing more need to be involved. Thats exactly the contrary of a RP vision... In RP you CAN as well be an Achilles, unstopable on PvP (as part of your background), however to be an unstopable PvPer you will have to do a lot of research in builds, perhaps you will discover that a melee is not appropriate on this game, then you will have to be a ranged mage (there goes the Achilles prospect). This happened a lot on DFO... The PvP pushs you to builds and gears which is to push you against the cosmetic side of RP (which is the most important thing on RP , IMHO). PvP is not about skills today, but about gears and levels (or skills used as levels), therefore you will have to research build, gather gear, etc...
So, if you wanna be a serious PvPer and a RPer, you will have to:
a) ignore all the n000bakilla213 of the game;
b) Use a appropriate build to PvP, which probably will kil your idea of char (bye-bye Achilles who fights almost naked);
c) Ignore all the non-sense ganking who is the soul of any PvP FFA;
d) Totally forget to RP with others PvPers (if you try you will be called ´carebear´ or something equally childish);
And thats in the case your char background is based on a fighter/mage PvPer. I am not even bringing the possibility of your char, on RP basis, be a masterfull cook or a drunk bard with a fear of rabits .... In that case you can totally want to avoid PvP.
Personal experience: I have a TSW char, an Exorcist (who know about this build knows that he dont even make damage, he is 100% healer), and I choosed it because of the looks and I made up a background of an old french priest, recruited by the templars. I do PvP here and there, but when I do that I just enter in other ´mood´, even the clothes are changed and its like I am playing another game... Thats what PvP is to me, a contest, a video-game contest, with nothing to do with RP. Its almost like other char.
Thats why, when I want to PvP I turn on my PS3 and go to play BF or CoD .... Much more appropriate. (Althought I would call FIFA 14 the best PvP of all, but I will be bashed in here for this).
***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 don't think I am that traditional roleplayer, one who puts on a dwarven accent on themespeak or write in such way's.
My roleplay is trying to immerse myself into my character. I am still me, just in this strange, fantasy, sci-fi world.
In a way I do stay true to my type of class or profession.
Let's say I am a warrior type then I might speak with a more argressive tone and most likely will engage in some PVP. Can still perform my warrior status while playing solo or doing PVE group content.
Might I be a crafter then I'll be the more friendly or that sneaky businessman socializer.
Perhaps it also has to do with the fact that the type of conflict you (OP) seem to want is something I already get from playing/enjoying multiplayer online games and to me a MMORPG should feel like a world.
Also the "fighting bad guy's" how you put it also excist in PVE.
Overall I think anyone can place their own definition of what they consider roleplaying. Some might be that Heroic Knight who want's to put their skills against other players, some might want to be that Heroic Knight by defeating all solo/group PVE bosses and other challenges done in PVE.
I think the people talking about having to use PvP builds to actually win at PvP have the best point. Role playing, at its most basic is acting on the fly. PvP through random encounters isn't really acting on the fly. If the player wants to win and not die all the time, they have to do all this stuff to make sure they win, including just grinding out gear. Instead of Role Playing, they just playing the game.
So to answer the question, why would an RPer attack an NPC, but not another player, the answer is that attacking an NPC support the RP aspects of the game, while attacking a player may not support the RP aspects of the game by forcing the RPer into activities outside of RP. If RP is the primary activity, then the justification for not getting into PvP is that it detracts too much from the RP.
Again though, this all makes the assumption that RPers by and large do not engage in PvP, which hasn't been proven, and doesn't seem likely. Especially with the existence of RP PvP servers.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Note that if you are talking about "justify" from a technical sense as in how do you remain in character and rationalize not fighting other characters...it's childishly simple to do. In the first place you could simply self-select to play a PVE only game where you will never encounter another player who is an "enemy" in the sense that it would be logical to fight them because they ultimately are working for the same side as you. If you do elect to play a game that has some PvP in it...but restricted to certain areas of the world...it's also easly justifiable for the same reason you aren't battling every single MOB in every single job at the same time. For example, when I was playing LOTRO, my character never had a reason to enter the Ettenmoors (PvP zone) because there was always so much important to do elsewhere. Three cheers to the folks off fighting the enemy in the Moors but I'm upto my eyebrows in hostile orcs right here in Angmar (PVE Zone). I can't be in 2 places at once...so I'll just have to trust that the fighters in the Moors take care of thier part of the fight and I'll take care of mine. See how easy that is? No need to break character at all.
