The responsibility to avoid PvP goes both ways: Notes on a problem

[Grizl' Bjorn]

Player A: *Has a character that supremely values thing x. X might be not murdering innocents, not starting fights without provocation, or even a sacred value for a cleric or a paladin*
Player B: *Does thing which violates x or makes x impossible*
Player A: *Has PC attack player B's PC in retaliation*
Player B: "Hey, no fair, PvP isn't allowed."

A few examples, all involving one person who not withstanding our at table conflicts is a really good friend of mine. I once played a cleric who worshipped teeth (it's a long story- the campaign was fairly light hearted). Anyway, the party made friends with a toothy monster. My friend disapproved of this because his character was neutral good, and it was pretty clear that even if the tooth monster wasn't going to eat us, he would eat other villagers. I said that the monster was sacred to me because it had enormous teeth, and if he attacked it I would have no choice but to defend it. He tried to call my bluff and found out I wasn't bluffing, recriminations ensued. I would have been happy to keep negotiating, but he just surprised attack the monster (it was a gnothic) .

Another time I was playing a pragmatic, hard headed character who made a point of avoiding fights because fights are a quick way to die. My friend was playing an explicitly lawful stupid paladin. We ran into some bandits and negotiated peace with them. However the paladin was lagging behind the party. When he caught up we explained the situation, but rather than agreeing to peace he attacked the bandits shouting "DIE FIENDS". We were first or second level characters and outnumbered 15:1. The bandits said we could help kill the paladin or die, so I chose to kill the paladin. He felt like I was breaking the no PvP rule. I felt like he was effectively breaking the party's collective decision under the assumption we wouldn't be able to do anything about it because 'no pvp'.

So the kind of case I'm thinking of is where someone breaks the consensus of the group- perhaps because its' something their character would really do. But if you do that, are you still entitled to be shielded from PvP? I guess my point is that unless there's some threat of a total breakdown and inter-party violence, there's no way from preventing players from just doing a thing that has implications for the whole party, but which they can decide unilaterally- since short of them actually acting you you're not allowed to retaliate.

Thoughts?

[Grizl' Bjorn]

Anyway, that's my dilemma, I don't really know the solution. I guess My thinking is that you can't have an absolute no PvP rule unless you also have an absolute 'no just going and doing what you want if the party has made a clear decision against it, or is still talking about it' rule.

[Geddy2112]

The giant made a post about this (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)a good while back.

ttRPG's are team games, and you as a player(and any character you build) has to go with the party. Using the excuse "I am only doing what my character would do" does not make it better or right, and you can always choose to act/respond differently.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Sounds like a failure to communicate. Saying OOC "Hey. I will actually have to attack you if you do this" clears a lot of the confusion right up.

[Koo Rehtorb]

and you as a player(and any character you build) has to go with the party.

This isn't necessarily true at all.

[Segev]

Players who engage in activities that screw over the other PCs and then hide behind "no PvP" are jerks trying to play a double standard. Their anti-party behavior doesn't cross an imaginary line they have taken sole right to define, so it "isn't PvP." Which is nonsense.

OOC discussion is important when these situations are drawing near. Warn somebody that your character's response would be violence if they do something against your character's interests, and talk out how you think it should go down IC in an OOC discussion.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Player A: *Has a character that supremely values thing x. X might be not murdering innocents, not starting fights without provocation, or even a sacred value for a cleric or a paladin*
Player B: *Does thing which violates x or makes x impossible*
Player A: *Has PC attack player B's PC in retaliation*
Player B: "Hey, no fair, PvP isn't allowed."


Did Player B act out of malice (that is, acting intentionally to cause Player A, not his character, injury)? Then Player A at least shares the blame for any PvP. Repeat after me: your character does not exist. It cannot take actions--only you can. There is never only one character-consistent action available. Choose one that doesn't harm other player characters.

If anyone takes an action, whether combat-related or otherwise that intentionally harms another player's character without the player's consent, that acting person is at fault and has committed PvP. This includes creating a character whose beliefs and values intrinsically conflict with the groups' values in a group game. Each player has a responsibility to the table--either you play within the social contract of the table or you don't play. Those who break the fun of the table, whether out of a mistaken desire to "play the character" or out of intentional disrespect for another player's fun don't belong at any table I am willing to be a part of.

This includes the DM for putting people in positions where those beliefs will be in conflict. "Betray your party or die" is a situation tailor made for PvP.



A few examples, all involving one person who not withstanding our at table conflicts is a really good friend of mine. I once played a cleric who worshipped teeth (it's a long story- the campaign was fairly light hearted). Anyway, the party made friends with a toothy monster. My friend disapproved of this because his character was neutral good, and it was pretty clear that even if the tooth monster wasn't going to eat us, he would eat other villagers. I said that the monster was sacred to me because it had enormous teeth, and if he attacked it I would have no choice but to defend it. He tried to call my bluff and found out I wasn't bluffing, recriminations ensued. I would have been happy to keep negotiating, but he just surprised attack the monster (it was a gnothic) .

Another time I was playing a pragmatic, hard headed character who made a point of avoiding fights because fights are a quick way to die. My friend was playing an explicitly lawful stupid paladin. We ran into some bandits and negotiated peace with them. However the paladin was lagging behind the party. When he caught up we explained the situation, but rather than agreeing to peace he attacked the bandits shouting "DIE FIENDS". We were first or second level characters and outnumbered 15:1. The bandits said we could help kill the paladin or die, so I chose to kill the paladin. He felt like I was breaking the no PvP rule. I felt like he was effectively breaking the party's collective decision under the assumption we wouldn't be able to do anything about it because 'no pvp'.

So the kind of case I'm thinking of is where someone breaks the consensus of the group- perhaps because its' something their character would really do. But if you do that, are you still entitled to be shielded from PvP? I guess my point is that unless there's some threat of a total breakdown and inter-party violence, there's no way from preventing players from just doing a thing that has implications for the whole party, but which they can decide unilaterally- since short of them actually acting you you're not allowed to retaliate.

Thoughts?

In both cases, the appropriate response is to OOC ask for a reconsideration and find consensus before continuing in character. This holds even if the group's consensus is against you and would require compromising a prior characterization. The other option is to walk away from the table. Saying "recriminations ensued" is a passive way of saying "I felt that being consistent to my imaginary character's arbitrary [meaning chosen by an outside force] beliefs is more important that party unity."

As a side note, I find that the insistence on "playing a character" or "that's what my character believes" at the cost of party unity (in D&D at least) is harmful. Remember--TTRPGs are first and foremost games. They exist for everyone to have fun. If your character's personality, beliefs, or actions jeopardize this those elements of personality, beliefs, or actions should change. Yes, this is metagaming. That doesn't make it bad. If "role-playing" is more important than "gaming" (meaning having collective fun), go join an improv method-acting troupe. PvP may work in games built around it, but in party-based games such as D&D, anything that harms the party's cohesion is anathema to me.

Note: I apologize in advance if this comes across as harsh or attacking. I'm trying to attack both sides here. Both "I'm inflexible and so will attack you if you don't do it my way" and the "I act against party members knowing they can't hurt me" are pathological behaviors.

[CharonsHelper]

I sounds like you need to broaden "No PvP" to Wil Wheaton's "Don't be a **** (1920's private detective).".

[Grizl' Bjorn]

It's not really a response to say 'both parties are at fault', because it doesn't answer the question of who should back down. Obviously everyone involved has a responsibility to work in good faith towards a solution- that's not even D&D, that's just all of life common sense. This principle isn't a solution though, because it doesn't solve the problem of determining what should happen if the players don't reach a consensus, despite one or both trying to do so in good faith. It's also not enough to say that if consensus hasn't been reached both parties are at fault. This might be true, or it also might be true that one player is being unilaterally unreasonable.

What would be useful is an enforceable rule as to what should happen when consensus can't be reached. A way of determining a set of rule-of-thumb guidelines for who has got to back down. Creating an obligation to get along without some idea of who the obligation falls on to back down in various circumstances is a demand for a destination without a route, less assertive players will tend to be the ones who give all the ground.

A few guidelines:

1. Concerns and interests rooted in the survival of the party should be given some degree of priority over more frivolous concerns.
2. Concerns and interests founded in the very core of character concepts- like a Cleric's deity, a Warlock's patron, a paladin's oath, a character's family or core values etc. should be given priority over more peripheral character concerns.
3. Unless it's explicitly an evil party, atrocities etc. should in general be blocked where some of the players are against them.
4. In the final instance, majority rules.

On a separate point, I think some of the advocacy of party unity here is going too far. No PVP or stuff that is tantamount to PVP, sure, but within certain limits a degree of ethical and practical tension- and secrecy- within a party can spice things up. In another game I play, a friend of mine (different friend to the aforementioned friend) played as a deeply ethically rooted character. Eventually his character decided that he simply couldn't justify working with us anymore, and walked off into the underdark alone with a terse goodbye. It was beautifully acted, and a really compelling psychological portrait. After that piece of masterful storytelling he just rolled up another character- really added flavour to the game. We've also all had fun in games where the DM passes notes to some players, creating just that right level of tension and paranoia.

[Darth Ultron]

The basic answer to the problem is: have a Good active and aggressive DM.

So Jerk player B ''does a thing''. The DM steps in immediately to say it does not happen, alter reality or even just say ''rocks fall on your character and they die''. Problem solved, no PvP.

Take ''Tooth Monster''. ''Player B'' attacks it....and. DM just says ''your attack has no effect.'' or ''your weapon passes through the monster like it was a ghost''. The Dm can just ''say'' stuff, or ''legally build a monster that has whatever needed abilities'' , depending on your game type. Having the monster kill the character also works out great, and a good DM can ''stack'' the fight...but the jerk player is likely dumb too, so it won't matter. Tooth monster could also just run away or do something like paralyze the jerk character. Or say the Great God Tooth Himself comes down to say ''all is good, tooth monster must die, so he can be reborn...jerk character is a hero for moving tooth monster into his next phase of life''. Or dozens of other ones.

The bandit one is even better. Ok, so first off the bandits/dm does not say ''do Pvp''. Then the bandits just laugh and taunt the jerk paladin character. At like 15 to one they can subdue the character in like a round. Or again you could have the God of Good and be like ''jerk character you can not attack unless you are attacked...and you can only arrest the alleged bandits if you have evidence linking them to a crime and have probably cause and have a warrant.''

And really, the DM can do anything. So take like round 1: player B has his character act like a jerk. Round 2: goblin raiders attack....so jerk player can either keep being a jerk or join with the rest and play the game. I like to add in big perks...like each raiding goblin has a gold sword, lots of loot or a magic potion..not to mention cool xp. None of that will the jerk player how sits in the corner and like does their thing, will get.

[Velaryon]

Anyway, that's my dilemma, I don't really know the solution. I guess My thinking is that you can't have an absolute no PvP rule unless you also have an absolute 'no just going and doing what you want if the party has made a clear decision against it, or is still talking about it' rule.

My preferred solution is to not game with jerks who try to use the "no PVP" rule as a shield to cover their character antagonizing party members.

[icefractal]

Player A: *Has a character that supremely values thing x. X might be not murdering innocents, not starting fights without provocation, or even a sacred value for a cleric or a paladin*As you point out yourself, allowing a tooth-monster to go around eating people could be just as much a violation of character's values as killing one, so I'd say that the situation is pretty symmetrical in the first example. Either PvP, work together OOC to find a solution, or don't have the characters together in the first place (in retrospect, a character who puts teeth above everything is probably incompatible with most good-aligned ones, but that's not obvious to start with). But neither player is really in the wrong there.

The second one though - yeah, that's the kind of Paladin who gives the class a bad name. Even if it weren't for trying to shove people into a TPK, I think attacking non-hostile bandits on sight is a failure as a Paladin. I mean maybe these were incredibly vile bandits, but in general criminals aren't going to be in the unredeemable category.

Also, this is why I either don't have a ban on PvP, or else expand the definition of PvP and pause the game to sort things out when the PCs start working against each-other at all. Having a hard line where anything past it is banned but anything short of it is A-OK is a setup for problems.

[Satinavian]

Well, i disagree a lot.


