Is PvP ever a good idea?

[hobbitkniver]

I play with a lot of different DM's (mostly because they're so unreliable) and I noticed that PvP comes up sometimes, but is there really any good reason to have it. It just causes hurt feelings and out of game anger. I've yet to see someone be calm when they die to another player. I justr really don't understand why DM's allow (and sometimes instigate) PvP.

To give a few examples (All different DM's):

A vampire party member (with barely any class levels) got killed and forced into his coffin. Another character, a duskblade, along with a rogue and bard decided to take his gold (also shouldn't have been allowed IMO). When he came back, he attacked the party. Being the cleric, I whipped out my Holy symbol and the vampire (better made than the duskblade) killed the duskblade on the first turn before I got initiative. The rogue and bard decided not to do anything. I cast Heal on the vampire and one shotted him. I suppose the duskblade was asking for it, but I don't see what this gained. No one had fun and thats why we play this, right?

Another one occured while we were dungeon exploring. We entered a room and suddenly we just decided to kill eachother, or at least thats what we were told. We all started killing eachother and I even blew a card from the deck of many things because I thought there'd be some kind of reward. I won, but wait! It was a dream. So all the consumables and ammunition were gone, but it didn't really do anything at all. What was the purpose of this? It was boring and it got really tense because people argued about how things should have worked.

Last example was just a week ago. One character was picking apart corpses from bodies of a village massacred (because chaotic neutral means sinister and random right? :smallannoyed:) So he awakened some kind of minor god (makes more sense if you knew the campaign). We all tried to stop him and eventually did after I used Suggestion on him (I'm cleric again). The DM then started slipping the character secret notes which were the spirit's request for the character to follow his evil plan. When we camped, the character tried to convince me to come into the woods because there was a demon he wanted to kill or some other feeble excuse. I refused and it eventually led to him tying me up. I was fully armored, but the DM made it a touch attack at full BAB to tie up an armored cleric who's watching you do it. Aside from that, I got no sort of check. So he brought me to some altar while the others did nothing because they all had some other goofy reason for getting disoriented(the ranger rolled a one on an attack roll and was "dizzy" for the rest of the combat). Then, he grabbed the knife and killed me instantly without any roll. It got really quiet and the DM's girlfriend (one of the players) glared at him. So the rest of the party finally decided to effectively attack the traitor and got him into less than -100, but he survived because he was possessed by the spirit. The DM then sent me a note saying I wasn't actually dead. So next turned, I blasted a maximized version of my most powerful attack spell at him. The combat ended and the other player escaped. I think I may have been the least upset after this encounter. The other character was upset that the spirit didn't give him enough power to wipe us and the other players were mad they didn't get to kill him. The DM rationalized my resurrection by saying my god brought me back because he was angry at these foreign gods interfering with his plans.

So, I'm curious... Has anyone ever had a positive expirience with PvP? I think it could be fun in an arena setting, but its not likely that this would ever happen.

[sirpercival]

The first case is a DM who is not hands-on enough to discourage this sort of thing, but really it's a problem with players who don't really get the idea of a "party".

The second case is a DM being a ****.

The third case is just... bizarre.

In any case, no. Don't do it, unless it's an arena-style game where you're comparing optimization expertise and no one cares about their characters.

[Mnemnosyne]

It sounds to me as though those particular experiences were poorly done, not the entire concept. The 'it was all a dream' one in particular. Did that campaign go on? Was there a logical explanation for it, a reason, something that made the long-term story more interesting? Beyond that is the question of how the effect was achieved mechanically (I find it best if the DM follows the rules as well rather than making up powers and abilities the PC's have no access to).

As for that last example, that sounds like an example of very bad DMing to me. The DM is railroading the plot - when you weren't fooled, the DM decided to fiat a way to make what he wanted happen regardless, from the touch-attack 'tied up' part to the guy surviving ridiculous amounts of negative HP, to your random resurrection. It seems likely this all fits into the DM's predetermined story, and he's determined to make it happen no matter what the players want to do or what the rules say.

Beyond that, yes, it can sometimes be a good idea. Sometimes. It needs to make sense, and the players should also be ready for it in some way or another. Too much OOC discussion would ruin the effect though, so it's not just a matter of talk about it before each potential incident, either. Much of it will depend on whether the players are good at roleplaying this sort of conflict in a logical and reasonable manner or not. Some people simply aren't and possibly never will be, and with those people, it is always a bad idea.

[hobbitkniver]

It sounds to me as though those particular experiences were poorly done, not the entire concept. The 'it was all a dream' one in particular. Did that campaign go on? Was there a logical explanation for it, a reason, something that made the long-term story more interesting? Beyond that is the question of how the effect was achieved mechanically (I find it best if the DM follows the rules as well rather than making up powers and abilities the PC's have no access to).


Not really, it was some magic he said, but there was no real explanation. It didn't add anything to the story; it didn't do anything after we left the room. There wasn't any connection to anything else and there were no penalties or rewards.

[Narren]

Not really, it was some magic he said, but there was no real explanation. It didn't add anything to the story; it didn't do anything after we left the room. There wasn't any connection to anything else and there were no penalties or rewards.

So...if it was all just a dream, why did it use up your consumables?

PvP can be an enriching experience when it happens organically, because the players are ACTUALLY role playing real characters with real emotions that do something stupid like attack a team mate. But having an evil character that just kills because he wants to rob the other characters is disrupting to the campaign. Unless....that's the point of the campaign. I've run a few of those, and everyone knows what's going on when we start.

[hobbitkniver]

So...if it was all just a dream, why did it use up your consumables?

PvP can be an enriching experience when it happens organically, because the players are ACTUALLY role playing real characters with real emotions that do something stupid like attack a team mate. But having an evil character that just kills because he wants to rob the other characters is disrupting to the campaign. Unless....that's the point of the campaign. I've run a few of those, and everyone knows what's going on when we start.

It was more like a hallucination than a dream, so we were all laying on the floor swinging our weapons randomly or something.

[legomaster00156]

PvP should only be done for settling disputes of in-character honor/loyalty/some other reasonable... reason, and should never go to the death. I personally favor the Pathfinder rules for duels (Ultimate Combat), making a fun, impartial way to have PvP without hurt feelings.

