PVP - Opinions are all we have.

[Atreeson]

I'm not even going to explain the whole PvP server idea again because that'd be redundant, but I am going to mention that were there a server strictly for it, then the DDO you love so much on the server you already play on will not be affected by it. So why are you even complaining? There is no need to be against it, if you don't like it, then keep playing the game the way you want. However, if you are for more PvP in the game, then please share your thoughts. All you people say the same **** about why we shouldn't have PvP and it's roughly the same reasons, that wouldn't even affect the game were it set up the way I am saying.

[Cendaer]

Sure we can your wrong pvp will not add much to the game ddo wasnt designed for it so it can never be balanced without affecting core rules which is a bad idea pvp is fine in games designed for it from the start but ddo isnt one of those. If I had more time I would roll a bard on your server and show you what I mean you would die no save quaranted

Don't make me laugh, really. I've fought many bards, and they don't stand a chance. If you think you're an exception, please explain how. Plus no matter how much you think you're right about this, you're not. It's still just your opinion, so don't act like you can tell the future.. Please.

Uska, all he's doing is boasting, he's not even paying attention to discussion points anymore. He's going rabid, and will soon start frothing at the mouth.

Quite typical of the pro-PvP mindset, IMO.

[Vinos]

I'm not even going to explain the whole PvP server idea again because that'd be redundant, but I am going to mention that were there a server strictly for it, then the DDO you love so much on the server you already play on will not be affected by it. So why are you even complaining? There is no need to be against it, if you don't like it, then keep playing the game the way you want. However, if you are for more PvP in the game, then please share your thoughts. All you people say the same **** about why we shouldn't have PvP and it's roughly the same reasons, that wouldn't even affect the game were it set up the way I am saying.

You couldn't be more wrong. It would affect everyone becuase that is time spent coming up with a new server instead of time that could be spend on new conent. I am glad you have an idea but that is all it will ever be. DDO and PvP are not meant for each other and aside from them MAYBE fixing things like the leaderboard I don't see PvP getting any Dev love.

[HumanRogue]

In other games yes here I dont think so

I respectfully disagree. There are obviously people that enjoy PvP here in DDO and may even be some that only hang around because of PvP. Keeps them interested and keeps them paying their monthly subscription, which is what helps the game grow, right?

Just my opinion but I think DDO has one of the BEST dynamics in which to PVP. Everyone can customize their character rather than forced into cookie-cutter builds. No need to change any core rules, no need to balance. It will balance itself... (Just my opinion of course.)

[blah77]

Heh... this is getting amusing.

"Go play a game that is built around PvP"

"DDO isn't designed for PvP, other games are"

Pardon me but if you've made statements like those before, please go see a psychiatrist about your delusional issues. What Fantasy MMO do you people know that is built entirely around PvP? Sure, you can say that UO, DAoC, WoW and Warhammer Online all have significant PvP elements in it due to the storyline/setting but are they built around it? Uhh, not even close because none of these games require you to PvP in order to advance your character. Gasp, isn't that what PvP in DDO is like? Wow, imagine that.

In fact, I only know of one Fantasy MMO where PvP is almost required in order to advance your character. That game is Guild War (assuming you can even call it a MMO). Are you people really suggesting that all people who enjoy PvP should be exiled to that game? Sorry but I didn't know that the DDO subscriber base was an exclusive non-PvPer club. Or perhaps you people are advocating the exclusion of all PvPers from MMOs and lock them all up in the cage that is known as "FPS Games". You'll of course excuse me for laughing hysterically at that notion.

Lastly, let's not rehash the tired old argument of "but-but I have 20 years of PnP D&D under my belt and never did we do PvP in a campaign". Sorry but just because your choose to limit your imagination, it doesnt mean other people are bound by that as well. I certainly don't recognize such claims of authority over a game as diverse as D&D universe. In anycase, as many people have already said in many previous PvP related threads before, PvP can be done with PnP D&D rules. Balanced? No, of course not. Possible? You bet. The bottomline is that some people here need to give that snobbish attitude of "I am a D&D veteren so I know what's best for DDO" a rest. News flash, you don't know squat. You people want to talk about PvPer trashing talking and how bad their attiude is? Sorry but you're no better than the worst PvP trash talking offenders.

[Shecky]

Heh... this is getting amusing.

"Go play a game that is built around PvP"

"DDO isn't designed for PvP, other games are"

Pardon me but if you've made statements like those before, please go see a psychiatrist about your delusional issues. What Fantasy MMO do you people know that is built entirely around PvP? Sure, you can say that UO, DAoC, WoW and Warhammer Online all have significant PvP elements in it due to the storyline/setting but are they built around it? Uhh, not even close because none of these games require you to PvP in order to advance your character. Gasp, isn't that what PvP in DDO is like? Wow, imagine that.

In fact, I only know of one Fantasy MMO where PvP is almost required in order to advance your character. That game is Guild War (assuming you can even call it a MMO). Are you people really suggesting that all people who enjoy PvP should be exiled to that game? Sorry but I didn't know that the DDO subscriber base was an exclusive non-PvPer club. Or perhaps you people are advocating the exclusion of all PvPers from MMOs and lock them all up in the cage that is known as "FPS Games". You'll of course excuse me for laughing hysterically at that notion.

