That was an unpopular suggestion because it's effectively PvP- you were allowing one player character to harm another. It's not that dealing with an NPC who berates you shouldn't cause Strain on failed checks, it's that another player should not be able to deal Strain (or Wounds!) to you without consent.

Strain for using a microwave... I just order pizza instead

3 hours ago, Talkie Toaster said:

That was an unpopular suggestion because it's effectively PvP- you were allowing one player character to harm another. It's not that dealing with an NPC who berates you shouldn't cause Strain on failed checks, it's that another player should not be able to deal Strain (or Wounds!) to you without consent.

It was the GM dealing strain because he didnt like the way some players were playing their characters, more than it was PvP

6 hours ago, Talkie Toaster said:

That was an unpopular suggestion because it's effectively PvP- you were allowing one player character to harm another. It's not that dealing with an NPC who berates you shouldn't cause Strain on failed checks, it's that another player should not be able to deal Strain (or Wounds!) to you without consent.

Yeah I had consent but that is still a good point. All of the players agreed to it in that situation, but I see what you mean to some degree. Are Wounds the same thing? Cause if any amount of Strain is PvP then certainly any amount of wounds are. What about the characters significant equipment? Is stealing that PvP because it will lead to a fight?

2 hours ago, korjik said:

It was the GM dealing strain because he didnt like the way some players were playing their characters, more than it was PvP

Yeah and believe me there are times when I look back on that and wish I hadn't done it, but the whole situation was a bad one. I had never dealt with that particular problem before because I the past my groups would have solved that one with violence. In light of that, at the time Strain seemed to me like a milder option.

15 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Yeah and believe me there are times when I look back on that and wish I hadn't done it, but the whole situation was a bad one. I had never dealt with that particular problem before because I the past my groups would have solved that one with violence. In light of that, at the time Strain seemed to me like a milder option.

Imagine that...players in a roleplaying game playing their roles as ignoring a loudmouth rather than initiating combat.

Yeah...definitely worth dealing out in-game penalties.

13 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

Imagine that...players in a roleplaying game playing their roles as ignoring a loudmouth rather than initiating combat.

Yeah...definitely worth dealing out in-game penalties.

I mean I can see verbal harassment getting to someone and that manifesting as strain in this game, but a lot depends on the particular situation and the personalities of the characters involved.

18 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Yeah I had consent but that is still a good point. All of the players agreed to it in that situation, but I see what you mean to some degree. Are Wounds the same thing? Cause if any amount of Strain is PvP then certainly any amount of wounds are. What about the characters significant equipment? Is stealing that PvP because it will lead to a fight?

Well yeah, harming other PCs, taking their equipment, mind-controlling them to do what you want...

Of course, these *can* be done well by an experienced party with a good GM but in general they involve an interaction where one player has fun at the expense of another. Suffering a penalty due to the actions of the GM's characters feels very different to suffering a penalty from someone who's supposed to be equivalent to you.

21 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Are Wounds the same thing? Cause if any amount of Strain is PvP then certainly any amount of wounds are. What about the characters significant equipment? Is stealing that PvP because it will lead to a fight?

You know what they say..."if you have to ask..." You're trying to catalogue each of these as specific boundaries, but that suggests you're missing the bigger point. In general, anything that puts PCs at odds with each other has the potential to lead to difficulties in and out of the game. Symptoms include: plot derailment, interpersonal conflict, table-flipping, general pettiness, and the waste of a perfectly good evening. The negative potential is high, and the positive potential is low.

Personally I wouldn't play at a table where my PC was potentially at the mercy of other PCs. (I have, long ago, and it sucked. Even though I wasn't the target, I had to sit there waiting for these idiots to resolve their squabble.) People might say "but at my table we do it all the time and we love it!" Well, your table is an anomaly, a rare flawless gem of good friendship and mutual understanding. However, I also have a table of good friendship and understanding, and we just don't do that to each other.

One reason is probably that we don't get to play often enough, so our characters are sacrosanct. But another is that we're far more interested in the story than whether we can steal 50 credits off each other. Just MHO (and this may be too blunt a way to say it, so apologies in advance ) but if the players are messing with each other, then the story hasn't captivated them and they don't have a cohesive sense of mission or purpose.

If you want to include PvP at your table you have to have an open discussion. But even the open discussion can fail, because one loudmouth can make the others feel like they have to play along, and they end up quietly resenting the situation. And that's going to exhibit as lack of interest, lack of cooperation with planning, etc. So you'd have to make sure that: a) everybody feels they can express their opinion; and b) they aren't lying about it. You can only really do it if you have total honest buy-in.

On ‎6‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 1:59 PM, whafrog said:

You know what they say..."if you have to ask..." You're trying to catalogue each of these as specific boundaries, but that suggests you're missing the bigger point. In general, anything that puts PCs at odds with each other has the potential to lead to difficulties in and out of the game. Symptoms include: plot derailment, interpersonal conflict, table-flipping, general pettiness, and the waste of a perfectly good evening. The negative potential is high, and the positive potential is low.