[lunar2]

my experiences were usually funny. i should also mention that if a dm tells me that my character thinks, does, or does not do something, i walk away from the table after tearing up my character sheet, as well as any of the dm's notes i can grab. my character is MY character, not an NPC, and not under the DM's authority, rule 0 be damned. the exception, of course, is magical effects, but since I'm nearly always on cleric duty, I of course have the best will in the party.

back to pvp.

example 1: I was the DM, and the party were all evil undead. the mummy fighter told the liches (sorcerer and cleric) not to use fire around him. the cleric caught the mummy with the edge of a flamestrike. the mummy killed the cleric.

example 2: I was a player (fighter). We killed an ettin. The barbarian decided he wanted to skin the ettin. the DM made him roll a wisdom check, and then told him that he had a hunch that we needed to hurry and get moving, because we'd made a bunch of noise fighting the ettin. The barbarian kept skinning the ettin. another ettin ran out of the bushes, and attacked. the cleric cast hold person on this ettin (DM wasn't paying enough attention). our houserule on hold person is that after you hit them, the effect ends automatically. the cleric said out loud "I cast a spell to paralyse the ettin. The guy with a big axe needs to come up and Coup-De-Grace this bastard." The barbarian (said greataxe guy), charged the ettin and attacked. next turn, the cleric cast hold person on the barbarian, and the rest of us walked away while the ettin was busy eating him.

example 3: i was a player (cleric). a clay golem showed up. I told everyone to hang around while I buffed them. the fighter (same as barbarian above) ran after the golem. I cast prayer, and designated the fighter as an enemy, along with letting him know that his character wouldn't know that. then I cast bane, and the fighter failed his save. then i cast doom on the fighter, and of course he failed his save. then we (and the golem) jumped the fighter.

example 4: player (barbarian). the ranger called me weak, so we got into a fist fight. I forgot to take my spiked gauntlets off (really). I punched him one time in a rage, got a crit, and killed him (we were level 7). that one was accidental, though.

there are a bunch more, but they were all funny.

[Victoria]

I don't believe it's normally a good idea, though there can be a few situations where it's appropriate, all of which have been mentioned in this thread already.

1) If it arises from genuine character interaction and doesn't disrupt the campaign (a fine line there, since inter-party social tension is "part of the game" to me).

2) It's a designated "evil" campaign and all the players expect backstabbing and treachery from the start.

3) Where the point of the campaign is basically to just make characters to fight each other.

Personally, I've only ever done #3. I've never played in an evil campaign and I don't like to DM a party of evil characters, so that rules out #2, and I've never had #1 actually come up and not be disruptive to the game. Each time it happened I was the DM, and it was basically, "I swing my sword at (player's character" with me replying, "No you don't. I won't allow it in my game."

[Jeraa]

D&D is a roleplaying game. If your character would be the type to backstab his traveling companions, or if there is an in-game reason for it, so be it. You are just roleplaying how your character would react in such a situation. I won't do anything in-game to stop the player from doing it. It could be a good way to introduce a new character (If the player of the dying character wants a new character). If the attacked player doesn't want a new character, there are always resurrection by friendly NPCs, or perhaps the characters deity decides the characters work isn't don't, and sends him back. (I refuse to run scripted campaigns. While there may be some adventures linked together with a common theme, its a sandbox. Play as you will.)

If it goes against what the character would reasonably do, or if don for out-of-character reasons, it shouldn't be allowed.

[Dimers]

My last group used PvP to test new members for combat-readiness. Each applicant opted in, each fight had strict bounds, and the party cleric healed everyone afterward. Aside from that, I've seen a few situations where PvP was an appropriate response, none in which it was the only appropriate response, and none that made the game more fun.

[Victoria]

D&D is a roleplaying game. If your character would be the type to backstab his traveling companions, or if there is an in-game reason for it, so be it. You are just roleplaying how your character would react in such a situation. I won't do anything in-game to stop the player from doing it. It could be a good way to introduce a new character (If the player of the dying character wants a new character). If the attacked player doesn't want a new character, there are always resurrection by friendly NPCs, or perhaps the characters deity decides the characters work isn't don't, and sends him back. (I refuse to run scripted campaigns. While there may be some adventures linked together with a common theme, its a sandbox. Play as you will.)

If it goes against what the character would reasonably do, or if don for out-of-character reasons, it shouldn't be allowed.

I can sympathize with this, I suppose. I usually speak from a DM's perspective since I usually DM instead of play, but I suppose if all the players are fine with it, I wouldn't have a problem with it happening. This has never been the case in my personal experience, however. In fact, the only times I've had a player try to attack another party member with their character, was my youngest sister being obnoxious. I suppose that just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth about the thought of party members attacking each other in a game I'm running.

[SamBurke]

I've used PvP before, but that was because we were wasting time until a plot hook hit our faces (worked, actually... though the trap slashing my arm open was not quite what I expected), and we specified Non-lethal damage.

That's about the only way I'd do it, if players really wanted to.

If they want to KILL each other, tell them to go play Halo 4 while mature people work together as a team.

[jaybird]

PvP duels to first blood or surrender are fine, IMO.

[lunar2]

yeah, I had a DM that tried that. here's a hint. If the cleric wants someone to die, they die. it's as simple as that, no exceptions. AoE spells that happen to clip them, everyone else being higher priority for healing, etc. when the dwarf fighter grabbed my female cleric's breasts one to many times, he was dead in 3 encounters. then i decided to be nice and raise him, but i took all his liquid wealth (gold, gems, and extra magic items such as potions) first, and then charged him for raising.

Next campaign, the DM instituted a house rule that if any character does lethal damage to another (including through summons) then a 20d6 lightning bolt hits them for every die of damage the victim takes. it was a feature of the campaign world, that all gods hated betrayal (at least the direct kind of betrayal, anyway). My Lawful Good (deck of many things) rogue pissed off my true neutral cleric (hey, when i play a character, i play them right), so when the cleric got on the good (or bad, depending on how you look at it) side of a Balor (the big bad, actually), he took advantage of the situation by stealing the rogues stuff while he was asleep,including a good artifact set that the balor wanted to keep away from the rogue, who was the new champion of the "Seven Good Gods". hilarity ensued for the next week, as the rogue was trying to get his stuff back, while the cleric was subtly working against the party from the inside. both the rogue and the cleric died, but they got better. the cleric even became a good guy, and worshiped pelor, before the campaign was over.

