Why are people so uncomfortable with PvP?

[Dagger75]

I feel the the need to reply again.

I don't like PVP, that doesn't mean I haven't done it or not let it happen. On online games there are servers that allow or don't allow that; if that means anything to you.

I have seen it back fire more often than having it work.

Worked: New Argonauts, Just_Hal and myself had characters that didn't like each other at all. It was nothing but conflict. He even bribed the officials at the Olympic games to have me fight him in the a wrestling match. I couldn't even wrestle but I couldn't forfiet, he beat the snot out of my character. It was fun.

Call of Chtulu, if the party doesn't attack you at some point the game is boring.

Not worked-- Long list. It has ended 1 game in recent memory.


If you and your group like that conflict, more power to you. I hope your games last for a very long time.

My job and real life have enough conflicts in them, on Sundays I don't want to fight my friends.

 

[ThirdWizard]

In d and d if pvp is allowed you never know when it is coming. One player is obviously moe agressive than the other and in essence is being forced into the pvp. In the mean time valuable playing time is wasted while the other party members either watch or join in if they want something to do.

I would never advocate PvP in D&D unless both players were for it.

Let me make sure I'm understood. PvP in D&D should be about exploration of character and inter-character interactions. It is not something to do out of the blue because you feel like it. I'm not advocating the rogue suddenly, out of the blue, deciding to slit everyone's throats in their sleep unless the other players are okay with that. It's about fun.

It isn't for every campaign. I'm running two campaigns at the moment. One is my attempt at a heroic campaign of good battling evil where if the PCs turn evil, then they become NPCs. Another is an intrigue and political game involving evil PCs. Two very different campaigns with different rules regarding character alignment.

Now, the reason I bring this up, is because PvP should go the same way. Every game I run won't look kindly upon PCs fighting each other, just like not every game I run will allow evil PCs. A Ravenloft campaign I ran years ago almost encouraged such behavior. A barbarian campaign I ran later regarded it as dishonerable.

And, finally the players. Some players can enjoy party in-fighting if it is interesting, climactic, and fun. Some can't. When they can't, don't do PvP. When they enjoy it, you can find the time and place where it fits. And, it can fit. The example of holding your friend backto save his life is a sitution that is both fun and climactic. Even the PHB (or is it the DMG?) have examples of PCs rolling initiative and such against each other. It's all about how far the players are able to take it without bad feelings.

So, no we arn't polar opposites here.

 

[freebfrost]

well, the thread started from the getting XP for killing fellow PCs, so ya death is assumed.

Actually, this thread blossomed from my original thread which was about getting XP for "defeating" PCs. Note the key word "defeating."

And the purpose of the original thread was to get a better understand of how the XP mechanic works - and that seems to have been lost in all the furor and debate.

I saw this as a glaring hole in the game system and needed to rationalize why you wouldn't give a player XP for such a thing. It was a challenge, they overcame it - so what are the reasons why or why not?

Understand that I am gearing up for a mega-campaign next year that has the potential for the party to "take sides" and possibly work against each other at times. So I wanted to have a logical basis behind whatever rationale I eventually use to determine who gets XP for what actions. Likewise, I like to have a "rational" world in the sense that I can tell you why magic works, or why that old man got enough experience to be a 5th level expert if he's never "killed" anything...

 

[Crothian]

But theres a difference between playing a certain way and then playing a completely different game. Wargaming it is completely different . There are many stiles of rpgin, rpgers, hack and slashers, strategists, but all still incorparete all of the other elements of the game. If you totally eliminate the roleplaying you just are not playing aroleplaying game anymore. Its fine but clarify.

Yo're not playing a variant of an rpg, you're playing a wargame you converted from dungeon and dragon. Big difference that would lead to less confusion on the boards.

Well, people will define things as they define them. Personally, I think hack and slash style isn't reole playing but others do so I let it go. If people want to war game and call ir role playing, I could not care less.

 

[freebfrost]

I would never advocate PvP in D&D unless both players were for it.

In my situation, the other player and I hadn't discussed the idea beforehand, but once he was presented with the scenario, I remembering wondering to myself if he was going to go along with me.

And then he looked at me, grinned, and said "Let's do this!"

I took that as an OK.

Let me make sure I'm understood. PvP in D&D should be about exploration of character and inter-character interactions. It is not something to do out of the blue because you feel like it. I'm not advocating the rogue suddenly, out of the blue, deciding to slit everyone's throats in their sleep unless the other players are okay with that. It's about fun.

Exactly my point. Well put.

