Sanctity of Merits and PvP

[Hail Satan]

"You lost so, here's a reward. Enjoy" is not at all what this is."

The reference was in terms of Merits since this is what the topic is about.

And yes if you lose them and then get something back for having done so. You are being rewarded for a loss; instead of actually, you know, losing something.

Kinda part of what the word loss, means.

Reward
NOUN

a thing given in recognition of one's service, effort, or achievement:
"the holiday was a reward for 40 years' service with the company" · [more]
synonyms: recompense · prize · award · honor · decoration · bonus · [more]

VERB

make a gift of something to (someone) in recognition of their services, efforts, or achievements:
"the engineer who supervised the work was rewarded with a bonus"
synonyms: recompense · pay · remunerate · [more]

In no way shape or form is any one being rewarded for losing merits. They are however compensated but that's a rule right out of the book that's meant so that the character has a way to continue their story with out a massive set back in needing to re-earn the XP. I can see an argument for removing this rule all together from our game but I think it'd be best to keep it in.

The character who "lost" the PvP encounter still suffers loss. They lose the merits, they lose the connections that they had to advance that part of their story and their plot hooks or other abilities. Characters are still suffering loss. They are not simply shrugging it off.

"This is just an extremely toxic mind set that takes the entire IC story of the PvP and drags it OOC needlessly."

PvP is toxic, IC, and should be toxic. When you play your PC you should be wary of the concept of it and be prepared to think before you act. All of this should actually be a consideration, for IC. If you are taking it OOC, then there is something wrong, it's just a game.

There is nothing inherently toxic about PvP and it shouldn't be toxic. It's a conflict that you can use to build a story in a game about building story. The only toxic that comes out is when people drag it OOC. I'm all for keeping IC and OOC apart. That's why I think this mentality of "You should be wary of the concept and be prepared to think before you act" that makes it all toxic. At this point you're taking the story of "My character is mad at your character" to "I as a player am mad at you as a player for this story." Some concepts are made to be a bit more provoking than others. We shouldn't try and hold players OOCly accountable for Characters IC actions. Keep that all IC.

[Falco1029]

This still all comes down to "I can't hurt people enough with PvP, so I want to change how the system works". Clearly the system wasn't built to have PvP be a big focus of it. I don't think we should change the system so that it does.

Sure, an ST should probably prevent you from buying back the same or a similar merit if it's lost IC without some downtime, and sure, maybe apply a condition (That's built into the system, that they can be applied when circumstances merit it. Heh, merit) but allowing people to more or less attack someone's Experience level by targeting their merits is not something I think will in any way, shape or form improve the game.

[magus666]

Clearly the system wasn't built to have PvP be a big focus of it

No, clearly the system WASN'T built to have PvP be a big focus of it. That's because the system was built for 5 or 6 people sitting around a table playing a game with goals that they would generally be cooperating on with constant attention by a ST , not for a couple hundred people in a 24/7 environment, with wildly different goals and objectives, many competing with one another for power, knowledge, etc, etc, in a setting in which non-ST moderated PC interaction accounts for probably 90% of the RP. So if you don't think the system might need a few little tweaks, here and there to account for that SLIGHT difference between what it was designed for, and what we are using it for, you might want to rethink that.

allowing people to more or less attack someone's Experience level by targeting their merits is not something I think will in any way, shape or form improve the game

Not until some other PC with more experience or power than yours, has a postion, title, holdings or whatever that you would like to have, and doesn't feel like sharing. Or until that powerful PC turns out to be a total dick, and NEEDS to be taken down a few notches. Or....

[Falco1029]

No, clearly the system WASN'T built to have PvP be a big focus of it. That's because the system was built for 5 or 6 people sitting around a table playing a game with goals that they would generally be cooperating on with constant attention by a ST , not for a couple hundred people in a 24/7 environment, with wildly different goals and objectives, many competing with one another for power, knowledge, etc, etc, in a setting in which non-ST moderated PC interaction accounts for probably 90% of the RP. So if you don't think the system might need a few little tweaks, here and there to account for that SLIGHT difference between what it was designed for, and what we are using it for, you might want to rethink that.

Bit of a strawman there. Changing it to a chat doesn't mean you need to make PvP a focus, which is what you're suggesting, not making the rule 'chat compatible'. If you don't make PvP a focus (and I don't think any admins have suggested they plan to make that the case), you don't need to change the rules that support it not being one. Simple.