[bigstipidfighte]

In general, I think PCs killing each other is bad. If somebody's claiming "it's what my character would do", they probably shouldn't have made a character with that personality in the first place, since D&D, with few exceptions, is a game where the players are meant to work together to overcome challenges.

That said, conflict within the group that doesn't lead to death can be fun. I can think of three separate instances where one of my characters hated another PC. In two cases its been amusing, in one the campaign moved too fast for anything to come of it.

[VanBuren]

We sort of had that the other night, actually. The party discovered this ancient doll that--thanks to poor will saves--enthralled the Barbarian/Wizard and myself--the Warblade into wanting the doll more than anything else. The cleric took it, but eventually the Barbarian got a hold of it.

Then the druid set it on fire, and I rolled a Natural 20 on basically every grapple check to get it from the Barbarian. Then I ran off with the doll, and the Druid tried to wildshape into a hawk, but was chucked at me. Then the Barbarian fell down the stairs and rolled after me.

Nobody died, or was seriously injured. But we all knew ahead of time that something like this was going to transpire and so we all enjoyed it. Playing Yakety Sax certainly helped.

[kardar233]

Mmm, only time I've ever been involved in PvP in D&D was one time I was the captain of a corsair vessel, and two players had OOC grudges and often tried to kill each other. I told them IC that if they tried to kill each other, I would personally execute them both (they were under kings' orders to accomplish a task as was I, and them killing each other was both a waste of resources and detrimental to the mission). They attacked each other, and I (being a lvl9 Warblade, the most optimized character in the party) dropped them in one round with a leaping charge and then a Ruby Nightmare Blade. They complained, and the DM told them that they were dumb, it never happened and they should learn their lesson. It went fine after that.

In non-D&D role-playing games, I've had great experiences with PvP. In one, I had a great Batman/Joker type relation with another player's character and it made for a hell of a time.

[Victoria]

We sort of had that the other night, actually. The party discovered this ancient doll that--thanks to poor will saves--enthralled the Barbarian/Wizard and myself--the Warblade into wanting the doll more than anything else. The cleric took it, but eventually the Barbarian got a hold of it.

Then the druid set it on fire, and I rolled a Natural 20 on basically every grapple check to get it from the Barbarian. Then I ran off with the doll, and the Druid tried to wildshape into a hawk, but was chucked at me. Then the Barbarian fell down the stairs and rolled after me.

Nobody died, or was seriously injured. But we all knew ahead of time that something like this was going to transpire and so we all enjoyed it. Playing Yakety Sax certainly helped.

That does sound quite fun, though it stemmed from compulsion (well, indirectly, since you were enthralled) magic.

[brujon]

Stealing from the party is a bad idea 99,9% of the time. The ONLY time for me that it's in anyway acceptable, is when the player is a jerk and refuses to share a critical resource one of the players in the party absolutely needs. (A scroll of restoration, for instance, when one character has gotten very level drained). And even then, it's probably just better for the DM to just have a talk with the player and have him give it to the other player who needs it. OFC, this changes if it's an evil party. Evil partys can be loads of fun, with everyone trying to gain a upper-hand while still working towards the same goal, but it takes a certain kind of group to pull one like that succesfully.

As for other kinds of intra-party conflict... I think as a DM, when something like that comes up (one player declaring an attack on another), the game should just stop. Stop the game and discuss the issue at hand. The DM has to act as a mediator for player interaction as well as character interaction. Other possible solutions is for the DM to put up a common enemy for the party to fight, the moment the conflict starts. Actually force the party to work togheter to defeat the threat. In a lot of situations, putting up an enemy that the party has to defeat togheter has the potential to defer the conflict long enough that the players themselves 'forget' about it.

That said... PVP can be used to great effect as a dramatic tool, as demonstrated by Rich Burlew in recent OOTS strips (The Blue half dragon thing and the lizardfolk forced to fight each other), and can even be used to justify a player's retirement/long absense for a game (Have him auto-fail a Dominate roll from a monster, the party is forced to kill him, and ripe with remorse, they go forth in a quest to raise him). Cursed items that force alignment-reversals are too interesting. But you have to feel your players... Back in AD&D, a lot of items had these kinds of drawback, and character deaths were plentiful, even at the hands of the party. It's important that the DM presents solutions to these conflicts the best as he possibly can. Perhaps the powerful wizard the group was working for becomes REALLY upset about the intra-party conflict, and decides to Geas/Quest the killer into making up for it. Perhaps raise the killed PC as a Ghost, bound on getting revenge on the party(Now you have a new quest. To permanently shut down the ghost, you HAVE to make up for the wrongful character death...). Giving the offended player some clear reward in his new character is also a good way of calming him down(Just tell him you'll be making it up for him in-game and have him not retaliate later), or alternatively, actively punishing the offender(And telling him that you will do so beforehand).

DM'ing with real people is... Dealing with real people. Even childhood friends sometimes get into fist-fights IRL... In a game it's easier for such things to happen, and the DM as such has to be creative and go about it in a expeditious and efficient manner. Swift justice and creative retaliation, on-the-spot thinking and weaving the event into the story is the most effective way of preventing the campaign from falling apart.

[Krazzman]

Just yesterday it broke a One-Shot (maybe campaign).

We were playing in Faerun with pathfinder rules (lack of books atm) and used the Monster Manual cause the Bestiary made *poof* someday.

So we got this super team: Lich Magus (Magus 6, Lich 4), Vampire Wizard (Wizard 5, Fighter 1 Vampire 4), Rhakshasa Sorceror (3/7 I think) and me Oracle of Battle (Doppelganger).

I was captured by Paladins for carrying a weapon... The Rhakshasa disguised as Grutz was spoken mentally ill and brought to asylum, same goes for the vampire. The Lich snuck in by paralyzing one guard.

The Vampire starts to gaze all in asylum/turns them to spawns. The Rhakshasa wants to sneak a peek, but after a few times nicely asking to leave, the Rhakshasa insists on watching this private moments where the Vampire kills them and got himself a Gaze attack after further resisting.

