Players want to run PvP in 3.P, anything I should be aware of?

[nothingforyou]

I've been requested to DM, and to run a PvP game (not only combat, but other challenges as well). The players don't really optimize, but they do play mechanically well within their knowledge of the game.

I'm using D&D 3.5/3.0 as default, with PF material tacked on in a messy way. The players will start at level 6.

One issue I'm running into already is that, while I'm willing to allow barbarians and wizards in the same game, since they both perform equally well when played by not-too-great optimizers, I can't seem to allow druids because druids dominate pretty much regardless of what the player does.

How do you recommend I handle this?

Hypothetically, if my players were better optimizers, should I force them to play within a tier level?

Is there anything else I should keep in mind running PvP?

[jiriku]

What are your goals for the game? I mean, if PvP is the intended outcome, most of the PCs are going to end up dead. As the DM, you're just an arbitrator of the rules while the players kill each other off, right? If that's the case, just allow them to run whatever, unless the players themselves are requesting a more limited menu of available classes. Barbarian, druid, it doesn't matter. Let the players be concerned with whether their character can handle all comers.

[Divide by Zero]

Since PvP is a measure of relative power, the question of balance shouldn't be a concern for the DM, but rather the individual players. If you want to houserule/ban anything, I would suggest having the players vote on it, and perhaps add their own nominations as well.

[Yahzi]

You should be aware that tears and grief are inevitable.

Any tier can be killed by any tier at this level, if one side gets to buff up and prepare an ambush. So it's going to be all about the set-up before the actual fight.

I would make them nobles and give them small armies. Let them run their NPCs during skirmishes. That way they can lose a few fights and still be in the game. Because really, their main PCs are going to fight exactly once.

[nothingforyou]

What are your goals for the game? I mean, if PvP is the intended outcome, most of the PCs are going to end up dead. As the DM, you're just an arbitrator of the rules while the players kill each other off, right? If that's the case, just allow them to run whatever, unless the players themselves are requesting a more limited menu of available classes. Barbarian, druid, it doesn't matter. Let the players be concerned with whether their character can handle all comers.

I'd love nothing more than to allow players to run whatever, and work from there, but they're specifically asking me to ban whatever classes I think would be OP, after our last game's fiasco with a player's druid soloing party encounters. These guys play mechanically well, but they don't know enough about the game to tell what's OP.


Since PvP is a measure of relative power, the question of balance shouldn't be a concern for the DM, but rather the individual players. If you want to houserule/ban anything, I would suggest having the players vote on it, and perhaps add their own nominations as well.

As above, the only thing they definitely want to ban right now is druid after bad experiences of "solo all the encounters" druids from our last game. They're asking me if I should ban anything else. I'd personally prefer to have everything on the table, but the group doesn't want to deal with classes outmatching any others. In theory that means I'd have to ban cleric and wizard as well, but the way they play I'm not worried about them being OP with those classes.

I suspect I should be targeting high power floor classes like crusader, who are really strong out of the box. Which is a shame, since ToB is my favorite book.


You should be aware that tears and grief are inevitable.

Any tier can be killed by any tier at this level, if one side gets to buff up and prepare an ambush. So it's going to be all about the set-up before the actual fight.

I would make them nobles and give them small armies. Let them run their NPCs during skirmishes. That way they can lose a few fights and still be in the game. Because really, their main PCs are going to fight exactly once.

That idea is terrific, will run it by the group.

[Max Caysey]

I would say two things... out of my own experience.


1) Roleplaying goes out the window quicker than the hymen on "Jersey Shore". Make sure, that the players are aware of this.

3) Encourage melee characters. Tier 1 casters have a nack for just winning all the time.

3) Make the players aware, that this is just for fun, and that all should behave respectful and keep in mind that they are good friends. Nothing end a friendship like gloating winniers.

Besides the points I've mentioned give it some gass mate!

[nothingforyou]

I would say two things... out of my own experience.


1) Roleplaying goes out the window quicker than the hymen on "Jersey Shore". Make sure, that the players are aware of this.

3) Encourage melee characters. Tier 1 casters have a nack for just winning all the time.

3) Make the players aware, that this is just for fun, and that all should behave respectful and keep in mind that they are good friends. Nothing end a friendship like gloating winniers.

Besides the points I've mentioned give it some gass mate!

1) I think my players will be able to roleplay well.
2) These guys like running fireball-lobbing wizards. I'm not worried about tier 1 casters, just the ones that are powerful out of the box.
3) The players are mature and good people, I have no worries about OOC conflict.