Why are people so uncomfortable with PvP?

Wilphe · Sep 14, 2005

Spin off from the "should you get XP from fighting your party members" thread.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=148286&page=1&pp=40

It's not a relevent question to the point of the thread, so I'll raise it here:

Why do so many people seem to have issues with PvP to the point of outrightly forbidding it?

Is it from bad experiences?
Too much of killing other PCs in their sleep for random pocket change?
Thieves stealing from the party?

Is it from bad group dynamics and players who have trouble keeping IC and OOC seperate?

Or is it just not D&D? - "you are the heroes, now ACT like it?"

Venport · Sep 14, 2005

I had a situation where the party monk tried to Disarm the party Fighter (it did not work due to locked gauntlets) because the monk was protecting an innocent animal. the next step was the Fighter attacking the monk, the monk repsoed with nonleathal force however the fighter killed the monk... at that point the players were to mad at each other that one stormed off... i have no idea why this happend but it messed the the party dynamics and almost broke up our gaming group.

As the Dm i desited that this did not happen.

and we stared back from before the monk tried to disarm the fighter.... Personaly i don't want to play with the person who played the fighter ever again but this is an example of how it beceomes an issue with the party... this is also why i will never allow unjustified fighting among the player in my games

Peter Gibbons · Sep 14, 2005

Wilphe said:
Why do so many people seem to have issues with PvP to the point of outrightly forbidding it?

In my experience, PvP has always ended badly. Even when players claim they can separate their IC actions from their OC feelings, it has a huge tendency to destroy campaigns and sometimes even the gaming group itself.

Crothian · Sep 14, 2005

Because nothing good ever comes of it.

But I don't forbid it, I found a better way to deal with it is play with people that just don't do it.

Dagger75 · Sep 14, 2005

Would you want to hang out with a guy who turned around and beat the ever living crap outta you and take your wallat because he could?

If not there is your answer.

Truth Seeker · Sep 14, 2005

The original intent is for unusual folks *like characters of different classes* to band, gather, form, a cohesive group against a commom threat, enemy, goal, and the like.

The majority of the time, the threat is external, with sometimes, if the DM is crafty, a small internal trouble *a player a spy, or something*

The overall premise of role-playing, is not to waste people's time, when gathering to play this game on the tabletop, some people travel distances *like me, 16.5 miles to Manhattan to play*, you are there to have fun, learn something about yourself in the process, if that happens and enjoy the company you are with.

If you want to have such an experience of PvP, may I suggest kindly...invest in online play of a PC *which you have*, or get a console, and buy a first-person shooter game. There...you can do ALL PvP you want

.

D&D is a social game, everything is face to face...online is not.

PvP will be a waste of time and resources, for anyone who will venture there, but then again, some will do it for kicks, but after awhile, it will get old.

Quickly.

ThirdWizard · Sep 14, 2005

Personally, I'm not against it, but I know why many people are.

For one, most people have had bad experiences with it. I'll bet many here could tell stories that would horrify you about PvP and the players behind them. I am still a firm believer that there is good PvP just like there is bad. Determining the difference is very difficult to determine beforehand, and often difficult to figure out afterward.

It involves a bit of detachment of the player to the PC. The "pawns" type player handles PvP more easily than others. And by pawns I mean they're like writers who choose PC actions in order to bring out interesting roleplay, not those that manipulate PCs toward their own end. For example, a pawn player might decide that it would be interesting for his PC to dislike a baron because of the future opportunities in roleplaying it would bring. Likewise, they might see a dischord between party members as an interesting dynamic that may eventually come to blows.

And, it takes two of these players to pull it off successfully. Only one, and things can go bad.

MavrickWeirdo · Sep 14, 2005

Wilphe said:
Spin off from the "should you get XP from fighting your party members" thread.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=148286&page=1&pp=40

It's not a relevent question to the point of the thread, so I'll raise it here:

Why do so many people seem to have issues with PvP to the point of outrightly forbidding it?

Is it from bad experiences?
Too much of killing other PCs in their sleep for random pocket change?
Thieves stealing from the party?

Is it from bad group dynamics and players who have trouble keeping IC and OOC seperate?

Or is it just not D&D? - "you are the heroes, now ACT like it?"