This ensured in argueing if the gaze is supernatural or spell like with the rhakshasa insisting it is spell like, the dm saying it's not, further argueing, we pack our stuff and went our ways....

No, I don't think it is ever worthwhile for except ONE moment. Player wants to leave campaign. (3 Guys(including me) left the campaign of one of our friends and he made a quick plot where I as NE Rogue kill the LG Paladin and get cought and hereby slain)

[navar100]

D&D is a roleplaying game. If your character would be the type to backstab his traveling companions, or if there is an in-game reason for it, so be it. You are just roleplaying how your character would react in such a situation. I won't do anything in-game to stop the player from doing it. It could be a good way to introduce a new character (If the player of the dying character wants a new character). If the attacked player doesn't want a new character, there are always resurrection by friendly NPCs, or perhaps the characters deity decides the characters work isn't don't, and sends him back. (I refuse to run scripted campaigns. While there may be some adventures linked together with a common theme, its a sandbox. Play as you will.)

If it goes against what the character would reasonably do, or if don for out-of-character reasons, it shouldn't be allowed.

No. You would be a donkey cavity. "That's just what my character would do." is never an excuse to attack a party member. You chose to play such a character, so the fault is on you. If you just absolutely cannot play nice with others, don't play with them at all.

Even in real life you will disagree with your friends sometimes. In the game, party members will have disagreements on how to proceed with something. There can even be friendly rivalries of who gets the most kills between warriors, whose spells gets the least saved against for spellcasters, etc. Purposely attacking a party member "just because" or "I'm just roleplaying" is male bovine feces.

[Calanon]

Last example was just a week ago. One character was picking apart corpses from bodies of a village massacred (because chaotic neutral means sinister and random right? :smallannoyed:) So he awakened some kind of minor god (makes more sense if you knew the campaign). We all tried to stop him and eventually did after I used Suggestion on him (I'm cleric again). The DM then started slipping the character secret notes which were the spirit's request for the character to follow his evil plan. When we camped, the character tried to convince me to come into the woods because there was a demon he wanted to kill or some other feeble excuse. I refused and it eventually led to him tying me up. I was fully armored, but the DM made it a touch attack at full BAB to tie up an armored cleric who's watching you do it. Aside from that, I got no sort of check. So he brought me to some altar while the others did nothing because they all had some other goofy reason for getting disoriented(the ranger rolled a one on an attack roll and was "dizzy" for the rest of the combat). Then, he grabbed the knife and killed me instantly without any roll. It got really quiet and the DM's girlfriend (one of the players) glared at him. So the rest of the party finally decided to effectively attack the traitor and got him into less than -100, but he survived because he was possessed by the spirit. The DM then sent me a note saying I wasn't actually dead. So next turned, I blasted a maximized version of my most powerful attack spell at him. The combat ended and the other player escaped. I think I may have been the least upset after this encounter. The other character was upset that the spirit didn't give him enough power to wipe us and the other players were mad they didn't get to kill him. The DM rationalized my resurrection by saying my god brought me back because he was angry at these foreign gods interfering with his plans.

...What!? (http://omgface.com/confused/young%20will%20smith1.jpg)

[Jeraa]

No. You would be a donkey cavity. "That's just what my character would do." is never an excuse to attack a party member. You chose to play such a character, so the fault is on you. If you just absolutely cannot play nice with others, don't play with them at all.

Even in real life you will disagree with your friends sometimes. In the game, party members will have disagreements on how to proceed with something. There can even be friendly rivalries of who gets the most kills between warriors, whose spells gets the least saved against for spellcasters, etc. Purposely attacking a party member "just because" or "I'm just roleplaying" is male bovine feces.

If the rest of the party chose to journey with a psychotic killer, its their fault as well. They knew the risks from the beginning. And if they didn't bother to check up on this random stranger with them, one who will hold their lives in his hands when standing watch, and who they expect to protect them in combat, then its still also partly their fault. Yes, you chose to play such a character. But the party also chose to bring such a character along.

Any adventurer that meets a random stranger in a bar and says "Hey strange guy, lets go kill things together" without checking out the other person first deserves death.

[Kantolin]

The ways I've seen PvP work in a game that wasn't specifically geared around PvPing was when the two players agreed to it OOCly beforehand.

If the two players wouldn't agree to it, it'd probably cause game-wrecking bad feelings and/or end in a chain of retarded characters who no longer work together at all and result in a very hostile overall game experience.

Most games with expected PvP are either hostile or very comedic game experiences. With people who would be mature about it, they'd generally agree to things ICly or be willing to chat with people to come to an agreement.

With players who wouldn't, which I've played in quite frequently, the result is that people bring OOC baggage of any sort into the game and the result is that you have to be having fun despite this, which means the PvP is certainly in on way aiding to the game.

[Thiyr]

PvP is good given the right playgroup. If it's something where one person was joking around and expects to get off scott free because they're another player, that's -not- the right playgroup. If you and someone else are squaring off becuase it's what'd happen, and you both know that it's just the way the game is panning out, then that's closer to the right playgroup. If you plan it beforehand, that's just fine as well. It fits the same way as "don't use dominate on players" does: denying other people their agency in the game is a stupid thing to do unless they give it willingly.

[Kantolin]

If the rest of the party chose to journey with a psychotic killer, its their fault as well. They knew the risks from the beginning.

Possibly, and that would be true if the players met a NPC in the bar. But the only reason this occured in the first place is because one of the players decided that his character would do so and wanted to play. Usually quite randomly yet. Avoiding partying with them or killing them will just result in another one popping up - kinda like no amount of actually killing a problematic PC fixes it if the problem is an OOC one.

[deuxhero]

At the end of the adventure to decide who gets the girl.

>_>

[sirpercival]

If the rest of the party chose to journey with a psychotic killer, its their fault as well. They knew the risks from the beginning. And if they didn't bother to check up on this random stranger with them, one who will hold their lives in his hands when standing watch, and who they expect to protect them in combat, then its still also partly their fault. Yes, you chose to play such a character. But the party also chose to bring such a character along.

