I think there is a different between a DM and a normal player. Dm is like creator of the world for player to explore..much like the developer in neverwinter. A Dm is a player too but he plays a role to create the environment for other player to experience. Its like u, the player against my army of minion. And thats PVE, player versus environment. Putting DM in PVP is like putting the developer as delzoun explorer versus us normal player as luskan corsair. The developer just pop up a few minion and the the whole PVP become PVE.
So can we continue to expect the OP to take fragments of posts, ignoring the rest, just to support their power posting? While initially mildly entertaining, it's getting predictable enough that I don't see this topic going anywhere anymore.
We really don't need more pages of the OP sticking his fingers in his ears going "im still right" to every disagreement posted.
If anyone addressed the specific points I made, you would have a point. No one is going to change their thinking abut this. Not you, not me. That is what is predictable.
Explain to me how antagonism is not central to story telling or how a Dungeonmaster is not a storyteller. If both are true, the DM plays an antagonistic role and D&D is indeed a very sophisticated pvp game. No one can even argue how either one is untrue. So yes, until that happens I am going to say I am right or at the very least I will say you guys have given absolutely no reason to simply dismiss the idea that D&D is indeed a sophisticated form of PvP.
That is right, which why we are not making him a "regular player". He creates a system of conflict known as the story, for the players to progress their characters through.
How is this even relevant to Player versus Player. You are so misguided you aren't even wrong. You want people with DM like powers running around in Domination? What exactly are you arguing, because it doesn't even appear relevant anymore... Yes a DM controls the actions of imaginary adversaries, but they also control EVERYTHING else that is not player run. The DM is everything that ISN'T player controlled.
You should stick to describing how player versus player is an integral aspect of D&D rather than wasting time defending the idea that the DM/Player dichotomy is a good and/or relevant example of PVP. It is a terrible example that is only accurate through a very tinted lens.
Campaign - Trail of the Imaskarcana (NWS-DMFG77QOF)
I think there is a different between a DM and a normal player. Dm is like creator of the world for player to explore..much like the developer in neverwinter. A Dm is a player too but he plays a role to create the environment for other player to experience. Its like u, the player against my army of minion. And thats PVE, player versus environment. Putting DM in PVP is like putting the developer as delzoun explorer versus us normal player as luskan corsair. The developer just pop up a few minion and the the whole PVP become PVE.
Hah this is the simplest and best counter to what I have said. My point is that the DM is not supposed to use his power as world-creator to simply kill the players but instead is supposed to create challenging npc for the characters to be in conflict with and to play those npcs to the best of his ability within the limited (and not op) scope of power he has given them.
As world creator he is still playing the antagonist but in a much more subtle way. No one would play the game if it was neither challenging or impossible.
You do realize that by claiming that the group in opposition to you houses the biggest hypocrites, you are yourself making claims from the standpoint of an elitist, and thus being a hypocrite? You have no verifiable evidence to make this claim anymore than the poster you quoted. There is no useful reason to spread the vitriol of opinionated bias.
There is when there is precedence of PVE elitists claiming others as elitists because they do not agree with others' playstyle. There are tons of evidence, you just need to open your eyes.
How is this even relevant to Player versus Player. You are so misguided you aren't even wrong. You want people with DM like powers running around in Domination? What exactly are you arguing, because it doesn't even appear relevant anymore... Yes a DM controls the actions of imaginary adversaries, but they also control EVERYTHING else that is not player run. The DM is everything that ISN'T player controlled.
You should stick to describing how player versus player is an integral aspect of D&D rather than wasting time defending the idea that the DM/Player dichotomy is a good and/or relevant example of PVP. It is a terrible example that is only accurate through a very tinted lens.
Not misguided, just different. You are saying I am using the wrong frame of reference. I am really taking liberties of terms but without going outside their meaning or definition. I am saying your concept of pvp is wayyy too narrow. Not just yours, but the concept of pvp in general. The consensus.
Player-character vs player-character is not at all an integral part of dnd. It AN happen and with creative characters, maybe should happen from time to time, but it is not necessary.