Personally I wouldn't play at a table where my PC was potentially at the mercy of other PCs. (I have, long ago, and it sucked. Even though I wasn't the target, I had to sit there waiting for these idiots to resolve their squabble.) People might say "but at my table we do it all the time and we love it!" Well, your table is an anomaly, a rare flawless gem of good friendship and mutual understanding. However, I also have a table of good friendship and understanding, and we just don't do that to each other.

One reason is probably that we don't get to play often enough, so our characters are sacrosanct. But another is that we're far more interested in the story than whether we can steal 50 credits off each other. Just MHO (and this may be too blunt a way to say it, so apologies in advance ) but if the players are messing with each other, then the story hasn't captivated them and they don't have a cohesive sense of mission or purpose.

If you want to include PvP at your table you have to have an open discussion. But even the open discussion can fail, because one loudmouth can make the others feel like they have to play along, and they end up quietly resenting the situation. And that's going to exhibit as lack of interest, lack of cooperation with planning, etc. So you'd have to make sure that: a) everybody feels they can express their opinion; and b) they aren't lying about it. You can only really do it if you have total honest buy-in.

No that's a good point and it was a situation there where the player was more interested in his character's attitude problem over any other consideration save for survival. I even brought that up at the time that he seemed **** bent on creating drama in the party versus realizing that the world was attempting to kill the party. I think in retrospect it was a situation where a player fell in love with a gimmick and was focused on making it work as he wanted.

On 6/16/2018 at 2:59 PM, whafrog said:

One reason is probably that we don't get to play often enough, so our characters are sacrosanct. But another is that we're far more interested in the story than whether we can steal 50 credits off each other. Just MHO (and this may be too blunt a way to say it, so apologies in advance ) but if the players are messing with each other, then the story hasn't captivated them and they don't have a cohesive sense of mission or purpose. 

Not necessarily relevant, but one of my favorite things about my current Star Wars party is our constant low grade inter-party conflict. For example, we have a spice addict 'face' character in the party, who also wears one of those smuggler coats with the hidden pockets. Our party's thief, who has the utility belt talent, generally pulls things out of the face's coat instead of his own gear. We have a Bothan too, who has to deal with a constant string of in-character dog jokes (he failed a pilot check to drive a tank because the tank didn't have a window he could stick his head out of). We routinely steal each others gear and replace it with prank versions - like a lightsaber hilt that throws up a holographic cartoon character instead of, you know, a blade.

I'm honestly not sure why we've been able to make it work without serious pvp or bad feelings breaking out. But it's truly a joy that it works.

3 hours ago, Genuine said:

I'm honestly not sure why we've been able to make it work without serious pvp or bad feelings breaking out. But it's truly a joy that it works.

These seem pretty normal, different from what I was referring to.

On 6/16/2018 at 10:59 PM, whafrog said:

You know what they say..."if you have to ask..." You're trying to catalogue each of these as specific boundaries, but that suggests you're missing the bigger point. In general, anything that puts PCs at odds with each other has the potential to lead to difficulties in and out of the game. Symptoms include: plot derailment, interpersonal conflict, table-flipping, general pettiness, and the waste of a perfectly good evening. The negative potential is high, and the positive potential is low.

I’ve played a lot of L5R over the years. In most games the party members were rivals. The setting kind of dictates it, assuming the party is mixed (characters from different clans), but also enables playing that out without things escalating beyond what happens in the game. And it’s fun . It’s fun knowing that while the overall goal of the party is probably the same for everyone, it’s likely that most characters have motivations that are at odds as well.

Now, the Star Wars universe doesn’t really facilitate this and neither does the system. It’s certainly harder to make that kind of party dynamic work in a SWRPG than in L5R. But still, the biggest part of making it work is having the right expectations. Knowing that certain circumstances might make another character decide to screw yours over, but also knowing it won’t go too far. Keeping it about the characters, not the players. And if you do something that effects another character negatively, do it because your character has a genuine motivation - don’t just make him a ******.

2 hours ago, nameless ronin said:

I’ve played a lot of L5R over the years. In most games the party members were rivals. The setting kind of dictates it, assuming the party is mixed (characters from different clans), but also enables playing that out without things escalating beyond what happens in the game. And it’s fun . It’s fun knowing that while the overall goal of the party is probably the same for everyone, it’s likely that most characters have motivations that are at odds as well.

Now, the Star Wars universe doesn’t really facilitate this and neither does the system. It’s certainly harder to make that kind of party dynamic work in a SWRPG than in L5R. But still, the biggest part of making it work is having the right expectations. Knowing that certain circumstances might make another character decide to screw yours over, but also knowing it won’t go too far. Keeping it about the characters, not the players. And if you do something that effects another character negatively, do it because your character has a genuine motivation - don’t just make him a ******.

Yeah L5R is a different animal in my opinion, and I love having party conflict in that game. If you are willing to communicate expectations in the first place then it seems less likely that anyone will get pissed off, or at least have it be questionable as to what the reaction should have been in that case. I feel like talking about this stuff ahead of time is a common sense ounce of prevention.

Also in every L5R game I have ever played in we all worked together outside of the game even when we worked against each other in the game. In one campaign I rolled Kolat during character creation, and my friends were getting screwed over covertly most of the time I was with them, but it was part of the game not anything that translated to the players. The agreement wasn't express but that group was very tight and always worked as a unit.