Why are people so uncomfortable with PvP?

[Crothian]

*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.

I actually have no problem here. I just don't like this style of play. I also don't like minis and psioics, and I'll promote discusion in those threads by speaking agianst them to.

Now, the Jayne example is a completely different sitaution. TV is not RPGs, there are many things that work in one and not the other.

I'm not saying it dfoesn't work for you and can't work for other people. And in specific examples it might actually work for me. But in general I just don't like player verse player.

 

[IronWolf]

What if the other players play along with the idea, hm? Or is that impossible?

Not impossible, but sometimes harder than one would think. First, I am not saying that PvP won't work for anyone. If it works for your game then run with it and have a great time. PvP can be an interesting dynamic, just a hefty risk comes with it in my opinion.

For example, in a PBeM that has been running for nearly 2 years now the group's roleplaying was tremendous. Great interaction, great pressing of various issues and ideas, a very dynamic party. The rogue in the party, angry at having been left behind as a ship nearly burned down around his ears confronted a couple of the fighter types for leaving him behind rather aggressively (i.e. punches initially, but weapons at the ready for further escalations). A couple of exchanged blows later the list was flooded with OOC comments of is so-and-so out to get me and apologies all around. And this was from a group that I felt had a great rapport with each other and had been able to push several limits along the way. But when it came down to PvP it nearly collapsed around us.

So I think it comes down to it only takes one person to suddenly have issue with the PvP to start things down the wrong track for the game. If you are in a group where it works and people are having fun though, then PvP must work for you. However, I can understand why some folks aren't willing to risk it.

 

[Evilhalfling]

PvP in the form of factions or a hidden mole are staples of my convention games, along with possibilities of romance. This is because it is to easy for these things to end badly, with uncomfortable situations. In a 4 hour game - it adds drama, and no one is concerned with the reality that this group would not continue to travel with or trust each other. In a campaign it is important, esp as fighting tends to break out on established group conflict lines.

I had terrible experances when I first started gaming, with party brawls breaking out all the time, and a DMPC who kept breaking it up.

 

[Romnipotent]

PvP is a crime! PC v PC is different
Players are people... most of these people have issues seperating "in character" and such. They get angered that the person took it so far to attack! how dare they!
I have luckily found a group of people who will understand that a PCvPC attack if it fits in to the character (gurps, it means some disadvantages make it "excusable"). I'll attack and kill another party member for the pure sake that its what the character would do... as in Go read OOTS!

 

[ThirdWizard]

Now, the Jayne example is a completely different sitaution. TV is not RPGs, there are many things that work in one and not the other.

Worked in an intrigue based Sigil game for me, actually. It was great fun. He was actually, in a friendly way, criticised by another player when he didn't take advantage of a situation to the other players' detrement. He didn't feel it was the time to be turning stag, though, so he kept up working with them all nice-like. That particular example was back in 2E... around '99 I think.

I'm not saying it dfoesn't work for you and can't work for other people. And in specific examples it might actually work for me. But in general I just don't like player verse player.

Would you be opposed to the examples that I laid out? Those are the actual more common versions I've seen over the years. It's usually a case of "You're doing the wrong thing, and I'm not attacking you out of spite, but its the only way to stop you" kind of deal.

Ooh, except for one great fun Ravenloft game. One PC had a bit too few Power checks failed, and he was really freaking the other party members out. They were outsiders to RL and didn't know exactly what was going on, but eventually they felt the need to kill him. They chose the place and time very poorly, however, and the Vistani who were escorting them through the Mists left them stranded... they never made it out.

 

[ThirdWizard]

However, I can understand why some folks aren't willing to risk it.

Oh me too. My first post I said I understand people who have issues with it. I also point out that it isn't an invalid playstyle, even though many (if not most) people here have had horrifying experiences with it. Like many aspects of the game, it isn't for everyone.

It gets such a bad rep, though, that I find this disheartening when it has added so much to my games over the years.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

However it is tough to run an extended campain if players keep killing each other off.

I designed an AD&D tournament in which characters were thrown together by fate, and the players drew cards at random that described their characters' alignments and goals. There was one of each of the eight alignments, and each of the character's goals was designed to conflict with at least one other goal (although the scenario wouldn't make this clear until the end of the second round of the tournament).

I certainly wouldn't try this for an ongoing campaign, but I reckoned it would make for an enjoyable climax of player-vs-player conflict for a one-shot tournament. About half the time, it did - the other half, people ignored their goals in favor of not disrupting the alliance the characters had formed.

So I can attest that many people are uncomfortable enough with PvP to avoid it even in a one-shot scenario designed to make it happen.

 

[Crothian]

Worked in an intrigue based Sigil game for me, actually. It was great fun. He was actually, in a friendly way, criticised by another player when he didn't take advantage of a situation to the other players' detrement. He didn't feel it was the time to be turning stag, though, so he kept up working with them all nice-like. That particular example was back in 2E... around '99 I think.

And that's great. I can recite many instances when it failed, too. That doesn't really help the thread though.

Would you be opposed to the examples that I laid out? Those are the actual more common versions I've seen over the years. It's usually a case of "You're doing the wrong thing, and I'm not attacking you out of spite, but its the only way to stop you" kind of deal.

The problem with PvP is it only takes one bad night to ruin the game. Even among people who like and do it, I've seen a person have a bad day and then erupt when one player killed his character. It is just one of those things that can go wrong without people realizing before hand that it will. Also, I've seen it where the player with the dead character makes a character specifically to kill the first players character. Its nice to think that its all well and good that people don't mind having thier character die or just be humilaited in defeat, but human nature ssays otherwise.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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.

That sums it up. It wastes time that could be spent with a game involving the whole party on the ones who are duking it out. The last time someone in my game tried it I told them to dice it out all by their lonesomes and to let me know who won. Meanwhile I ran the game for the people who were actaully playing the adventure. Idiot number 1 killed Idiot number 2, then got killed trying to rejoin the party.

The Auld Grump, and the rest of the group didn't much care...

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

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.

Technically I don't think that Glyfair's quote is inaccurate. I just think that mhacdebhandia is the very rare person.