Discussion How Do We Tell Better Stories Through PvP?

[Darth Avida]

I do not believe good opposition requires characters to stop pursuing victory IC. Characters should have goals, prepare intelligently, and attempt to overcome their enemies. OOC, however, both writers should leave room for resistance, consequences, unexpected developments, and the other person’s actions to matter.

When I engage in PVP, which is generally the bit of Chaos I have the most vested interest in, the OOC tidbit here is generally true from my POV, but I disagree with the idea that either of the previous statements are true in every situation, or even most. PvP in RP is not PvP in, say, an MMO, where you very clearly have a win-or-lose outcome - and not every PVP is a cut-and-dry duel where your character purposefully gets into a fight with the goal of winning, or even wants to be in the fight (whereas you, the writer, may want to). If you open a book, bonus points if it's written by multiple people, you'll see that fights are more a means to an end, chapters in a story that offer stakes, and I think the mistake a lot of people make with PvP (player-versus-player) is seeing the name we've given fight scenes between writers and assuming it is more or less the same as PvP in something like World of Warcraft or some kind of boardgame where there's a very clear "winner" and "loser".

Good opposition requires you to be what the opposing writer needs to further the development of their character, and it is a two-way street.

What makes someone enjoyable to write opposition against?

Strictly speaking what matters to me when I'm writing with someone else is that:

1. They respect my time and their own
2. Reply to my posts in an effort to collaboratively build a scene

I find enjoyment in trying to emulate the feeling I get from reading scenes in books; not the scenes themselves, but the feeling you get when you don't quite know what it happening but you know it's a high stakes transition point from one point in a character's life into the next, or maybe even the end. I can make that work myself, if I'm motivated enough, even if the other person is approaching this like a D&D boss fight with less care for story and more concern for mechanics, but having that cooperative push makes staying motivated quite a bit easier and helps me give my opposition something substantial that hopefully does the same for them.

Obviously having good communication, proper etiquette, etc, helps in getting there, but only character development matters to me, both for my character and theirs. I want to see what happens to their character, I want to learn about them through the brief period that they're in conflict with mine, and I want to care about what is happening to either of them. I know people, like know them personally, who find enjoyment in stuff like post-cutting and the like, the sort of meta-one upping the other writer so that their character comes out on top even at the expense of the story being told, and that kind of stuff certainly can be fun.. but it's not fun for your opposition, not usually.

How do you acknowledge attacks and counters without assuming damage or no-selling the attempt?

I don't think these are actually related questions, aside from them both being about damage.

If we're referring to assuming damage on the opposing character, the answer to this question is you simply do not write anything that suggests what kind of damage your attack does to them, not even a suggestion, and if you're worried that you might've done so you can just ask the other writer if they're okay with what you wrote - and if someone has done so to you, you simply reach out and let them know that they've done so. If the idea is that you need to know what kind of damage you've inflicted on the opposing character to continue with your post then that should be the sign to end the post there and wait for a reply to continue, maybe do a little editing so that it doesn't feel too abrupt to end it there.

And for no-selling, honestly, I don't think most people will mind someone "no-selling" an attack if it doesn't feel contrived. If my character is 5'2" (157.5cm) and 110lbs (or around 50kg) and I'm punching someone who is relatively tall and twice my weight then they're probably going to no-sell the punch and I think it'd actually be unreasonable for me to be bothered by that. Similarly if someone's character is clothed head to toe in beskar (so full plate armor) and I'm swinging a metal sword at them then there's probably a good way for that person to write a post that no-sells being struck by me and effectively no-selling it while still being relatively compelling.

That's the key word there, though, compelling. If you can satisfy your writing partner (and of course yourself) then that is what matters here, and while having a good sense for what is right for other people comes with experience you can always just communicate with that other person and give them a rundown of what your idea is and if it works for them.

Where is the distinction between competent preparation and “playing to win”?

Competent preparation is your character being, in-universe, equipped for the general thing that they expect to be involved in; "playing to win" is you, as a writer, equipping yourself with the means of shutting down another writer to "win" an engagement. I can pontificate on the stuff like what makes good writing, but in this situation I think looking at things like a video game or boardgame is more helpful than in most of the other situations (particularly because at this point we're looking at things in terms of etiquette and less with story in mind).

If you're playing a game, let's say it's some star wars game where you can have a fight with another character, is it fun if the other person is using cheats/hacks/etc to give themselves an essentially unfair advantage?

Is it fun if they're looking up your post history with yourcharacter so that they can see what kinds of habits that you have with the character in question so they can try to exploit knowledge that they shouldn't have to more or less convince you to lose? Honestly you can still have 85 factory subs in your equipment list and still not be playing to win by virtue of not engaging in this sort of behavior.

How can experienced invasion writers help newer writers understand what works?

Do you mean "works" as in behavior that is acceptable and won't get you a dm/pm asking you to "fix" your post or as in way to approach invasions posts that will accomplish your goals for that invasion? Because for the former it is by getting those DMs/PMs to "fix" their posts, that is the experience we all went (and sometimes still do) through to learn what "works"; so I guess by treating them with respect and communicating with them what is/isn't acceptable.

For the latter I don't think that's something is really teachable, or something you can really expect someone else to teach you, because it's entirely dependent on the context and the circumstance as well as the individual.

What makes you trust an opposing writer enough to accept serious consequences?

I don't like this question because it suggests that you have to trust someone to do this, or that someone even needs to accept them. If the line for you in terms of accepting someone else as a writing partner for PVP is that they'll do this then you need to communicate that up-front before ever even starting to write with that person because nobody has any creative control on their character except the writer of that character, and I don't mean to make it sound like I'm suggesting that I'm misunderstanding this to mean that "serious consequences" have to be dictated to a character, I mean no writer should expect that just because they are willing for their character to lose a limb, die, etc, that the other writer(s) should as well.

That is your choice, it exists in a vacuum.

Yes, I am saying that if you're in a lightsaber duel with someone in an invasion that you shouldn't expect that they're willing to maim or kill their character just because you are (and I don't mean you personally, I mean in general someone shouldn't have that expectation of another); but if that expectation is there then that needs to be communicated before any writing happens - particularly because PVP isn't always something that both people agree on engaging with each other beforehand with, stumbling on another character (or "jumping") is a common occurrence, and most people aren't going to expect you to roll with the punches and potentially kill off your character (even if they are).

My only expectation is that if they aren't willing to accept serious consequences is that they communicate that with me if things are looking like it'll be hard for them to figure out how to write themselves out of one so I can help them do that. I do not want to pursue a wholly organic (as in unplanned) story at the expense of the other writer's intentions for their own character. I would also probably be genuinely offended if someone was upset with me that I didn't, for example, not figure out a way to survive a bomb going off nearby that I wasn't willing to (or expecting to) take the hit from. I think that you should just respect an opposing writer's wishes for what happens to their character, trust has more to do with how they'll treat you than how they'll treat themselves.

What causes promising PvP stories to break down?

This is probably an endless list, but I think most of the time a breakdown in communication and/or a difference in creative ideas is the culprit. If two people want to tell two very different stories (like if someone wants to kill my character for the sake of their own character development, for example, and I don't want my character to die because I still have more I want to write and/or death isn't something I want to explore) then it's going to be very hard to accomplish much. Similarly not communicating with another writer, i.e; you feel like some of your post(s) are being ignored but you don't say anything to them (or vice-versa), can either lead to hostility or being ghosted.