I think how people define pvp should change, because from a wider point of view, it is not so different from pve. The exception being the antagonist role in pve is scripted (like in a book) while in pvp the antagonist role is "live-acted" (like in D&D).
It is not so different from pve because you have a series of smaller antagonistic encounters which as a whole define the progress of a character through the game. There are momentary wins and losses, but no final win or lose. No final deaths. Pve and pvp are the same in that respect, and so is pnp D&D.
I still don't get why OP has to defend PVP in Neverwinter to a bunch of narrow-minded PVE elitists.
This is an MMO and it will have MMO features just like majority of the MMOs out there. DnD will have little influence.
He's not trying to defend having pvp in neverwinter. He's saying that the DM to player relationship in pen and paper is pvp. Something that is the equivalent of saying 1+1=3. He's so far out and possibly delusional with his statements about such that I'm seriously worried that he's very ill.
He's not trying to defend having pvp in neverwinter. He's saying that the DM to player relationship in pen and paper is pvp. Something that is the equivalent of saying 1+1=3. He's so far out and possibly delusional with his statements about such that I'm seriously worried that he's very ill.
Well that's the thing. I don't get why we have to bring that up. That is a whole separate discussion that should not involve justifying PVP in Neverwinter but rather whether how much PVP elements PnP DnD has. That has little to do with this game and this forum.
Since this thread was brought up on this forum, I was assuming the underlying point was eventually going to lead back to Neverwinter MMO
I still don't get why OP has to defend PVP in Neverwinter to a bunch of narrow-minded PVE elitists.
This is an MMO and it will have MMO features just like majority of the MMOs out there. DnD will have little influence.
I don't understand why there has to be an elitist gap between the two at all. With the incessant dropping of the "elitist" epithet, I'm sure the divide will likely vanish on its own...
PVE Elitist: Ur da leetist...
PVP Elitist: Nah uh, ur da leetist...
No way that this will just continue to churn in an endless circle. I mean, were talking about sensible people here, right?
Campaign - Trail of the Imaskarcana (NWS-DMFG77QOF)
Hah this is the simplest and best counter to what I have said. My point is that the DM is not supposed to use his power as world-creator to simply kill the players but instead is supposed to create challenging npc for the characters to be in conflict with and to play those npcs to the best of his ability within the limited (and not op) scope of power he has given them.
As world creator he is still playing the antagonist but in a much more subtle way. No one would play the game if it was neither challenging or impossible.
They did. The only reason why it is not challenging is that we have been doing it for like more than 1000x
I don't understand why there has to be an elitist gap between the two at all. With the incessant dropping of the "elitist" epithet, I'm sure the divide will likely vanish on its own...
PVE Elitist: Ur da leetist...
PVP Elitist: Nah uh, ur da leetist...
No way that this will just continue to churn in an endless circle. I mean, were talking about sensible people here, right?
Correct. I said it in kind of an ironic tone seeing as how a lot of PVE "purists" have recently taken the stance of being hypocrites here.
My point is that the DM is not supposed to use his power as world-creator to simply kill the players but instead is supposed to create challenging npc for the characters to be in conflict with and to play those npcs to the best of his ability within the limited (and not op) scope of power he has given them.
This is where I think you are misinterpreting the role of a DM. As a DM, I can create challenging NPCs for my players to battle and overcome. HOWEVER, there are random variables and chances involved -- what happens if several of my players roll ones at a critical time, or my NPCs roll a series of natural 20s. If I continue to play my NPCs to the best of their abilities, I can easily end up with a situation where every one of my players dies. As DM, I sometimes "fudge" rolls, or perhaps adjust the story so that a guard patrol arrives on the scene in time to prevent the death of the entire party.
So, it is NOT my job as DM to play any antagonist NPCs to their FULL given abilities - it is my job to insure my players have an enjoyable, exciting time.