Any adventurer that meets a random stranger in a bar and says "Hey strange guy, lets go kill things together" without checking out the other person first deserves death.

I had a player leave one of my games after one session because her character, when joining, was given the Spanish Inquisition about her background and motives. There is a certain suspension of disbelief that's necessary to begin a game unless most of the PCs know each other; paranoia in a PC is good because it keeps them alive, but if you start doing extensive background checks on every other PC you might adventure with someone is going to get pissed off.

This is why in every game I run, "must work well with others" is a chargen requirement.

[Jack of Spades]

Ye Olde PvP topic always (seriously, it never hasn't) makes me think of one of the articles the Giant wrote and posted on this site. This'n. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)

Basically, the gist of a decent chunk of it is: Your character is your character, but it's your character. Which is to say, he/she has a base reaction, but if that reaction is going to derail the game, you not only should but must pull on the reins a bit.

To steer this toward the topic a bit more: Some of the best character interaction I've seen happened when a pal and I made characters who were literally at one another's throats over whether or not a certain antagonist should be hunted down and killed versus simply giving her what she wanted so she would leave the party alone. Intense moments were had, and then some OOC laughs because we realized that the dwarf and the halfling were having a screaming argument in the middle of a room full of humans, elves, and an ettin.

But! Despite the fact that said characters were on the edge of coming to blows with one another, they didn't. Because both of us knew, as players, that outright combat between players is a general no-no if things are going to remain civil. That's the "line" as I see it. Characters can hate one another, they can threaten one another, they can make opposed diplomatic skill checks (so many bluff rolls), but at no point should players have to pull out dice and start chopping at one another's hit points. There's always an alternative.

In this case, by the way, the alternative was my halfling waiting for the dwarf to lay out the stolen item and a "here you go, now leave us alone" note, then taking first guard overnight, pocketing the offending bauble, and burning the note. :belkar: Got us in a spot of trouble and there was no way fingers were going to be pointed at any other character, but it avoided PvP and made for roleplay everyone was happy with.

[Arcane_Snowman]

I actually have instances of both, while the "good" instance wasn't particularly long or technically that particularly good, it made sense in context, whereas the other one felt like a giant "blow me" from the DM to my character.

There's a particular GM in my group, he's a bit new at it all and what he does is mostly unintentional so I don't hold as much of a grudge as I otherwise would, he's learning but also taking notes, but I digress. We were playing a system which is horrendous on mortal characters, but that's a talk for a different time. Anyway, he has a habit of forgetting the power of his heroes when creating encounters, instead running with whatever cool ploy that may pop into his head or embed itself in the back of his skull via the chatterbox. Seeing as everyone else in the group were new to the system and knowing my DMs propensity towards forgetting balance, and because I can break the system over my knee in about 3 seconds flat, I took it upon myself to keep the others alive long enough to actually get invested in their characters, and seeing as they basically made extraordinary detectives, it was a good thing I did.

With the first character I made for the game, I succeed in doing so, but he lost his life for entirely reasonable reasons, defending the others and generally acting like a big damn hero. Second character I made, I decided to go for a stronger character, the first one just had regeneration out the wazoo, and so made a cursed shapeshifter priest. Cue him meeting the party in combat circumstances, turning into a horrible monster and getting shot at by the other members of the party, (they had a man he wanted to interrogate) and him trying to stop their car. It all ended pretty horribly, but it made sense and was kinda fun for everyone involved.

After some more session, everyone involved manage to become a team and join up for some quests. Later on, a new player has joined in, she made an angel, so she had a little less combat potential than my character, but was still pretty competent. We're fighting some mages, and as my character should, he ripped them a new one. The last mage to die decides to, as his final act of spite to mystically command my character to "kill them all". I furiously went through the rules with the DM, but despite my protestations and surprisingly very high resistance roll, my character nonetheless failed. Seeing as the previous fighting had taken a toll out of him, I decided to play him smartly and have him wait until he was fully recovered before he'd start murdering everyone else, I was also given the impression that they were splitting up shortly thereafter so the compulsion wouldn't have a chance to override his common sense. And we ended the session there.

Next session, it turns out that he was still needed for something minor, but couldn't really leave, so seeing his opportunity (and everyone just agreeing that we weren't going to postpone the bloody PvP any longer.) started shivving people, taking out the two mortals, before being taken out by the angel who had the benefit of not being wounded in the battle of the last session.

So yeah, there's an example of what I'd consider a reasonable instance of PvP as well as a utterly horrendous one.
Everyone needs to be in on it, and there should preferably be a good reason behind it, otherwise it's just an imaginary fistfight, which does no one any good. :smallannoyed:

[hobbitkniver]

I noticed an awful lot of you said that if roleplaying would have your character be a traitorous murderer, that is what you should be. I disagree, I'd rather not play with a player who insists on being such a terrible character, especially if they are Neutral. I had a long conversation with a DM once who didn't allow evil. He said Chaotic neutral became the alignment of every character that'd usually be evil. I'd just not allow such a character because it would ruin the fun. IMO: Fun>Roleplay and Fun>Everything else. I generally use the rules as they are, but if everyone's having fun then why does it matter?

[DoctorGlock]

Well, everyone has already mentioned that your DM is a bit of a **** in the OP, but outside of arena matches and special circumstances, PvP only ends in tears. Arena is obvious, it isn't a real game, no one is attached to their character, it's just a statsheet and a few minutes good fun. Special circumstances... are different.

It can be made to work if the PvP is played off as some sort of catharsis, some huge resolution of game spanning pathos. When that happens the entire party looks forward to it. Think the last battle between Obi-Wan and Anakin and episode 3.

I've played in games where it happened and it end up being a defining moment, even if it's the last for a character. My primary example was in an all evil game, near the end, high level, about to complete an apocalypse from the sky spell as part of an ascension ritual. Got the innocent kid on the alter and a holy artifact sword as the focus, the moment it comes down its purpose is corrupted and it fulfills the needs of the ritual, boom, instant doom. The rest of the party was trying to break into the fortress to get the ritual completed themselves because everyone wants godhood. Now my charcater had been having twinges of conscience and doubts about the whole "evil *******" part the whole game and when it came down to offing a complete innocent balks and remembers who he was before he was a giant shmuck and when the party breaks in they meet him with the holy sword in his hands and righteous fury in his eyes. Yeah, we know how it ended, but as far as deaths go it was pretty good. There was satisfaction in one of the most vile people on the continent turning against the others in a big old redemption=death scenario. When there is the whole lead up, then your PvP can go over really well. If it's just out of nowhere, it leaves a sour taste in everyone's mouth.

