Well, the thing with PvP is that the setting is a huge factor about how people feel about it. We can't easily say, "I never want to compete with my fellow player," as players often compete with each other even in friendly scenarios. Explicit competition brings something new to the table, however.
We play these games (presumeably) for fun. Obviously, fun isn't always about winning, nor is it about everything turning out ideally all the time, but I'm going to assume that at least a significant portion of the time, the fun isn't contained only in the excercise of creativity. Losing has to be a possibility for things to be exciting, and in PvP there is always necessarily a loser. In designing something to be fun, the nature of how one can lose has to be considered. In some games, losing is a setback that can be overcome with more work... lose the battle but continue the war. In some games, losing is the end of the game, but the game can begin anew... you're playing Starcraft or something. In some games, losing is the end of the game, and it's game over, and it's your only shot, but you can lose with some dignity and recognition... witness all the stress of the Olympics. And in some games, losing is life or death for the character, with all the permenance implied.
So we divide PvP into these degrees. Imagine a scenario in which you are part of a competition, a non-fatal one, the stakes are recognition, imaginary money, etc. You can be a fresh-faced adventurer, ready to give your all... you can even be a mustache twirling villain, seeking personal gain, and in either case you can lose with aplomb and merrily shake your fist at your opponent as he makes off with the prize. Along the way, you can have your various adventures so as not to leave empty handed. You can invest in this character, experience their ups and downs, but it's easier to leave without being sore.
We have degrees in between, but for the sake of illustrating the point, let's jump to the other side.
Now imagine a scenario where the stakes are all or nothing. You are asked to give a different level of life to a character, to invest blood, sweat, tears, and soul into this creation and you are further asked to believe in their convictions with all your heart. Put hours and hours into playing them, into developing them, into striving for them because their goals are your goals. Then imagine they are utterly thwarted, pointed out to be completely wrong-headed, are dominated after a close or not-so-close conflict, and end their existance ignominiously, whether through death or simply from the end of the game.
We can say that players should be mature about it, that it's only a game, even that it's part of telling a story, and some stories are tragic. However, no matter who you are, if you cared enough about the character to make it believeable, you're going to take it partially into yourself, and suffer the sting when it's dashed. You may not necessarily get disgruntled with each other personally, but it will be a personal injury, and it's hard to smile at your fellow player after such a wound. The best of us can do so, but in the end, is it fun? And those of us who are not the best... well, it'll get ugly, and you can understand why that might be, even if you can't condone players acting out over it. In either case, it's a discomfort everyone, winner or loser, can sense and feel. To say they ought not to be doing PvP wouldn't cover the whole of it. I think even the best of us probably doesn't have the stamina for all-or-nothing head-to-head more than once in a blue moon, even as a creative excercise. Good players must be responsible, courteous, and open-minded, there's no getting away from that. Still, having all this borne in mind will, I think, contribute to game design.
So, in the end, the question of whether people should be doing PvP, or whether you should run it, isn't so easy to answer. It could probably do with a whole different poll itself. It can be fun, but it can also be more stress than everyone needs.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-12-05 10:55 pm (UTC)We play these games (presumeably) for fun. Obviously, fun isn't always about winning, nor is it about everything turning out ideally all the time, but I'm going to assume that at least a significant portion of the time, the fun isn't contained only in the excercise of creativity. Losing has to be a possibility for things to be exciting, and in PvP there is always necessarily a loser. In designing something to be fun, the nature of how one can lose has to be considered. In some games, losing is a setback that can be overcome with more work... lose the battle but continue the war. In some games, losing is the end of the game, but the game can begin anew... you're playing Starcraft or something. In some games, losing is the end of the game, and it's game over, and it's your only shot, but you can lose with some dignity and recognition... witness all the stress of the Olympics. And in some games, losing is life or death for the character, with all the permenance implied.
So we divide PvP into these degrees. Imagine a scenario in which you are part of a competition, a non-fatal one, the stakes are recognition, imaginary money, etc. You can be a fresh-faced adventurer, ready to give your all... you can even be a mustache twirling villain, seeking personal gain, and in either case you can lose with aplomb and merrily shake your fist at your opponent as he makes off with the prize. Along the way, you can have your various adventures so as not to leave empty handed. You can invest in this character, experience their ups and downs, but it's easier to leave without being sore.
We have degrees in between, but for the sake of illustrating the point, let's jump to the other side.
Now imagine a scenario where the stakes are all or nothing. You are asked to give a different level of life to a character, to invest blood, sweat, tears, and soul into this creation and you are further asked to believe in their convictions with all your heart. Put hours and hours into playing them, into developing them, into striving for them because their goals are your goals. Then imagine they are utterly thwarted, pointed out to be completely wrong-headed, are dominated after a close or not-so-close conflict, and end their existance ignominiously, whether through death or simply from the end of the game.
We can say that players should be mature about it, that it's only a game, even that it's part of telling a story, and some stories are tragic. However, no matter who you are, if you cared enough about the character to make it believeable, you're going to take it partially into yourself, and suffer the sting when it's dashed. You may not necessarily get disgruntled with each other personally, but it will be a personal injury, and it's hard to smile at your fellow player after such a wound. The best of us can do so, but in the end, is it fun? And those of us who are not the best... well, it'll get ugly, and you can understand why that might be, even if you can't condone players acting out over it. In either case, it's a discomfort everyone, winner or loser, can sense and feel. To say they ought not to be doing PvP wouldn't cover the whole of it. I think even the best of us probably doesn't have the stamina for all-or-nothing head-to-head more than once in a blue moon, even as a creative excercise. Good players must be responsible, courteous, and open-minded, there's no getting away from that. Still, having all this borne in mind will, I think, contribute to game design.
So, in the end, the question of whether people should be doing PvP, or whether you should run it, isn't so easy to answer. It could probably do with a whole different poll itself. It can be fun, but it can also be more stress than everyone needs.
Gee, I sure talk a lot, don't I? >_>