Where to draw the line in pvp

[Doomwhispo]

We have a prankster in our group and he likes to do stuff like tie people shoe laces to each other when they sleep. This kind of stuff does make for some fun rp moments. But where should the limit be. Say one pc tries to deceive or hide a secret from another pc. Should there be rolls to contest this(deception VS insight) normally I'd say yes but wouldn't that give a big disadvantage to some classes.
Also this could lead to pc getting screewed over and wanting to resort to fighting to settle the matter. Since let's be honest a barbarian won't win a battle of wits against a bard for example. So where should one draw the line?

[Innocent_bystan]

... when it stops being fun

[Lombra]

In our group we don't roll to persuade other PCs, we roleplay it and do our best to stay in character. The DM eventually will explicitly tell us what our PCs know about other PCs, and will prevent unhealthy metagame. One member of the party is chaotic neutral and ended up killing another PC because he accidentally almost killed him with an AoE in battle, we players are all fine with it and the PCs recently discovered it, so they' ll eventually put the murderer in jail, but our DM has tied up a story for which that chatacter is useful to all other characters so it's not that simple.

[Cespenar]

... when it stops being fun

This. End of thread.

Anyway, to contribute, one of my groups met each other in a tavern (!), in which the barbarian knocked out the wizard in one punch after a prank, the knight challenged and lost to the said barbarian, and the ranger carried them all to the town healer. The group pretty much met in the healer, one might better say.

It was all in good humor, though, so it was a pretty memorable and fun session.

[Joe the Rat]

... when it stops being fun


This. End of thread.

Pretty much. Our group might be considered pvp light... or prank heavy - not so much for straight up fighting as tricks, abuse, and generally giving one another hell during "down hours."

Most of our physical violence involves grappling checks, followed by the usage of rope, a bag of holding, and/or a convenient body of water. Most of our arcane violence involves abuse of prestidigitation and random effects tables for "strange concoctions." If somebody is making an attack roll, it means they've had enough, and things settle down after that.

[Ruslan]

And always deal with it OOC, not IC.

Good:
"Joe, some of the things you did last session ... they're hurting the fun for everyone else. People would appreciate if you'd tone it down."

Bad:
"As Bellatrix tries to tie Valdar's shoelaces together again, he's struck by a lighting bolt. Take 10d6 damage."

[War_lord]

If someone is frequently attacking other players, that's a game issue that needs to be dealt with out of character, before or after a session. Personally I'd just bar pvp combat, as it's a a sure way to derail your story and create IRL tension between people at the table. On the other hand, a player going out of his way to use his character to humiliate other player's characters is also being a jerk.

[LudicSavant]

... when it stops being fun

Got it in one.

[Callin]

... when it stops being fun

BAM. I was the Target of 3 Players who attacked my Character for ingame reasons. They were only going to knock me out as I was running away but it was still attacking me. I got thrown in jail and left the party afterwards.

The whole time we were all laughing about our rolls and cheering each other on. It was fun. I didnt want to play a new character but he wouldnt travel with the party anymore. It all worked out in the end though.

[furby076]

First, i hate pvp. No fighting, stealing or cheating.
Second, if there is reason to lie to each other, id absolutely make it include rolls. Just like we are not our characters and dont have their abilities, its not fair to pitmplayer vs player. Maybe one player is a great liar, and the other player sucks...but, their characters are completely opposite. So you reward the player who knows how to lie, but thats metagame.

[Drackolus]

When dealing with a known liar, no roll needs to be made. If you know someone lies a lot, they just cannot be charming enough. Not even Glibness will change that.
If it's someone who lies in certain situations and the other character has witnessed it more than once, advantage on the insight and maybe even disadvantage on the deception.

Really though, just don't do it. It isn't a good idea.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I've pretty much drawn the line at "no PvP." There are no secrets between players, but there can be secrets among the characters they play.

PvP tends to draws out a session resolving/devolving into silliness. If that's what you want at your table, have at it.

Since the winner of the thread has been declared, I have nothing more to add beyond the echo.

"when it ceases being fun."

[Feuerphoenix]

Mmh, this whole game was not designed to fight pvp. Maybe a BBEG BUT THAT'S IT. As a DM I would say, that revenge takes place outside of a fight.

[Specter]

When it stops being fun, as said. Or, for a more outlined rule-of-thumb, when the antagonizing makes someone laugh and someone else angry. Negative emotions are powerful in rpg, and you don't players feeling like b****es of other players.