Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThirdWizard" data-source="post: 2580538" data-attributes="member: 12037">I would never advocate PvP in D&D unless both players were for it. Let me make sure I'm understood. PvP in D&D should be about exploration of character and inter-character interactions. It is not something to do out of the blue because you feel like it. I'm not advocating the rogue suddenly, out of the blue, deciding to slit everyone's throats in their sleep unless the other players are okay with that. It's about fun.It isn't for every campaign. I'm running two campaigns at the moment. One is my attempt at a heroic campaign of good battling evil where if the PCs turn evil, then they become NPCs. Another is an intrigue and political game involving evil PCs. Two very different campaigns with different rules regarding character alignment.Now, the reason I bring this up, is because PvP should go the same way. Every game I run won't look kindly upon PCs fighting each other, just like not every game I run will allow evil PCs. A Ravenloft campaign I ran years ago almost encouraged such behavior. A barbarian campaign I ran later regarded it as dishonerable.And, finally the players. Some players can enjoy party in-fighting if it is interesting, climactic, and fun. Some can't. When they can't, don't do PvP. When they enjoy it, you can find the time and place where it fits. And, it can fit. The example of holding your friend backto save his life is a sitution that is both fun and climactic. Even the PHB (or is it the DMG?) have examples of PCs rolling initiative and such against each other. It's all about how far the players are able to take it without bad feelings.So, no we arn't polar opposites here.</blockquote>

Verification