[Mnemnosyne]

I noticed an awful lot of you said that if roleplaying would have your character be a traitorous murderer, that is what you should be. I disagree, I'd rather not play with a player who insists on being such a terrible character, especially if they are Neutral. I had a long conversation with a DM once who didn't allow evil. He said Chaotic neutral became the alignment of every character that'd usually be evil. I'd just not allow such a character because it would ruin the fun. IMO: Fun>Roleplay and Fun>Everything else. I generally use the rules as they are, but if everyone's having fun then why does it matter?
I would say someone playing a character that finds it acceptable to regularly kill his allies, is doing it wrong in the first place. They're probably playing Stupid Evil, or as you said, Stupid Evil with a Chaotic Neutral Mask. Even Tanar'ri are capable of working together for extended periods of time without betraying each other at the first opportunity, so a player character should be capable of at least that much. But if one character is consistently irritating or provocational toward another one, and violence is how that other character would respond, well...after showing restraint and giving warning, by all means, the right thing to do is to respond appropriately.

Also, as DoctorGlock said, something that is built up over time is an interesting and satisfying part of the plot. Here's another important note. The characters in question don't even have to be evil, and they don't even have to be of differing alignments (although at least some variance on the alignments helps). Friends and good people can and do get into fights. Rarely lethal ones, though. So characters fighting in a non-lethal manner is more likely to make sense for non-evil characters. A man can get into a fistfight with his best friend, win or lose, and after some time and perhaps (if warranted) an apology, or just some grumbled or unspoken acceptance of what happened, the two can remain friends and sometimes have that friendship grow. Going for the non-lethal if your character is upset enough to fight another character is a great method for getting into a scuffle in a way that will allow those characters to reconcile at a later time.

[navar100]

If the rest of the party chose to journey with a psychotic killer, its their fault as well. They knew the risks from the beginning. And if they didn't bother to check up on this random stranger with them, one who will hold their lives in his hands when standing watch, and who they expect to protect them in combat, then its still also partly their fault. Yes, you chose to play such a character. But the party also chose to bring such a character along.

Any adventurer that meets a random stranger in a bar and says "Hey strange guy, lets go kill things together" without checking out the other person first deserves death.

The only reason the stranger met in the bar joins the party is because said stranger is being played by a player. If we followed logic and just did not invite him along, the player wouldn't be playing the game with us which is the whole point of everyone being there.

If the player chooses to play a donkey cavity, then he's a donkey cavity. If the DM knew about this before hand, then he's a female-cleansing sack for allowing it.

[Keinnicht]

I would say it's rarely a good idea, but banning it is a worse idea.

I don't like it, but I generally do not want to say "Uh...no you don't." in response to a player's stated action.

[hobbitkniver]

The only reason the stranger met in the bar joins the party is because said stranger is being played by a player. If we followed logic and just did not invite him along, the player wouldn't be playing the game with us which is the whole point of everyone being there.

If the player chooses to play a donkey cavity, then he's a donkey cavity. If the DM knew about this before hand, then he's a female-cleansing sack for allowing it.

I agree, if I was starting a party from NPC's I'd run using magic and only choosing the Good aligned ones because they wouldn't betray me. I'd never party up with most of the players anyway.

[RedWarrior0]

If your party is mature enough to handle it, then it can be fine. However, if not, it can be problematic, as stated above.

In a game I'm in over at Bay 12, for example, we had an issue of PvP and it just ended up being one of the most awesome sessions we had, in which the young (for a dwarf) barbarian bisected the Wrestlemania wizard.

[MukkTB]

Think the most PVP fun I've had was in a modern urban arcana setting where my sister played a bad guy and I played a good guy. Didn't last very long but it wasn't bad.

The DM shouldn't ban PVP events. But the players should avoid them as much as possible. PVP is a useful tool in a couple situations but for the most part D&D is a team game. Unless you're an evil party. Then knock yourselves out trying to screw the other guy.

Mostly the PVP issues come down to the question, 'Are the other players trying to play a long term fun game of D&D?' If the answer is yes then pvp isn't necessary and should be minimized. If the answer is mostly no then... ick. If one player is acting out of line by harming the other players then its probably time to gang up on him and make him behave. NOT IF HE'S JUST BEING OBNOXIOUS, thats just time to talk to him. Actively harming the other players would be backstabbing them, stealing their stuff, causing them physical damage. If most of the other players are actively harming each other then its Paranoia time.

But I'd agree that a permanent game of Paranoia isn't for everyone. Probably not for me even though I enjoy PVP games in other medium. Have your fun and then go in search of some people who are willing to cooperate with each other.

[Jack_Simth]

As to the subject:

If the players have sat down and agreed to it before hand, saying that they expect it to be fun, then it can be. If the nature of the game being played assumes PvP and everyone coming into it knows this, then it can be. Do note that I include non-direct confrontation (such as theft, sowing dissent, controlling loot distribution in such a way as to favor certain characters over others, and so on) as part of PvP.

In other circumstances, no, it's not a good idea.

[Mockingbird]

I would say no, unless it's used to test out character builds (without characters killing each other.)

[Shadowknight12]

Anything in a game can be bad in the hands of bad DMs and/or bad players. Anything in a game can be good in the hands of good DMs and/or good players.

Bad DMs and bad players end up turning PvP into the type of examples cited in the OP. Good DMs and players can make use of PvP to augment and enhance a story where everyone has more fun because of it.

[lunar2]

to those assigning full responsibility to the player for the actions of the character, there are certain situations where any but the most pacifist characters WILL retaliate with violence.

ex: fighter continuously sexually harasses, assaults the female cleric. is the cleric supposed to ignore it? if someone walked up and grabbed your breast/butt/crotch, wouldn't YOU retaliate in some way?