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.
We are still at this?
The idea that someone needs to justify any playstyle in an entertainment product is ludicrous. So what if RPers don't pvp without justification except "this is the way i want to" ... you can't force them to pvp anyway.
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.
I'd tell you where to shove that condescension, but I think it's a PG-rated forum.
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.
You don't need justification to do anything in a game, but what has always distinguished the RP crowd from the rest (for me at least) is that we care about the justification.
That's why this question is of interest to me, when I wouldn't even care less if we were talking about the non-RP PvE crowd.
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.
By inserting the "all the time" clause in, you're addressing a strawman instead of me. That kind of insult strains my ability to continue this conversation in anything resembling a respectful manner. Are we trying to understand each other here, or are you just trying to win an argument by baiting the opposition into rage-quitting?
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.
Notice I didn't touch on that subject at all either. Quite possibly because, as an RPer who does do PvP (though I'll admit not very well), I already know that.
The idea that someone needs to justify any playstyle in an entertainment product is ludicrous. So what if RPers don't pvp without justification except "this is the way i want to" ... you can't force them to pvp anyway.
A role-player needs to justify things from in character perspective. Like if I get killed in PVP and nothing actually happens to me in the game I need to justify that in my character's narrative which is pretty difficult. I presume that's what the OP means - If your character is part of faction A and his story says he hates faction B how would you justify not fighting members of faction B?
RP is just trying to make a character with a backstory and act in a consistent and coherent way with that character.
It all depends on how the RP'er is roleplaying his or her character. If they are an evil mofo who likes choppin heads off then i'm pretty sure they have no troubles pvping.
Originally posted by Sabiancym ***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........
My experience with roleplayers differs from yours. the ones I know that do PvP (the majority of them btw) are the best PvPers I have seen. they take the fighting very serious and tend to be very dedicated to it. They my talk funny, but they will stomp you.
Having said that, why do you care? Everybody plays for their own reason, unless you are sponsored and getting paid to pvp what's the point? In my opinion if PvP is your only focus you are not getting much out of the game. You may as well play CoD MW or some other lobby game. imo.
I PvP, I PvE, I do whatever I am in the mood to do with in the accepted boundaries of whichever game I happen to be playing. Currently, Rust. I won't grief people, and at the same time I won't raid with people I am not comfortable with. All personal preference pretty much like everyone else. Personal preference.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
The idea that someone needs to justify any playstyle in an entertainment product is ludicrous. So what if RPers don't pvp without justification except "this is the way i want to" ... you can't force them to pvp anyway.
A role-player needs to justify things from in character perspective. Like if I get killed in PVP and nothing actually happens to me in the game I need to justify that in my character's narrative which is pretty difficult. I presume that's what the OP means - If your character is part of faction A and his story says he hates faction B how would you justify not fighting members of faction B?
RP is just trying to make a character with a backstory and act in a consistent and coherent way with that character.
The same way he justifies dying so many times and coming back to life. It's just a 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........
Same way that pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons role players get away without pvp....
The same way he justifies dying so many times and coming back to life. It's just a game.
Bu RPing at least to me is pretending your character is an actual person in the world. If you're gonna say "it's just a game" it kind of defeats the point of roleplaying at all.
***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 play MMO's because I want a challenging and entertaining PvE experience and because I enjoy watching my character grow, progress and acquire new and powerful gear and abilities.