Not until some other PC with more experience or power than yours, has a postion, title, holdings or whatever that you would like to have, and doesn't feel like sharing. Or until that powerful PC turns out to be a total dick, and NEEDS to be taken down a few notches. Or....

No, you pretty much JUST defeated your own argument. Because if someone has a title you want, and you remove their merit representing it, then buy it yourself? They can't buy it back, so no houserule is needed to stop them from buying something not available. You got what you wanted, so why do they need to effectively lose Experience because of it? Same with them being a dick and being taken down a peg, that can happen entirely IC, and doesn't need an OOC reflection on their XP.

So no, none of what you're saying there speaks to me as a situation when the Experience level of that character needs to be lowered to account for IC happenstance.

[magus666]

Simple is the correct word.

What makes it simple is the concept that PvP is something new, or that the admins need to "make" it a chat focus. The fact is that with the way almost any chat setting works, PvP is inherent. The VAST majority of opponents that you will face are other PCs, with NPCs being few and far between. Its the way it is, the way it has been, and unless there is a HUGE change in the way things happen in 5.0, it will continue to be that way. Arguing that we don't need rules that support the way things actually happen is, in a word, simple.

And if none of that speaks to you, then there is little reason to restate the obvious. Again. However, I will simply point out that your argument really makes no sense.

if someone has a title you want, and you remove their merit representing it, then buy it yourself? They can't buy it back, so no houserule is needed to stop them from buying something not available. You got what you wanted, so why do they need to effectively lose Experience because of it?

Lets think about that for a moment, in light of what has been said...and repeated....before. They are a PC with more power in terms of XP. You, a weaker PC, have worked hard and have removed the merit that represents a position, and buy it yourself. Yay for you! But they get back all the XP, so they are STILL more powerful. So...they can't buy the merit back? No, not until they use the power THEY STILL HAVE to remove YOUR merit. They STILL have more XP, regardless of where they are spent, and now, since they get BACK the points from the lost merit, can use those to improve themselves to be even BETTER at being able to take back the lost position. WITHOUT having to EARN additional XP to DO it. (Note that yes, they may need more XP to actually rebuy the SAME merit, but they still have plenty of xp to attack YOU). If you don't see the problem there, there is no further use in discussing it.

[Falco1029]

I think we've been experiencing this game very differently. Even in Vampire, the majority of the plots and enemies my character's has to deal with have been NPCs and PrP plot monsters, things along those lines. So, saying that the chat works that way inherently is false, because clearly that's not the case for everyone. Sure, maybe you're playing it that way and enjoy PvP, but it's false to say everyone's focusing on PCs as their primary opponents. So no, I don't think we need to change things assuming PvP is the norm.

As for your second point, you're right, I don't see the problem there, even if I of course wouldn't color it the same way you are. Frankly, that annoying back and forth will happen either way and is why I hate PvP to begin with. The difference is if both people involved are continually losing more and more XP each time or not. I see it as less of an issue overall if they're not.

[Hail Satan]

As for your second point, you're right, I don't see the problem there,

Gotta say I agree with you here, Falco. In fact this whole thread actually brought back to mind a post from another suggestion in this forum about how policies and such need to be made to keep the story going.

Hasn't it always been policy anyway to wait for an ST to resolve something as final as character death anyway?

No, there isn't a policy currently for this. What tends to happen is someone kills another someone and then everything screeches to a halt while someone involved asks for/summons/screams bloody murder for an ST/Admin/anyone to show up and prove what did or didn't happen.

While we're hoping our new ST structure helps improve ST availability by releasing the barriers that would drive someone to say "Er, sorry I'm a X ST not a Y ST. :(" when asked for help, because we're an international player base, Timezones Happen.

I like the idea of someway to keep the story moving - someone wins, someone loses, but the story keeps moving. Folks don't get locked up until oversight can be performed.

To that end, a lot of the concerns that are being submitted, quite validly, seem to be coming from the place where the story has stopped. Story doesn't necessarily stop because of conflict not resulting in death.