Paladin/good cleric sees another party member slaughter innocent children. the paladin is duty bound to exact retribution. stealing from the corpse of a monster is one thing, that can be overlooked. cold blooded murder is another thing entirely, and as a dm, i would revoke the abilities of a paladin or good cleric that ignored such behavior.

spellcaster repeatedly catches party members with AoE spells. if you were in a brawl, and your friend accidentally punched you once, that would be one thing. by the 3rd or 4th time, however, you are going to be wondering if they're doing it on purpose. pretty soon, you WILL be angry, and you WILL retaliate.

expecting party members of wildly different personalities, alignments, and capabilities to just shrug off even the most extreme actions by their so called allies completely goes against the nature of the game. as someone said, it's a role playing game, you play a role. stepping outside of your role in order to appease some jerk character is just wrong. if they don't want to die, then they shouldn't be doing things that even in the much less violent real world could get them seriously injured or killed on the spot.

[DoctorGlock]

to those assigning full responsibility to the player for the actions of the character, there are certain situations where any but the most pacifist characters WILL retaliate with violence.

ex: fighter continuously sexually harasses, assaults the female cleric. is the cleric supposed to ignore it? if someone walked up and grabbed your breast/butt/crotch, wouldn't YOU retaliate in some way?


Well yes, but in my games we call that the fighter initiating PvP. Also he happened to use his round. Cleric, you're up!

[navar100]

If your party is mature enough to handle it, then it can be fine. However, if not, it can be problematic, as stated above.

In a game I'm in over at Bay 12, for example, we had an issue of PvP and it just ended up being one of the most awesome sessions we had, in which the young (for a dwarf) barbarian bisected the Wrestlemania wizard.

It's not a question of maturity but social engagement. You're not a more mature player because you would tolerate such behavior. One could argue being a more mature player is to not engage in such behavior.

[Kioku]

The wizard challenged the samurai to a duel, 1v1, single sword only, no magic or class abilities allowed. The wizard won, and subsequently took aim at a level of Spellblade.

All of the pvp that happens in my games is the direct result of character interaction, and I don't incite or try to prevent it beyond the scope of the DM's ability to impact the world (ie, using NPCs and the environment as tools). When it does happen, it's usually to surrender or unconsciousness (or 1/4 hp).

[hobbitkniver]

The wizard challenged the samurai to a duel, 1v1, single sword only, no magic or class abilities allowed. The wizard won, and subsequently took aim at a level of Spellblade.

All of the pvp that happens in my games is the direct result of character interaction, and I don't incite or try to prevent it beyond the scope of the DM's ability to impact the world (ie, using NPCs and the environment as tools). When it does happen, it's usually to surrender or unconsciousness (or 1/4 hp).

I'm more curious as to how the wizard won without any magic.

[Shadowknight12]

I'm more curious as to how the wizard won without any magic.

The samurai class is just that bad.

[hobbitkniver]

The samurai class is just that bad.

Jeeze though. D4 vs. D10, Full BAB vs. Low BAB... I just can't believe the quantity of fail.

[RedWarrior0]

It's not a question of maturity but social engagement. You're not a more mature player because you would tolerate such behavior. One could argue being a more mature player is to not engage in such behavior.

I mean "mature" in the sense of knowing that it's just a game, not overreacting, keeping it in-character, and having fun with it.

[Gavinfoxx]

Jeeze though. D4 vs. D10, Full BAB vs. Low BAB... I just can't believe the quantity of fail.

Maybe prebuffs were allowed??

[VanBuren]

I would say it depends on the group. If you're playing with a group that is OK with that sort of thing, then it's fine as long as it doesn't get personal and doesn't interfere with everyone having fun. Which is, despite the apparent opinion of this thread, entirely possible.

Or is my group "doing it wrong"?

[stainboy]

No. You would be a donkey cavity. "That's just what my character would do." is never an excuse to attack a party member. You chose to play such a character, so the fault is on you. If you just absolutely cannot play nice with others, don't play with them at all.

Even in real life you will disagree with your friends sometimes. In the game, party members will have disagreements on how to proceed with something. There can even be friendly rivalries of who gets the most kills between warriors, whose spells gets the least saved against for spellcasters, etc. Purposely attacking a party member "just because" or "I'm just roleplaying" is male bovine feces.

This, exactly. People who use "it's what my character would do" as an excuse to make the game unfun for others shouldn't be allowed to own dice.

About PvP in general I'd say this:

-PvP is usually bad unless both players are complicit.
-Any time you pick up dice against another player, that's PvP whether or not it can result in character death.
-All PvP is equal in severity. If it's not OK to hit a party member with an axe, then it can't be OK for them to steal from you or charm you either.


E: I've played in games that assumed by default that players would try to gank each other. It usually works best in sandboxy games with a big rotating pool of players. In those games everyone is assumed to be "PvP: yes" just by making a character, and that's cool. But the default assumption of D&D is that the party will work together. Until they explicitly state their expectations, all players default to "PvP: no."

[Psyren]

At the end of the adventure to decide who gets the girl.

>_>

Too much Castle Crashers :smalltongue:


Ye Olde PvP topic always (seriously, it never hasn't) makes me think of one of the articles the Giant wrote and posted on this site. This'n. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)

Excellent read, totally forgot he weighed in on PvP. (Or at least, the conflicts that often lead to PvP.) I agree wholeheartedly of course.

[Victoria]

I would say it depends on the group. If you're playing with a group that is OK with that sort of thing, then it's fine as long as it doesn't get personal and doesn't interfere with everyone having fun. Which is, despite the apparent opinion of this thread, entirely possible.

Or is my group "doing it wrong"?

Q: Are you having fun?
a) Yes
b) No

If you selected "b" then you're doing it wrong. If you selected "a" then you are fine and dandy.

[Psyren]

I would say it depends on the group. If you're playing with a group that is OK with that sort of thing, then it's fine as long as it doesn't get personal and doesn't interfere with everyone having fun. Which is, despite the apparent opinion of this thread, entirely possible.

Possible? Certainly. But some outcomes to given situations are more likely than others, which results in the forum leaning more towards one opinion than another.

Also: far be it from me to point out the obvious, but the very existence of this thread suggests the OP is not having fun - or at the very least, is doubtful of his chances of fun in future PvP situations.