Succinctly it's about person preference. You like PvP. I freaking hate it and wish it never entered the MMO lexicon. Different stokes for different folks.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Same way that pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons role players get away without pvp....
Usually people in D&D have characters of similar alignment and its a small party of players working towards common goals. Why would they attack each other with PvP? It's completely different from MMOs which are set up where you're supposed to hate the oppposite faction but you never actually fight them except in little battlegrounds.
But MMOs aren't really good games for actual RPing anyway. Especially recently. This is only one of the smaller reasons.
The idea that someone needs to justify any playstyle in an entertainment product is ludicrous. So what if RPers don't pvp without justification except "this is the way i want to" ... you can't force them to pvp anyway.
A role-player needs to justify things from in character perspective. Like if I get killed in PVP and nothing actually happens to me in the game I need to justify that in my character's narrative which is pretty difficult. I presume that's what the OP means - If your character is part of faction A and his story says he hates faction B how would you justify not fighting members of faction B?
RP is just trying to make a character with a backstory and act in a consistent and coherent way with that character.
well then simple .. in the game world, whenever you kill someone, he pop back to life, so there is no point killing him.
Truth is .. "justifying" from the character perspective is not justifying at all. It is a game, you can make up anything that sounds remotely plausible.
***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........
Same way that pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons role players get away without 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.
I'd tell you where to shove that condescension, but I think it's a PG-rated forum.
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.
You don't need justification to do anything in a game, but what has always distinguished the RP crowd from the rest (for me at least) is that we care about the justification.
That's why this question is of interest to me, when I wouldn't even care less if we were talking about the non-RP PvE crowd.
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.
By inserting the "all the time" clause in, you're addressing a strawman instead of me. That kind of insult strains my ability to continue this conversation in anything resembling a respectful manner. Are we trying to understand each other here, or are you just trying to win an argument by baiting the opposition into rage-quitting?
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.
Notice I didn't touch on that subject at all either. Quite possibly because, as an RPer who does do PvP (though I'll admit not very well), I already know that.
Asking the question the way it was asked in the first place implies there is something "wrong" about RPers not engaging in PvP. this assumes that RPers engaging in PvP is the "right" way for things to occur. If, as you suggest, the idea was to simply get at the RP reasons for players doing what they do, then the original question and discussion would have been phrased differently. Something like this:
I play on RP servers. It's my chosen style of game play. However, on RP PvP servers, I've noticed more often than not that players do not engage in PvP the same way players engage in PvP on regular PvP servers. Players are just as likely or more likely to edge past each other, even in cases where one side has a distinct advantage. What is the difference between the RP PvP servers and regular PvP servers that allows this to happen? The obvious answer is that the server is an RP server, but there is more to this than just role playing. What do you think it is?
Since the original question was asked the way it was asked, an argument was inevitable. The content of your response (baiting, opposition, etc.) implies that you're fully invested in the idea of the argument rather than the discussion. If I happen upon a thread that's an argument, I'm not going to bother with a discussion because it's a waste of time. I've tried it here. It doesn't work. If, on the other hand, someone wants to have a discussion, I'm more than happy to oblige. That just doesn't happen very often around here.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
***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........
Not everyone needs to punch someone else in the face in order to interact meaningfully with others or to advance their character's story.
Magically, ATITD's playerbase has pulled it off for six or so years now without needing some kind of assault mechanic added in.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Why would a merchant RPer get into a fight in the first place. If they could PvPer you in a way that was acceptable to their role they would systematically isolate you from every other merchant, prevent you from ever entering any town VIA law enforcement, Make you hunted by all sorts of people, and provide you with no recourse to fix the situation. That's assuming you were ever worth their notice in the first place.
Why would a mercenary ever fight you. A true mercenary reconizes that their entire profession is about risk and reward, that they are earning their fortune on borrowed time until they become too injured to fight or die. Their is no reward for killing a nameless criminal like yourself, like wise the risk is not measurable since you're just unknown bandit #34512345. At best you may someday become a mark.