In both cases, the appropriate response is to OOC ask for a reconsideration and find consensus before continuing in character. This holds even if the group's consensus is against you and would require compromising a prior characterization. The other option is to walk away from the table. Saying "recriminations ensued" is a passive way of saying "I felt that being consistent to my imaginary character's arbitrary [meaning chosen by an outside force] beliefs is more important that party unity."And what is wrong with "I felt that being consistent to my imaginary character's arbitrary [meaning chosen by an outside force] beliefs is more important that party unity." ?


As a side note, I find that the insistence on "playing a character" or "that's what my character believes" at the cost of party unity (in D&D at least) is harmful. Remember--TTRPGs are first and foremost games. They exist for everyone to have fun.For a lot of roleplayers a lot of the fun comes from immersion. At the moment, they have drastically alter the character or act utterly inconsistantly, they lose interest in the character, the group and the story. Also the fun of the game ist over. Changing group composition (either by walking away or by violent outbirst) and bringing new characters in, might save the group and the campaign in their eyes. It is not as if the game stops if not these exact incompatible characters advance.


If "role-playing" is more important than "gaming" (meaning having collective fun), go join an improv method-acting troupe.Really ? If roleplaying is that unimportant to you, play chess.

On a slightly more serious note : improv theatre lives on spontanity and dramatic twists and is hardly something an immersion-lover would find fun. And RPGs are a hobby which can be played in many different ways with many different motivations. Most of these ways are not inherently good or bad and neither one can claim the authority on what is "fun".




Otherwise, a short break, talking OT, how to handle the conflict and if there exist a way that is not destroying the party but still keeps the characters consistent, is how i usually like to proceed in such circumstances. PvP might occasionally be better than the alternative, but it should not be entered into lightly or in some kind of hot headed adrenaline ruh player wise.

That and choosing a party in the first place that can work together.




I don't even have a group with a non-PvP-rule. And still i only get PvP once in the last 6 yearls while usually playing several times a week with different people. And this particular case was some kind of "Character discovers the secret intrigant BBEG is her father and chooses loyality to her otherwise well working family over a couple of strangers". No OT animosity involved.

[Martin Greywolf]

In cases like these, everyone is at fault - the entire group, even those who didn't participate in the... incident.

Let's take it from the top.

No PvP rule is a bad rule

Why does this rule even exist as a rule? Unless there's something in-universe preventing the PCs from just shanking each other, then it should not be there, period.

A rule like this is not only a killer for immersion, it is also exploitable because it is a rule, and it does not do what it was supposed to do - prevent party infighting. There are plenty of ways to be a **** to other PCs without stabbing them, many of them actually worse than just killing them.

Group consensus is the key

Something that should be handled before the first game starts, before the DM even starts creating the world, is a meeting where the players will agree what game they want to play. They may decide they want classic heroic romp without party going after each other, and that's fine, but that doesn't translate into "no PvP", the concept is much wider than that.

If this IS done and player creates lawful anal paladin, it should be pointed out to him he can't play a game like this. If he refuses to change, well, either convince him or boot him out.

If it is not done

If this is not done, then you have a problem - on the extreme end, everyone thinks the game should be something different and you end up with a mess. Less extreme, there's this one guy who wants to play Diablo while the rest plays Crusader Kings.

All you can do at this point is damage control. Have that session zero NOW, before things go even more haywire, agree on what group you want to have and if the paladin doesn't mesh well with it, either change him or retire him as a PC. If the player is adamantly against it, well, terribly sorry but these other people aren't there just to help his wish fulfillment.

[Slipperychicken]

Players who engage in activities that screw over the other PCs and then hide behind "no PvP" are jerks trying to play a double standard. Their anti-party behavior doesn't cross an imaginary line they have taken sole right to define, so it "isn't PvP." Which is nonsense.

That's just an overly narrow interpretation of PvP. It should include all kinds of antagonizing, anti-party actions, not just theft and combat.

That said, there are deeper issues here that are resulting in PvP. The GM might want to either do the hard work of troubleshooting those and teaching his player some proper etiquette, or just dump the player if fixing his behavior is too much work. The latter option is perfectly acceptable; you're here to have fun, not to be some kind of roleplaying nanny.

[Lazymancer]

...

Thoughts?
Players need to actually communicate opinions of their characters. If there are any problems with this, High Moral Ground Lawful Good characters should be banned, since that alignment makes people trigger-happy. Note that you didn't even have to write what was the alignment of character A. Even Chaotic Evil don't go around stabbing other PCs for donating money to orphans.


Attempts to paint "no PvP" as somehow "bad" are ludicrous. Underlying problems will not get solved by PvP.

[CharonsHelper]

Attempts to paint "no PvP" as somehow "bad" are ludicrous. Underlying problems will not get solved by PvP.

Unless the PvP goes OOC. Then stuff will totally be solved! (At least until the police arrive.)

[Segev]

The basic answer to the problem is: have a Good active and aggressive DM. You don't need an aggressive DM, but this is one case where you're right about the DM's job: it falls to him as arbiter of what happens in the game to also arbitrate some of the OOC conflicts. And these really are OOC conflicts.

It is the DM who has the final say in whether an action is retconned.

Now, it is not the DM's job to unilaterally declare "no, you didn't do that," unless it's the DM's comfort zone that's been breached. ("No, you didn't just rape the princess. I don't want to run that game.") It is his job to, when one player objects to another's actions and indicates that this is going to get into PvP in a way that the table has previously agreed they won't do, halt the action and move things to OOC discussion of how to resolve the conflict.



Take ''Tooth Monster''. ''Player B'' attacks it....and. DM just says ''your attack has no effect.'' or ''your weapon passes through the monster like it was a ghost''. The Dm can just ''say'' stuff, or ''legally build a monster that has whatever needed abilities'' , depending on your game type. Having the monster kill the character also works out great, and a good DM can ''stack'' the fight...but the jerk player is likely dumb too, so it won't matter. Tooth monster could also just run away or do something like paralyze the jerk character. Or say the Great God Tooth Himself comes down to say ''all is good, tooth monster must die, so he can be reborn...jerk character is a hero for moving tooth monster into his next phase of life''. Or dozens of other ones. Thing is, these aren't good responses. These break verisimilitude far more than halting the action and resolving the problem. They also automatically side with the "protect the tooth monster" player; why does he get the auto-win here? Without really talking it out, who's to say that he's the one who's being reasonable?

Maybe neither are being unreasonable, and there needs to be some third option. The DM can help here, by, for instance, turning it into a tragedy where the tooth monster is already dying of internal injuries or some made-up claptrap, assuming the players can agree to the monster's death as long as it doesn't require Player A to agree that his PC allows it to be killed.



"No PvP" is at best a guideline. It has its place in some games and tables, as it establishes an expectation of how the party will interact and where party conflict must stop. But it is a guideline. Not a hard-and-fast rule. It can't be, because "PvP" can't be rigidly identified and defined, and if you try, it only opens up jerks to tacit permission to tread right up to that line and use it to bully other players.

[Koo Rehtorb]

You don't need an aggressive DM, but this is one case where you're right about the DM's job: it falls to him as arbiter of what happens in the game to also arbitrate some of the OOC conflicts.

No it's not. The GM's job is to play the world. It's not a role that inherently comes with any sort of OOC responsibility. Or rather, it's not a role that comes with any more OOC responsibility than anyone else at the table.

[Segev]

No it's not. The GM's job is to play the world. It's not a role that inherently comes with any sort of OOC responsibility. Or rather, it's not a role that comes with any more OOC responsibility than anyone else at the table.

As nice as that sentiment is, the de facto truth is that the mantle of "GM" comes with at least one responsibility and right that is entirely OOC: permission to play his game. Other players merely have the right to decide if they, personally, will play. They can decide they don't want to play the game if another player is in it, but they do not get to kick that player out of the game. (This obviously has a group-veto on a person player inherent: if too many players won't play with this person, the GM can insist he's allowed...but not have enough players to run. So if he wants to run, he can't invite that person.)

With the GM's sole unilateral authority over a given player's presence in his game comes, however, a natural authority over certain aspects of player behavior. He also is the one who will decide, ultimately, if an action happens. While Darth Ultron is heavy handed about it, he's right in that the DM can, if one player is beligerant and the rest don't want to put up with his actions, declare that the player's character's actions didn't happen. This should usually only happen - at least, over said player's objections (rather than with his agreement that he shouldn't have done that and would like to take it back) - if that player is being removed from the game. Because such things lead to hard feelings and likely future problems if he persists in that game.

But the GM is the natural arbiter. Maybe it isn't technically his job, but de facto, it's going to fall to him 99% of the time.

[Koo Rehtorb]

As nice as that sentiment is, the de facto truth is that the mantle of "GM" comes with at least one responsibility and right that is entirely OOC: permission to play his game.

It's not the GM's game. It's the group's game. Everyone present is contributing to it. And who is and isn't invited to it should be a group decision.

[Lord Torath]

It's not the GM's game. It's the group's game. Everyone present is contributing to it. And who is and isn't invited to it should be a group decision.It should be. But if the DM refuses to run a game if player 1 is in the group, it doesn't matter how much players 2-9 want player 1 in the group. There will be no game with player 1 unless someone else takes up the mantle of DM.

[CharonsHelper]

It should be. But if the DM refuses to run a game if player 1 is in the group, it doesn't matter how much players 2-9 want player 1 in the group. There will be no game with player 1 unless someone else takes up the mantle of DM.

True.

Everyone in the group should be considered equal. But especially if (like most groups) not everyone is clamoring for the extra work & responsibility of GMing, the GM is "more equal" when it comes to that sort of decision.

[Lord Torath]

And with that power comes the responsibility Segev was mentioning to help resolve OoC disputes as well as IC disputes.

[Karl Aegis]

Somebody declares they must go on this particular solo adventure but the rest of the party gets dragged into their solo adventure. Just don't get dragged into their solo adventure. Problem solved.

[Koo Rehtorb]

And with that power comes the responsibility Segev was mentioning to help resolve OoC disputes as well as IC disputes.

You're confusing ability with responsibility.

I will concede that in certain groups the GM has some degree of OOC power because the rest of the players are too lazy or self-conscious to GM instead. That's a statement of fact. That doesn't make right for the GM to abuse that fact to wield OOC power, let alone make it his responsibility.

[Segev]

You're confusing ability with responsibility.

I will concede that in certain groups the GM has some degree of OOC power because the rest of the players are too lazy or self-conscious to GM instead. That's a statement of fact. That doesn't make right for the GM to abuse that fact to wield OOC power, let alone make it his responsibility.

Who said anything about abusing power? I said that it generally falls to the GM to arbitrate OOC disputes between players. This is simply true, because if he doesn't do it, it's unlikely anybody else will. And he'll have to implement any in-game alterations and changes that stem from whatever agreements the players make, anyway. Like it or not, the GM is involved in arbitrating such OOC issues. It's just part of being the guy who runs the game, and has final power to retcon (or not).

[CharonsHelper]

Somebody declares they must go on this particular solo adventure but the rest of the party gets dragged into their solo adventure. Just don't get dragged into their solo adventure. Problem solved.

Or just don't go on solo adventures because they require everyone else to sit on their hands and/or go over and play on the console while you have fun with just you and the GM.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I said that it generally falls to the GM to arbitrate OOC disputes between players. This is simply true, because if he doesn't do it, it's unlikely anybody else will.

Like it or not, the GM is involved in arbitrating such OOC issues. It's just part of being the guy who runs the game, and has final power to retcon (or not).

You're making several assertions here which are not necessarily true. Being the GM does not make someone more capable of arbitrating disputes.

Using the fact that (in some groups) the GM has the power to disband the group because no one else will step up and GM to give yourself OOC arbitration power IS an abuse of power. If the people involved all want the GM to solve their interpersonal issues for them then I'm certainly not going to tell them that they can't do that (though why they'd want to do it is beyond me). But I strenuously object to the built in assumption that this is the default way things should be and it's a right and responsibility of the GM role.

[JoeJ]

Or just don't go on solo adventures because they require everyone else to sit on their hands and/or go over and play on the console while you have fun with just you and the GM.