I've never been a proponent of PvP just for chuckles or kicks. If there is a good RP reason, or in-game duress, sure! I'm all for it then. It's always interesting to see how the party works through those situations.

But just attacking for no reason, or for greed, whether in-game or not - that's bad news.

And, finally the players. Some players can enjoy party in-fighting if it is interesting, climactic, and fun. Some can't. When they can't, don't do PvP. When they enjoy it, you can find the time and place where it fits. And, it can fit. The example of holding your friend backto save his life is a sitution that is both fun and climactic. Even the PHB (or is it the DMG?) have examples of PCs rolling initiative and such against each other. It's all about how far the players are able to take it without bad feelings.

Exactly right again.

Would I try a PvP with a new group, or any group I don't know well? Definitely not.

When you are with a group that you've spent some time with, and you know the people well, then this is something you can do. Some people just can't seperate their actions from their characters and make it personal. Some just don't like that level of roleplay.

In the end I am still amazed that this has sparked such hot-blooded debate.

 

[Crothian]

Actually, this thread blossomed from my original thread which was about getting XP for "defeating" PCs. Note the key word "defeating."

Ya, but that's not what the first piost said, it said fighting. I never looked at the other thread, I had no interest in it. So, fighting leads to killing, PvP to me has always been negative and leads to killing. So, it was a small step to these conclusions.

 

[freebfrost]

Ya, but that's not what the first piost said, it said fighting. I never looked at the other thread, I had no interest in it. So, fighting leads to killing, PvP to me has always been negative and leads to killing. So, it was a small step to these conclusions.

That's why I wanted to clear it up.

Your experience is certainly valid Crothian. My issue with all of this is that so many people take it upon themselves to dictate that their experience is valid not only for themselves, but in fact is MANDATED as the "correct" experience for gamers everywhere.

Your posts are a great example of someone who is on the other side of the fence from me on this, but who is communicating their point-of-view without trying to jam it down everyone's throat.

And for that, a hearty thanks!

 

[ThirdWizard]

So, fighting leads to killing

Even with NPCs that's not always true... there's surrendering, escaping, and talking to name the most common ways I've seen fights end other than death. You sure you don't like hack and slash? (<-- tongue in cheek )

 

[DonTadow]

I would never advocate PvP in D&D unless both players were for it.

Let me make sure I'm understood. PvP in D&D should be about exploration of character and inter-character interactions. It is not something to do out of the blue because you feel like it. I'm not advocating the rogue suddenly, out of the blue, deciding to slit everyone's throats in their sleep unless the other players are okay with that. It's about fun.

It isn't for every campaign. I'm running two campaigns at the moment. One is my attempt at a heroic campaign of good battling evil where if the PCs turn evil, then they become NPCs. Another is an intrigue and political game involving evil PCs. Two very different campaigns with different rules regarding character alignment.

Now, the reason I bring this up, is because PvP should go the same way. Every game I run won't look kindly upon PCs fighting each other, just like not every game I run will allow evil PCs. A Ravenloft campaign I ran years ago almost encouraged such behavior. A barbarian campaign I ran later regarded it as dishonerable.

And, finally the players. Some players can enjoy party in-fighting if it is interesting, climactic, and fun. Some can't. When they can't, don't do PvP. When they enjoy it, you can find the time and place where it fits. And, it can fit. The example of holding your friend backto save his life is a sitution that is both fun and climactic. Even the PHB (or is it the DMG?) have examples of PCs rolling initiative and such against each other. It's all about how far the players are able to take it without bad feelings.

So, no we arn't polar opposites here.

I agree there are some really positive benefits to pvp one of them is what you labeled. The problem comes in to who is judging waht is and isn't the exploration of character interactions. I've known players to think that going in other people's items is always them "exploring" their character. I guess in that case it depends on how well you know your players and if you believe they can be honest and fair when they decide pvpt.

 

[Crothian]

That's why I wanted to clear it up.

Your experience is certainly valid Crothian. My issue with all of this is that so many people take it upon themselves to dictate that their experience is valid not only for themselves, but in fact is MANDATED as the "correct" experience for gamers everywhere.

Your posts are a great example of someone who is on the other side of the fence from me on this, but who is communicating their point-of-view without trying to jam it down everyone's throat.

And for that, a hearty thanks!

I have to be nice, but since you are local I will be coming over and jamming this down your throat in person.

I've gamed for about 25 years, I've played so many games and so many styles I've learned: its all good. If I was in a group that liked PvP, I'd be fine with it. AS long as people have fun, tis cool. Its gaming, I don't get worked up over gaming.