Why would a true hero fight you. They have far greater concerns about great evils conquering the land. In just about every movie/story or similar your only role is to demonstrate how far the world has sunk, and to be part of the clean up after the cause is fixed. Clean up of course being what happens after the story is told, and the part not told.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
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.
I'd tell you where to shove that condescension, but I think it's a PG-rated forum.
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.
You don't need justification to do anything in a game, but what has always distinguished the RP crowd from the rest (for me at least) is that we care about the justification.
That's why this question is of interest to me, when I wouldn't even care less if we were talking about the non-RP PvE crowd.
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.
By inserting the "all the time" clause in, you're addressing a strawman instead of me. That kind of insult strains my ability to continue this conversation in anything resembling a respectful manner. Are we trying to understand each other here, or are you just trying to win an argument by baiting the opposition into rage-quitting?
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.
Notice I didn't touch on that subject at all either. Quite possibly because, as an RPer who does do PvP (though I'll admit not very well), I already know that.
Asking the question the way it was asked in the first place implies there is something "wrong" about RPers not engaging in PvP. this assumes that RPers engaging in PvP is the "right" way for things to occur. If, as you suggest, the idea was to simply get at the RP reasons for players doing what they do, then the original question and discussion would have been phrased differently. Something like this:
My question, or the OP's question?
Because I think you're conflating the two of us. Which is still a little insulting, but at least it's the kind that feels less deliberate.
I play on RP servers. It's my chosen style of game play. However, on RP PvP servers, I've noticed more often than not that players do not engage in PvP the same way players engage in PvP on regular PvP servers. Players are just as likely or more likely to edge past each other, even in cases where one side has a distinct advantage. What is the difference between the RP PvP servers and regular PvP servers that allows this to happen? The obvious answer is that the server is an RP server, but there is more to this than just role playing. What do you think it is?
I couldn't ask the question that way because I wasn't even thinking of "different server types" until after I started answering my own question. And maybe that got worded wrong, but what I was trying to say was... exactly what GrumpyMel said.
Since the original question was asked the way it was asked, an argument was inevitable. The content of your response (baiting, opposition, etc.) implies that you're fully invested in the idea of the argument rather than the discussion.
Quite the opposite. I'm pissed off that my attempts at avoiding argument were belittled and strawmanned away.
If I happen upon a thread that's an argument, I'm not going to bother with a discussion because it's a waste of time. I've tried it here. It doesn't work.
That, I can't argue with. The evidence in front of me is too great.
Ok, let's see if a discussion is actually possible.
The players' internal narratives take precedence over the game's public narrative. That the game's setting says the factions are at war is irrelevant. The players have already chosen to build a narrative above and beyond the game's narrative, in some cases rewriting it completely. So there is no one answer to the question. There could be as many answers as there are RPers who don't get into PvP with opposing faction players. *shrug* It's not very neat and tidy, but but I think that's the answer to the question.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Same way that pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons role players get away without pvp....
Usually people in D&D have characters of similar alignment and its a small party of players working towards common goals. Why would they attack each other with PvP? It's completely different from MMOs which are set up where you're supposed to hate the oppposite faction but you never actually fight them except in little battlegrounds.
But MMOs aren't really good games for actual RPing anyway. Especially recently. This is only one of the smaller reasons.
Sure Iri, but see my post above. It's entirely possible to self-select an MMO where the only antagonists you encounter are mobs. Even if you select one that does have an opposition faction, you are only one person/character. You can leave fighting the opposition faction in PvP zones to other characters on your side while you concentrate your job of fighting threats to your faction in other (PvE) zones. After all one person can only be in one place at a time. It's also true that many conflicts (in the real world) have some sort of Rules of Engagement....if not formal then defacto such as where the fighting tends to occur.
It's only if the Role-Player purposefully chooses and open world PvP game (which most do not) then refuses to engage the enemy when encountering them that any sort of cognititive dissonence is presented for the character....and that is hardly ever the case because most RP-ers who aren't interested in PvP simply don't put themselves in such situations in the first place, nor do they need to do so.