This is where I think you are misinterpreting the role of a DM. As a DM, I can create challenging NPCs for my players to battle and overcome. HOWEVER, there are random variables and chances involved -- what happens if several of my players roll ones at a critical time, or my NPCs roll a series of natural 20s. If I continue to play my NPCs to the best of their abilities, I can easily end up with a situation where every one of my players dies. As DM, I sometimes "fudge" rolls, or perhaps adjust the story so that a guard patrol arrives on the scene in time to prevent the death of the entire party.
So, it is NOT my job as DM to play any antagonist NPCs to their FULL given abilities - it is my job to insure my players have an enjoyable, exciting time.
Exactly. The only time a DM should kill players is when they pull a full Leeroooy.
spike0337Member, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 2Arc User
edited January 2015
If the DM is just a storyteller then the games would be like a choices your on adventure games.
DM:there's an ogre in your path.
Player:Kill ogre.
DM:with what?
Player:sword
DM:you don't have a sword.
That would make for a hole dif. game right there.So in a way it is a player vs player.But yes the DM is a player,he is actively going against the other player.Making it player vs player because he has to challenge the other players.With out that challenge the game would be a group of people writing a story and not playing a game. But unlike in most games there in no real winner for the game.Players might win a fight against a dragon but they only win that fight and not the game.The same for the DM,The villain might get away but the DM doesn't win the game for that.
I'm sure at some point in a lot of games ,player have fought each other.In one of my games, I had a char. with a cursed axe that ended up in ravenloft and he ended up losing him self to the plane.But before he was full taken the other player wanted to kill him, so I had to fight my way past the other players to stay alive,only to loss him from that fight.Was a fun game and when he came back as a villain it made it all the better that I saved him from the other players.Now some might say that the DM should of took control of the char. for that fight or made the char. get away before the others attacked him.But because I was the one who got to play it,made the gaming exp. for me a lot more funner.Not to mention the others teasing me for rolling a 20 lol
So yes there's PVP in D&D and it doesn't make the game bad/wrong for it.Just some can use it for a great story or make the game more challenging.
PS dueling in DDO is PVP (player vs player).Just like here player fight and kill each other only to respawn and go back in. Both PVP's are little content and boring.only dif. is here we get glory to buy stuff for are time and in DDO you get nothing.
If the DM is just a storyteller then the games would be like a choices your on adventure games.
DM:there's an ogre in your path.
Player:Kill ogre.
DM:with what?
Player:sword
DM:you don't have a sword.
That would make for a hole dif. game right there.So in a way it is a player vs player.But yes the DM is a player,he is actively going against the other player.Making it player vs player because he has to challenge the other players.With out that challenge the game would be a group of people writing a story and not playing a game. But unlike in most games there in no real winner for the game.Players might win a fight against a dragon but they only win that fight and not the game.The same for the DM,The villain might get away but the DM doesn't win the game for that.
I'm sure at some point in a lot of games ,player have fought each other.In one of my games, I had a char. with a cursed axe that ended up in ravenloft and he ended up losing him self to the plane.But before he was full taken the other player wanted to kill him, so I had to fight my way past the other players to stay alive,only to loss him from that fight.Was a fun game and when he came back as a villain it made it all the better that I saved him from the other players.Now some might say that the DM should of took control of the char. for that fight or made the char. get away before the others attacked him.But because I was the one who got to play it,made the gaming exp. for me a lot more funner.Not to mention the others teasing me for rolling a 20 lol
So yes there's PVP in D&D and it doesn't make the game bad/wrong for it.Just some can use it for a great story or make the game more challenging.
PS dueling in DDO is PVP (player vs player).Just like here player fight and kill each other only to respawn and go back in. Both PVP's are little content and boring.only dif. is here we get glory to buy stuff for are time and in DDO you get nothing.
Yea..i see what u mean..but problem here is that D&D is player scripted..and that player means DM and PC..They can do anything they want..but MMO is computer coded..it has its limitations..its never possible to have an event that made ur character in neverwinter to be..lets say Matron mother of House Xolarin and have other player pvp u in such manner..