A fights B. B loses. Story moves on.
A fights B. B loses. A fights B. B wins. Story moves on.
A fights B. B loses. A does something to B. B plans recourse/gets C to help/seeks out A's allies to turn them for help. Story moves on.
A fights B. B loses. A does something to B. B has no recourse? = Story has stopped. That sucks for B.
A fights B. B loses. B makes it their soul mission in life to stop A in all their future endeavors = Story has stopped. This sucks for A.

When a situation stops the story, an ST should be brought in to help figure out the story... sometimes this is an NPC slapping a PCs wrist and telling them to settle down, sometimes it becomes an ST monitored Death Match, sometimes it becomes a plot that forces A and B to work together.

Feuds can be amazing plot when everyone involved is on board on an OOC level. One sided Feuds can be completely tedious. I don't have a solution for that.

Asking that rules be put in place to actively stop other people from continuing the story. I dunno it just rubs me the wrong way.

[Ephsy]

Since it needs to be stated clearly: The rule as stated in the book explicitly forbids you from getting the same merit you just lost. That alone changes a lot of the assumptions being thrown out.

[Mephi]

I think that the basic assumption we have going here is that PvP that results in merit loss for another player is something that needs to be addressed. PvP to the point of losing something is rare. Death, staking, loss of funds or retainers, you name it. I can count the number of times I've seen that on a chat over all the years on my hands.

And that doesn't even touch on the fact that, if you want to deny someone access to merits? You can use Status for that. As in, its literally the function of the Status merit to deny other merits their function. Vampire and Werewolf both have abilities and merits that allow you to manipulate social merits like that. I imagine other games do as well, I haven't checked closely.

So, really, is there a need for such a rule when its rare in the first place, and easier options are available? This feels like borrowing trouble when there's none to be had. We don't need to cover every potential situation with excessive amount of house rules.

[Voidoblivion]

how do you know what their merits are? to attack something you must know it exists. If you are in an influence war, things happen.

If you spent money onf Stocks IRL and the market crashes. guess what....you loose the money.

merits that representing physical things are the same thing. Part of the intrigue of the game is out socially and societally maneuvering another. If a NPC that represents someone's Merit is arrested, dies, or has a smudge campaign focused against the NPC that destroys their political career. Well, you lose the merit that reflects said influence and power.

Certain Merits are an investment in the games physical reality. Which like anything can be broken, lost, and or destroyed. That is our reality, why should this be any different?

XP should not be the focus of a character, but the story that builds the character. Have fun on the Story no the xp merit loss. If someone attacks your characters societal connection, find ways to counter their moves and return the favor. Welcome to the game of intrigue.

[Falco1029]

how do you know what their merits are? to attack something you must know it exists. If you are in an influence war, things happen.

If you spent money onf Stocks IRL and the market crashes. guess what....you loose the money.

merits that representing physical things are the same thing. Part of the intrigue of the game is out socially and societally maneuvering another. If a NPC that represents someone's Merit is arrested, dies, or has a smudge campaign focused against the NPC that destroys their political career. Well, you lose the merit that reflects said influence and power.

Certain Merits are an investment in the games physical reality. Which like anything can be broken, lost, and or destroyed. That is our reality, why should this be any different?

XP should not be the focus of a character, but the story that builds the character. Have fun on the Story no the xp merit loss. If someone attacks your characters societal connection, find ways to counter their moves and return the favor. Welcome to the game of intrigue.

Part of the fun of an RPG is advancing your character and seeing their sheet grow to reflect IC effort, at least for some people. Considering the majority of merits that can be removed are social merits, you'll probably see less people going the social route if they alone can have their advancement harmed, which is why the Sanctity of Merits is a thing to begin with. A mental character can't lose their Eidetic Memory, barring some very high level powers or plot devices, nor can someone lose a Fighting Style without it being wiped from their head, but anyone can kill a Retainer or Ally, you know?

EDIT: Just to note, I do know there's 'internal' social merits too, but most external ones are also social.

[TLotts]

So, really, is there a need for such a rule when its rare in the first place, and easier options are available? This feels like borrowing trouble when there's none to be had. We don't need to cover every potential situation with excessive amount of house rules.

Maybe there is? You can't cover everything that might happen with a special rule, but if you find something that might happen, just waiting until it does happen before you figure out how it works is a bad idea. It's not borrowing trouble, it's planning.

