Why are people so uncomfortable with PvP?

[danzig138]

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

I agree with this idea on a basic level. However, sometimes, the current scenario/module/plot involves one PC killing or harming another. As an example, last Sunday, after the D&D game ended badly, I threw together a quick PA game. Three characters. Two of which knew each other. The plot for one (#1) of them was "Get as weapon because I didn't start with one"; the plot for the PC he knew (#2) was "Sell some of this danged women's clothing I have" (he was a male mutant rat); the plot for the third (#3) was "Get some clothing, get some water, learn to speak English beyond knowing only one word - Skank!".

Turned out, the most efficient way for #3 to resolve his scenario was to ambush #2 when he walked out of the inn.

One hit, and #2 was dead.

#1 said "Well, he was an ####### anyway. Wanna split his stuff?" to which #3 responded "Skank!".

Now this setting is a homebrew that was created by my first GM over 15 years ago, and PvP is a long-standing tradition in it. Sometimes, it just happens. Some people do stupid things, and in a harsh world without law enforcement, others respond quickly and with lethal force. And sometimes, the group manages to survive meeting each other, and they end up working well together.

Heh, I think I forgot my original point. . . .

 

[Shadowslayer]

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.

Well, that's not what you asked for. You said "Why do so many people seem to have issues with PvP to the point of outrightly forbidding it?"

So...were telling you.

As Truth Seeker first answered: "The original intent is for unusual folks *like characters of different classes* to band, gather, form, a cohesive group against a commom threat, enemy, goal, and the like."

I don't know about other games, but, like it or not, that's a base assumption in the D&D books. (as an example, all those diagrams in the PHB using minis show Mialee and Tordek flanking and shooting at Ogres, Gnolls and Orcs...not Mialee flanking and shooting at Tordek.)

If a group doesn't want to play with that base assumption, then fine, play however you want. No skin off my nose, and probably not off anyone else's nose either. But if are using that base assumption, then PvP is a hassle.

I haven't read too many posts here that say thet anyone's doing it wrong. Just maybe that its wrong to start pulling that stuff in a game without knowing if the other players are into that.

There should be some kind of agreement on what kind of game you're playing.

 

[Afrodyte]

I think a common feeling is that PvP has to end in death for some reason. That is definately not where I'm coming from. The vast majority of PvP in my experience, has been non-lethal combat [edit]toward some purpose[/edit].

I agree, but to take this further, I think it's equating conflict with combat that makes it difficult for some to fathom why PC vs. PC conflict is allowed in some games. In a dramatic sense (which is the same sense I would suppose for RPGs), conflict is what happens when what one PC wants and what another PC wants are at odds. Whether or not it is appropriate for any particular game depends upon the intensity of the conflict and how the players seek to resolve the conflict. If one or more players think that the only way to resolve the conflict is to kill the other character, you might have problems (few people look forward to having their PC killed). If the players in question define the stakes of the conflict in different terms, it could actually add something to the game. For instance, a game where the friendship of two PCs is at stake, or perhaps one where what happens determines if the PCs remain heroes or simply be mercenaries, that's as interesting (if not moreso) than whether or not they kill each other.

I agree that PC vs. PC conflict would be a bad idea when the campaign does not focus on the interplay between characters. You wouldn't expect the same sorts of character interactions from an epic action-adventure that you would from a small-scale character drama. Just doesn't work. With D&D, of course, there is always that action component as far as characters being able to do cool stuff is concerned, but there is still potential for more interactive roleplaying.

 

[Henry]

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?"

Almost universally it's bad experiences for me.

1) It slows down play - you aren't off fighting villains and winning treasure, you're sitting in the same room hacking at each other.
2) It generates hostile feelings; if it's not generating hostile feelings from player to player, it's generating hostile feelings with the DM, who's sitting there twiddling his thumbs.
3) It's as heroic as the Grinch stealing Christmas.