Comments
Other things that bothers me is the need to use the cookie-cutter build of the week if you want to PvP, because PvP is a contest between 2 or more players. Nothing more need to be involved. Thats exactly the contrary of a RP vision... In RP you CAN as well be an Achilles, unstopable on PvP (as part of your background), however to be an unstopable PvPer you will have to do a lot of research in builds, perhaps you will discover that a melee is not appropriate on this game, then you will have to be a ranged mage (there goes the Achilles prospect). This happened a lot on DFO... The PvP pushs you to builds and gears which is to push you against the cosmetic side of RP (which is the most important thing on RP , IMHO). PvP is not about skills today, but about gears and levels (or skills used as levels), therefore you will have to research build, gather gear, etc...
So, if you wanna be a serious PvPer and a RPer, you will have to:
a) ignore all the n000bakilla213 of the game;
b) Use a appropriate build to PvP, which probably will kil your idea of char (bye-bye Achilles who fights almost naked);
c) Ignore all the non-sense ganking who is the soul of any PvP FFA;
d) Totally forget to RP with others PvPers (if you try you will be called ´carebear´ or something equally childish);
And thats in the case your char background is based on a fighter/mage PvPer. I am not even bringing the possibility of your char, on RP basis, be a masterfull cook or a drunk bard with a fear of rabits .... In that case you can totally want to avoid PvP.
Personal experience: I have a TSW char, an Exorcist (who know about this build knows that he dont even make damage, he is 100% healer), and I choosed it because of the looks and I made up a background of an old french priest, recruited by the templars. I do PvP here and there, but when I do that I just enter in other ´mood´, even the clothes are changed and its like I am playing another game... Thats what PvP is to me, a contest, a video-game contest, with nothing to do with RP. Its almost like other char.
Thats why, when I want to PvP I turn on my PS3 and go to play BF or CoD .... Much more appropriate. (Althought I would call FIFA 14 the best PvP of all, but I will be bashed in here for this).
I don't think I am that traditional roleplayer, one who puts on a dwarven accent on themespeak or write in such way's.
My roleplay is trying to immerse myself into my character. I am still me, just in this strange, fantasy, sci-fi world.
In a way I do stay true to my type of class or profession.
Let's say I am a warrior type then I might speak with a more argressive tone and most likely will engage in some PVP. Can still perform my warrior status while playing solo or doing PVE group content.
Might I be a crafter then I'll be the more friendly or that sneaky businessman socializer.
Perhaps it also has to do with the fact that the type of conflict you (OP) seem to want is something I already get from playing/enjoying multiplayer online games and to me a MMORPG should feel like a world.
Also the "fighting bad guy's" how you put it also excist in PVE.
Overall I think anyone can place their own definition of what they consider roleplaying. Some might be that Heroic Knight who want's to put their skills against other players, some might want to be that Heroic Knight by defeating all solo/group PVE bosses and other challenges done in PVE.
I think the people talking about having to use PvP builds to actually win at PvP have the best point. Role playing, at its most basic is acting on the fly. PvP through random encounters isn't really acting on the fly. If the player wants to win and not die all the time, they have to do all this stuff to make sure they win, including just grinding out gear. Instead of Role Playing, they just playing the game.
So to answer the question, why would an RPer attack an NPC, but not another player, the answer is that attacking an NPC support the RP aspects of the game, while attacking a player may not support the RP aspects of the game by forcing the RPer into activities outside of RP. If RP is the primary activity, then the justification for not getting into PvP is that it detracts too much from the RP.
Again though, this all makes the assumption that RPers by and large do not engage in PvP, which hasn't been proven, and doesn't seem likely. Especially with the existence of RP PvP servers.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
We are still at this?
The idea that someone needs to justify any playstyle in an entertainment product is ludicrous. So what if RPers don't pvp without justification except "this is the way i want to" ... you can't force them to pvp anyway.