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm absolutely certain that I never mentioned any aspect of any link between character advancement and PvP (although it could be argued that any PvP-incorporating game that lets you loot player corpses DOES have such a link). In D&D, if you actually read the core books, nowhere is there any direct, in-depth treatment of PvP. In fact, the DMG mentions briefly how to stop (read carefully, now) conflicts between players. So if you want to use an extravagantly narrow interpretation of what people are saying in opposition to your views, and then overdramatize ("Or perhaps you people are advocating the exclusion of all PvPers from MMOs..." and "please go see a psychiatrist about your delusional issues" are nice little examples), at least try to confine it to the Overreactors Unanimous Club.

Lastly, let's not rehash the tired old argument of "but-but I have 20 years of PnP D&D under my belt and never did we do PvP in a campaign". Sorry but just because your choose to limit your imagination, it doesnt mean other people are bound by that as well. I certainly don't recognize such claims of authority over a game as diverse as D&D universe. In anycase, as many people have already said in many previous PvP related threads before, PvP can be done with PnP D&D rules. Balanced? No, of course not. Possible? You bet. The bottomline is that some people here need to give that snobbish attitude of "I am a D&D veteren so I know what's best for DDO" a rest. News flash, you don't know squat. You people want to talk about PvPer trashing talking and how bad their attiude is? Sorry but you're no better than the worst PvP trash talking offenders.

Sorry, but just because you choose to wallow in the lowest common denominator, it doesn't mean other people want to do that as well. And it is apparent that thou dost protest too much with the "snobbish attitude" bit. News flash, you don't know any more than the people at whom you hurled this toiletful of aspersions - are you saying that a few decades of experience do NOT mean that they know more about the subject than those who have not had that experience? And how you equate bad behavior to people protesting and wanting to exclude that bad behavior... I think you might want to do a little self-evaluation with that term you used, "delusional", firmly in mind.

[HumanRogue]

Don't know about anyone else, but I remember going to the hobby store years ago and having PnP PvP fests (with strangers mind you) where everyone was allowed so much XP and so much gold worth of magic equipment to build their character and then battled it out. Was lots of fun. Did it change the way that I ran my PnP campaign? No, but was still fun to do using the D&D ruleset. But like I've said, I don't want full PvP where you get jumped while walking around town, just to get the PvP that has already been implemented to work a little better.

[blah77]

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm absolutely certain that I never mentioned any aspect of any link between character advancement and PvP (although it could be argued that any PvP-incorporating game that lets you loot player corpses DOES have such a link).

How is a game suppose to be built around PvP if character advancement isn't tied to it directly? The main point here is that other games aren't "built around PvP" as many people have asserted in this thread as well as previous ones. That's the absurd notion which I'm shooting down. As for your corpse looting example, equipment is only one small aspect of the character development process thus it can not be used as a valid example of how a game is built around PvP. It's the same as if I were to claim that DDO is built around raids due to the inclusion of a handful of raid dungeons. Would that make sense to you?

In D&D, if you actually read the core books, nowhere is there any direct, in-depth treatment of PvP. In fact, the DMG mentions briefly how to stop (read carefully, now) conflicts between players.

Irrelevent. The simple fact is that nowhere in any D&D rulebook will you find that PvP is strictly forbidden. Until such a rule exists, claims such as "PvP not in the spirit of D&D" are just that, claims.

Nextly, using a negative term such as "player conflict" to describe PvP is a foolhardy and inaccurate approach at best. Have you taken any martial arts or self defense classes? Sparring matches don't necessarily degenerate into shouting matches or hurt feelings. It can be as much of a social experience as going out with a couple of friends to a movie. Equate that to DDO, I would even go as far as saying that the vast majority of my DDO PvP encounters have been just as friendly and sociable as my average PUG experience.

So if you want to use an extravagantly narrow interpretation of what people are saying in opposition to your views, and then overdramatize ("Or perhaps you people are advocating the exclusion of all PvPers from MMOs..." and "please go see a psychiatrist about your delusional issues" are nice little examples), at least try to confine it to the Overreactors Unanimous Club.

Please. Of all the PvP threads I've been involved in, the attitude of "go play another game if you want PvP" is the most common reason given by many PvP naysayers. If that isn't an attempt to exclude a certain segment of players from this game, what is? Overdramatize? I think not.

Sorry, but just because you choose to wallow in the lowest common denominator, it doesn't mean other people want to do that as well. And it is apparent that thou dost protest too much with the "snobbish attitude" bit. News flash, you don't know any more than the people at whom you hurled this toiletful of aspersions - are you saying that a few decades of experience do NOT mean that they know more about the subject than those who have not had that experience?

I'm not the one that made grandiose claims of how D&D isn't about PvP or how it has no place in DDO. The difference lies in the fact that I didn't try to state my opinions as facts. I just pointed out some logic loopholes in that argument which many PvP detractors were using.