Maybe it's rare in the first place because we don't have good rules for it? I know that over the years in other versions of WanWic and on other chats too, there have been a few times when I wished I could do what we're talking about. The lack of good rules to make it work, and STs who didn't want to make up rules for it made it impossible. I also don't think you should include loss of funds or retainers with Death or Staking. Maybe I'm different from other players, but it would take a whole lot of really awful IC actions by a character before I would be willing to kill or maybe stake them. That's taking the player's character away completely, maybe with a chance to come back eventually with staking, and I think deliberately ruining their fun. Loss of status, funds or retainers or other stuff, is, or should be, part of the game with political and social jockeying, and a big part of the fun of the game is building up your character, so if you knock me down and I have to build back up again, that's great for everyone, isn't it?

Easier options are available? Using status to block another PC's merit only works if you have a Status higher than the merit you want to block, and you can only block one merit per chapter. Allies is another merit that can be used to temporarily block another PC's merit, in a similar way. They're easier options, but only work in one way, if you already have more leverage than the other PC, and just for one chapter at a time so you would have to keep doing it if you wanted to keep the other PC from using that merit. They aren't options if you're a weaker PC trying to bring down a more powerful one, or want to do it with a more lasting effect.

[Voidoblivion]

Part of the fun of an RPG is advancing your character and seeing their sheet grow to reflect IC effort, at least for some people. Considering the majority of merits that can be removed are social merits, you'll probably see less people going the social route if they alone can have their advancement harmed, which is why the Sanctity of Merits is a thing to begin with. A mental character can't lose their Eidetic Memory, barring some very high-level powers or plot devices, nor can someone lose a Fighting Style without it being wiped from their head, but anyone can kill a Retainer or Ally, you know?

WoD is not about sheet growth. if you want sheet growth play hack n slash games like DnD, Rifts, or Cyber Punk. What makes WoD chat or LARP great is the intrigue. People who are only focused on the sheet growth has no true understanding of the story and what makes it so enjoyable to play.

I can say this because I have been playing this system on Chats and LARP since the 90's. There is nothing more satisfying than to succeed in a societal (Influence) war against a more powerful opponent. A true game of intrigue is what this system and setting style are built for. People who take offense to the loss of allies, retainers, resources, contacts and others things of interest should not be playing such a character. Every character of influence needs a soldier with no ambition that takes orders.

I understand the argument for some sort of rule, but I disagree with why. If someone put forth the effort to destroy your merits, or slow them down and you get XP back for your loss. then what is the point of going after anything you may have? Why make an effort to play a game of social intrigue when everything you do has no long term effect?

What makes NWoD/CofD so much more deep, is the fact that characters are much more story driven than in the old system. You can't power game a starting character like you used to be able to. The character should be focused on its goals not how many dots you can get on your sheet.

That is my personal perception of how the game should flow.

[magus666]

I guess maybe what I'm finding odd about this discussion is that...from other threads and general comments...most players don't have any problems with characters dying. Hey, it's the World of Darkness (or Chronicles of Darkness, but in any case, it's a Dark place). Bad things happen and characters die. They aren't real, get over it, make a new PC, move on and have fun. But the idea of a character losing some merits and the attendant XP has people up in arms. It's a terrible idea.

Why?

Could it be the "cool" factor? After all, if your character is physically oriented, and dies in a fight...well, he went out swinging, you've got a good story. That's cool! If he ISN'T a fighter, and dies in a fight...or any type dies "accidentally" from some bad die rolls...that's not really your fault, and so you're still cool! But if you lose some merits, and you lose some XP....suddenly you aren't quite as awesome as you were before. And THAT is NOT cool!

I'm not necessarily accusing anyone of this type of attitude, but I just honestly don't understand the disconnect here. Why would you be fine with saying - PCs die and don't miraculously get resurrected, and you don't get to keep all the stuff you "earned" for your NEXT PC - but saying - PCs can have things done to them and lose merits they "earned" and they don't always miraculously get all the XP for them back to buy other things - is simply a bad idea?

Going back to my original post, I would like you to consider the following options and decide which you think is a better STORY. (This is a story telling game, right?) PC X has done something terrible. Maybe to me, maybe to a freind, or maybe just in general. (He swindled lots of old people out of their retirement funds. Doesn't matter what or why.) I want him to pay for what he's done. I can A) walk up to PC X with a gun and try to shoot him in the head, killing the character and taking him out of the game. Or B) I can try to arrange for PC to lose all the money he stole (maybe giving it back to the old people), ruin his reputation, etc.