If someone wants to run "arena deathmatch", or "Paranoia", or "D&D Minis", or "Battletech Free-for-all" then I'm all for it - I go in with a "screw your neighbor" mindset and we have fun. But if I'm playing D&D, ESPECIALLY if I'm the DM, then it wastes my time. And I only have one damned night a week to waste time with friends, thanks, so whoever decides to be the PvP jerk can hit the road.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Let me tell you of the demise of the Mighty Flexor. Flexor was a character in an old 1e game years back. He was a fighter, and the only character I ever created that I rolled an 18/100 strength for. I was pumped and created a fighter with delusions of grandeur who thought he was Heracles, and wouldn't use strength enhancing stuff due to his idea that he didn't need any. He was fun to play and would often get in over his head due to his inflated view of himself. He had an idea that he would transcend mortality upon death and become a god of might. He was a bit off in that regard, and in a few others. Anyway, one adventure the Thief-MU said he was going to cast a protection spell on Flexor. Flexor says sure. The DM says so you aren't going to try to resist or anything, I should have known something was up then. Anyway it was a charm person and I didn't save since I wasn't trying to and now I was charmed for a month before he could even try another save since he only had a 9 INT. The player and the DM did thier little girly giggles and told Flexor that he was giving his best stuff to the thief since they were such great friends and the Thief really needed it...and I got up from the table, told them both to go F themselves and quit playing. That was the end of that group and the last time I ever played my favorite character. Actually that was one of the last times I played, I've pretty much been a DM since that point. If one of the players in my current game, or any game I'm running, tries to pulls such antics to try and have fun by destroying someone else's fun I'll make sure the character in question is killed in the next fight and after the session tell the player to find another game.

If the players worked it out before hand that they were all good with such antics I'd probably feel differently, but IME it never works out that way. Not only with Flexor but with any other situation where the players decided to start fighting each other to show who is toughest, who gets the magic sword since the attacking player lost the die roll for it, etc. But we aren't trying to explore character concepts when we play, it's mainly and action/adventure thing.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Yep, I try and encourage a cooperative style of play in my campaigns, and I don't really like PvP. Sometimes the players have felt the need to restrain a party member and it has come to blows, and if it makes perfectly good sense in the campaign, fine, I don't outright ban it. But too often there is little real motivation for it other than, "I know I can kick his butt, so I'll take any slight to be reason for me to try, cuz its kewl.

Gaming is about having fun. If the fun for some groups includes PvP, great. If it annoys people, it should not be permitted in their games. What I can't understand is that people would be annoyed by having PvP discouraged or even banned. If your having fun is linked to the idea of fighting other players, find a different game, don't bother showing up at my table.

 

[Urbannen]

I think one reason that PvP crops up so much is the basic design of D&D game play.

The game assumes, and frankly requires, a group of diverse characters to play. The problem is that melee types, arcane spellcasters, skills monkeys, and divine spellcasters all have diverse backgrounds, too, as befits their training. It's hard to have a reason for all these different types to be working together. I'd love to play a game in which everyone were from the same mercenary troop of fighters, gang of thieves, or temple (or grove). In such a game, the characters would share a common background and similar values. That concept is not supported in D&D. Maybe some d20 system, but not D&D. From what I've read here, a lot of PvP erupts over conflicting values and goals: "How dare you kill that innocent animal! Brad, I smite you in Ehlonna's name!"

And few people would want to play in a D&D campaign in which everyone was a variation of the same class. The rules themselves do not limit PC diversity. By the rules, you can be evil. You can be a dragon. You can be anything. D&D marketing encourages eccentric, individualistic character creation (the Rage Mage?). That sells books. But that's not good for party unity or campaign coherence.

I have experienced negative PvP when another player decided to put his character's desire to loot an enemy castle over the party's mission to open a secret door that would let our troops into the castle. Since the DM stated only the halfling rogue could open the door, my ranger grappled and subdued him in order to get him there. (After all, that's what 'my' character would have done.) Bad feelings? Yep.

The most fun I've had with PvP was in tournament-style play, one I've played in, another I wrote. The players were given pregenerated characters who had a common mission, but different goals and alignments. They had to work together but at the same time against each other. Since these were one shots, party unity wasn't an issue. Very fun.

 

[Crothian]

I'm very far from the superficial, war-gaming stereotype as a roleplayer; the fact that I never identify with my character, never think like them, never pretend to be them, has nothing whatsoever to do with this.

So, you don't role play the character, that's cool. Not everyone likes to role play their characters which is pretending to be that character.

 

[Blue_Kryptonite]

Looks like mhacdebhandia and I are on the same page from different angles.

Method vs. Immersion, more or less.

 

[DonTadow]

The negatives far outweigh the positives. Not only is it a waste of time that diverts frome the current adventure or scenerio, it causes dire disention in a party. I have players in my campaign make comments that are sometimes believed too harsh, can you imagine coupling it up with a knife fight. Characters can have animosity towards one another without the dm allowing for them to fight.

Realistically, once you start hurling fireballs and bastard swords at someone, its hard to let bygons be bygons.

It's far easier for a dm to let his players solve their character problems either out of game or by some nonviolent means. I learned this tecnique from my previous DM and it does keep things peaceful. For the record, I tried pvp at the beginnign of my current campaign. HORRIBLE. The players spent over half teh games making rolls against each other.