As for experiences, sorry, that's not a valid issue here. The D&D experience of one person is based on his/her own small circle of PnP partners. That in itself by no means represent the experiences of the other such groups out there. I've said it before and I'll say it again. People have mentioned that PvP were allowed in their own PnP groups. Those experiences are just as valid as anyone elses.

And how you equate bad behavior to people protesting and wanting to exclude that bad behavior... I think you might want to do a little self-evaluation with that term you used, "delusional", firmly in mind.

I don't mince words nor do I feel the need to use diplomacy in this case. I'm not here to please some random anonymous person on the internet. If you can't handle the direct and blunt approach, that's not my problem. In anycase, this issue has been discussed 1000 times in 1000 different threads and it gets tiresome to see the same rhetorical argument every, single, time.

Edit: People are protesting to exclude that bad behavior you say? That would only be true if everyone involved in PvP is guilty of such behavior. A few bad apples does not represent the the entire PvP playerbase. If they want to exclude such behavior from the game, generalizing and labeling an entire segment of the DDO population isn't exactly the best approach. So, who's delusional now?

[Atreeson]

Thank you Blah, finally someone who sees this exactly as myself.. You just happen to have a better vocab and knowledge of the rules .

[Shecky]

How is a game suppose to be built around PvP if character advancement isn't tied to it directly? The main point here is that other games aren't "built around PvP" as many people have asserted in this thread as well as previous ones. That's the absurd notion which I'm shooting down. As for your corpse looting example, equipment is only one small aspect of the character development process thus it can not be used as a valid example of how a game is built around PvP. It's the same as if I were to claim that DDO is built around raids due to the inclusion of a handful of raid dungeons. Would that make sense to you?

Other games have PvP as an integral part of their makeup. Big difference between that and a "necessary" part of their makeup. Look at the quote you yourself wrote:

"DDO isn't designed for PvP, other games are"

Irrelevent. The simple fact is that nowhere in any D&D rulebook will you find that PvP is strictly forbidden. Until such a rule exists, claims such as "PvP not in the spirit of D&D" are just that, claims.

Not irrelevant. The simple fact is that nowhere in any D&D rulebook will you find that PvP is even addressed. Add to that the simple fact that the entirety of every D&D book is focused on PvE and you might understand why your reasoning of "it isn't forbidden" is faulty, not to mention the fact that I never said it was forbidden, just an utterly moot non-issue.

Nextly, using a negative term such as "player conflict" to describe PvP is a foolhardy and inaccurate approach at best. Have you taken any martial arts or self defense classes? Sparring matches don't necessarily degenerate into shouting matches or hurt feelings. It can be as much of a social experience as going out with a couple of friends to a movie. Equate that to DDO, I would even go as far as saying that the vast majority of my DDO PvP encounters have been just as friendly and sociable as my average PUG experience.

Again, you're wandering off topic; diversionary tactics are irrelevant here. I repeat: look in the DMG for the section that deals with how to handle and stop PC conflict.

Please. Of all the PvP threads I've been involved in, the attitude of "go play another game if you want PvP" is the most common reason given by many PvP naysayers. If that isn't an attempt to exclude a certain segment of players from this game, what is? Overdramatize? I think not.

They say that because the pushiest PvP proponents in this game (you know, the one in which 30-some years have had PvP as a completely unmentioned issue, save in how to stop it?) keep wanting to CHANGE the game. No, PvP isn't forbidden. But it IS at complete odds with the otherwise massively PvE-oriented game.

I'm not the one that made grandiose claims of how D&D isn't about PvP or how it has no place in DDO. The difference lies in the fact that I didn't try to state my opinions as facts. I just pointed out some logic loopholes in that argument which many PvP detractors were using.

Yet you are the one who made diversionary claims of "it isn't forbidden" and expected that to suffice as a "convincing" reason to develop and incorporate PvP. And as for "I didn't try to state my opinions as facts"... wow.

As for experiences, sorry, that's not a valid issue here. The D&D experience of one person is based on his/her own small circle of PnP partners. That in itself by no means represent the experiences of the other such groups out there. I've said it before and I'll say it again. People have mentioned that PvP were allowed in their own PnP groups. Those experiences are just as valid as anyone elses.

Yet the experience of the entire WORLD of D&D players IS a valid issue. Yes, some have included PvP in their own PnP groups. Some. Yet, in 30-some years of existence and evolution in the game of D&D, for some reason, it doesn't seem to have been a common enough occurrence to include in the rulebooks, except as something that needs to be handled and stopped. Now that's a valid point and is certainly indicative.

I don't mince words nor do I feel the need to use diplomacy in this case. I'm not here to please some random anonymous person on the internet. If you can't handle the direct and blunt approach, that's not my problem. In anycase, this issue has been discussed 1000 times in 1000 different threads and it gets tiresome to see the same rhetorical argument every, single, time.

There's a monstrous difference between "direct and blunt" and the way you're approaching it - adversarial, confrontational, dismissive, aspersive, etc. But I agree that it's tiresome to see the same rhetorical pseudo-logical arguments in each of those 1000 different threads. So why do you continue with those "it's not forbidden" arguments?