Or they're having their own separate but related adventure, and the GM is switching between the two every time the situation gets tense, like cutting back and forth between two storylines on a TV show: "Okay, Lady Jasmine fumbles her stealth roll. The ogre catches sight of her and roars a challenge. Meanwhile, back at the tavern, the king's guards have started moving through the crowd, obviously looking for someone. What are Sir Justin and Olaf the Bold doing?"

[Potatomade]

I'm don't think it's possible to come up with a generic "no PVP" or "yes PVP" rule for every table. Every group is different. For my group, the GM resolving PVP disputes doesn't work at all, because the GM may be the most anti-social person at the table (we rotate). So we resolve PVP democratically.

For that to work, these things need to happen OOC:
1. The GM and the rest of the group explain in detail what will happen if the anti-party player does the anti-party thing. Players describe how their characters would react, and the GM explains any broader implications of the action.
2. The player working against the party's best interests accepts all of the consequences from 1, as well as any further reasonable consequences that result from them (ex: questgiver gets mad you destroyed his priceless antique instead of protecting it, so he calls the cops)
3. Other players have to sign on to it too, just by putting it to a vote. They have to decide whether that group of players will allow that anti-party action. Their characters don't have to agree to it, but the players have to.

That's probably too formal for a lot of groups, but it works for mine. It makes sure everybody's on the same page, keeps people from getting mad, and allows people to take anti-party actions if the group as a whole allows it, case by case.

[Lord Torath]

You're making several assertions here which are not necessarily true. Being the GM does not make someone more capable of arbitrating disputes.

Using the fact that (in some groups) the GM has the power to disband the group because no one else will step up and GM to give yourself OOC arbitration power IS an abuse of power. If the people involved all want the GM to solve their interpersonal issues for them then I'm certainly not going to tell them that they can't do that (though why they'd want to do it is beyond me). But I strenuously object to the built in assumption that this is the default way things should be and it's a right and responsibility of the GM role.Eh, whatever. You see abuse of power; I see the DM helping make the game more fun for everyone.

[Segev]

You're making several assertions here which are not necessarily true. Being the GM does not make someone more capable of arbitrating disputes.

Using the fact that (in some groups) the GM has the power to disband the group because no one else will step up and GM to give yourself OOC arbitration power IS an abuse of power. If the people involved all want the GM to solve their interpersonal issues for them then I'm certainly not going to tell them that they can't do that (though why they'd want to do it is beyond me). But I strenuously object to the built in assumption that this is the default way things should be and it's a right and responsibility of the GM role.
I'm not sure what makes you think he's "giving himself" arbitration "powers." He's taking on the responsibility to be as impartial as he can between the two players and give them space to come to agreement, help them identify the source of disagreement, and negotiate what will happen in-game. As controller of everything EXCEPT the PCs, he's going to be essential to implementing any solution that is something other than "one player backs down and lets the other have his way."

Eh, whatever. You see abuse of power; I see the DM helping make the game more fun for everyone.
Exactly. Though you have to be careful with this phrasing, because Darth Ultron doesn't see a difference between "abuse of power" and "make the game fun for everyone." So it could be forgiven for people assuming you mean it the same way he does, phrased this way.

I suspect what you mean, however, is something more along the lines that the GM is not "taking on power" so much as "trying to smooth over a rough patch keeping him from running a game where everybody's having fun." Because two players working themselves into unmanageable positions is not fun for anybody.

[Lord Torath]

Exactly. Though you have to be careful with this phrasing, because Darth Ultron doesn't see a difference between "abuse of power" and "make the game fun for everyone." So it could be forgiven for people assuming you mean it the same way he does, phrased this way.

I suspect what you mean, however, is something more along the lines that the GM is not "taking on power" so much as "trying to smooth over a rough patch keeping him from running a game where everybody's having fun." Because two players working themselves into unmanageable positions is not fun for anybody.Yes. Exactly what I meant. Thank you for clarifying. :smallsmile:

[Koo Rehtorb]

I'm not sure what makes you think he's "giving himself" arbitration "powers."

Because of multiple people presenting this ability as stemming from the GM having the power to kick people out of the group.


He's taking on the responsibility to be as impartial as he can between the two players and give them space to come to agreement, help them identify the source of disagreement, and negotiate what will happen in-game.

I have zero problems with the GM taking on the responsibility to help two people come to an agreement in a dispute. I have zero problems with anyone at the table taking on the responsibility to help two people come to an agreement in a dispute. Helping people to smooth things over is a nice helpful thing for anyone to do. I object to the assumption that it is the GM's job to do this. And I find it a harmful assumption because:

1) The GM is not necessarily the best person in a group for this. Being GM doesn't confer some magical boost to your social abilities. Someone else may just be better at interpersonal negotiations.

2) The GM does not necessarily want this to be his job. If you agree to GM you're agreeing to play the world. You're not agreeing to all sorts of weird other pseudo-game responsibilities. These unspoken assumptions pressuring the GM into feeling like it's his job to make people play nice with each other is unneeded stress and I think it contributes to an atmosphere of people being too afraid to GM.

3) People are tying it back to the GM holding some sort of power over the group of players itself because he can take his ball and go home if they don't appease him. That's a ****ed up power dynamic. And ****ed up power dynamics are an important thing to avoid.

[D+1]

I said that the monster was sacred to me because it had enormous teeth, and if he attacked it I would have no choice but to defend it.Effectively leaving the other player with a choice between the all-or-nothing options YOU set for him.

He tried to call my bluff and found out I wasn't bluffing, recriminations ensued.And so, he obliged you and took the choice that you both should have known was inevitable. And I know just from your description of the situation that neither PLAYER spoke to the other about the inevitable and UNDESIRABLE consequences the pair of you simply walked into knowing all the while what was coming.

I would have been happy to keep negotiating, but he just surprised attack the monster (it was a gnothic).But did you as a player OR your character state as an option, "Hey, let's talk about this for a while before one of us does something we'll both regret..."? The answer, of course, is no because then we'd be talking about how he REFUSED your offer to negotiate in favor of a rash action, instead of talking about how he chose the option you simply didn't want him to take.


Another time I was playing a pragmatic, hard headed character who made a point of avoiding fights because fights are a quick way to die.And in a game of D&D - where combat happens CONSTANTLY - you set your PC up to be not just an in-game problem but a meta-game problem for everyone at the table.

My friend was playing an explicitly lawful stupid paladin.And so he ALSO set up both himself and his character to be almost inevitable problems by awarding himself not just permission but a built-in, character-driven COMMAND to be stupid. Great choice.


When he caught up we explained the situation, but rather than agreeing to peace he attacked the bandits shouting "DIE FIENDS".And that WASN'T what either of you expected to happen? You just CAN'T be THAT short-sighted. You both MUST have known that very scenario was an inevitability.

The bandits said we could help kill the paladin or die, so I chose to kill the paladin. He felt like I was breaking the no PvP rule. I felt like he was effectively breaking the party's collective decision under the assumption we wouldn't be able to do anything about it because 'no pvp'.I think you both had it coming.


Thoughts?
You need a MUCH better DM. Hey, none of us are perfect. Not every concept we come up with, as players or as DM, is a thing of beauty and a joy forever. But when it becomes apparent that our bad choices are about to drive the game into PVP, it is up to the DM to STOP THE GAME, put an end to it, and start things up in a better direction. If there is a rule of "No PVP" then it is the DM's fault if PVP ever actually occurs without his EXPLICIT CONSENT, indeed with the full consent of the player declaring the open attack against another PC. If you know there's a "No PVP" rule and you knowingly take a PVP action what is anyone else to think except that you want this? Of course, if you actually announce to the table, "We need to step back and take a look at this because as I see this situation, I don't have a preferable option for my character. Are we gonna go down this road or shall we negotiate some other circumstance for ALL our PC's?"


It's not really a response to say 'both parties are at fault', because it doesn't answer the question of who should back down."Who should back down?" is the wrong question, because it assumes that somebody else had the RIGHT to back them up to that position in the first place.

This principle isn't a solution though, because it doesn't solve the problem of determining what should happen if the players don't reach a consensus, despite one or both trying to do so in good faith. It's also not enough to say that if consensus hasn't been reached both parties are at fault. This might be true, or it also might be true that one player is being unilaterally unreasonable.Again, the fail-safe is BETTER DM-ING. Whether the DM likes it or not, it is THEIR responsibility to step in and ENFORCE a solution if the players can't or won't reach one on their own.


What would be useful is an enforceable rule as to what should happen when consensus can't be reached.The DM lays down the law. End of problem. Game goes on.


A way of determining a set of rule-of-thumb guidelines for who has got to back down.The player who first sets up the other player with a no-win choice should back down. Failing that the player GIVEN the no-win choice should back down - even if it's not their fault that the situation was UNFAIRLY put in their lap, they CANNOT escape blame for knowingly doing the disruptive thing. They should back down, protest to the DM, who should address the problem created by the first player, and if a negotiated compromise can't be reached - DECLARE MARTIAL LAW. That's the DM's job.

[Darth Ultron]

Because of multiple people presenting this ability as stemming from the GM having the power to kick people out of the group.

Not really sure why you'd think the DM would not have this power? I guess if the DM is really weak they could take a couple seconds and call for a ''vote'' on kicking someone out of the group, and any real jerk player is sure to get voted out anyway.

And even if your going to say ''the DM is a powerless nobody'', all the DM has to say is ''well I'm not running a game with Jerk Bob in it. So someone else DM''.




. I object to the assumption that it is the GM's job to do this. And I find it a harmful assumption because:

1) The GM is not necessarily the best person in a group for this. Being GM doesn't confer some magical boost to your social abilities. Someone else may just be better at interpersonal negotiations.

2) The GM does not necessarily want this to be his job. If you agree to GM you're agreeing to play the world. You're not agreeing to all sorts of weird other pseudo-game responsibilities. These unspoken assumptions pressuring the GM into feeling like it's his job to make people play nice with each other is unneeded stress and I think it contributes to an atmosphere of people being too afraid to GM.

3) People are tying it back to the GM holding some sort of power over the group of players itself because he can take his ball and go home if they don't appease him. That's a ****ed up power dynamic. And ****ed up power dynamics are an important thing to avoid.

1.Well, it would be nice if..somehow..people could like summon a perfect United Nations social ambassador or such....but that is just not piratical in real life. So it's is true that just being DM does not make someone ''awesome''. But there is no way to ''find'' the ''perfect person'' in a group...or even ''country''. What would you have the group do, vote on who they think is the ''most cool''? That only gets you ''who got the votes'', not ''who is perfect for the job''.

So, like most things, that only leaves the person who is at least some what in charge or impartial to settle things: and that is the DM.

2.Very true. Plenty of Dm's won't want to do anything....exactly like all most all the players...and really the whole world. It's a very common thing to see a problem like five feet away and say ''it is not my problem''...even if it does effect you 110%.

But again, like #1, it would be great if ''random player #4'' just stepped up solve the problem or if the whole group came together in some sort of amazing group helpfully hug...but you can't just ''hope'' that will happen. So that leaves the DM, by default, to be the one to ''do something''.

3.Except this one is very real and very true. Like if the DM was to sit down ready to play D&D, and all the players were like ''we demand you run a My Little Pony Game for us''. Why would the DM not be able to say ''I don't want to DM that game, I'm going home''? It's not like the DM is forced to just be a slave to whatever the players want. How can you say ''the DM has no power and must be a slave'', but the ''players have all the power and can be bullies''?

Now, if you have a couple players that don't want to DM and just want to play a character in a game...then yes they have to keep the DM happy. That is just how it works. That is life. And it is true everywhere. If Fred has a huge outdoor pool you can't go over to Fred and insult him and bully him and then expect him to invite you to his next pool party. Reality does not work like that...

[Grizl' Bjorn]

D+1, it doesn't sound like you read my post properly. You write:

"But did you as a player OR your character state as an option, "Hey, let's talk about this for a while before one of us does something we'll both regret..."? The answer, of course, is no because then we'd be talking about how he REFUSED your offer to negotiate in favor of a rash action, instead of talking about how he chose the option you simply didn't want him to take."

But actually my character tried to negotiate with his character, extensively. This why I said in my initial post "I would have been happy to keep negotiating"- because we were negotiating at the time he unilaterally attacked the gnothic.

