Why are people so uncomfortable with PvP?

[ThirdWizard]

Okay, what good then?

When its fun.

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.

Maybe in your games the PCs only fight evil opponents, but in my games, there are shades of gray and *gasp* nonlethal combat between good characters who disagree with each other's principles. Sure, they usually don't come to blows, but occassionally they end up on different sides of the playing field and have to make a decision.


For an example, take a barbarian who wants to go out and hunt down and fight a clearly superior enemy because <insert trauma here>. The party decides it would be suicide and one guy grapples the barbarian down while he struggles to get away and another knocks him out. PvP. Good fun. Win-win.

Take the situation where a PC's decision will put innocents at risk, a slip of moral judgement, but a rarity for the character. The others feel the need to stop him, and do. Later they explain to him that it was necessary, and they don't fully trust each other for a while. Slowly, they roleplay rebuilding of that trust. Another fun example of PvP.


You can't just say broad sweeping things like "PvP is always bad" without having the implied "You're having badfun" along with it or saying "You're roleplaying wrong." But, hey, it wouldn't be the first time.

EDIT: I havn't had PvP in over 4 years. It's not like this is a common everyday thing, by the way. But, I also havn't had a number of things happen recently that would be perfectly fine additions to my game.

 

[CronoDekar]

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.

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.

I was going to make my own full reply, but these guys took the words right out of my mouth. Plus it's not fun to me. A little party conflict is fine, and very very rarely even a trading of blows (in which case I'd likely fudge dice to make sure it doesn't cross the line), but when it gets serious I just get annoyed.

 

[KaosDevice]

One of the most fun campaigns I was in was a 2e all-evil Forgotten Realms game. Sometimes the players went after each other like rabid weasels, it was expected. Sometimes intraparty conflicts happen, I say enjoy it.

 

[DamionW]

On a tangent, how do you effectively explore character concepts that aren't team players or are evil? For example, say I just really want to try exploring the evolution of an evil enchanter (Today the stableboy is under my charm person spell, tomorrow I'll have the king beguiled! MWAHAHA!), or the absolute hardline merc, where everything has its price, even the associates he travels with. I'm not intending to develop PvP scenarios to tick people off, I just want to try a character that I haven't done. What is the best way to approach that meta-game to avoid player rivalry? Is it possible with mature adults to have the evil enchanter's player agree with the dumb barbarian's player that gradually the big lug would be swayed into a bodyguard/enforcer role for the mage, or would the barbarian player by default feel slighted? Thoughts?

 

[ThirdWizard]

For an interesting backstabbing, working for the highest bidder, type character, look at Jayne from Firefly.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I don't have a problem with party infighting - but then, I've never been the sort of player to be emotionally invested in my characters at all, so I am actually incapable of taking it personally when another player attacks my PC.

My only objection is based on stupidity: when certain bad things happened to my alienist in a Planescape campaign (my first Third Edition game), I objected to it because it made for a crappy story that flew in the face of the whole tone of the campaign to that point. That was a case of the DM doing something stupid, but the same would apply if a player suddenly caused something incongruous and stupid to happen to my PC's disadvantage.

 

[Crothian]

For an interesting backstabbing, working for the highest bidder, type character, look at Jayne from Firefly.

And it's also interesting how a well scripted show is nothing like a non scripted RPG.

 

[ThirdWizard]

And it's also interesting how a well scripted show is nothing like a non scripted RPG.

*sigh* What if the other players play along with the idea, hm? Or is that impossible? It's the opposite of the paladin dellima. A paladin player who ends up in a group with a bunch of chaotic, law-breaking, kick in the door types isn't going to work, and there have been many threads here about how the players should talk about it and get on the same page. I guess when you're doing a gray, chaotic, out for himself character that doesn't apply, and you're obviously trying to be a disruptive player.

Usually you're open minded. I don't see what you're big problem here is.

 

[freebfrost]

Did you kill the other character? And why would the rest of the party want to deal with your character who attacked their friend?

Sure, there is some roleplaying that can evolve from it, but it just seems that there are better ways to get a character to jion the group.

No, of course not. Nor would I have been able to accidentally kill him - her intention was to remove his threat, and killing him would only be a similar vulgarity in her eyes.

No, the intention was to stop him - as it was, he got the downside of lady luck and went down first. My first action immediately was to tend to his wounds to stabilize him.

Better ways from a DM perspective (i.e. railroading) or a player's perspective.

Sure, the DM could mandate that we meet in the tavern, etc. but this campaign we are striving towards a shared world - meaning that we as players got a lot of input into the background of not only our characters, but our starting region, and so on.

I took advantage of the situation, the background of the two characters, and saw a great opportunity in this.

Of course there are "better" ways - that doesn't mean one should explore other ways and other styles of characters. My last major campaign character was a Paladin... he would have eagerly joined this group!

I wanted something different.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Roleplaying encourages a certain identification with your character. Once you reach the point where you have that, it takes a very rare person to completely distance themselves from the character so that don't take it personally at some level.

Quoted for massive, glaring lack of accuracy.