Edit: People are protesting to exclude that bad behavior you say? That would only be true if everyone involved in PvP is guilty of such behavior. A few bad apples does not represent the the entire PvP playerbase. If they want to exclude such behavior from the game, generalizing and labeling an entire segment of the DDO population isn't exactly the best approach. So, who's delusional now?

Yet it seems that every time someone starts to talk about PvP, the nasty little "carebear" comments and their ilk come out. A few bad apples in every bushel means that there's something wrong with that entire crop and it needs to be fixed.

*sigh* I told myself I shouldn't get involved in the PvP threads again, yet here I am. I should know better than to try to illustrate 30-some years of a non-issue to people who simply refuse to hear it. Good-bye and keep fooling yourself; I won't be hearing what you say starting in about 15 seconds after I hit "Submit Reply".

[KristovK]

Nicely put Shecky, nicely put. I pointed out that the books state that evil isn't for player alignment it's for NPCs..but of course that's irrelevent. You point out that the books state how to STOP PvP from happening but that's also irrelevent. Oddly enough, everything that actually IS printed about D&D which clearly states that PvP isn't part of the game is irrelevent...at least to all the people who insist PvP is an integral part of the game.

Blah77, there ARE games out, MMOs no less, wherein PvP IS the entire point of the game and an integral part of character development and advancement. I even mentioned one myself, Planetside. I see a number of MMOs who's entire point is PvP in development now, Conan and Fury being two that spring to mind, with others coming along as well(E3 updates..go check em..won't find much info since there's little there, MMOs are having their own show in August), all based purely on PvP as the centerpiece of the gaming experience. Some are fantasy, some are sci-fi and some are sci-fantasy, so there's plenty out there for the PvPer to pick from. Atreeson's own statements in this thread point out his ideal of a good MMO...no questing, no grinding, just PvP. He's obviously in the wrong game in that case but he insists the game be changed for HIS personal choice in what a game should be. Those of us opposing his opinion are pointing to the FACTS..the game DDO wasn't designed with PvP in mind at all. D&D is a game without PvP as part of the design and even tells you how to STOP IT from occuring. Now, kindly show me...who's actually got a foot to stand on here.

Once again, I am NOT anti-PvP, I enjoy it in games designed with it in mind or directly around it. I play DDO because it is NOT one of those games and I don't look for PvP in DDO for that very reason, nor did I wish to see it added. I do some PvP in DDO but it's something I do just for giggles, there's no skill involved despite all protestations to contrary. I'm glad some of you might have learned a bit about the game you never figured out doing quests, but that's not a selling point for PvP, that's a negative point for you, especially when the 'skills' you picked up are on the loading screens....

[Gimpster]

Yes, some have included PvP in their own PnP groups. Some. Yet, in 30-some years of existence and evolution in the game of D&D, for some reason, it doesn't seem to have been a common enough occurrence to include in the rulebooks, except as something that needs to be handled and stopped. Now that's a valid point and is certainly indicative.

Actually, there are rulebooks based on players combating each others' characters, often for a simplistic positional victory in a repeatable one-shot scenario with no impact on ongoing campaigns. The most recent name of that rulebook is D&D Miniatures Handbook.

It is notable that DDO's PvP doesn't follow the principles of Mini Handbook very closely. For example, a key gameplay principle is that rather than using complex PC classes with a variety of weird equipment, you use a list of monster possibilities that are individually simple, but balanced against each other so victory is more about tactics or luck than better gear or better builds.

[blah77]

Other games have PvP as an integral part of their makeup. Big difference between that and a "necessary" part of their makeup.

Really? How many MMOs have you played in the past? Of all the MMOs I've played, none of which required you to partake in PvP. In fact, it is much like DDO where a player can completely ignore PvP if he/she chose to. Integral? Yeah... sure... whatever you say *wink*.

Not irrelevant. The simple fact is that nowhere in any D&D rulebook will you find that PvP is even addressed. Add to that the simple fact that the entirety of every D&D book is focused on PvE and you might understand why your reasoning of "it isn't forbidden" is faulty, not to mention the fact that I never said it was forbidden, just an utterly moot non-issue.

Oh, I can think of several possible reasons why PvP isn't singled out and addressed in the rule books. One reason would be "PvP is up to the discretion of the players and the DM" since well, I think most PnP player are independent enough to be able to think on their own. Would you consider a concept this simple to be unrealistic or unfounded?

Again, you're wandering off topic; diversionary tactics are irrelevant here. I repeat: look in the DMG for the section that deals with how to handle and stop PC conflict.

Diversionary? What? I was responding to your little insert about the DM guide has a section about resolving player "conflicts". The way you presented that statement gave the word "conflict" a negative undertone which I do not believe is the case at all. If I was off-topic then it was because of you.

They say that because the pushiest PvP proponents in this game (you know, the one in which 30-some years have had PvP as a completely unmentioned issue, save in how to stop it?) keep wanting to CHANGE the game. No, PvP isn't forbidden. But it IS at complete odds with the otherwise massively PvE-oriented game.

I must've missed something here. DDO is already drastically different from PnP from the very beginning. Change the game you claim? Uh, that's been done already. In fact, one can even argue that the fast paced real time style of DDO is completely at odds with the slow paced turn based style of PnP. This is not to mention that the mouse twitching combat style of DDO is eerily similiar to all those first person shooter games.

