What's your attitude towards PVP?

[Campbell]

I prefer games where there is some in character tension, but the experience at the table needs to still be collaborative. Character versus character is good. Player versus player not so good. I am also not really a fan of violent stakes between characters usually. I like the tension to revolve around other things.

 

[AverageMojito]

And let's say you were playing Masquerade, a game that is loose about whether or not PVP is a thing: do you stoke those flames occasionally and see what happens?

That idea has plagued the game for decades, IMO.*
I ran VtM for several years in the 2000s and one short (8 sessions) campaign in 2019. That atmosphere of player plotting against player can ruin a game real fast. Back in my teenages in the 2000s, I had some trouble understanding that. In 2019 and most recently in January, I had to shut down the "PVP is part of VtM" pitch. (The game being set up earlier this year didn't even launch because of that). PVP is non-negotiable at my table. I found it to be detrimental and nothing else. Obviously, YMMV.

Character drama and headbutting is fine, though. But in the end, PCs are working together. You want PVP? Sure, let me grab a board game off the shelf.

*Edit: as @Umbran said, this applies to tabletop VtM. LARP is its own beast.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree with the sentiment that it depends on the game and the players. Generally speaking, I'm okay with it as long as it makes sense and it creates something fun at the table, meaning that even the players who are not directly involved in the conflict are engaged by it. It has to be something interesting in the fiction. Character conflict is great drama and so I wouldn't want to just put that off the table.

But if it's the kind of "I pick pocket the paladin" stuff, then I'm basically going to try and skip it.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Best avoided altogether when players are at the table together, their characters adventuring in a party.

Totally expected when high-level characters attain political power and it's time to break out the Diplomacy and Chanmail sets.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I don't allow it. No stealing from PCs, no stealing from the party, no violence of any sort between PCs.

Verbal abuse is fine.

It never adds anything, and it frequently causes endless trouble.

 

[aramis erak]

PVP. Maybe the scariest acronym in tabletop roleplay. Is it too much hassle and stress to try? Will it, without fail, compromise the party?

I enjoy PVP, but only in its time and place. And many campaigns and RPGs just aren't made for it.

So what do you think about PVP in the main TTRPG, Dungeons-N-Hamsters? Ever try an RPG like Paranoia that's super PVP focused? And let's say you were playing Masquerade, a game that is loose about whether or not PVP is a thing: do you stoke those flames occasionally and see what happens?

I make it clear most of the time that PVP isn't allowed to go to lasting harm of any kind.

The exceptions are explicit...

It's seldom good. but when it is, it's brilliant.

 

[payn]

I only like PvP in high concept games like Birthright or Diplomacy. It's well established from the start that the players are squaring off. Also, they run a house, a unit, a country, etc... It's not something that ends quickly and with somebody creating an entirely new PC.

Not quite a wargame, but perhaps a step back from a TTRPG. There are exceptions to every rule too. I just don't think D&D is a good game for PvP.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Definitely not something I'm interested in either as a player or a GM. I've never seen it work even at tables with mature, story-driven players.

 

[pemerton]

PvP in various forms - PCs fighting, PCs binding one another to oaths (so as to resolve clashes of agenda), PCs pursuing different or even opposing agendas, etc - has been a fairly common part of my RPGing for decades.

I don't agree that it can only work in short arcs. But in the context of a game which is based around party play - as is the case for many RPGs - then the players have to come up with various sorts of self-limiting devices to make sure the conflict doesn't make the party completely fall apart. As someone mentioned upthread, super-hero comics provide a bit of a template for this.

 

[TheHand]

Allowable in special one-shots or settings, but I only allow it under very controlled circumstances. The last time I saw it played in a long-running D&D campaign the bad feelings continued off the table and became very personal. It not only ended up breaking the years-long gaming group but it permanently ruined friendships.