Hello Dear Forum Reader,

I write this to ask your opinion on the matter of RPs which pit RPer against RPer. Below I have outlined the basic dilemma of PvP as I see it and expanded upon the four answers this poll offers.

PvP:
In an RP where there are two or more opposing sides an RPer can take (and even in some where this is not an option under extenuating circumstances), eventual conflict of interest is generally inevitable. The most likely result of this would be a PvP Dual, mano e mano. From here, any number of things can happen depending on your philosophy:
1)---The RPers can attempt to communicate or look at the posts and compare any number of things from who is most likely to win to who has the best writing. A player may even choose to say they will be defeated, because they are feeling generous, believe it is what "would really happen," or a number of other reasons. However, this is likely to cause endless stalemates and kill already fragile RPs.
2)---The RPers can post their maneuvers, and the GM can decide the resolution. This, of course, would require the GM to read everything and stop progression when he was not present, but it would be that a presumably unbiased 3rd party would make the decisions.
3)---The RPers are very knowledgeable and any issues in the first two options is voided due to their skill and commitment. They are experienced and understand the context and what their character and the other is capable of. In theory, the only drawback there is exclusivity- only the Kool Kats can PvP.
4)---The RP is doomed, the RP fails/is a non-starter/peters out when conflict arises/is mediocre and overall not worth it.


P.S: I encourage you to post your more specific opinions, but due to prior experience with polls know better than to create an "Other" option.


P.S.S: I'm considering, at a later date, making an RP on these Forums and I will reference this if I consider an PvP RP, as I should hope others will.

mostly pvp's become a problem and just end up having god mod against god mod. If neither character wants to lose (And yeah they'll be players who don't wanna ever lose.) then it will just be an endless battle of a player somehow surviving a direct hit from a sword. How will you possibly decide who the winner of the battle will be, it's not fair that someones elses character gets to be the hero and not mine?

This is quite true. However, suppose it is an Arena RP. No, not the game, but the Imperial City Arena! I once in one such RP, which died due to lack on interest. It was going to be a pretty short RP, and one person would triumph over all etc. etc.. That doesn't necessarily make them a Hero, it just makes them a winner.

But suppose a person feels his character disagrees with what the group is doing. Perhaps it is sack religious or immoral, or perhaps he's been driven mad or fueled by greed, but for whatever reason he turns on the party/a party member. How would such a dispute be decided?

worked well in the Timeline, but that tended to be army vs army rather than two individuals, which allowed for much more fair game and vagueness with numbers.

To be honest, most people kinda like their character, and don't really want him/her to die. Which creates a conflict of interest when a fight occurs. It might be doable with skilled RPers, but I certainly don't think I'd have much fun doing it. If you need to do PvP, I think numbers might be the smarter move. Or atleast a level of sorts. Otherwise it's pretty hard to do.

I'd haveta agree with Elgen. You'd need either a peaceful resolution, or many many armies. Not the best idea, but it would be very very fun.

The most successful PvP I've seen I've seen was a WWII RP where each player posted the start of their action, and then one of the moderators posted the result. If the other player didn't want their character to die (And most don't.) they would be allowed one chance during the fight to withdraw their character, and then the fight would be in the hands of the moderators to resolve. The moderators would do their best to preserve the lives of the character of course, and each character typically had "followers" to take the shots instead of their main character. Of course, if the odds were ridiculously against a character, he would still die. (Alone behind enemy lines sort of thing.) Then the player would lose everything they had earned during the RP (They had medals and stuff players earned for great feats in combat.) and be forced to start over, something they would be forced to accept, since the death of a character was usually the fault of the player for putting them in such a situation to begin with.

That was such a cool setup. Moved really slowly, but still, cool.

As Solidor said, it worked well in the timeline.

If you don't want your character to die, then run.

It's perfectly possible, if you have the right kinds of people involved. In fact, it can be much more satisfying to fight other people's characters as opposed to NPCs. In fact, the battles that I've had with people like FC4 and Aulakauss have been some of the most memorable. But it requires a certain level of compromise and communication on the part of both parties.