Secondly, one could even argue that certain aspects of PnP D&D already revolves around PvP. After all, last I checked a DM is a human being. He's the one controlling the mobs/npcs not unlike how the players are controlling their own characters. This is especially true with the 3.0/3.5 edition rules in which the DM outfit and develop many monsters/npcs much in the same way a player would build his own character.

Yet you are the one who made diversionary claims of "it isn't forbidden" and expected that to suffice as a "convincing" reason to develop and incorporate PvP. And as for "I didn't try to state my opinions as facts"... wow.

Heh, I don't need to convince you or anyone else for that matter. What I've said in this thread are mostly common sense. You know, lessons like:

1. You don't judge a whole group of people based on the behaviors of the few.
2. The experiences of the few do not always represent the experiences of a entire population.

Yet the experience of the entire WORLD of D&D players IS a valid issue. Yes, some have included PvP in their own PnP groups. Some. Yet, in 30-some years of existence and evolution in the game of D&D, for some reason, it doesn't seem to have been a common enough occurrence to include in the rulebooks, except as something that needs to be handled and stopped. Now that's a valid point and is certainly indicative.

Again, do you need a rule book to outline every single aspect of a game and tell you how to deal with it? Do you need to have someone constantly looking over your shoulder to tell you what to do with every situation that crops up? That doesn't sound like the D&D I used to play where imagination, thinking on the fly and bending the rules when necessary actually counts for something. But then, that's just me. However, I do know that I would never want a "100% by the book or else" DM in a *game* that's suppose to be *entertaining*. God knows I had enough of that in the military.

There's a monstrous difference between "direct and blunt" and the way you're approaching it - adversarial, confrontational, dismissive, aspersive, etc. But I agree that it's tiresome to see the same rhetorical pseudo-logical arguments in each of those 1000 different threads. So why do you continue with those "it's not forbidden" arguments?

I think I've used the "not forbidden" example a total of 3-4 times in the many PvP threads I've posted in. It is a far cry from the dozen or so obligatory "go play another game if you want PvP" posts that you see pop up in each and every single one of these threads. Major difference.

Yet it seems that every time someone starts to talk about PvP, the nasty little "carebear" comments and their ilk come out. A few bad apples in every bushel means that there's something wrong with that entire crop and it needs to be fixed.

How convienently for you to place the blame on one group of people. I guess the PvP detractors that keep chiming in about how PvP sucks and shouldn't be allowed to exist in any capacity aren't in the slightest bit responsible for fanning the flame? If you want to "fix" the pro-PvP crowd, you had better do some house cleaning on your own first. I guess this all goes back to the delusion of how some DDO players believe that they're more "mature" than those WoW kiddies.

*sigh* I told myself I shouldn't get involved in the PvP threads again, yet here I am. I should know better than to try to illustrate 30-some years of a non-issue to people who simply refuse to hear it. Good-bye and keep fooling yourself; I won't be hearing what you say starting in about 15 seconds after I hit "Submit Reply".

Good for you. Frankly, this is a simple case of agree to disagree. My viewpoints are what they are and so are yours. The only one fooling himself is the one that actually believes his viewpoints are more correct and more D&D-like than the other persons.

[bandyman1]

PvP a lot myself, I think the strongest argument against it is simply this; DDO was marketed as NOT having PvP. Developing what they did should have been enough for those who felt it must be included in an MMO. We already have a bored player base. That is evident to anyone. Any development time Turbine has should be spent on fixing bugs and new content, period. I agree Atreeson that your idea has merit, but if you take the peeps who are ****ed about lack of content now, and let them see that the developers are willing to spend their time on PvP, then I think you will see a drastic decrease in subs. Sorry if that's not what you wanna hear, but that's just common sense.

[KristovK]

Actually, there are rulebooks based on players combating each others' characters, often for a simplistic positional victory in a repeatable one-shot scenario with no impact on ongoing campaigns. The most recent name of that rulebook is D&D Miniatures Handbook.

It is notable that DDO's PvP doesn't follow the principles of Mini Handbook very closely. For example, a key gameplay principle is that rather than using complex PC classes with a variety of weird equipment, you use a list of monster possibilities that are individually simple, but balanced against each other so victory is more about tactics or luck than better gear or better builds.

Heh..funny....I remember using those rules in the early 80s for doing massive battles between the 'good guys'(the players) and the 'bad guys'(npc army), had nothing to do with PvP. Commander, Cavalry, Archers and so on, very simplistic and easy to do..still took hours and hours to play out a battle but it was a WHOLE lot easier then trying to run a battle between 2000 orc grunts/1400 ogre shocktroops/1500 manticores vs 3000 1st level human grunts/2000 elven rangers/1000 5th level human paladins on mounts and so on...you want to try to do the combat rolls for THAT? Gods forbid you actually draw up the sheets for each of those units...ugh. So we got the Miniatures rules and that really made doing epic battles possible..and mostly feasible(took us an entire 3 day weekend to do our first battle...that was fun and extremely annoying at times 'dude, you just stepped on the cavarly' 'oh ****, I paid 15 bucks for those pieces!'). Sorry Gimp, those rules weren't developed for or based on PvP, they were a natural outcome of the huge miniature market at the time(gods..I must have had 1500 individual pieces myself at one time..all hand painted), combined with the huge gaming market already existing for scale combat re-enactments from the Civil War to WWII to Battletech to Warhammer and WH40k.