Now, for me personally, I think that B is a much better story. BUT --- IF I know that all I can accomplish is to hand the Player of Character X back all those XP..... what is really the better option? Take character morality and such out of it. I can either kill the character (or at least attempt to) OR...at BEST....inconvenience him for a short time until he can spend those XP again, and maybe resolve a Condition. It's not really much of a choice, is it?

[Falco1029]

WoD is not about sheet growth. if you want sheet growth play hack n slash games like DnD, Rifts, or Cyber Punk. What makes WoD chat or LARP great is the intrigue. People who are only focused on the sheet growth has no true understanding of the story and what makes it so enjoyable to play.

I can say this because I have been playing this system on Chats and LARP since the 90's. There is nothing more satisfying than to succeed in a societal (Influence) war against a more powerful opponent. A true game of intrigue is what this system and setting style are built for. People who take offense to the loss of allies, retainers, resources, contacts and others things of interest should not be playing such a character. Every character of influence needs a soldier with no ambition that takes orders.

I understand the argument for some sort of rule, but I disagree with why. If someone put forth the effort to destroy your merits, or slow them down and you get XP back for your loss. then what is the point of going after anything you may have? Why make an effort to play a game of social intrigue when everything you do has no long term effect?

What makes NWoD/CofD so much more deep, is the fact that characters are much more story driven than in the old system. You can't power game a starting character like you used to be able to. The character should be focused on its goals not how many dots you can get on your sheet.

That is my personal perception of how the game should flow.

I disagree with your perception. The game is clearly built with sheet growth in mind, and it's clearly built with the idea that you get to keep what you earn. That's why sanctity of merits is a thing in every core book now. I think that if you want to play a game where those things are designed to be lost, YOURE the one playing the wrong game.

For me, a large part of the game is seeing character development, how a character grows and reacts to the plots and people they interact with, what it turns them into and how they reflect what's happened to them. Part of seeing that come into 'solidity', so to speak, is seeing their sheet grow and change when you spend the Experience you've earned in a way that represents how they're changing. If you lose that all because of some setback and can't then reassign it to show other ways the character might have grown, it doesn't come across quite as satisfying, which is why Sanctity of merits is a rule built into every core book to start with. So, no, I'm not playing the wrong game, I'm playing the game written in the core books.

Yes, it's story driven, which is exactly why I can say pretty much the converse of what you're saying; if the XP doesn't matter, who cares if the opponent keeps it or not so long as the target IC goal is accomplished? Why do you need to cut chunks off their Experience to be satisfied if what you care about is the story and intrigue? Why do you need a house rule that makes PvP more punishing to the sheet if the story's what matters?

I guess maybe what I'm finding odd about this discussion is that...from other threads and general comments...most players don't have any problems with characters dying. Hey, it's the World of Darkness (or Chronicles of Darkness, but in any case, it's a Dark place). Bad things happen and characters die. They aren't real, get over it, make a new PC, move on and have fun. But the idea of a character losing some merits and the attendant XP has people up in arms. It's a terrible idea.

Why?

Could it be the "cool" factor? After all, if your character is physically oriented, and dies in a fight...well, he went out swinging, you've got a good story. That's cool! If he ISN'T a fighter, and dies in a fight...or any type dies "accidentally" from some bad die rolls...that's not really your fault, and so you're still cool! But if you lose some merits, and you lose some XP....suddenly you aren't quite as awesome as you were before. And THAT is NOT cool!

I'm not necessarily accusing anyone of this type of attitude, but I just honestly don't understand the disconnect here. Why would you be fine with saying - PCs die and don't miraculously get resurrected, and you don't get to keep all the stuff you "earned" for your NEXT PC - but saying - PCs can have things done to them and lose merits they "earned" and they don't always miraculously get all the XP for them back to buy other things - is simply a bad idea?

I've played on chats where death isn't allowed without player permission unless an ST agrees you really fucked up and earned it, and immensely enjoyed that, so there's no disconnect on my end. I've always been a proponent of "if you kill them, the torment ends", WoD-wise. I similarly like Sanctity of Merits because it makes the suffering purely on the character's side, not on the player's.