It is moot.
I'd tell you where to shove that condescension, but I think it's a PG-rated forum.
You don't need justification to do anything in a game, but what has always distinguished the RP crowd from the rest (for me at least) is that we care about the justification.
That's why this question is of interest to me, when I wouldn't even care less if we were talking about the non-RP PvE crowd.
By inserting the "all the time" clause in, you're addressing a strawman instead of me. That kind of insult strains my ability to continue this conversation in anything resembling a respectful manner. Are we trying to understand each other here, or are you just trying to win an argument by baiting the opposition into rage-quitting?
Notice I didn't touch on that subject at all either. Quite possibly because, as an RPer who does do PvP (though I'll admit not very well), I already know that.
A role-player needs to justify things from in character perspective. Like if I get killed in PVP and nothing actually happens to me in the game I need to justify that in my character's narrative which is pretty difficult. I presume that's what the OP means - If your character is part of faction A and his story says he hates faction B how would you justify not fighting members of faction B?
RP is just trying to make a character with a backstory and act in a consistent and coherent way with that character.
Main Game: Eldevin (Plat0nic)
2nd Game: Path of Exile (Platonic Hate)
My experience with roleplayers differs from yours. the ones I know that do PvP (the majority of them btw) are the best PvPers I have seen. they take the fighting very serious and tend to be very dedicated to it. They my talk funny, but they will stomp you.
Having said that, why do you care? Everybody plays for their own reason, unless you are sponsored and getting paid to pvp what's the point? In my opinion if PvP is your only focus you are not getting much out of the game. You may as well play CoD MW or some other lobby game. imo.
I PvP, I PvE, I do whatever I am in the mood to do with in the accepted boundaries of whichever game I happen to be playing. Currently, Rust. I won't grief people, and at the same time I won't raid with people I am not comfortable with. All personal preference pretty much like everyone else. Personal preference.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
The idea that someone needs to justify any playstyle in an entertainment product is ludicrous. So what if RPers don't pvp without justification except "this is the way i want to" ... you can't force them to pvp anyway.
A role-player needs to justify things from in character perspective. Like if I get killed in PVP and nothing actually happens to me in the game I need to justify that in my character's narrative which is pretty difficult. I presume that's what the OP means - If your character is part of faction A and his story says he hates faction B how would you justify not fighting members of faction B?
RP is just trying to make a character with a backstory and act in a consistent and coherent way with that character.
The same way he justifies dying so many times and coming back to life. It's just a game.Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
Same way that pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons role players get away without pvp....
Bu RPing at least to me is pretending your character is an actual person in the world. If you're gonna say "it's just a game" it kind of defeats the point of roleplaying at all.
I play MMO's because I want a challenging and entertaining PvE experience and because I enjoy watching my character grow, progress and acquire new and powerful gear and abilities.
Succinctly it's about person preference. You like PvP. I freaking hate it and wish it never entered the MMO lexicon. Different stokes for different folks.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Usually people in D&D have characters of similar alignment and its a small party of players working towards common goals. Why would they attack each other with PvP? It's completely different from MMOs which are set up where you're supposed to hate the oppposite faction but you never actually fight them except in little battlegrounds.
But MMOs aren't really good games for actual RPing anyway. Especially recently. This is only one of the smaller reasons.
well then simple .. in the game world, whenever you kill someone, he pop back to life, so there is no point killing him.
Truth is .. "justifying" from the character perspective is not justifying at all. It is a game, you can make up anything that sounds remotely plausible.
That is certainly true .. very few will RP in MMO (or any game for that matter).
Pretty much....
