Why are people so uncomfortable with PvP?
- Thread starter Wilphe
- Start date
Lord Pendragon
First Post
For me there is a distinction between "character conflict" and true PvP.
Character conflict can be a good thing. In a memorable moment of a previous campaign, two PCs came into conflict. One was a young psionic girl who didn't want to bathe (street rat, 1 level of Commoner.) The other was a young female bard (ex-noble, 1 level of Aristocrat.) They were going to meet an important NPC and the bard insisted that the little girl take a bath, while the little girl refused.
So when push came to shove, the bard said, "I grab her." At that point, we ran it as a PvP combat. It was mostly grappling, and in the end, the very agile little girl easily evaded the bard's attempts to give her a forced bath.
It was great fun. Everyone had a good time, and the combat rules worked perfectly for what one PC wanted to happen. Great.
True PvP is where one character is actively trying to kill another. I've never seen this turn out well. In one case in a game of Shadowrun, I was the culprit. We were taking a job to defend a village from assault. In the previous game, another player had argued vehemently with me to instead join the attackers for a larger fee than the villagers could pay. I refused (as did the other players) and the character and player of my opponent stormed off.
Next game, this guy's character shows up at the village. I was angry from our argument the previous session, and decide that there was no way my character--a Shadowrunner--was going to trust a guy who lobbied for joining the attackers, disappeared for a day, then comes back moments before the expected battle. There was a confrontation, which devolved into a gunfight, which ended in his character getting killed.
Unpleasant feelings all around.
Maybe it works for some folks, and more power to them. But I don't allow it in my games, and as a player it's cause to head for the door.
Character conflict can be a good thing. In a memorable moment of a previous campaign, two PCs came into conflict. One was a young psionic girl who didn't want to bathe (street rat, 1 level of Commoner.) The other was a young female bard (ex-noble, 1 level of Aristocrat.) They were going to meet an important NPC and the bard insisted that the little girl take a bath, while the little girl refused.
So when push came to shove, the bard said, "I grab her." At that point, we ran it as a PvP combat. It was mostly grappling, and in the end, the very agile little girl easily evaded the bard's attempts to give her a forced bath.
It was great fun. Everyone had a good time, and the combat rules worked perfectly for what one PC wanted to happen. Great.
True PvP is where one character is actively trying to kill another. I've never seen this turn out well. In one case in a game of Shadowrun, I was the culprit. We were taking a job to defend a village from assault. In the previous game, another player had argued vehemently with me to instead join the attackers for a larger fee than the villagers could pay. I refused (as did the other players) and the character and player of my opponent stormed off.
Next game, this guy's character shows up at the village. I was angry from our argument the previous session, and decide that there was no way my character--a Shadowrunner--was going to trust a guy who lobbied for joining the attackers, disappeared for a day, then comes back moments before the expected battle. There was a confrontation, which devolved into a gunfight, which ended in his character getting killed.
Unpleasant feelings all around.
Maybe it works for some folks, and more power to them. But I don't allow it in my games, and as a player it's cause to head for the door.
Ralts Bloodthorne
First Post
I've had PvP in my games, and mostly it was story driven.
During Year of the Zombie playtests, someone wounded was usually killed ASAP by the rest of party. ANY bite mark was a death sentence.
In my homebrew D&D game, PvP happens. Not the jackass stuff, but rather the: "OMG! You've been possessed and we must take you down before you are able to bring forth the soul of the dead God!" kind of stuff.
PvP over who gets what is usually a no-go, something I seriously frown upon but won't put a stop to as a DM.
PvP over "You have betrayed us to the Lich Kings, and now, you must die." is understandable and usually talked over with both player's first.
PvP over: "NO! STOP! The evil wizards illusion spell is making you think that patch of bioling acid on fire is really a pillow mound!" is OK.
Depends on: Situation and players.
During Year of the Zombie playtests, someone wounded was usually killed ASAP by the rest of party. ANY bite mark was a death sentence.
In my homebrew D&D game, PvP happens. Not the jackass stuff, but rather the: "OMG! You've been possessed and we must take you down before you are able to bring forth the soul of the dead God!" kind of stuff.
PvP over who gets what is usually a no-go, something I seriously frown upon but won't put a stop to as a DM.