0
katbozejziemiMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 856Arc User
In one of my games, I had a char. with a cursed axe that ended up in ravenloft and he ended up losing him self to the plane.But before he was full taken the other player wanted to kill him, so I had to fight my way past the other players to stay alive,only to loss him from that fight.Was a fun game and when he came back as a villain it made it all the better that I saved him from the other players.Now some might say that the DM should of took control of the char. for that fight or made the char. get away before the others attacked him.But because I was the one who got to play it,made the gaming exp. for me a lot more funner.Not to mention the others teasing me for rolling a 20 lol
...and when the DM took your character sheet and tore it up after you'd played it for months or years, how'd that make you feel?
Or, maybe he didn't tear it up? But it was "lost to the plane" of the cursed axe-- therefore becoming a non-player controlled NPC, right?
Or perhaps he changed your characters alignment to neutral evil and that character could no longer be played unless it was among an evil party? ...and "controlled" or partially controlled by the cursed axe? Was that part fun?
Well that's the thing. I don't get why we have to bring that up. That is a whole separate discussion that should not involve justifying PVP in Neverwinter but rather whether how much PVP elements PnP DnD has. That has little to do with this game and this forum.
Since this thread was brought up on this forum, I was assuming the underlying point was eventually going to lead back to Neverwinter MMO
I sense an extreme hatred of pvp by many people who are pve and "d&d" players/purists. The whole thrust here is that D&D its self is pvp at its very essence so the hatred of pvp by "d&d" purists is ironic and entirely misplaced. I think some people sense things going in that direction so they blatantly disregard ideas that contradict what they so firmly are against.
I don't understand why there has to be an elitist gap between the two at all. With the incessant dropping of the "elitist" epithet, I'm sure the divide will likely vanish on its own...
PVE Elitist: Ur da leetist...
PVP Elitist: Nah uh, ur da leetist...
No way that this will just continue to churn in an endless circle. I mean, were talking about sensible people here, right?
PvP players say that pve players are elitist because pve players claim that pvp has no place in d&d or neverwinter. They look down their nose and magnanimously say, "well there should be pvp in this game for those that enjoy it but it is just a sidenote to the game and has nothing to do with d&d".
This is where I think you are misinterpreting the role of a DM. As a DM, I can create challenging NPCs for my players to battle and overcome. HOWEVER, there are random variables and chances involved -- what happens if several of my players roll ones at a critical time, or my NPCs roll a series of natural 20s. If I continue to play my NPCs to the best of their abilities, I can easily end up with a situation where every one of my players dies. As DM, I sometimes "fudge" rolls, or perhaps adjust the story so that a guard patrol arrives on the scene in time to prevent the death of the entire party.
So, it is NOT my job as DM to play any antagonist NPCs to their FULL given abilities - it is my job to insure my players have an enjoyable, exciting time.
That is a great point and I really have no counter to it. THANKS for using reason to argue points instead of just broadbrushing everything away. There is a scale of success/failure that the player-characters must land somewhere in, in any encounter, module or at any given point in a campaign- to productively move the story along and hit certain important plot points. If the player-characters hit somewhere outside that scale, things need to be adjusted and sometimes yes, that is fudging numbers in a given combat situation.
Some of the party dying and being resurrected later in the midst of a major epic battle is one thing, the entire party dying in the course of being attacked by a few bandits in what was meant to be a small simple side-note encounter, is unacceptable. So storyline trumps antagonism though both are needed for either to exist. It can be a delicate balance.
PVP depends on PVE based games as a virus does its host.
Text based games that tried to exist purely as PVP fizzled out into zilchland.
Compare that with PVE only based games and what do you have? Correct, you have a vibrant, flourishing, thriving and ever-expanding game. Allow in PVP, and you have just swallowed the "flu-bug" from hell.
PVP depends on PVE based games as a virus does its host.
Text based games that tried to exist purely as PVP fizzled out into zilchland.
Compare that with PVE only based games and what do you have? Correct, you have a vibrant, flourishing, thriving and ever-expanding game. Allow in PVP, and you have just swallowed the "flu-bug" from hell.
A pvp hater. If nothing else, this thread has certainly clarified who are the pvp haters.