Main Game: Eldevin (Plat0nic)
2nd Game: Path of Exile (Platonic Hate)
Asking the question the way it was asked in the first place implies there is something "wrong" about RPers not engaging in PvP. this assumes that RPers engaging in PvP is the "right" way for things to occur. If, as you suggest, the idea was to simply get at the RP reasons for players doing what they do, then the original question and discussion would have been phrased differently. Something like this:I play on RP servers. It's my chosen style of game play. However, on RP PvP servers, I've noticed more often than not that players do not engage in PvP the same way players engage in PvP on regular PvP servers. Players are just as likely or more likely to edge past each other, even in cases where one side has a distinct advantage. What is the difference between the RP PvP servers and regular PvP servers that allows this to happen? The obvious answer is that the server is an RP server, but there is more to this than just role playing. What do you think it is?
Since the original question was asked the way it was asked, an argument was inevitable. The content of your response (baiting, opposition, etc.) implies that you're fully invested in the idea of the argument rather than the discussion. If I happen upon a thread that's an argument, I'm not going to bother with a discussion because it's a waste of time. I've tried it here. It doesn't work. If, on the other hand, someone wants to have a discussion, I'm more than happy to oblige. That just doesn't happen very often around here.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Not everyone needs to punch someone else in the face in order to interact meaningfully with others or to advance their character's story.
Magically, ATITD's playerbase has pulled it off for six or so years now without needing some kind of assault mechanic added in.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Why would a merchant RPer get into a fight in the first place. If they could PvPer you in a way that was acceptable to their role they would systematically isolate you from every other merchant, prevent you from ever entering any town VIA law enforcement, Make you hunted by all sorts of people, and provide you with no recourse to fix the situation. That's assuming you were ever worth their notice in the first place.
Why would a mercenary ever fight you. A true mercenary reconizes that their entire profession is about risk and reward, that they are earning their fortune on borrowed time until they become too injured to fight or die. Their is no reward for killing a nameless criminal like yourself, like wise the risk is not measurable since you're just unknown bandit #34512345. At best you may someday become a mark.
Why would a true hero fight you. They have far greater concerns about great evils conquering the land. In just about every movie/story or similar your only role is to demonstrate how far the world has sunk, and to be part of the clean up after the cause is fixed. Clean up of course being what happens after the story is told, and the part not told.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
My question, or the OP's question?
Because I think you're conflating the two of us. Which is still a little insulting, but at least it's the kind that feels less deliberate.
I couldn't ask the question that way because I wasn't even thinking of "different server types" until after I started answering my own question. And maybe that got worded wrong, but what I was trying to say was... exactly what GrumpyMel said.
Quite the opposite. I'm pissed off that my attempts at avoiding argument were belittled and strawmanned away.
That, I can't argue with. The evidence in front of me is too great.Ok, let's see if a discussion is actually possible.
The players' internal narratives take precedence over the game's public narrative. That the game's setting says the factions are at war is irrelevant. The players have already chosen to build a narrative above and beyond the game's narrative, in some cases rewriting it completely. So there is no one answer to the question. There could be as many answers as there are RPers who don't get into PvP with opposing faction players. *shrug* It's not very neat and tidy, but but I think that's the answer to the question.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Many players equate pvp with gankfeast.
Game developers make the situation even more dire by making full looting upon death.
and people wonder why pvp repels so many.
(btw i'm a 12 year vet of DAOC.I love faction vs faction wars when they are done "right".)
Sure Iri, but see my post above. It's entirely possible to self-select an MMO where the only antagonists you encounter are mobs. Even if you select one that does have an opposition faction, you are only one person/character. You can leave fighting the opposition faction in PvP zones to other characters on your side while you concentrate your job of fighting threats to your faction in other (PvE) zones. After all one person can only be in one place at a time. It's also true that many conflicts (in the real world) have some sort of Rules of Engagement....if not formal then defacto such as where the fighting tends to occur.
It's only if the Role-Player purposefully chooses and open world PvP game (which most do not) then refuses to engage the enemy when encountering them that any sort of cognititive dissonence is presented for the character....and that is hardly ever the case because most RP-ers who aren't interested in PvP simply don't put themselves in such situations in the first place, nor do they need to do so.