PvP over "You have betrayed us to the Lich Kings, and now, you must die." is understandable and usually talked over with both player's first.
PvP over: "NO! STOP! The evil wizards illusion spell is making you think that patch of bioling acid on fire is really a pillow mound!" is OK.
Depends on: Situation and players.
mhacdebhandia
Explorer
This is, essentially, my point.DamionW said:
My campaigns have zero tolerance for PCs fighting eachother. This is generally socially enforced; one of the core assumptions of my games is that the party will be focused on external rather than internal challenges; another is that everybody will work to make the PCs fit in. People will sometimes pull back on roleplaying in order to maintain a group dynamic sufficiently harmonious that the party can focus on external threats.
Now I have a player who accepts this even though he would probably be happier in a game that is entirely about PvP; a lot of narrativist games that try to de-centre and share the role of GM are very much oriented to PvP behaviour. While these games are not at all to my taste, I have learned quite a bit about them from my friend and it seems to me that game systems with mechanics developed for these kinds of interactions are much less likely to produce socially and emotionally problematic outcomes. If I were to run such a game, I would choose to run a game like Prime Time Adventures which is designed to manage these situations rather than D&D which, I think, assumes a co-operative party dynamic.
Now I have a player who accepts this even though he would probably be happier in a game that is entirely about PvP; a lot of narrativist games that try to de-centre and share the role of GM are very much oriented to PvP behaviour. While these games are not at all to my taste, I have learned quite a bit about them from my friend and it seems to me that game systems with mechanics developed for these kinds of interactions are much less likely to produce socially and emotionally problematic outcomes. If I were to run such a game, I would choose to run a game like Prime Time Adventures which is designed to manage these situations rather than D&D which, I think, assumes a co-operative party dynamic.
I started a brand new cyberpunk styled campaign with the PCs split in two opposing groups and one side nearly wiped the other side out. Everyone had fun and it was very exciting. Of course in the coming sessions the two groups will have to set aside there differences if they want to survive.
Gee, I hope they can. Some people just take lost limbs a bit too personally.
Gee, I hope they can. Some people just take lost limbs a bit too personally.
Steel_Wind
Legend
Socially it's a bad idea and design wise - D&D is not designed for it.
I have zero tolerance for in-party fighting. It simply does not happen.
I have zero tolerance for in-party fighting. It simply does not happen.
Crothian said:
(assuming you meant online and offline)
I've played a number of games both on and off. The only difference I've seen (assuming equally decent players/dms in both) is that online games go slower in some instances (like a lot of dialog (typing takes time)) and offline games go slower in others (like getting off topic and goofin off). I've seen none of this "online games have more PvP issues because it's not face-to-face" problem that I feel some people think. Maybe it's because of the people I choose to play with, but I think d&d = d&d (as long as it's not a CRPG).
painandgreed
First Post
Mark CMG said:
I have and they even said it was one of their favorite campaigns ever. Of course, the players also didn't really care for eachother in RL and neither one actually won and ended up killing the other. They just spent years of game time and about a month in real time plotting and conspiring against eachother in the attempt of killing eachother after the party fallout.
It has a lot to do with PC expectations. Paranoia and I'd also say Cyberpunk and even some Vampire games, it's ok or encouraged because it is seen as part of the game and expected. If you're playing D&D as a cooperative game and meet the new PC in an inn and accept him wihtout question ("My, you seem like a trustworthy gentleman, how would you like to join our adventuring party?") while the new PC's orders to the DM is that the first night on watch by himself, he slits everybodies throats and takes their stuff (seen it happen), is bound to cause some issues. However, if the players attempt to verify the new PCs intent and trustworthyness, they usually require such levels of thouroughness that no PC will either pass or put up with it all long enough to leave the inn. So, I've always figured you have to have a certain level of agreement between players on a metagaming level, one being that other PCs are trustworthy and no going to backstab eachother in any major way and DM fiat will stop it if necessary.
Henry
Autoexreginated
painandgreed said:
"The Head of Vecna," anyone?
I could see a game set up this way from the beginning possibly being fun, but my current group likes one another too much to self-destruct, and as GM if I saw it self-destructing, I'd encourage them to air things out out-of-game before we played.