In relation to my second character described you argue that a combat adverse character is a problem:

"And in a game of D&D - where combat happens CONSTANTLY - you set your PC up to be not just an in-game problem but a meta-game problem for everyone at the table."

This would be fair commentary if I'd created a character that refused to engage in combat in any circumstances. I didn't, I created a character who prioritised negotiation, and also refused to engage in combat when at level one and outnumbered 15 to one, with a survivable solution available. This character had also just negotiated a solution with the bandits and the two other party members that everyone thought was a good solution, even the paladin's player out of character. Generally it's characters who AREN'T looking for alternative solutions to combat that cause the problems. Pretty much all workable character concepts are combat averse to some degree, and that's the way it should be.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Not really sure why you'd think the DM would not have this power? I guess if the DM is really weak they could take a couple seconds and call for a ''vote'' on kicking someone out of the group, and any real jerk player is sure to get voted out anyway.

A group consensus on removing a person is in fact vastly superior.


And even if your going to say ''the DM is a powerless nobody'', all the DM has to say is ''well I'm not running a game with Jerk Bob in it. So someone else DM''.

So? Anyone is perfectly capable of GMing. That's a somewhat flippant response, though. I'm lucky in that basically everyone I play with are all able and willing to GM but I can appreciate that this isn't the case for every group.

As I've said before, I acknowledge that in certain groups a GM has a certain level of OOC power by being the only one willing to GM. That this is a fact is not an invitation to actually use that OOC power. If one person in a group is a 200lb MMA champion and the rest of the group are all scrawny nerdboys then there's also some OOC power going on there. That doesn't mean the MMA champion has the right, let alone the responsibility, to say "Hey we're doing this my way or I'm going to crack your frail nerd skulls together" even if he thinks that doing so would be helpful for everyone's fun or group unity or whatever. Not being a ****ty person involves never using, or even threatening to use, that power.


1.Well, it would be nice if..somehow..people could like summon a perfect United Nations social ambassador or such....but that is just not piratical in real life. So it's is true that just being DM does not make someone ''awesome''. But there is no way to ''find'' the ''perfect person'' in a group...or even ''country''. What would you have the group do, vote on who they think is the ''most cool''?

Again... obviously... group consensus is a superior situation to one person swinging their "I'm the GM. Deal with it" stick around.


2.Very true. Plenty of Dm's won't want to do anything....exactly like all most all the players...and really the whole world. It's a very common thing to see a problem like five feet away and say ''it is not my problem''...even if it does effect you 110%.

This is true for literally everyone in the group. Everyone presumably has a vested interest in group harmony. The GM can step in. Other players can also step in. Even the players with a dispute are capable of taking a step back and then sorting things out themselves. Whoever wants to can do it. But it's not any one person's responsibility.


3.Except this one is very real and very true. Like if the DM was to sit down ready to play D&D, and all the players were like ''we demand you run a My Little Pony Game for us''. Why would the DM not be able to say ''I don't want to DM that game, I'm going home''? It's not like the DM is forced to just be a slave to whatever the players want. How can you say ''the DM has no power and must be a slave'', but the ''players have all the power and can be bullies''?

Now, if you have a couple players that don't want to DM and just want to play a character in a game...then yes they have to keep the DM happy. That is just how it works. That is life. And it is true everywhere. If Fred has a huge outdoor pool you can't go over to Fred and insult him and bully him and then expect him to invite you to his next pool party. Reality does not work like that...

You are not acknowledging the distinction between "I'm not going to play in something that's not fun for me" and "I have a big stick. Make things fun for me or I will beat you with it." But there is one.

[Grizl' Bjorn]

So my friend doesn't look bad: re paladin and bandits situation, it's probably worth mentioning that it was an inherently silly campaign- 1st edition D&D with rolling 3d6 in order, and the expectation that there would be multiple TPK's in the first session. His character, literally believed that anyone who had ever told a lie needed to be put to death, and these were the kind of concepts the DM encouraged for what was meant to be a nihilistic one shot with a high casualty ratio. We all signed up for it, and were okay with it. We literally started the session by rolling for hats. My character's personality was randomly assigned. I didn't really mind what he had done in character, I just thought that under the circumstances, he'd backed me into PvP, whereas he felt that PvP was unacceptable in any circumstances.

None of this is especially relevant though. This thread isn't about trying to determine whether I'm right or wrong, it's about trying to find rules, guidelines and shared customs to avoid these kinds of situations.

[Koo Rehtorb]

None of this is especially relevant though. This thread isn't about trying to determine whether I'm right or wrong, it's about trying to find rules, guidelines and shared customs to avoid these kinds of situations.

Pause the game and talk OOC if you're running into a problem. That's really the only rule/guideline/custom that you need. Resolving what's at least partially an OOC dispute by making your characters take IC actions is a bad way to deal with a problem.

I think you're all selling yourselves short if you're doing a silly 1e campaign and banning PvP, though. That's a concept that inherently lends itself to playing the game like it's Paranoia.

[Karl Aegis]

So my friend doesn't look bad: re paladin and bandits situation, it's probably worth mentioning that it was an inherently silly campaign- 1st edition D&D with rolling 3d6 in order, and the expectation that there would be multiple TPK's in the first session. His character, literally believed that anyone who had ever told a lie needed to be put to death, and these were the kind of concepts the DM encouraged for what was meant to be a nihilistic one shot with a high casualty ratio. We all signed up for it, and were okay with it. We literally started the session by rolling for hats. My character's personality was randomly assigned. I didn't really mind what he had done in character, I just thought that under the circumstances, he'd backed me into PvP, whereas he felt that PvP was unacceptable in any circumstances.

None of this is especially relevant though. This thread isn't about trying to determine whether I'm right or wrong, it's about trying to find rules, guidelines and shared customs to avoid these kinds of situations.

Paladin: I go on a solo adventure!
DM: Okay, all of you hop on a bus to go with his solo adventure or against his solo adventure.

Take a third option. Get some popcorn and see how their solo adventure plays out.

The giant denture monster was also a solo adventure. One side for the dentures, one side against. Looked like the rest of the party was grabbing some popcorn and seeing how it played out (as they should).

[Madwand99]

In the first situation with the toothy monster eating villagers, defending such a monster is ludicrous. Kill it. If you "worship" such a creature and wish it to remain alive, then it is your responsibility to figure out how to prevent it from eating anyone else, explain your plan to the party, and talk them down. This person wanting to kill the monster is a very reasonable thing.

The paladin incident. Having the bandits ask you to attack the paladin was an opportunity to negotiate. Agree, but insist that the party and bandits knock him out, rather than killing him. Then humiliate him so as to teach him to be a little smarter in the future. This is also a bonding opportunity for the non-stupid members of the party and the bandits. Serious PvP avoided, character development initiated.

[D+1]

But actually my character tried to negotiate with his character, extensively. This why I said in my initial post "I would have been happy to keep negotiating"- because we were negotiating at the time he unilaterally attacked the gnothicFair enough. But simply saying, "I would have been happy to keep negotiating," leaves a MUCH different impression than, say, "We negotiated extensively and I wanted to keep negotiating."


This would be fair commentary if I'd created a character that refused to engage in combat in any circumstances. I didn't, I created a character who prioritised negotiation, and also refused to engage in combat when at level one and outnumbered 15 to one, with a survivable solution available.It was a fair commentary based on your initial post. THIS is now a different description of the character than simply, "a pragmatic, hard headed character who made a point of avoiding fights because fights are a quick way to die."


This character had also just negotiated a solution with the bandits and the two other party members that everyone thought was a good solution, even the paladin's player out of character.And this, too, is rather significant additional information. When you indicate that the paladin PLAYER thought it was a good solution and then chose to pointlessly invalidate it anyway, that's a different scenario than what you initially described.

Generally it's characters who AREN'T looking for alternative solutions to combat that cause the problems. Pretty much all workable character concepts are combat averse to some degree, and that's the way it should be.Words mean things. "Most characters are combat averse," is a MUCH different implication from stating, for instance, "Most characters exhibit common sense in not biting off more than they can chew."


D+1, it doesn't sound like you read my post properly.I'll stand by what I wrote - given what you wrote. With your added description, sure, it sounds like the other player and the DM bear a lot more responsibility.

My overall response also does not change - and would agree with the title of the thread that responsibility to avoid PVP goes both ways. Players should not be putting other PC's into the position of having "no choice" when it comes to PVP actions. If you ARE put into that position you can't go PVP and then claim innocence - the choice to take PVP action was yours, regardless of it being fair or not that the other player might escape responsibility for cornering you into actions that break consistency of YOUR characters behavior. Finally, the game is run by the DM and like it or not, whether actually AWARE of it or not, that puts the DM in the position of final authority both regarding game rules AND player behavior. In an ideal gaming world none of this would be an issue. In a slightly less ideal world players will police their own. When they can't or won't, responsibility falls to the DM to prevent it, or if not then to at least stop it, and whenever possible correct it in any case. DM's HAVE that authority. Unwillingness to exercise that authority when needed doesn't mean the DM is then entirely without fault in preventing or failing to prevent PVP.

[Darth Ultron]

A group consensus on removing a person is in fact vastly superior.


Well, your entitled to your opinion, but don't make it sound like ''groups are all ways better and right'' and ''individuals all ways worse and wrong''.



So? Anyone is perfectly capable of GMing. That's a somewhat flippant response, though. I'm lucky in that basically everyone I play with are all able and willing to GM but I can appreciate that this isn't the case for every group.

This is not true, anymore then ''anyone can do anything'' is true. Not everyone can simply do anything just as they want too.



As I've said before, I acknowledge that in certain groups a GM has a certain level of OOC power by being the only one willing to GM. That this is a fact is not an invitation to actually use that OOC power. If one person in a group is a 200lb MMA champion and the rest of the group are all scrawny nerdboys then there's also some OOC power going on there. That doesn't mean the MMA champion has the right, let alone the responsibility, to say "Hey we're doing this my way or I'm going to crack your frail nerd skulls together" even if he thinks that doing so would be helpful for everyone's fun or group unity or whatever. Not being a ****ty person involves never using, or even threatening to use, that power.



Well, if your not in some collage theoretical simulation, people don't have things like ''rights'' when your talking about the actions of other people and not governments, companies or the law. Your example of threatening violence is just weird and illegal, but for example any host DM of a game can say ''no smoking inside my house''. And the poor smoker does not have ''the right'' to say ''you must allow me to smoke in your house.'' I guess you could say that is ''using power''.




Again... obviously... group consensus is a superior situation to one person swinging their "I'm the GM. Deal with it" stick around.

Though, oddly, your fine if the group makes a bad call right?



This is true for literally everyone in the group. Everyone presumably has a vested interest in group harmony. The GM can step in. Other players can also step in. Even the players with a dispute are capable of taking a step back and then sorting things out themselves. Whoever wants to can do it. But it's not any one person's responsibility.

Why do you think so many players are ''invested in group harmony''(or would ever in a million years even use such wording, terminology or way of thinking in real life?)

And I said it would be great if ''random player'' would do something...or maybe ''random guy walking down the street'' or even ''UN peace negotiator'' , but it often comes down to ''nobody''. And that is when the DM needs to be the one to act.



You are not acknowledging the distinction between "I'm not going to play in something that's not fun for me" and "I have a big stick. Make things fun for me or I will beat you with it." But there is one.

I'm not sure what kind of violence your talking about? Like a player should threaten to beat up a DM if they don't make the game fun for that player? Like the player slams his fist into the table and says ''My character better find a sword +10 vorpal in the next treasure chest DM, or else..."

[Koo Rehtorb]

This is not true, anymore then ''anyone can do anything'' is true. Not everyone can simply do anything just as they want too.

Anyone can GM. Not everyone can GM and immediately be perfect or even particularly good at it. It's a skill like any other skill and practising it will make you better at it.


And the poor smoker does not have ''the right'' to say ''you must allow me to smoke in your house.'' I guess you could say that is ''using power''.

A group social activity is not like a house. The GM does not own the group's game. He is just another player in the game.


Why do you think so many players are ''invested in group harmony''(or would ever in a million years even use such wording, terminology or way of thinking in real life?)

Presumably everyone is there because they want to be there, spending time together, playing a game. If they need a lion tamer cracking a whip at them to even try to get along then they probably shouldn't be playing games together at all.


