Why are people so uncomfortable with PvP?

[Black Omega]

I'm developing a weird take on this.

I'm not a fan of PvP but sometimes I wonder if it's needed. The PC's in my Rokugan game ended up basically no longer talking to each other at all and working behind the scenes a little against each other. The group had unleashed a great 'evil'. Who wasn't totally evil and in some ways could help resolve the situation the empire was in. Some people were in favor of him. Some just worked with him and planned to betray him later if it benefitted them. Some were totally against him.

The problem that came up was everyone avoided really arguing over what to do with this guy. They didn't want the conflict, but that meant the disagreements in the group didn't get resolved. Characters simply quit working together except when events forced the group together. I occasionally wonder if a head on confrontation and a little direct PvP might had let them blow off steam and actually start talking again.

 

[Crothian]

Not really. You can't erally change the definition of the world rpg when role playing is in the title. They can be adapited to be wargames (same as any game from monopoly to bootlegers can be adapted) , but there are games such as chainmail and nother wargames that better suit the wargaming need. There are a ton that have low ammounts of rpg elements but focus more on the wargaming hack and slash that better suit players.

I don't see the point in adapting and changing things when there are other options.

Have you never been to the house rules forum? People are all about adapting the game to thier needs even if there is a better option out there. For a lot of people it is easier to adpat D&D then to spend money to buy and then have to learn and teach all your players a new game. Even if you can't see the point of it, does not mean it does not happen all the time.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I occasionally wonder if a head on confrontation and a little direct PvP might had let them blow off steam and actually start talking again.

Sometimes guys just need to brawl a bit then buy each other a beer. At least, I've been told that. I don't like brawling myself, but it doesn't sound too out of character for adventurers.

 

[Azul]

I'm developing a weird take on this.

I'm not a fan of PvP but sometimes I wonder if it's needed. The PC's in my Rokugan game ended up basically no longer talking to each other at all and working behind the scenes a little against each other. The group had unleashed a great 'evil'. Who wasn't totally evil and in some ways could help resolve the situation the empire was in. Some people were in favor of him. Some just worked with him and planned to betray him later if it benefitted them. Some were totally against him.

The problem that came up was everyone avoided really arguing over what to do with this guy. They didn't want the conflict, but that meant the disagreements in the group didn't get resolved. Characters simply quit working together except when events forced the group together. I occasionally wonder if a head on confrontation and a little direct PvP might had let them blow off steam and actually start talking again.

Sounds like your group of PCs needed a good solid argument, a chance to express their views, disagree and maybe make each other see their point of view. That could be an excellent roleplaying session (if a little heated). Nothing says that they need to come to blows over it in the end though. Conflict is ok. Armed conflict gets dicey because of PCs (and players) will often hold nasty grudges over it. Lethal conflict is usually a sign of a campaign about to collapse since it tends to deeply upset players and leaves surviving PCs mistrustful of each other.

Disagreement within a party is normal. Most parties deal with this by debating/arguing/talking. A few more physical sorts might have a non-lethal brawl to decide things with a contest of strength. However, when PCs start killing other PCs they stop being allies... and thus they stop being a party of PCs in any reasonable sense of the word.

 

[DonTadow]

Have you never been to the house rules forum? People are all about adapting the game to thier needs even if there is a better option out there. For a lot of people it is easier to adpat D&D then to spend money to buy and then have to learn and teach all your players a new game. Even if you can't see the point of it, does not mean it does not happen all the time.

I put money under free parking in monopoly. I also deal 1,750 instead of 1,500. Its still the same game. I use a ton of houserules in d and d but its still a roleplaying game. Whenn you apply so many rules that you completely change the genre of the game, is it really worth it when a little investiagaton will lead to wargames that better suit the needs.

I guess I see these forums for roleplaying games, and its wierd for people who have converted them into wargames to get on the forums and trash roleplaying rules in the roleplaying games because they do not fit into their wargaming adapatation.