[blah77]

Nicely put Shecky, nicely put. I pointed out that the books state that evil isn't for player alignment it's for NPCs..but of course that's irrelevent. You point out that the books state how to STOP PvP from happening but that's also irrelevent. Oddly enough, everything that actually IS printed about D&D which clearly states that PvP isn't part of the game is irrelevent...at least to all the people who insist PvP is an integral part of the game.

Uh, I believe that he said the book suggested ways to resolve player conflicts. That is not the same as stopping PvP. There are plenty of PnP scenerios where PvP is the more *likely* alternative as opposed to talking it out. Do you think that a Lawful Good Dwarven Paladin is going to agree with a Chaotic Neutral Half-Orc Barbarian all the time? Is it really that inconcievable for those differences to come to blows at times? We're not talking about the United Nations here. We're talking about a world where it's literally kill or be killed. If the D&D system is flexible enough to allow that kind of party make-up, why is it inconcievable for PvP situations to rise up?

Lastly, I never suggested that PvP is an integral part of DDO or D&D. I only suggested that it is a possibility. Please don't try to put words into my mouth.

Blah77, there ARE games out, MMOs no less, wherein PvP IS the entire point of the game and an integral part of character development and advancement. I even mentioned one myself, Planetside.

Planetside is a sci-fi MMO/FPS hybrid game. It isn't a pure MMO. This is not to mention that not all fantasy fans may like the sci-fi game genre.

Here, I'll even give you a run down of the brief MMO history as I see it. UO was the first true MMO that had extensive PvP. However it was poorly done and most players became disgusted with it. Following big name MMOs such as Everquest 1&2, AC 1&2, WoW and most recently Vanguard/LOTRO more or less banished PvP to a fringe existance or just did not include it like Final Fantasy XI. Now, when I said banish, I didn't mean excluded. It is more like placing restrictions such as setting up PvP servers, zones or making it so consensual agreement has to occur before any PvP action. This is what people refer to when they say "traditional MMO". Sure, there have been major MMOs such as Linage 2, Guildwars and DAoC that focused on PvP a bit more but those never even came close to grabbing a significant chunk of the MMO subscription pie, at least in the U.S.

In anycase, it is not until recently did the PvP trend started to climb its way back into the mainstream MMO genre with new games on the horizon such as Warhammer Online, Age of Conan and Guildwar 2. These games will offer ways for players to advance their characters solely through PvP (or so advertised) which were not available to the aforementioned games. That in my book is what building a MMO around PvP means.

I see a number of MMOs who's entire point is PvP in development now, Conan and Fury being two that spring to mind, with others coming along as well(E3 updates..go check em..won't find much info since there's little there, MMOs are having their own show in August), all based purely on PvP as the centerpiece of the gaming experience. Some are fantasy, some are sci-fi and some are sci-fantasy, so there's plenty out there for the PvPer to pick from.

If it's still in development then how is it a realistic alternative for people who may enjoy PvP right now?

Those of us opposing his opinion are pointing to the FACTS..the game DDO wasn't designed with PvP in mind at all. D&D is a game without PvP as part of the design and even tells you how to STOP IT from occuring. Now, kindly show me...who's actually got a foot to stand on here.

This is not a fact. Fact is something that is explicitly stated and established with no room for deviation or alternate explanation. The Japanese Imperial Navy attacked the U.S. Pacific fleet on December 7th, 1941 is a fact. Yuri Gagarin was the first human in space is a fact. How is "no PvP in D&D" a fact when people have had PvP encounters in their PnP groups? Even with my limited PnP experience, I've had the chance to come across that. The word you're really looking for is not fact but rather "thoery" which has the possibility to be wrong.

Lastly, I'm not saying that I support the OP's position or ideals. What I am supporting is the possibility for PvP to occur in a D&D based environment because frankly, I believe that to be true. As a result, I am dead set against anyone who would make wild claims about how PvP has no place in DDO or D&D in general.

[KristovK]

Blah, these PvPers picking DDO, a game advertised as NOT having PvP, and demanding that it be added makes no sense..but it happened. Now they are demanding that it be made...more. Again, makes no sense, but it's what is happening. Makes more sense to me to go play a game specifically designed for PvP, but I tend to think logically, silly me huh?

Planetside is ONE of the MMOs currently out that are built around PvP, not the only one. There's a number of titles that you can buy and play based out of Korean and Japan that are fantasy and sci-fantasy as well as sci-fi, all MMOs and all PvP-centric. They tend to bomb in the US and European markets though, seems the demand for a PvP-centric game isn't all that big in them...who'd a thunk it.