And I said it would be great if ''random player'' would do something...or maybe ''random guy walking down the street'' or even ''UN peace negotiator'' , but it often comes down to ''nobody''. And that is when the DM needs to be the one to act.

No. It's when someone should probably act. There's no more reason for that person to be the GM than there is for it to be anyone else present.


I'm not sure what kind of violence your talking about? Like a player should threaten to beat up a DM if they don't make the game fun for that player? Like the player slams his fist into the table and says ''My character better find a sword +10 vorpal in the next treasure chest DM, or else..."

It's fine to not play if you're not having fun. It's not fine to threaten other people to get them to do what you want, regardless of what form that threatening takes.

"Do what I want or I won't GM"
"Give me a +10 vorpal sword or I won't play"

Those are both ****ty things to say.

[Knaight]

Well, if your not in some collage theoretical simulation, people don't have things like ''rights'' when your talking about the actions of other people and not governments, companies or the law. Your example of threatening violence is just weird and illegal, but for example any host DM of a game can say ''no smoking inside my house''. And the poor smoker does not have ''the right'' to say ''you must allow me to smoke in your house.'' I guess you could say that is ''using power''.

Any host player (or bystander) could do that as well - the host and DM role are distinct, and while they can overlap that doesn't mean they should be conflated.

[Frozen_Feet]

"No Player versus player" is a bad rule because it violates one core principle of roleplaying: the player is acting as their characters. They are not their characters.

How does it violate it? By making it a premise that any conflict between characters is conflict between players, and that this is a problem.

But this doesn't follow. Conflicts between characters are an act. Just like someone playing a baddie in a play is an act. Hence, bad character behaviour should not be assumed to be a problem with the player.

This doesn't mean bad character behaviour can't result from bad payer behaviour. But the latter has to be examined independently from the former. If a player who has been polite, has shown up on time and has played multiple other characters without issue, and then makes a character who causes a ruckus, then the problem is more likely the character rather than the player.

In which case the solution is for the other characters to punish that player's character, not for the other players to punish the player. If it it wanted for the characters to work as a group, then it's the characters in the game who need to hold a negotiation and decide what to do.

And how to make those decisions? The game theory provides examples via strategies for Prisoner's Dilemma. They can be summarized thusly:

1) Do unto others what you would want to be done to thyself.

If you want co-operation, have your character co-operate. By playing your character, set the example of how you want others to play theirs.

2) Tit for tat.

The follow-up is that anything your character does is fair to do to them, and anything that is done to your character you can proportionately use against other characters.

3) Non-co-operation is punished by non-co-operating, even if it means your character suffers - this is called altruistic punishment and it is a key element of upholding group discipline.

4) Turn the other cheek.

Forgiveness is a virtue. Despite the crucialness of 2) and 3), following them can lead to a negative spiral which ruins the game. If the offending party shows remorse and is willing to return to co-operating, you may opt to ingore 2) or 3) to escape such a spiral. ("Let mercy pass for justice.")

---

This code is among the simplest ones with which you can do well in Prisoner's Dilemma. It is pretty easy for any group of characters to adopt. It works both in-game and out of it.

[Cluedrew]

I think no PvP is a great rule. I however have no issues with the PCs trying to kill each other. There is a subtle but very significant difference there.

If however PvP it does occur, I feel it is everyone's responsible to resolve the issue. The players involved and those watching. (GM included.) The GM often does have a bit more weight because of the social dynamics of a group, but really there isn't a lot they can do that the other players can't. In the end, who ever can solve it should and the others should support that.

[ross]

This isn't necessarily true at all.

It is if you don't like getting kicked out of your group.

[Koo Rehtorb]

It is if you don't like getting kicked out of your group.

Not all groups or games focus on a party overcoming challenges together. :smallsmile:

[ross]

Not all groups or games focus on a party overcoming challenges together. :smallsmile:

Just the only ones worth playing in.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Just the only ones worth playing in.

Would you care to make some attempt at justifying that ridiculous statement?

[Cluedrew]

Sure, PCvPC situation, the obstacle I'm trying to overcome is you, the obstacle you are trying to overcome is me. And we are all trying to overcome challenges together as we sit and play the game together.

What? We are supposed to be on the same side? It certainly helps for a longer, stable campaign, but I have had some dynamic short campaigns where the PCs where never all on the same side. They did however briefly stop trying to kill each other... once. Of course no on was really trying to win, we just played it out and... stuff happened, including a nuclear blast.

[D+1]

"No Player versus player" is a bad rule because it violates one core principle of roleplaying: the player is acting as their characters. They are not their characters.

How does it violate it? By making it a premise that any conflict between characters is conflict between players, and that this is a problem.Extensive personal experience, even if it is anecdotal evidence, combined with endless forum discussions about this very problem have taught me that YES, dictating no PVP is a good thing. It is not THE PREMISE that conflict between characters is conflict between players, it is watching and reading about campaigns melting down because players take it that way ANYWAY. They are upset that their PC mage is dead, killed by John's thief. They won't take the time to draw the distinction between being upset that John's thief killed their mage PC, and being upset at JOHN, because HIS thief killed their mage PC.

It is human nature to lash out when upset. Some more than others. "No PVP" simply prevents a HIGHLY common circumstance for players getting upset with each other (whether rightly or wrongly) from occurring in the first place. If John's thief is never permitted by the DM to kill Mary's mage then the issue of Mary possibly being upset about it never comes up.

But this doesn't follow. Conflicts between characters are an act. Just like someone playing a baddie in a play is an act. Hence, bad character behaviour should not be assumed to be a problem with the player.
It's not that it's assumed. It's that it happens whether it's being assumed or not. People invest themselves in their characters and if another PLAYER is responsible for harming that PC - even if it's all just an act - one player can become upset at another.


This doesn't mean bad character behaviour can't result from bad payer behaviour. But the latter has to be examined independently from the former.
Nope. It doesn't even have to be BAD character behavior from a BAD player. It can all be perfectly sensible and dispassionately carried out with appropriate justification... and the player left with the short end of the stick can still get upset at the other player. Bad players only make it a more frequent issue and/or make it worse than it otherwise would be.


If a player who has been polite, has shown up on time and has played multiple other characters without issue, and then makes a character who causes a ruckus, then the problem is more likely the character rather than the player.The player makes the choices for the character. The player cannot just absolve themselves of responsibility for what the character is or does just because, "It's what the character would do," or some similar dodge.


In which case the solution is for the other characters to punish that player's character, not for the other players to punish the player. If it it wanted for the characters to work as a group, then it's the characters in the game who need to hold a negotiation and decide what to do.
Sounds like an ideal gaming world. Unfortunately things are not always as ideal as we would wish them to be - hence simply cutting off a KNOWN and too-common source of conflict among players by saying, "No PVP".

It is not an imposition upon players to ask that they simply create characters that do not inherently conflict with other PC's, and if they do find their character conflicting with another that they AVOID disruption and potential hard feelings by actively seeking ways to DEFUSE PC-to-PC conflict rather than embrace it.

[veti]

And how to make those decisions? The game theory provides examples via strategies for Prisoner's Dilemma. They can be summarized thusly:

1) Do unto others what you would want to be done to thyself.

2) Tit for tat.

3) Non-co-operation is punished by non-co-operating, even if it means your character suffers - this is called altruistic punishment and it is a key element of upholding group discipline.

4) Turn the other cheek.

The problem with all of these in a TTRPG context (as opposed to the much more constrained Prisoner's Dilemma setting) is - all of them involve ceding the initiative to the problem player (by which I mean simply "the other player" - I don't mean to prejudge which player is really "the problem", from my perspective it's always going to be "the other one"). None of these strategies permits you to do more than retaliate in kind - there seems to be no provision to allow you to escalate when they do something 'bad'.


Extensive personal experience, even if it is anecdotal evidence, combined with endless forum discussions about this very problem have taught me that YES, dictating no PVP is a good thing.

The answer to this is right in the thread title: the responsibility to avoid PvP goes both ways. If you don't want the paladin to attack you, then it behoves you to at least wait until his back is turned before murdering those children.

Really, "no PVP" by itself is such a vague rule as to be meaningless. To give it teeth, you would need to allow every player to veto every other PC's actions on the basis that "if you do that, my character will have no choice but to attack you". Without that, it's just a rule for "allowing the most passive-aggressive douche at the table to run roughshod over everyone else's wishes".

[Knaight]

Really, "no PVP" by itself is such a vague rule as to be meaningless. To give it teeth, you would need to allow every player to veto every other PC's actions on the basis that "if you do that, my character will have no choice but to attack you". Without that, it's just a rule for "allowing the most passive-aggressive douche at the table to run roughshod over everyone else's wishes".

It is vague. With that said, the vagueness matters less if you have a group where people are actively trying to have a good game and problems are because of genuine mismatches in preference as opposed to a group where people are trying to stick within the letter of the rules while jerking the other players around. If you build rules that work for that (and no PvP does, as does emphasizing ahead of time that PC conflict is central) and just don't play with the passive-aggressive douches at all it solves a lot of problems.

[icefractal]

How does it violate it? By making it a premise that any conflict between characters is conflict between players, and that this is a problem.

But this doesn't follow. Conflicts between characters are an act. Just like someone playing a baddie in a play is an act. Hence, bad character behaviour should not be assumed to be a problem with the player.While it's true that PvP isn't inherently a problem, there are reasons why a group may prefer a metagame declaration that the characters will be working together. It saves a lot of time, for instance.

Because realistically, it doesn't usually make sense to permanently team up with some people you've met once or were forced together with by circumstances. There should be like ... conversations, background investigation, working together in limited ways first as a trial run, contracts perhaps ... an extended process, and one that could plausibly end with the PCs not choosing to work together.

And even after that, "work together" doesn't necessarily mean "share every piece of info". Building complete trust is a slow process, and until that point it would be logical for PCs to do things alone or in partial groups some of the time, and keep a lot of info secret.

And playing that out might be fun - sometimes. But often people prefer to get to the action and just take the party being able to work together and trust each-other as a given. And for that, having an OOC agreement that nobody will abuse that trust is helpful.

[Frozen_Feet]

Extensive personal experience, even if it is anecdotal evidence, combined with endless forum discussions about this very problem have taught me that YES, dictating no PVP is a good thing. It is not THE PREMISE that conflict between characters is conflict between players, it is watching and reading about campaigns melting down because players take it that way ANYWAY. They are upset that their PC mage is dead, killed by John's thief. They won't take the time to draw the distinction between being upset that John's thief killed their mage PC, and being upset at JOHN, because HIS thief killed their mage PC.

You know what those people who "get upset ANYWAY" are called in context of most other types of games and sports?

Bad sports and sore losers.


It is human nature to lash out when upset. Some more than others. "No PVP" simply prevents a HIGHLY common circumstance for players getting upset with each other (whether rightly or wrongly) from occurring in the first place. If John's thief is never permitted by the DM to kill Mary's mage then the issue of Mary possibly being upset about it never comes up.

It's not that it's assumed. It's that it happens whether it's being assumed or not. People invest themselves in their characters and if another PLAYER is responsible for harming that PC - even if it's all just an act - one player can become upset at another.

[ . . . ]

It doesn't even have to be BAD character behavior from a BAD player. It can all be perfectly sensible and dispassionately carried out with appropriate justification... and the player left with the short end of the stick can still get upset at the other player. Bad players only make it a more frequent issue and/or make it worse than it otherwise would be.

So rather than teach people to accept that it's a game and that they should not be upset about game events, you prefer to dodge the issue?

Let's give some contrast here. In addition to RPGs, I do martial arts. This often involves the participants very seriously trying to punch, kick or throw eachother, with it being understood and accepted that even when no-one's getting injured, real physical pain and discomfort will ensue.

Yet despite causing real physical pain and discomfort to each other, the participants still fail to get upset at each other. Why? Because they understand that it's part of the training or the contest. They understand that real intent to cause serious harm is absent.

This analogue sounds too far-fetched? Okay, how about the majority of literally all other forms of tabletop gaming? Player-versus-player is factually the standard there, without the added buffer of a well-establised player-character division. Yet it is understood that players should not get upset about other players screwing them over in a game, because they are games.