0
aulduronMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,351Arc User
I would gladly pay a monthly PVP fee just to fund PVP existence in its own shard or instance etc and many of us PVE'ers would too, as PVP would never be capable of funding itself...but what happens when this idea is declared? The PVP gallery wants nothing to do with steaming in a petty whining rage tank all by themselves. Viruses dont like it that much either.
Comments
If anyone addressed the specific points I made, you would have a point. No one is going to change their thinking abut this. Not you, not me. That is what is predictable.
Explain to me how antagonism is not central to story telling or how a Dungeonmaster is not a storyteller. If both are true, the DM plays an antagonistic role and D&D is indeed a very sophisticated pvp game. No one can even argue how either one is untrue. So yes, until that happens I am going to say I am right or at the very least I will say you guys have given absolutely no reason to simply dismiss the idea that D&D is indeed a sophisticated form of PvP.
You should stick to describing how player versus player is an integral aspect of D&D rather than wasting time defending the idea that the DM/Player dichotomy is a good and/or relevant example of PVP. It is a terrible example that is only accurate through a very tinted lens.
Hah this is the simplest and best counter to what I have said. My point is that the DM is not supposed to use his power as world-creator to simply kill the players but instead is supposed to create challenging npc for the characters to be in conflict with and to play those npcs to the best of his ability within the limited (and not op) scope of power he has given them.
As world creator he is still playing the antagonist but in a much more subtle way. No one would play the game if it was neither challenging or impossible.
There is when there is precedence of PVE elitists claiming others as elitists because they do not agree with others' playstyle. There are tons of evidence, you just need to open your eyes.
Not misguided, just different. You are saying I am using the wrong frame of reference. I am really taking liberties of terms but without going outside their meaning or definition. I am saying your concept of pvp is wayyy too narrow. Not just yours, but the concept of pvp in general. The consensus.
Player-character vs player-character is not at all an integral part of dnd. It AN happen and with creative characters, maybe should happen from time to time, but it is not necessary.
I think how people define pvp should change, because from a wider point of view, it is not so different from pve. The exception being the antagonist role in pve is scripted (like in a book) while in pvp the antagonist role is "live-acted" (like in D&D).
It is not so different from pve because you have a series of smaller antagonistic encounters which as a whole define the progress of a character through the game. There are momentary wins and losses, but no final win or lose. No final deaths. Pve and pvp are the same in that respect, and so is pnp D&D.
This is an MMO and it will have MMO features just like majority of the MMOs out there. DnD will have little influence.
He's not trying to defend having pvp in neverwinter. He's saying that the DM to player relationship in pen and paper is pvp. Something that is the equivalent of saying 1+1=3. He's so far out and possibly delusional with his statements about such that I'm seriously worried that he's very ill.
Well that's the thing. I don't get why we have to bring that up. That is a whole separate discussion that should not involve justifying PVP in Neverwinter but rather whether how much PVP elements PnP DnD has. That has little to do with this game and this forum.
Since this thread was brought up on this forum, I was assuming the underlying point was eventually going to lead back to Neverwinter MMO
PVE Elitist: Ur da leetist...
PVP Elitist: Nah uh, ur da leetist...
No way that this will just continue to churn in an endless circle. I mean, were talking about sensible people here, right?
They did. The only reason why it is not challenging is that we have been doing it for like more than 1000x
Correct. I said it in kind of an ironic tone seeing as how a lot of PVE "purists" have recently taken the stance of being hypocrites here.
This is where I think you are misinterpreting the role of a DM. As a DM, I can create challenging NPCs for my players to battle and overcome. HOWEVER, there are random variables and chances involved -- what happens if several of my players roll ones at a critical time, or my NPCs roll a series of natural 20s. If I continue to play my NPCs to the best of their abilities, I can easily end up with a situation where every one of my players dies. As DM, I sometimes "fudge" rolls, or perhaps adjust the story so that a guard patrol arrives on the scene in time to prevent the death of the entire party.