I play DDO because it doesn't offer PvP(didn't when I bought it at least) and it's an MMO based on D&D, which also doesn't offer PvP as part of the design. Nice trying to twist the meaning of 'resolve player conflicts' to not mean stop them, but that IS clearly what the rules attempt to do, STOP PvP from occuring in PnP. Yes, you can do it, you can do anything you want in PnP, that's all to clear when reading the memoirs of the players of PnP over the past 30+years. I've talked to people who had characters who had more classes then they had levels..don't ask me HOW they did that, but hey, it's PnP, you can do what you want! Merlask herself describes her own PnP experiences which seem to always include players killing players, how that's entertaining is a bit beyond me, but that's not my style either, as I said, evil based campaigns are self limiting off the bat and are prohibited by the rules, which again seems to mean nothing, you can do what you want! Which makes me ask the question...why in the nine hells do you bother with the rules if you are going to ignore any rule which you don't happen to agree with? Maybe it's just me, but I was always taught that part of the entire concept of a game was that it had rules and that the rules were meant to be followed as they defined the game you were playing. I was always taught that people without full mental abilities were the ones who ignored the rules and did what they wanted anyway, that the lack of self control so clearly shown by these actions is an obvious sign of mental issues or possible physiological damage...anti-social behavoir...sociopath...those were the terms used by my prof in college actually. Yes there are times when going against the rules is proper and called for, but in a game...please, that's a purely selfish thing, there's no injustice, oppression or evil going on there, it's a GAME. You can try and color it however you want..imagination, thinking outside the box, freedom to create...it's a simple selfish motivation for self appeasement because you want something you can't get otherwise within the context of the game's rules.

And yes, DDO has deviated from the PnP rules in some aspects, that's a natural by-product of making a game meant for small groups of people playing together in a turn based enviroment into an MMO in real time. Want the closest thing to PnP on a computer you can get...try NWN or NWN2 or Baldur's Gate or one of the games of that ilk. RP doesn't exist in those any more then it does in DDO, but they are all turn based and tend to follow the D&D rules of the time of their creation(2.0 for BG and it's sequels, 3 for NWN and 3.5 for NWN2) with some variations for the translation to a computer format without an active DM presence. And you'll find PvP isn't built into ANY of them, it can be done in NWN and NWN2, but that's optional depending on the ruleset you pick, friendly fire on or off, they were NOT designed with PvP in them. DDO wasn't designed with PvP in it, friendly is off, no option on that, and PvP was only added after some mixed reviews panned the game for not having PvP, which is supposedly a mainstay for any good MMO...which is funny since all the PvP-centric MMOs released so far have bombed in the US/European markets, go figure.

[blah77]

Blah, these PvPers picking DDO, a game advertised as NOT having PvP, and demanding that it be added makes no sense..but it happened. Now they are demanding that it be made...more. Again, makes no sense, but it's what is happening. Makes more sense to me to go play a game specifically designed for PvP, but I tend to think logically, silly me huh?

It was advertised as not having PvP but I don't recall ever hearing Turbine say "we will never ever add PvP under any circumstances". I only heard them say "PvP isn't part of the plan at this moment". Even so, I think you're exaggerating the issue somewhat. DDO isn't specifically designed for PvP. It will never be designed for PvP. Whatever changes they implement to fix PvP, it will continue to remain a small part of the game. With that in mind, your fear of playing a game specifically designed for PvP is unfounded. However, what is clear is that Turbine introduced a half broken PvP system. It is not unreasonable for people who wish to partake in that system to expect it to be fixed. Do you tolerate cell phone service that only works half the time? What if your electric company can't supply you with power 24/7? No one expects a company they pay money to only do things half-way nor should they be satisfied with it.

Planetside is ONE of the MMOs currently out that are built around PvP, not the only one. There's a number of titles that you can buy and play based out of Korean and Japan that are fantasy and sci-fantasy as well as sci-fi, all MMOs and all PvP-centric. They tend to bomb in the US and European markets though, seems the demand for a PvP-centric game isn't all that big in them...who'd a thunk it.

Hmm, I seem to recall listing Linage 2 in my previous post as one of the games that is more PvP friendly so yes I am aware of that thanks. However, your analysis as to why they're not breaking into the U.S. market is inaccurate and frankly, simple-minded to a fault. Maybe you don't realize this but there's a large chunk of the U.S. consumer market that is very xenophobic when it comes to foreign products. This is especially true when it comes to entertainment products such as movies, music, or games. Trying to get your average american MMO fan to play a game where the majority of the population doesn't even speak their language is a hurdle that even the best marketing can't necessarily overcome. It would take something completely revolutionary and novel to grab hold of the consumer's attention but in all honesty, nothing in the current MMO market is really revolutionary anymore, foreign or domestic. That's the fundamental reason why foreign games can have a hard time breaking into the U.S. market unless it has already spent years or even decades building up a fan base such as Final Fantasy. This is simple business strategy/obstacles that apply to many fields, not just computer games. This is not to mention that ever since the introduction of UO and EQ, the U.S. MMO market has became so saturated to the point that there's little breathing room. It makes it even harder for new games (much less foreign ones) to take subscribers away from established games unless it has fulfilled the criterias I've already mentioned above.