To clarify: I readily admit fictional scenarios can evoke real emotions. I am perfectly aware why a player in a roleplaying game would get attached to their character and get upset of bad things happening to their character.

This argument is about what to do about such emotions. If a player gets upset about bad character behaviour in absence of other proof of bad player behaviour, it's they who are the problem. It is identical to a child crying "YOU CHEATED!!!" when they lost a game of Poker, despite the fact that no-one did cheat.

If everything is "perfectly sensible and dispassionately carried out with appropriate justification", then a participant has no reason to be upset. If they do still get upset, it is they who are being a bad sport. This is the standard for almost all other sports and all other gaming - why would you hold roleplayers to a lesser standard?


The player makes the choices for the character. The player cannot just absolve themselves of responsibility for what the character is or does just because, "It's what the character would do," or some similar dodge.

"It's what the character would do" is not a dodge. It is first-tier justification for doing anything in a roleplaying game and one of the relevant demarcation points between roleplaying games and other types of games.

This doesn't mean the player is "absolved of responsibility". It means there's a different degree of responsibility and additional standard of proof. Again: if actor in a play plays the part of, for example, a thief, this does not make them a thief. They are not responsible for thievery, even if this portrayal of thieving will make the audience upset and hate the character. Their role is liable to cause such reaction, but they are not culpable for it.

It follows, then, that the audience is unjustified to target their emotions at the actor and take action against them.

This changes only when additional proof is given that the actor was acting with ill intent.

Sound too far-fetched again? Okay, let's bring this closer to gaming again. If, in a game of Diplomacy, a player screws another over to gain advantage, that may suck for the player screwed over, but they are not justified at aiming their anger at the other player, because it's part of the game.

This changes only if, across games, we can observe a pattern of the first player consistently screwing over the second just to rile them up. Then we can rightly call it out as bullying, even if each individual game move was technically legit.


Sounds like an ideal gaming world. Unfortunately things are not always as ideal as we would wish them to be - hence simply cutting off a KNOWN and too-common source of conflict among players by saying, "No PVP".

You are casting a fairly standard attitude towards gaming as near-uttainable ideal here. What I speak of is entirely achievable and not even particularly difficult.

Now, you are correct that it's still common for players to not reach the standard ser herein. But why you think reducing the scope of a game to dodge the issue is preferable to teaching players so they that they reach it?


It is not an imposition upon players to ask that they simply create characters that do not inherently conflict with other PC's, and if they do find their character conflicting with another that they AVOID disruption and potential hard feelings by actively seeking ways to DEFUSE PC-to-PC conflict rather than embrace it.

This is not in conflict with the four rules I just gave you. You simply fail to realize it applies on two levels - the group of game characters, and the group of game players. Which means that characters can be in conflict, have hard feelings and be disruptive towards other characters without those things causing conflict or hard feelings between players or being disruptive to a game.

Also, to clarify: in my opinion, all rules, including "no PvP", are imposing something on the players. I have no reason to argue this point, however, as I'm perfectly fine with imposition in the abstract. It's the specific thing of "no PvP" which I consider foolish to impose.

---


The problem with all of these in a TTRPG context (as opposed to the much more constrained Prisoner's Dilemma setting) is - all of them involve ceding the initiative to the problem player (by which I mean simply "the other player" - I don't mean to prejudge which player is really "the problem", from my perspective it's always going to be "the other one"). None of these strategies permits you to do more than retaliate in kind - there seems to be no provision to allow you to escalate when they do something 'bad'.

"Do unto others..." is very much a proactive guideline, so I have absolutely no idea why you think heeding it involves "ceding iniative" to anyone. In fact, you describe a pro-active, iniative taking interpretation of it yourself, right here:


Really, "no PVP" by itself is such a vague rule as to be meaningless. To give it teeth, you would need to allow every player to veto every other PC's actions on the basis that "if you do that, my character will have no choice but to attack you". Without that, it's just a rule for "allowing the most passive-aggressive douche at the table to run roughshod over everyone else's wishes".

1) "Do unto others...": I wish for others to make it clear what things are unacceptable to their characters. I hence make it clear what is unacceptable to my character. Hence I proclaim: "if you do that, my character will have no choice but to attack you."

The others naturally follow:

2) "Tit for that": if you do this unacceptable thing, I will do things unacceptable to you.

3) Altruistic punishment: I'm willing to compromise my own and my character's enjoyment to adhere to 2). This creates a deterrent for unacceptable behaviour.

4) "Turn the other cheek": if you back down or, after punishment, cease the unacceptable behaviour and promise to not do it again, I will forgive you and we can continue co-operation.

See?

Now there's another detail, which I think needs to be discussed separately.

Namely, escalation.

Why the **** would you even want to escalate? Why equal retribution is not enough?


The answer to this is right in the thread title: the responsibility to avoid PvP goes both ways. If you don't want the paladin to attack you, then it behoves you to at least wait until his back is turned before murdering those children.

"Responsibility goes both ways" is already codified in "Do unto others...". Your latter suggestion, "at least wait untill [their] back is turned", is much weaker principle, that of "see no evil". "See no evil" actually encourages deceptive and non-co-operative play, as it implies the only crime is getting caught.

[PhoenixPhyre]

"It's what the character would do" is not a dodge. It is first-tier justification for doing anything in a roleplaying game and one of the relevant demarcation points between roleplaying games and other types of games.

This doesn't mean the player is "absolved of responsibility". It means there's a different degree of responsibility and additional standard of proof. Again: if actor in a play plays the part of, for example, a thief, this does not make them a thief. They are not responsible for thievery, even if this portrayal of thieving will make the audience upset and hate the character. Their role is liable to cause such reaction, but they are not culpable for it.


I would contest this in the context of an RPG. Unlike a scripted play where the actor is acting out a part written by another, in a TTRPG the only decider is the player themself. No one is requiring them to play the role of a thief--they chose that role for themselves and defined it themself. The character only exists in their imagination. Whatever they choose to do is in character--"I am large, I contain multitudes." (Walt Whitman)

A central point that many people seem to miss is that real people have complex motivations (many of which contradict other motivations). The range of "what my character would do" in any given circumstance is very very rarely a single action. It's a range of possible actions, all completely within character for the entity in question, from which the player must choose. Thus, the player takes full responsibility for the actions of the character. No amount of "I'm just role-playing" can absolve them. They knowingly chose the anti-party action. There were other actions within character that would have been less of a problem. That, or they're just a horrible role-player playing a flat character with no realistic motivations or competing priorities.

I will admit that the stigma against PvP does not apply to games where PvP is a core point--this doesn't apply to Paranoia, war games, most board games, combat LARPing, or other such things. The OP's post was in context of what was recognizably D&D, which is a party-centric game by its construction. PvP is not against the default rules, but it is not supported by those rules.

[Frozen_Feet]

I would contest this in the context of an RPG. Unlike a scripted play where the actor is acting out a part written by another, in a TTRPG the only decider is the player themself.

This varies. It also does not do away with player-character-distinction even when applicable.


No one is requiring them to play the role of a thief--they chose that role for themselves and defined it themself.

Maybe. The same applies to many forms of improvisational acting. This also does not do away with player-character-distinction.


The character only exists in their imagination.

So do all the other characters and slights against them. This is the root of player-character-distinction and it is the primary reason why actions against other characters cannot be assumed to be actions against other players absent of other proof.


Whatever they choose to do is in character.

This, in turn, is false. It's observable when a player lets their real persona show through the invented persona. It's observable when any pretense of the invented persona is discarded and the player acts as themselves.

If you do not know a player well, or they are either really good or really bad at acting, this may make it difficult to notice when the acting stops. But it can and does stop. Learning to spot this is vital for identifying actual abuses in gaming, as in the example about Diplomacy I gave earlier.


A central point that many people seem to miss is that real people have complex motivations (many of which contradict other motivations). The range of "what my character would do" in any given circumstance is very very rarely a single action. It's a range of possible actions, all completely within character for the entity in question, from which the player must choose. Thus, the player takes full responsibility for the actions of the character. No amount of "I'm just role-playing" can absolve them. They knowingly chose the anti-party action. There were other actions within character that would have been less of a problem.

Like I already pointed out, it is taken as a premise here that 1) anti-party, that is, anti-character action equals anti-player action and 2) that this is a problem.

But since anti-character action doesn't have to equal anti-player action to begin with, what is the nature of the responsibility you are trying to pin on a player here?


That, or they're just a horrible role-player playing a flat character with no realistic motivations or competing priorities.

This is a non-sequitur of the worst kind. A player may choose a conflict-prone course of action either on purpose or accident without it having anything to do with their skill as a player or the quality of their game character.


I will admit that the stigma against PvP does not apply to games where PvP is a core point--this doesn't apply to Paranoia, war games, most board games, combat LARPing, or other such things. The OP's post was in context of what was recognizably D&D, which is a party-centric game by its construction. PvP is not against the default rules, but it is not supported by those rules.
D&D doesn't need any particular rules support for PvP. It only needs players to assume the proper attitude. The reverse is equally true - D&D doesn't need a rule for banning it either, for reasons I've been trying to outline from the start.

[halfeye]

You know what those people who "get upset ANYWAY" are called in context of most other types of games and sports?

Bad sports and sore losers.

I'm a bad loser. You wouldn't want it any other way, admit it: then deal with it.


This argument is about what to do about such emotions. If a player gets upset about bad character behaviour in absence of other proof of bad player behaviour, it's they who are the problem. It is identical to a child crying "YOU CHEATED!!!" when they lost a game of Poker, despite the fact that no-one did cheat.

What if someone did cheat? it's poker after all, cheating is allowed/expected. I don't play poker, but in other games I hate cheats.


"It's what the character would do" is not a dodge. It is first-tier justification for doing anything in a roleplaying game and one of the relevant demarcation points between roleplaying games and other types of games.

This doesn't mean the player is "absolved of responsibility". It means there's a different degree of responsibility and additional standard of proof. Again: if actor in a play plays the part of, for example, a thief, this does not make them a thief. They are not responsible for thievery, even if this portrayal of thieving will make the audience upset and hate the character. Their role is liable to cause such reaction, but they are not culpable for it.

It follows, then, that the audience is unjustified to target their emotions at the actor and take action against them.

Larry Hagman got a lot of hatemail because people don't understand that. If most people don't understand something, does it mean it isn't true (in physics it clearly doesn't, in social psychology it possibly does?).


Now, you are correct that it's still common for players to not reach the standard ser herein. But why you think reducing the scope of a game to dodge the issue is preferable to teaching players so they that they reach it?

Suppose, on average (the mean, I think), less than 50% are going to reach your ideal. Is it still justified to pursue it?


Also, to clarify: in my opinion, all rules, including "no PvP", are imposing something on the players. I have no reason to argue this point, however, as I'm perfectly fine with imposition in the abstract. It's the specific thing of "no PvP" which I consider foolish to impose.

More foolish than having no rules?




Now there's another detail, which I think needs to be discussed separately.

Namely, escalation.

Why the **** would you even want to escalate? Why equal retribution is not enough?

Because escalation works. Back to poker (which I don't know well) there are bets of Call (match stakes played) and Raise (escalate stakes), sometimes Raise causes someone to back down who would have been in with a Call, and sometimes a raise gets someone to match it and lose.


"Responsibility goes both ways" is already codified in "Do unto others...". Your latter suggestion, "at least wait untill [their] back is turned", is much weaker principle, that of "see no evil". "See no evil" actually encourages deceptive and non-co-operative play, as it implies the only crime is getting caught.

Yeah, rule one is very, very bad morally, something very like it was Fred West's dad's moto apparently.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So do all the other characters and slights against them. This is the root of player-character-distinction and it is the primary reason why actions against other characters cannot be assumed to be actions against other players absent of other proof.


In theory this is true. In practice, it's much less so. Even the best role-players find that repeated intentional actions against party members (in games where that isn't the premise) cause friction. Friction that, in my opinion, cannot be justified by saying "It's in character," because the friction-causing player chose to cause friction either in building an unsuitable character or choosing (from the wide space of in-character actions) antagonistic actions. It's an intentional, knowing act. This would go the same for someone who brings a pure-holy Paladin Of Justice to a "thieves and evil" game as someone who brings "Rouge McRougeFace the kender" to a serious drama game.

