Why are people so uncomfortable with PvP?

[mhacdebhandia]

I don't "move my guy" or "script my scenes" even if we are a virtual show. Neither do my players. Rouge Emerelda the Elven Rogue does not do "what his player, thinks he should". At that moment, he is thinking as and for and within the confines of Rouge.

I've noticed that many players who do "get into character" in the sense of pretending to be the person seem to assume that those who don't are necessarily making decisions based on anything other than the nature and personality of their PCs.

I don't think this is true.

It's true that sometimes I do think about the game in terms of what would be the more interesting choice for the story, in the immediate situation of the actual game side of things, or whatever.

But most of the time, the decisions I make are based on who my character is: what they believe, what they think of the other PCs and NPCs involved in the situation at hand, what their hopes and goals and fears are.

I just don't agree with those who believe you can only roleplay your character "properly" or "accurately" by pretending to be them - to think like them or whatever. For me, it's more like I'm thinking about an absent friend of mine, a friend I know better than anyone else at the table, and what they would do in that situation. This doesn't mean I pretend to be them - it means I utilise my extensive (indeed, absolute, given I am their creator) knowledge of the character's motivations and personality to make decisions as to what they do in the game.

And sometimes, we surprise ourselves as our characters, like those of many authors, assume a life of their own beyond their plans.

This happens to me, too. Usually this is because the character is thrust into a situation either I or they have never considered. This is pretty much exactly the same as with those who do pretend to be their characters - ultimately, decisions about novel situations are driven by existing motivations. While I think about it intellectually - "What would Franklin do if a member of the family he left behind ten years ago came looking for him?" - I would suppose that players who identify with their character would simply feel the situation as they do - "My God, I haven't seen her for ten years! What do I do?"

This is pretty far from "moving my guy" around the battlemap, and it's made with reference not to the creation of a dramatic scene in the story but to the truth of the character's personality.

Does this lead to PvP? Yes. Does it fit the guidelines above? Yes. Because these people we briefly become were formed by us to be the kind of people who, like many friends and family, sometimes disagree, sometimes violently. But never lethally.

That's not what Heroes with a capital H do, after all.

Part of that, of course, is always playing Heroes with a capital H - and that's far from given for most players in my experience. Even when you're not playing villains per se I've known PCs to act selfishly in various petty or grand ways.

The other part, of course, is in making the choice to create characters who will always, ultimately, work together for the greater good, if not in perfect harmony. Again, that's not always the goal of a given gaming group.

I'd like to be clear about my opinions on intraparty conflict:

It's not something any gamer should assume is permitted or banned at any given gaming table. When Hong invited me to join his Britannia campaign, he laid out his group's philosophy as regards teamwork and morality. As it turned out, I think I managed to surprise them while remaining within the boundaries of their "style" - my character's moral failings were not of the terribly destructive or even nonheroic kind.

All gamers should always ask a new group how things usually play out. It's no sense joining a group who will resent your bringing in a disruptive character - of any stripe, not just as regards intraparty conflict - nor in joining a group that allows things in their games that you find disruptive.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

IMO characters should be working together and trust one another, so that they can attempt to solve the current scenario/module/plot.

As a quick note: I would guess that DragonLancer's attitude here is typical of those who have a distaste for intraparty conflict.

Such conflict is less disruptive in games which are focused on things other than "solving the current scenario".

 

[DragonLancer]

As a quick note: I would guess that DragonLancer's attitude here is typical of those who have a distaste for intraparty conflict.

Such conflict is less disruptive in games which are focused on things other than "solving the current scenario".

I agree completely. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not a "I'm telling a story/novel follow my plot" style DM but I do fell that if players are going to be a part of a campaign then they should have the commitment to play to the campaign/plot that the DM has brought to the table. I find that PVP disrupts that.

Note: Commitment isn't really the word I wanted but its close enough.

 

[Wilphe]

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

Okay, "Overcoming the challenge presented by your fellow PCs"
(It so just happens that 90% of the time: overcoming challenge=killing them, I don't want to sidetrack this into another "If they run away do I still get XP" debate)


Still, I'm getting a lot of "it's just bad" and not nearly as much "It depends on the group and game" as I expected.

 

[Numion]

There are also fights to unconciousness, first blood, wrestling matches, and sometimes I would count in things like picking a PC's pockets. Generally, if you're rolling dice against another PC, then I'll consider it player versus player.

I don't think thats really PvP. Like the examples where the Barbarian isn't trying to harm the group, and the group isn't trying to harm the barbarian, just trying to keep him from doing something stupid .. eh, it's just no one harming no one.

Usually when people ban PvP they mean the real thing - actively trying to to harm another character. Not friendly wrestling, arm wrestling, throwing darts, drinking contest, sparring for non-lethal damage.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I agree completely. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not a "I'm telling a story/novel follow my plot" style DM but I do fell that if players are going to be a part of a campaign then they should have the commitment to play to the campaign/plot that the DM has brought to the table. I find that PVP disrupts that.

Absolutely - you don't have to be a railroading jerk to prefer a campaign where the PCs are working together to overcome the challenges the storyline throws at them.

It's not the only way to play D&D, but it's very, very common.

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

No, I actually think that "Roleplaying encourages a certain identification with your character" is a hugely innacurate statement.

I fully believe that statement is not true for you, but the origional post didn't say it was true for everyone, just most people. If less than 5% of gamers agree with you, then the origional post is acurate.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

"Roleplaying encourages X" is a flat statement, and it's not accurate. That's all I said.

 

[JoeGKushner]

In my experience, it's always been bad for group dynamics.

 

[StupidSmurf]

I have no problem with PvP, although Jade and Miranda make me uncomfortable in my pants. You know?

Awww...heck. I was gonna make a reference to the online strip! Well, here's the answer I had begun to formulate as I was plowing through the posts:

"PvP doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. I simply don't read it anymore. I've grown tired of it."

OK...serious mode now.
As that great Klingon sage, Worf, once said: "If it's only a game, why do we keep score?" Fact is, for most players, they do get "into" their characters, and attacks on said character by another character is likely to be take personally. The idea of PCs attacking other PCs (lethal or non-lethal, no matter) is a dicey one at best. If you do allow it, it's something that all of the players should know going into the campaign.

Naturally, there are exceptions. PCs get possessed, controlled, dominated, and attack their allies. OK, that works. Then there's one-shot pre-gen characters in gaming convention tourneys. Game systems like Paranoia practically demand it. Others, like CofC, set up situations where it could very well logically happen.

I agree that little, if any, good can come from it.