Why are people so uncomfortable with PvP?

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yep, it's a cooperative game at the core.

If you enjoy playing Psychotic Evil characters and engaging in PvP, knock yourself out -- just not in my game, as it's not a long-term recipe for group enjoyment.

 

[jester47]

Once upon a time I came up with the idea that each player should be a DM. I think I called it distributed DMing. Think of how Thieves World got written but with a role playing campaign.

Each player had characters in the world (heros and villans) that they controlled. The players would all get together and talk about what their villians and hero's were doing and where there was uncertainty and conflict, the DMs for that area had to make a series of adventures that resolved those conflicts and uncertainties. It was not intended to be a Vs thing but rather just a way of writing a story. To use lord of the rings as an example. One DM has set up the situaiton with Isengard and Rohan. Another DM decides that his heros need to tap the resources of Rohan. The DMs figure out how the events might unfold and what characters are involved. Then they play out a designed adventure for the group.

Aaron.

 

[IronWolf]

I think it really depends on the group, but in most cases PvP just isn't worth the potential benefits when given the potential risks. It is just so easy for someone to take something the wrong way and cause OOC anger that could ruin the game for the whole group. Are there some groups that can do it? Probably. But in many cases it seems there is always one that doesn't handle it very well.

If it works for some groups, more power to them. I have enough conflicts to deal with in real life that I would rather keep some of that out of my game. Good natured ribbing between PCs is fine, but actual combat between PCs isn't my cup of tea.

 

[Dragonbait]

Once again, it all comes down the the group's mentality. I used to be one of those GMs that would not allow PvP. It was not because I thought that those things should never be, but because I knew my group(s) and those things would destroy games.

The only times I have seen PvP come up are the times that players have real problems with each other. Whether it is by coincidence or not, those that used to advocate PvP would always want to play evil character too. There were really only two problem players. One player was so aggressive in trying to provoke others that she would try to declare rules to start PvPs. "Since it's made of glass and smooth, and I did not hit its AC, then I'm going to roll a d6 to see where my blade slips. Oh, it looks like it slips towards Azure. I'd better roll to see if I hit him instead." She would also believe that all ranged attacks fired while she is in melee were directed towards her or near her, and become livid at this... On two occasions, she tried to fight others because they shot at enemies while she was locked into melee... The enemies that were 30-feet behind the group... And she was fighting enemies in front of the group. I'm slipping into a rant, so I'll cut it off here.

Now a days, I don't worry about PvP since those that provoked such things are no longer in the group.

 

[Darkness]

Some of my best campaigns had a little PvP. I had good players with characters that had actual, comprehensible motivations, though - they didn't simply attack supposed* allies with minimal provocation (or even directly attack anyone at all), as seems to happen in a lot of PvP stories on the internet. Otherwise, problems might certainly arise.

*As far as the attacking character(s), their player(s), and the GM knew, that is.

 

[tetsujin28]

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

Because it's really bleeping annoying.

 

[argo]

Here is another reason why PvP frequently doesn't work: lack of consequences. In the real world, if there is a conflict between members of a group and it comes to physical violence then it is probably very likely that those people are soon going to stop assoicating with each other. If the members of that group are supposed to be trusting each other with their lives in combat then that becomes even more critical. However, in many game groups it is considered bad form to throw characters out of the party, thus the agressors of PvP are partially free from consequences.

I don't want to pick on freebfrost, but when I read your initial post in the other thread the first thing that sprang to my mind is that if I were the player of the Ranger in your party I would have forced the party to make a "either you go or I go" decision after the fight. I find it difficult to imagine a reason why one of my characters would adventure with someone who attacked them without some contrived reason. Thats just me.


Of course, I agree that if PvP is planed out ahead of time as the set-up for an adventure ("they hate each other but are chained together and on the run from the law!") then it might be ok. But "spontaneous" PvP is a no-no IMO.

Later.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

If you have mature players who can keep out of game seperate from in game and who are all friends PvP is fine as long as it makes sense. That isn't to say I encourgae players to make characters who conflict to such a degree as to take violent action against one another.

For example once there was a PvP battle because one PC want to take the proper course of action and one wanted to the just course of action (truth and justice after all aren't 100% of the time the same thing) and they came to blows over it.

Another time me and another players character were so dishonored in our defeat at a large battle (leading 90% of my characters tribe to death) and were so frustrated with one another we engaged in combat to the death, my character planned to dedicate the death to Kord and commit suicide after the battle but he was killed after the battle first (one of his own men back stabbed him).

And there are several other occasions where PvP didn't end badly.

Oh and ofc theres general practice fighting between PCs in game where they simply do non-lethal damage.

There have been a couple of bad experiences with PvP when a player couldn't keep out of game seperate from in game, never mattered cause the offending player died in every case and not his intended target. I remember one time a player got pissed at another (for out of game reasons, which were also BS reasons IMO) and tried to kill a minotaur PC in a toe to toe fight and he was a bard, give me a break.

 

[Wombat]

From what I've seen over the years, players have a hard enough time trying to seperate Player Knowledge from Character Knowledge

They have even a worse time seperating Player Attack from Personal Attack

Paranoia is an exception -- it is a silly game where everyone is out for themselves; the standard rpg, however, is a cooperative venture, where the players band together to face a threat.

I only had one game where there was PvP that turned out alright. That was an old-school Klingon adventure (TOS Star Trek, not the neo-Klingons). Everyone knew what the score was ahead of time and knew that there was the potential from PvP, but not without careful consideration. In other words the threat was there from the beginning, but if someone moved to blatantly everyone else would gang up on the perp.

I have seen other games with rampant PvP. Most of the ones I have seen with this are not really rpgs in any sense that I understand the game, but rather rather random "first person shooters" done with minis (or, very rarely, pen & paper). At that point, I really suggest people become engaged in small-unit or individual miniatures battles instead. That is obviously what they want to be playing.

 

[Jer]

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?"

In D&D I'm against it - to the point where I do tend to forbid it outright. I haven't had to do such things recently, because I now only play with folks who are friends "out-of-game" and don't have the types of incentives others I've played with in the past have had to dink with other players.

In other games, I'm all for it - depending on the game. Ars Magica, Mage and Vampire are all great PvP games - usually because instead of getting at each other directly in combat you're moving around to stab each other in the back, so the PvP aspect is integral to the entire campaign instead of being an isolated encounter between to PCs. Conspiracy games in general are great for PvP maneuverings - again, because the entire campaign can be centered around the players being out to get each other in the background of the ongoing events.