My view may be colored because I primarily DM for groups of teenagers new to the hobby. I watched one group (not DM'd by me) completely fall apart due to allowing PvP (even though it was marked as a dream scenario). Another group had severe crises due to a difference in style--one player wanted to kick in the door, others wanted to run tests first. This was only solved by stopping play for OOC discussion. Competition within a D&D group destroys teamwork--everyone thinks only of themselves. There are games where that works; some it's even the premise. Not D&D, at least not by default. The system doesn't work well that way either as you're off in "officially unsupported" territory without much rule coverage. The rules and mechanics presume that the party works together toward a goal, not at odds with each other.

Separating the character/role from the actor/player is hard. The consequences of player conflict are so large (killing a campaign, usually) that a default rule of "No intra-party antagonism" or "Find a reason to work together and trust each other in-character" is a good starting place. Groups that decide to change things are the exception, not the rule.




This, in turn, is false. It's observable when a player lets their real persona show through the invented persona. It's observable when any pretense of the invented persona is discarded and the player acts as themselves.

If you do not know a player well, or they are either really good or really bad at acting, this may make it difficult to notice when the acting stops. But it can and does stop. Learning to spot this is vital for identifying actual abuses in gaming, as in the example about Diplomacy I gave earlier.


I don't see meta-gaming or modifying a character to match a group or even (heaven-forfend!) playing a self-expy to be bad, as long as the group is all on board. The emphasis for me on RPG is on the G (and having fun) rather than some theoretical pureness of role-playing. I have yet to meet a good actor at an RPG table. I've met lots of people who have fun playing though, and that's more important.



This is a non-sequitur of the worst kind. A player may choose a conflict-prone course of action either on purpose or accident without it having anything to do with their skill as a player or the quality of their game character.


A piece of context was missed here. I mean that the choices for someone playing an intra-group antagonist in a group-centered game boil down to either:

1) Intentional "pvp" actions--the player (not the character) chose an antagonistic action out of all possible in-character actions. This I have a problem with. If a character is a jerk, that's because the player decided to portray them as a jerk. Don't be a jerk in a social game.

2) Lack of skill in portraying a non-antagonistic character to the group. I see this constantly playing with low-social-skill teenagers and am somewhat forgiving.

3) A mistake--a misreading of the tone or a misstatement. These are easily detected and corrected without problems unless there is underlying bad blood between players.

OR

4) A flat character whose motivations (in this instance) only allow antagonism. This is also the player's fault, since the player created the character. The character should undergo growth to reduce intra-party conflict or should be retired for a new character that can work with the party.

Are there any cases I missed? I think those are exhaustive.

All of this is in context of a game where intra-party conflict is the exception. In a game like Paranoia--sure. Go ahead. In fact, you're failing the game if you don't. In a game like D&D where everyone's fun depends on everyone else as a general rule, don't be a jerk. Every player (including the DM) is responsible for the fun of the table. Any action that intentionally diminishes that fun is a wrong action at that table.

As a side note, having a very clear session 0 that spells out what is acceptable and what is not acceptable is a necessity. Once that happens, either go with the group consensus or find a new group. Breaking consensus as to play style to be a special snowflake is not OK at any table I'm willing to participate in.

[halfeye]

"Rouge McRougeFace the kender"
Rouge is french for red, and usually refers to pinkish red face powder, now usually used by actors for scenes when their characters are blushing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Rouge is french for red, and usually refers to pinkish red face powder, now usually used by actors for scenes when their characters are blushing.

I know. It was a archetypally silly character name (with an intentional error) chosen to show the character's unsuitability for a serious drama game. I'm tired of the paladin vs over-the-top evil dichotomy (or holier-than-thou paladin vs realistic grey areas dichotomy) and wanted a different comparison.

[kyoryu]

Sometimes to get a particular experience, you have to set constraints.

It's best to be explicit about this and upfront, rather than than implicit.

When there's conflict of this type in a game, I generally find it's best for the GM to act as mediator and help find a resolution, if one is necessary.

[Mr Beer]

What if someone did cheat? it's poker after all, cheating is allowed/expected. I don't play poker, but in other games I hate cheats.

Cheating is absolutely not allowed in poker and if expected from any particular person, they will be despised as a cheat and unlikely to be welcome at any game where their cheating is known of.

When money is involved, people are a lot more insistent on rules being adhered to, not less.

[Frozen_Feet]

What if someone did cheat?

Then you're back to talking about a completely different situation.


It's poker after all, cheating is allowed/expected. I don't play poker, but in other games I hate cheats.

It's good a thing you admit you don't know a lot about Poker, because you really, really don't know about Poker.

Shortly: a certain type of deception is allowed and expected in Poker, because it is a game of incomplete knowledge and giving the impression that you have a better hand than you actually have is not banned. "Cheating" in the context of my sentence means actually breaking the rules of Poker, such as using a rigged deck.

A homologous situation in, say, D&D would be between lying in-character about who your character hates (banned absolutely nowhere), versus using weighed dice to ensure you have optimal ability scores.

The key point being that PvP is not cheating in the relevant way before you explicitly ban PvP.


Larry Hagman got a lot of hatemail because people don't understand that. If most people don't understand something, does it mean it isn't true (in physics it clearly doesn't, in social psychology it possibly does?).

People not understanding or disagreeing with something is not proof of anything on their own. I know full well there are people who get upset at actors for immoral actions their characters did; those people are wrong.


Suppose, on average (the mean, I think), less than 50% are going to reach your ideal. Is it still justified to pursue it?

Yes it is, because me holding people to a higher standard and teaching them how to do it is one of the reasons why anyone would reach that ideal.


More foolish than having no rules?

In this particular case? Yes. Again: PvP is ubiquitous in other games and sports. People can and do learn how to deal with it from early childhood. Clearly, it isn't that difficult. In addition, internalizing the player-character-distinction and understanding that characters can act against other characters without this meaning players are acting against other players allows the same set of rules (say, D&D) to be used for more different games.


Because escalation works. Back to poker (which I don't know well) there are bets of Call (match stakes played) and Raise (escalate stakes), sometimes Raise causes someone to back down who would have been in with a Call, and sometimes a raise gets someone to match it and lose.

Poker is inherently non-co-operative, you escalate in attempt to smoke other players out of the game. If you're trying to actually create group cohesion, then you try to avoid escalating.


Yeah, rule one is very, very bad morally, something very like it was Fred West's dad's moto apparently.

Did you even read the non-shortened form of the rule that's in the actual list being referred???

[Jay R]

Often, the biggest bar to communication is the mistaken belief that it has occurred.

What does “no PvP” actually mean?

Some people think it means that the players have been told that their characters will not physically attack other players’ characters, and so any character attempting to hurt the cause of another character must do so in some other fashion. Under this theory, there has been no agreement that characters will work together, just that all actions against other PCs must be worked out in some subtler way than physical assault.

To other people in means that the players have agreed that they are a team -that the PCs share, or at least respect, other PCs’ goals, and the players share and respect each other’s game goals. The play will be inherently cooperative.

People can agree to the phrase “no PvP” without ever agreeing on how they will play, or even noticing that they haven’t agreed. In this case, neither side has broken the agreement. There has been no actual agreement, and nobody knows it.

Once this fact becomes obvious, there are only two possible long-term solutions Either go past the simple phrase “no PvP” into an actual discussion of how you are will approach inter-PC relationships, or only play with people who inherently share your approach.

[halfeye]

It's good a thing you admit you don't know a lot about Poker, because you really, really don't know about Poker.

Shortly: a certain type of deception is allowed and expected in Poker, because it is a game of incomplete knowledge and giving the impression that you have a better hand than you actually have is not banned. "Cheating" in the context of my sentence means actually breaking the rules of Poker, such as using a rigged deck.

Played as a pastime among friends, in my experience as an observer, cheating was standard, though these were not good citizens the rest of the time either.


Did you even read the non-shortened form of the rule that's in the actual list being referred???

Nope. Rule one, in some circles IRL is "don't get caught" and that is an evil rule. Breaking rule one is the only way some habitual criminals believe they should ever be punished, though some don't believe any punishment is just. Sometimes they get punished for something they didn't do, even though they've done worse things, they'll still complain like heck, because they didn't break rule one.

[Segev]

Nope. Rule one, in some circles IRL is "don't get caught" and that is an evil rule. Breaking rule one is the only way some habitual criminals believe they should ever be punished, though some don't believe any punishment is just. Sometimes they get punished for something they didn't do, even though they've done worse things, they'll still complain like heck, because they didn't break rule one.

Nonsense. If they're being punished, they got caught.

[noob]

Maybe they were not caught and instead they did say the others they cheated and that they were sorry for that?

[Segev]

Maybe they were not caught and instead they did say the others they cheated and that they were sorry for that?

Then they did get caught. They got caught because they gave it away.

[noob]

Then they did get caught. They got caught because they gave it away.

I do not think you should necessarily say that in front of the person admitting it: it would not be very diplomatic toward it.

[Segev]

I do not think you should necessarily say that in front of the person admitting it: it would not be very diplomatic toward it.

If they're being punished, people are already failing to be diplomatic about it.

The rule, "Don't get caught," is actually a Chaotic-aligned observation: you can't be punished if nobody knows you did it. This can mean you have to go to great lengths not to be caught; if people know it was "somebody" in your unit, for instance, you got caught insofar as the rule is concerned.

Not being caught means one of two things: nobody knows that something was even done, or nobody knows nor suspects that the culprit is you nor any member(s) of a group you're in strongly enough to do anything about it. (Unless you can frame a narrow enough subgroup to get yourself again excluded from punishment.)

[halfeye]

The rule, "Don't get caught," is actually a Chaotic-aligned observation: you can't be punished if nobody knows you did it.

Yeah, technically it probably is, but the implication that anything you don't get caught doing is alright is I think evil by the moral rules of this society.

[Cluedrew]

What does “no PvP” actually mean?My use of the "no PvP" is, as I briefly mentioned earlier in the thread, is that the players can't be out after each other. Or put it a different way, the players have to stay friends even when the player characters hate each other.

Put that way it is not so much a rule as a goal, as long as out-of-character everything stays friendly we are good, but since it is not something you can enforce I just have to work towards it. I sort of hold other people to it as well, in that I avoid playing with people who cross that line. Of course I didn't quite understand what the line for most of those cases, but it was always unpleasant whenever someone crossed it.

It doesn't quite match what most people mean when they say "no PvP", so I use it slightly ironically. But I think it actually gets at the important issue.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I think one thing pro PvP people are forgetting is that DnD and it's immitators are nearly never balanced for PvP, and it doesn't make sense to allow someone to permanently enforce their will on everyone else because they picked the PvP options.

[weckar]

I think that in the described situations the fault certainly lies with the person who imposes their 'My way or the highway' beliefs on others' actions. Especially in the case of the bandits there is no sign at all of a "collective decision", and it seems the OP only believes there was because they were playing a leader.

[Frozen_Feet]

Didn't manage to respond to this yesterday, probably won't manage to reply to the discussion after it today, but let's see how far I get.


In theory this is true. In practice, it's much less so. Even the best role-players find that repeated intentional actions against party members (in games where that isn't the premise) cause friction. Friction that, in my opinion, cannot be justified by saying "It's in character," because the friction-causing player chose to cause friction either in building an unsuitable character or choosing (from the wide space of in-character actions) antagonistic actions.

Sure it "causes friction". So does repeatedly losing at soccer. The opposing players are definitely "intentionally and knowingly" kicking the ball towards the goal to score points. That's still not a point against them. Merely choosing to do something which is liable to make someone upset isn't enough to condemn a player.


This would go the same for someone who brings a pure-holy Paladin Of Justice to a "thieves and evil" game as someone who brings "Rouge McRougeFace the kender" to a serious drama game.

These kinds of isolated events are not actually good examples of the sorts of repeating patterns that would cause concerns. They are also trivial to spot and to deal with - the GM simply rejects the unsuitable character(s) untill the player hands a suitable one. It's pretty far from the seriousness of, say, my Diplomacy example.