 

[Henry]

I don't think its a stretch to define PvP as PCs rolling dice against each other. For example, what if its nonlethal combat or a mixture of lethal and nonlethal? What if they stop just before the final blow or while bleeding to death and bandage the other one up to carry the other along? It's the opposite of PvE (player versus environment) in which the players fight against monsters.

I can't define that as PvP. PvP (or PK'ing, as its known Online) is actively opposing your fellow players in a way that doesn't bring mutual fun. Nonlethal combat to settle an in-game dispute? Not PvP to me, because the others are participating, the DM is participating, and no one incurs permanent setback in what they want their characters doing.

How about in-character banter? Not PvP, and it's fun to all at the table, usually. I once had a fellow player in my group with whom I had a hard time seeing eye to eye in real life -- we just weren't "on the same wavelength" many times. In-game, our characters used to have disputes, but they never came to blows, and the entire group got a kick out of watching us, usually. I think the world of him, though, and haven't seen him in about 3 years. What we did still ended up for fun in the group.

When someone crosses the line of screwing over other characters irreversibly, though (trying to frame PCs to get them in jail, or stealing prized possessions from them, poisoning them, just plain turning homicidal, etc.) then they've gone too far over the line.

Example from AD&D, many years ago: A Cleric character I played was poisoned by the group's Assassin to "gain Experience." He and the DM set it up, and the DM allowed a means of resurrection. I blew my Resurrection survival, and the result was one irreversibly dead character. Whoo! What fun!

Even if I hadn't blown the roll, it wouldn't have changed my harsh feelings over the fact that the DM helped set the whole thing up, instead of handling it differently, providing an NPC "mark" and leaving me out of it. Took me several months before I spoke to either of them again.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I can't define that as PvP. PvP (or PK'ing, as its known Online) is actively opposing your fellow players in a way that doesn't bring mutual fun.

Totally untrue. PK is player killing. PvP is player versus player action. PvP was a term actually created to distinguish itself from the ones who would just run out and kill other (unwilling) players.

WoW has at least one PvP server. One of the main draws for WoW is its PvP. It isn't seen as a negative thing.

EQ2 has a duel system just implemented. Two characters can agree to a match where they fight it out. This is PvP, and it is completely voluntary on both accounts.

Yes, these games have PvP whose goal is death, but that's mostly because there's nothing else in the game. The games are about killing things. There's no other way to fight amongst each other. Don't confuse PKing with PvP.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Yes, these games have PvP whose goal is death, but that's mostly because there's nothing else in the game. The games are about killing things. There's no other way to fight amongst each other. Don't confuse PKing with PvP.

I don't think he's confused, he's simply using the terms the way the majority of people on this board do. Most people use PvP to indicate serious antagonistic actions by one PC aimed at another, usually lethal. It can be defined differently, but by most people, it isn't.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I don't think he's confused, he's simply using the terms the way the majority of people on this board do. Most people use PvP to indicate serious antagonistic actions by one PC aimed at another, usually lethal. It can be defined differently, but by most people, it isn't.

The last post was coming from an online gaming (mostly MMORPG) standpoint.

However, if you define PvP as problematic PC infighting, then yes, PvP is problematic. So in that sense its sort of like railroading, a term created to describe something seen as antagonistic behavior. My only problem with that is that it redefines the term PvP in the process, not something I would be in favor of. It basically turns it into meaning "player infighting when I deem it as a bad thing." Which means it is now entirely subjective in its definition. Which means that we can't accurately discuss it because one person's fun is another person's problem. So my PvP isn't considered PvP in another group, thus when I stand up for PvP, I'm actually endorsing something whose definition is "bad."

 

[Crothian]

I guess I see these forums for roleplaying games, and its wierd for people who have converted them into wargames to get on the forums and trash roleplaying rules in the roleplaying games because they do not fit into their wargaming adapatation.

Who's trashing role playing again??