So, it is NOT my job as DM to play any antagonist NPCs to their FULL given abilities - it is my job to insure my players have an enjoyable, exciting time.
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
Exactly. The only time a DM should kill players is when they pull a full Leeroooy.
DM:there's an ogre in your path.
Player:Kill ogre.
DM:with what?
Player:sword
DM:you don't have a sword.
That would make for a hole dif. game right there.So in a way it is a player vs player.But yes the DM is a player,he is actively going against the other player.Making it player vs player because he has to challenge the other players.With out that challenge the game would be a group of people writing a story and not playing a game. But unlike in most games there in no real winner for the game.Players might win a fight against a dragon but they only win that fight and not the game.The same for the DM,The villain might get away but the DM doesn't win the game for that.
I'm sure at some point in a lot of games ,player have fought each other.In one of my games, I had a char. with a cursed axe that ended up in ravenloft and he ended up losing him self to the plane.But before he was full taken the other player wanted to kill him, so I had to fight my way past the other players to stay alive,only to loss him from that fight.Was a fun game and when he came back as a villain it made it all the better that I saved him from the other players.Now some might say that the DM should of took control of the char. for that fight or made the char. get away before the others attacked him.But because I was the one who got to play it,made the gaming exp. for me a lot more funner.Not to mention the others teasing me for rolling a 20 lol
So yes there's PVP in D&D and it doesn't make the game bad/wrong for it.Just some can use it for a great story or make the game more challenging.
PS dueling in DDO is PVP (player vs player).Just like here player fight and kill each other only to respawn and go back in. Both PVP's are little content and boring.only dif. is here we get glory to buy stuff for are time and in DDO you get nothing.
Yea..i see what u mean..but problem here is that D&D is player scripted..and that player means DM and PC..They can do anything they want..but MMO is computer coded..it has its limitations..its never possible to have an event that made ur character in neverwinter to be..lets say Matron mother of House Xolarin and have other player pvp u in such manner..
Agreed...as will this very game if PVP continues its current ranty nurf crying festival.
When a game designed for cooperation becomes competition, its no different than an autoimmune disease.
...and when the DM took your character sheet and tore it up after you'd played it for months or years, how'd that make you feel?
Or, maybe he didn't tear it up? But it was "lost to the plane" of the cursed axe-- therefore becoming a non-player controlled NPC, right?
Or perhaps he changed your characters alignment to neutral evil and that character could no longer be played unless it was among an evil party? ...and "controlled" or partially controlled by the cursed axe? Was that part fun?
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
I sense an extreme hatred of pvp by many people who are pve and "d&d" players/purists. The whole thrust here is that D&D its self is pvp at its very essence so the hatred of pvp by "d&d" purists is ironic and entirely misplaced. I think some people sense things going in that direction so they blatantly disregard ideas that contradict what they so firmly are against.
PvP players say that pve players are elitist because pve players claim that pvp has no place in d&d or neverwinter. They look down their nose and magnanimously say, "well there should be pvp in this game for those that enjoy it but it is just a sidenote to the game and has nothing to do with d&d".
That is a great point and I really have no counter to it. THANKS for using reason to argue points instead of just broadbrushing everything away. There is a scale of success/failure that the player-characters must land somewhere in, in any encounter, module or at any given point in a campaign- to productively move the story along and hit certain important plot points. If the player-characters hit somewhere outside that scale, things need to be adjusted and sometimes yes, that is fudging numbers in a given combat situation.
Some of the party dying and being resurrected later in the midst of a major epic battle is one thing, the entire party dying in the course of being attacked by a few bandits in what was meant to be a small simple side-note encounter, is unacceptable. So storyline trumps antagonism though both are needed for either to exist. It can be a delicate balance.
Text based games that tried to exist purely as PVP fizzled out into zilchland.
Compare that with PVE only based games and what do you have? Correct, you have a vibrant, flourishing, thriving and ever-expanding game. Allow in PVP, and you have just swallowed the "flu-bug" from hell.
A pvp hater. If nothing else, this thread has certainly clarified who are the pvp haters.