I play DDO because it doesn't offer PvP(didn't when I bought it at least) and it's an MMO based on D&D, which also doesn't offer PvP as part of the design. Nice trying to twist the meaning of 'resolve player conflicts' to not mean stop them, but that IS clearly what the rules attempt to do, STOP PvP from occuring in PnP.

What rule are you referring to? I've yet to hear anyone quote a passage from any D&D rule book that forbids player conflicts. Until someone does that in a "factual" way instead of just being theoretical, I'm going to call BS on that one.

As for me twisting that statement, nice try. It's simple logic that if you put a couple of people with different objectives, ideals and moral guidelines together, you WILL eventually have to deal with conflicts. The D&D system doesn't just allow for such a grouping to exist, it in fact encourages it given the millions of examples of awkward group dynamics due to class, race or character background.

Yes, you can do it, you can do anything you want in PnP, that's all to clear when reading the memoirs of the players of PnP over the past 30+years. I've talked to people who had characters who had more classes then they had levels..don't ask me HOW they did that, but hey, it's PnP, you can do what you want! Merlask herself describes her own PnP experiences which seem to always include players killing players, how that's entertaining is a bit beyond me, but that's not my style either,

That's the beauty of fantasy, isn't it? To me, D&D rule books provides a set of guidelines to follow. These are just your basic guidelines such as classes, combat&spell system, character progression and so on. As for other things such as campaign development and character roleplaying elements, those are entirely up to the players and the DM. THOSE are the things which allows for PvP to occur, not what feats/spells you picked for your characters or how well you can roll the dice. You can stay perfectly within the D&D core rules and still have PvP occur at your own discretion. Lastly, you don't have to like the way some people play their characters or how some DMs build their campaigns but you will respect it because it is their choice.

as I said, evil based campaigns are self limiting off the bat and are prohibited by the rules, which again seems to mean nothing, you can do what you want!

Why is this relevent? Since when do conflicts only occur in a good vs evil setting? Good people can often take up arms against eachother. It could be a matter of principle, honor, pride or something as simple as following orders. For every WWII where the line between good and evil is drawn clearly (even then you'd have a hard time considering the Stalinist government as the *good guys*), there are a dozen Israeli-Arab conflicts where good and evil is based on perspective and propaganda. The world isn't as black and white as you think so why should a fantasy world be like that?

Which makes me ask the question...why in the nine hells do you bother with the rules if you are going to ignore any rule which you don't happen to agree with? Maybe it's just me, but I was always taught that part of the entire concept of a game was that it had rules and that the rules were meant to be followed as they defined the game you were playing. I was always taught that people without full mental abilities were the ones who ignored the rules and did what they wanted anyway, that the lack of self control so clearly shown by these actions is an obvious sign of mental issues or possible physiological damage...anti-social behavoir...sociopath...those were the terms used by my prof in college actually. Yes there are times when going against the rules is proper and called for, but in a game...please, that's a purely selfish thing, there's no injustice, oppression or evil going on there, it's a GAME. You can try and color it however you want..imagination, thinking outside the box, freedom to create...it's a simple selfish motivation for self appeasement because you want something you can't get otherwise within the context of the game's rules.

That's a long paragraph of non-sensical babbling about something that's not even relevent. Don't even attempt to psycho analyze me or try to educate me on the social dynamics within a population group. To put it plainly, you're not qualified for it.

In anycase, no one is breaking any D&D rules when they go PvP against eachother. Again I ask, show me a passage from any core D&D rules that specifically states that PvP or player conflicts are not allowed within the D&D setting. I don't want conjectures. I don't want interpretations. I don't want suggestions. Those mean nothing in the grand scheme of things because the core of this debate is whether D&D allows for the possibility of PvP, not whether you think it does or not.

[TechNoFear]

PvP a lot myself, I think the strongest argument against it is simply this; DDO was marketed as NOT having PvP. Developing what they did should have been enough for those who felt it must be included in an MMO. We already have a bored player base. That is evident to anyone. Any development time Turbine has should be spent on fixing bugs and new content, period. I agree Atreeson that your idea has merit, but if you take the peeps who are ****ed about lack of content now, and let them see that the developers are willing to spend their time on PvP, then I think you will see a drastic decrease in subs. Sorry if that's not what you wanna hear, but that's just common sense.

QFT

As one paying customer....

I do not play PvP.
I do not want more/better PvP.

If any development time is put into PvP before;
content,
bug fixes,
content,
lvl cap increases
or content,

I will leave.

I currently only pay for one sub and that is all my opinion is worth.

[blah77]

Oh, one more thing. Speaking of selfishness.

I am NOT anti-PvP, I enjoy it in games designed with it in mind or directly around it.

I play DDO because it is NOT one of those games and I don't look for PvP in DDO for that very reason, nor did I wish to see it added.

I play DDO because it doesn't offer PvP.

I was always taught that part of the entire concept of a game was that it had rules and that the rules were meant to be followed as they defined the game you were playing.

Do those quotes look familiar to you? That's four quotes from the only two posts you've written on this page alone. The one thing all those quotes have in comment is that they all included *I* statements that suggests DDO should conform to your ideals of what D&D is like but also gaming in general. Personally, I don't think you have any room to accuse anyone else of being selfish but that's just me.