What's your attitude towards PVP?

[Scruffy nerf herder]

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?

 

[billd91]

I’ve engaged in it back in the day and I don’t ban it as GM (I leave that up to the players). But it usually isn’t worth it.

 

[Retreater]

None of the responses really matched for me.

If a character is charmed/dominated, that can work temporarily as an added level of challenge akin to a summoned creature.

If it's a player being a jerk, you're banned from my group in a ceremony including burning your character sheet, tossing the ashes with salt, burying it in the corner of the backyard, all taking turns relieving ourselves on the patch so nothing will ever grow there.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

None of the responses really matched for me.

If a character is charmed/dominated, that can work temporarily as an added level of challenge akin to a summoned creature.

If it's a player being a jerk, you're banned from my group in a ceremony including burning your character sheet, tossing the ashes with salt, burying it in the corner of the backyard, all taking turns relieving ourselves on the patch so nothing will ever grow there.

Please let me know how you might word your response to the poll, then, if you don't mind. Having just made the poll I am of course seeking to give people options that feel right.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think it can be great fun. I have run a number of crime campaigns where PvP was on the table. It definitely requires having a mix of players who are on board with the concept and enjoy it. But can be a ton of fun.

 

[Retreater]

Please let me know how you might word your response to the poll, then, if you don't mind. Having just made the poll I am of course seeking to give people options that feel right.

Something like "PVP limited to compulsions, charms, curses, etc."

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

Something like "PVP limited to compulsions, charms, curses, etc."

Thank you, I hope the options are more appropriate in scope and satisfying now.

 

[Jer]

IME I need to have mature players at the table to run a game where they're operating at odds with each other. It can work, but it can't be because one player decides they don't like another player and uses PVP to bully them.

So for my group full of old college friends and people of similar ages it would be fine if one of them was interested in having their character secretly turn against the group and start plotting against them or something. Of course they're not interested in doing that, but if they were it would be fine.

But for the table of my pre-teen/teen nieces and nephews that option is off the table. If it were on, they'd start in on bullying each other in game. They already do enough of that to each other in the video games they play, I don't need to be the referee for their various sibling rivalries.

 

[J.Quondam]

"under the influence" - This is just part and parcel with a game with domination, possession, and the like. Hard to avoid in a magical fantasy world, unless that sort of thing is explicitly banned by the table contract.

"never seen it work" - IME, I've never seen voluntary pvp go especially well. Pranks are generally okay, though even that can go overboard among certain players. I imagine groups who are into that sort of thing and who are comfortable with each other can make it work, but I haven't seen it personally.

And honestly, it's just not really my thing, either. As a GM i don't explicitly ban it (unless the group wanted to explicitly ban it), but it's rarely come up anyway. Overall, I like heroic games, and imo it's hard to keep a group viable when they're plotting against each other. I also prefer shorter campaigns, so with limited time available to play out a campaign arc, I'd rather not waste that time on party in-fighting.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I would have voted "I look upon it with the loathing that amounts to absolute detestation"

I have lots of interpersonal conflict in real life - I like to play my games and enjoy getting to put that behind me and group up with a bunch of friends to co-operatively beat up demons, devils or supervillains.

I've not had to in my group, but as a GM I would absolutely forbid it, and repeated occurrences by a single player would get that player kicked from my game.

Edit - I have had this happen twice (a long time ago), I'd ask the players to play as a group, no PVP (as that was part of the description of the game when I set it up and recruited players). Both times, it kept going, so I cancelled both games. No gaming is better than bad gaming.