[Killer Angel]

I could say: No, normally PvP is a bad idea. Sometime, very rarely, it can be good.
my only 2 examples (well, maybe the real example is only one :smalltongue:):

first (I was the DM): AD&D.
Group tendentially evil, the two wizards were costantly scheming and planning to overcome each other, while always keeping as first objective the group's success. Finally one of 'em succeeded in killing a BBEG, including the other one in the AoE of the killing spell. The player of the killed character applauded and, after the resurrection, the tension between the characters diminished, 'coz the winner was established and there was no reason to continue. They (the players) still laugh about it.

second (I was a player): Rifts.
The group was captured in a dome of energy and forced to fight to death in an arena style 'til only one remained (a few after, the survivor was killed by an energy bolt). The group was raised by a mysterious being "now you will be my slaves, yadda yadda". The DM assured us (OoG) that "Yes, you are screwed and I'll have fun thinking how to make misarable the existence of your characters, 'til the point you'll invent something original to save you".
Why all of this was good? because we found immediately the solution: we stopped playing the campaign.

[LordBlades]

I've been part of or witnessed quite a few PvP encounters, and as a DM I think one should ask himself the following two questions:
-Is the PvP resulting from justified in character actions?
-Can the players involved make the difference between 'my character has a bone to pick with your character' and 'I have a bone to pick with you'?

If the answer to any of those is no, it means there either is or will be an out of game problem, and it shouldn't be handled in game.

[panaikhan]

Our definition of PvP boils down to RP. Dice are never an option.
Certainly we've had compulsions turn PC's against each other - only last night, my Synthesist had to grapple the Ranger to a standstill because he failed his Will save - but it was not to the death.
Inter-party conflict always has a light-hearted feel for us. The Synthesist always has his lead sheet ready, the Rogue is always cleaning raven-poop off his cloak, the Sorcerer keeps finding pointy objects in his bedroll, all "harmless" fun.

[MukkTB]

My group was doing some dungeon crawling the other night. Lvl 1 characters wandering around starting a new campaign. A ranger with point blank shot + rapid shot, a monk, and I was an inquisitor.

The ranger kept taking shots into melees and the odds finally caught up with him to the point where he shot the monk in the back. It was particularly annoying because the ranger had 16 strength and a greatsword. Enraged the monk went to grapple him. Eveyone spotted that a combat was about to happen. I won initiative and held. The DM asked why I wasn't stopping them. I said "I'm chaotic good, not big brother. As long as they're not dealing lethal damage to each other, that's their business.'

They proceeded to use nonlethal damage because neither one wanted me to come in on the other one's side.

Our monk who already had an arrow sticking out of him lost. But the ranger agreed to take precise shot on level up and spent the rest of the dungeon crawl hacking things with a sword when they made it into melee.

[Gavinfoxx]

Odds caught up with him? But I thought that shooting into melee without precise shot doesn't cause you to hit your friends in 3.0e, 3.5e or pathfinder, right?

[Redrat2k6]

@OP

While people are saying your DM is a ****, which may or may not be true, One thing for certain is your DM does not know the rules of the game very well.

In your spoilered story the character that was possessed by the demon made a touch attack roll against you. This is initiating combat which should have meant you both rolled initiative. There would have been no surprise round since you were both aware of each other.

Even if the possessed character won initiative you would have received an attack of opportunity because his touch attack is to initiate a grapple. This is because he has to succeed at grappling you, then succeed at pinning you, before he can tie you up.

With your AoO you could have attacked or done a combat maneuver such as tripping him. All the while you have been grappling would have prompted a DC:0 + modifiers Perception check for all the other players to notice a fight. Every Round. You yelling as a free action, would help you significantly

My point is, whether or not you think PvP is a good idea in general is completely irrelevant to the fact the PvP is always a bad idea when your DM does not know simple Combat Rules.

[The Glyphstone]

@OP

While people are saying your DM is a ****, which may or may not be true, One thing for certain is your DM does not know the rules of the game very well.

In your spoilered story the character that was possessed by the demon made a touch attack roll against you. This is initiating combat which should have meant you both rolled initiative. There would have been no surprise round since you were both aware of each other.

Even if the possessed character won initiative you would have received an attack of opportunity because his touch attack is to initiate a grapple. This is because he has to succeed at grappling you, then succeed at pinning you, before he can tie you up.

With your AoO you could have attacked or done a combat maneuver such as tripping him. All the while you have been grappling would have prompted a DC:0 + modifiers Perception check for all the other players to notice a fight. Every Round. You yelling as a free action, would help you significantly

My point is, whether or not you think PvP is a good idea in general is completely irrelevant to the fact the PvP is always a bad idea when your DM does not know simple Combat Rules.

Or, just as possibly, he was just ignoring the rules for the sake of his railroad story. That's kind of what railroading is.

[Redrat2k6]

Or, just as possibly, he was just ignoring the rules for the sake of his railroad story. That's kind of what railroading is.

You know you are probably right. And here I am trying to give the DM the benefit of the doubt of just being stupid.

[hobbitkniver]

You know you are probably right. And here I am trying to give the DM the benefit of the doubt of just being stupid.

I think he was just stupid, he didn't actually force the character to do it. He admitted that he didn't expect it to work so easily on said player. As for the rope: I think he just didn't know. He called it a flat footed attack at first, so its not like he's real knowledgable on the rules. I've only gamed with him twice now though, so it's hard to say.

[Taelas]

For an example of PvP done brilliantly well, read Darths & Droids (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0001.html). (It's a webcomic with screencaps taken from the Star Wars movies, which is about a group of roleplayers playing the part of the characters from the films in a universe where the films never happened, starting with Episode 1 and moving forward. The link is to the first page to help anyone avoid spoilers. The plot is nothing like it was in the films, but it is hilariously fun, and the creators attach comments on roleplaying games below almost every page, usually related to the actions depicted.)

As long as everyone involved is prepared to accept the results, and it is not done out of emotional issues, player-vs.-player interaction--even combat to the death--can immensely enhance a story. That being said, that is almost never the reason for PvP, and if two party members just come to blows because they're arguing, the other party members should stop it; would you (not your character, you) let two of your friends fight one another to serious injury if you were there to stop it?