My view may be colored because I primarily DM for groups of teenagers new to the hobby. I watched one group (not DM'd by me) completely fall apart due to allowing PvP (even though it was marked as a dream scenario). Another group had severe crises due to a difference in style--one player wanted to kick in the door, others wanted to run tests first. This was only solved by stopping play for OOC discussion. Competition within a D&D group destroys teamwork--everyone thinks only of themselves.

Funny thing, I also primarily hold games for newcomers and teenagers. I also hold OOC discussions when there a severe problems to deal with.

Those discussions happen to consists of many of the same things I've said in this thread, which is maybe why my players fail to get upset and I have no need for "no PvP" rule.

You are correct in your observation that selfish competition ruins teamwork - the key here is that failure of the in-game character group doesn't need to double as failure of the game, or the player group.


There are games where that works; some it's even the premise. Not D&D, at least not by default. The system doesn't work well that way either as you're off in "officially unsupported" territory without much rule coverage. The rules and mechanics presume that the party works together toward a goal, not at odds with each other.

D&D's system relies on the players forming a party much less than people realize, because they don't blow up the basic assumptions of D&D adventure often enough.

The focus on a "party" in D&D exists because the default scenario of D&D is that of small-group military simulation in enclosed spaces where all of the player characters 1) rely on each other for survival and 2) no individual has reliable means to escape the situation.

Is this the only type of scenario the rules are capable of modeling? No it isn't.

Is this the only type of scenario offered by the rules? No it isn't.

Is this the only type of scenario encountered in D&D expansive source material? No it isn't.

Can it then be assumed that the party-based social dynamic is equally vital or equally apt in all possible scenarios? No it can't be.

Again, D&D doesn't really need any special rules for PvP. It only needs a decision by the players that for this scenario, this session, this campaign etc. they will be playing against each other. Conflict between player characters can be modeled by the rules just fine, because the parameters of player characters are not that different from non-player characters.


Separating the character/role from the actor/player is hard. The consequences of player conflict are so large (killing a campaign, usually) that a default rule of "No intra-party antagonism" or "Find a reason to work together and trust each other in-character" is a good starting place. Groups that decide to change things are the exception, not the rule.

None of you have convinced me that it's as hard as you make it to be. But it being hard isn't all that relevant, because it is also basic facet of roleplaying.

You know what other things are hard? Reading a map and orienteering through a forest. Falling to the floor safely. Staying on a sailboard in the wind. These are basic facets of scouting, judo and windsurfing, respectively. The consequences of failing them are getting lost, breaking bones and getting wet and cold, respectively.

Is the difficulty and harshness of the consequences of failure a reason for any of these hobbies to ban these? No. That would be completely silly due to being defeatist to the point of those hobbies. Instead, it is a reason to spend extra time and care so that every hobbyist is capable of doing those things.

By extension, an experienced roleplayer ought to teach inexperienced ones how to maintain player-character-distinction, how to deal with dissent, how to deal with in-character conflict etc. and then in-character conflicts no longer kill their campaigns!


I don't see meta-gaming or modifying a character to match a group or even (heaven-forfend!) playing a self-expy to be bad, as long as the group is all on board. The emphasis for me on RPG is on the G (and having fun) rather than some theoretical pureness of role-playing. I have yet to meet a good actor at an RPG table. I've met lots of people who have fun playing though, and that's more important.

Where did you see me writing against metagaming, character modification or playing as yourself? I'm pretty sure I wrote no such thing. In fact, those things are unremarkable to me for the same reason in-character antagonism is: they alone are not proof that anyone is doing anything wrong.


A piece of context was missed here. I mean that the choices for someone playing an intra-group antagonist in a group-centered game boil down to either:

1) Intentional "pvp" actions--the player (not the character) chose an antagonistic action out of all possible in-character actions. This I have a problem with. If a character is a jerk, that's because the player decided to portray them as a jerk. Don't be a jerk in a social game.

2) Lack of skill in portraying a non-antagonistic character to the group. I see this constantly playing with low-social-skill teenagers and am somewhat forgiving.

3) A mistake--a misreading of the tone or a misstatement. These are easily detected and corrected without problems unless there is underlying bad blood between players.

OR

4) A flat character whose motivations (in this instance) only allow antagonism. This is also the player's fault, since the player created the character. The character should undergo growth to reduce intra-party conflict or should be retired for a new character that can work with the party.

Are there any cases I missed? I think those are exhaustive.

You couldn't give an exhaustive list even if you wanted to, for the reason you yourself said: "people are complex, with complex motivations". You also didn't really introduce any new context to the discussion. My core objection still stands: choosing anti-character action doesn't count as choosing anti-player action. You can't use that alone as a criteria for being a "jerk".

Let me instead point out the most common case of a player playing their characters against other players' characters in D&D and similar games:

5) The player is a GM. It's their role to play the antagonists in the game. The smoothness of the game relies on the other players accepting that any antagonistic, mean, jerkish etc. actions portrayed by the GM as their characters are not indicative of actual ill will of the GM towards other players.

Think about that for a moment. Other players in a D&D-like game already have to adopt the standard I am advocating for in respects to the person holding the game, and vice versa. Why, then, create a double-standard where the other players don't apply it among themselves?


All of this is in context of a game where intra-party conflict is the exception. In a game like Paranoia--sure. Go ahead. In fact, you're failing the game if you don't. In a game like D&D where everyone's fun depends on everyone else as a general rule, don't be a jerk. Every player (including the DM) is responsible for the fun of the table. Any action that intentionally diminishes that fun is a wrong action at that table.

"Everyone's fun depends on everyone else" is not a general rule for D&D. It's a general rule for all multiplayer games, including those which are based upon player-versus-player dynamics. In fact, the very concept of playing relies on all participants acting in mutual good faith so that no threats, deceptions, competitions etc. acts during play are confused for serious threats, deception, competition etc.

Playing and games are tools for breaking conventional social rules without offending. Just like humour and jokes are means of talking about touchy subjects with good intent.


As a side note, having a very clear session 0 that spells out what is acceptable and what is not acceptable is a necessity. Once that happens, either go with the group consensus or find a new group. Breaking consensus as to play style to be a special snowflake is not OK at any table I'm willing to participate in.

Yes yes, going over the rules of the game you're going to play is good practice, no idea why you need to call it as "session 0" when you can do it at session 1 during the first fifteen minutes.

[Segev]

Yeah, technically it probably is, but the implication that anything you don't get caught doing is alright is I think evil by the moral rules of this society.The part that's evil is the unexamined assumption that anything for which you suffer no personal comeuppance is fine, because it reveals a view that hurting others (so long as you can't be punished for it) is A-Okay if it benefits you.

"Don't get caught" might carry that association for some, but plenty of CG types have that as rule #1 while having rule #2 be, "Don't be a jerk." They may have looser definitions of "being a jerk" than some LG types, seeing cheating at an otherwise consequence-less game, for example, as harmless fun, but would balk at things which cause others harm for their benefit.


Sure it "causes friction". So does repeatedly losing at soccer. The opposing players are definitely "intentionally and knowingly" kicking the ball towards the goal to score points. That's still not a point against them. Merely choosing to do something which is liable to make someone upset isn't enough to condemn a player.Bad analogy. Players in D&D are not typically playing on opposing teams, and aren't expected to. A better analogy would be to describe a player who deliberately takes the ball forcefully from players on his own team, and kicks it out of bounds because that's fun for him, or tries to kick it into his own team's goal because he's decided he likes the other team better.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The part that's evil is the unexamined assumption that anything for which you suffer no personal comeuppance is fine, because it reveals a view that hurting others (so long as you can't be punished for it) is A-Okay if it benefits you.

"Don't get caught" might carry that association for some, but plenty of CG types have that as rule #1 while having rule #2 be, "Don't be a jerk." They may have looser definitions of "being a jerk" than some LG types, seeing cheating at an otherwise consequence-less game, for example, as harmless fun, but would balk at things which cause others harm for their benefit.

In the context of a group game, someone revealing that they're willing to break the rules if it suits them would leave me very uncomfortable and would make me assume that they're always cheating. Not a place I want to be.



Bad analogy. Players in D&D are not typically playing on opposing teams, and aren't expected to. A better analogy would be to describe a player who deliberately takes the ball forcefully from players on his own team, and kicks it out of bounds because that's fun for him, or tries to kick it into his own team's goal because he's decided he likes the other team better.

Exactly. That's what I've seen with PvP attitudes. I'll admit that I have a very low tolerance for contention--even trash-talking in a sports game makes me irritable. The players in a D&D game are supposed to be at least nominally on the same side. I have yet to see a game where they're at odds go well. It's possible I guess, just not something I'd like to play in.



Sure it "causes friction". So does repeatedly losing at soccer. The opposing players are definitely "intentionally and knowingly" kicking the ball towards the goal to score points. That's still not a point against them. Merely choosing to do something which is liable to make someone upset isn't enough to condemn a player.



But doing something to a team-mate that is intended to make them upset is enough to condemn an action. See Segev's response.




Funny thing, I also primarily hold games for newcomers and teenagers. I also hold OOC discussions when there a severe problems to deal with.

Those discussions happen to consists of many of the same things I've said in this thread, which is maybe why my players fail to get upset and I have no need for "no PvP" rule.

You are correct in your observation that selfish competition ruins teamwork - the key here is that failure of the in-game character group doesn't need to double as failure of the game, or the player group.


"Doesn't need to" =/= "won't". At least in the games I've seen games disintegrate due un-handled PvP. I've never seen a game disintegrate due to not having PvP. Thus I err on the side of no PvP. This is a heuristic, but it's worked for the games I've run so far.



D&D's system relies on the players forming a party much less than people realize, because they don't blow up the basic assumptions of D&D adventure often enough.

The focus on a "party" in D&D exists because the default scenario of D&D is that of small-group military simulation in enclosed spaces where all of the player characters 1) rely on each other for survival and 2) no individual has reliable means to escape the situation.

Is this the only type of scenario the rules are capable of modeling? No it isn't.

Is this the only type of scenario offered by the rules? No it isn't.

Is this the only type of scenario encountered in D&D expansive source material? No it isn't.

Can it then be assumed that the party-based social dynamic is equally vital or equally apt in all possible scenarios? No it can't be.

Again, D&D doesn't really need any special rules for PvP. It only needs a decision by the players that for this scenario, this session, this campaign etc. they will be playing against each other. Conflict between player characters can be modeled by the rules just fine, because the parameters of player characters are not that different from non-player characters.


Except that the basic mechanics of the classes imply that they are not self-sufficient. Yes, if specially built for it you can make some of the classes/builds relevant. Springing PvP on someone who is built for a cooperative game is foul play. I personally wouldn't have as much problem if the essential concept of a particular game is that players are in opposition to one another from the get-go. That's very different than a game where opportunistic PvP can happen at any point (which penalizes the cooperative players and gives incentives to be back-stabbing jerks since they can pick and choose their time and build for that, while the others do the heavy lifting on the group side).



None of you have convinced me that it's as hard as you make it to be. But it being hard isn't all that relevant, because it is also basic facet of roleplaying.


True, but it's better taught in other settings that are built for it. If we're playing Paranoia, everyone signed up for that. Learning it by having your character stabbed in the back without warning (to use an extreme example) is both ineffective as a learning opportunity (it breeds resentment) and tends to drive people away. I've seen that happen.




You couldn't give an exhaustive list even if you wanted to, for the reason you yourself said: "people are complex, with complex motivations". You also didn't really introduce any new context to the discussion. My core objection still stands: choosing anti-character action doesn't count as choosing anti-player action. You can't use that alone as a criteria for being a "jerk".


In a cooperative game, choosing an anti-character action is at least a strong signal that it was chosen as an anti-player action. If it's repeated, it's very good evidence. If one group of people consistently and knowingly chooses actions that damage another person's enjoyment, there's a very good chance they're doing it to spite the person.



Let me instead point out the most common case of a player playing their characters against other players' characters in D&D and similar games:

5) The player is a GM. It's their role to play the antagonists in the game. The smoothness of the game relies on the other players accepting that any antagonistic, mean, jerkish etc. actions portrayed by the GM as their characters are not indicative of actual ill will of the GM towards other players.

Think about that for a moment. Other players in a D&D-like game already have to adopt the standard I am advocating for in respects to the person holding the game, and vice versa. Why, then, create a double-standard where the other players don't apply it among themselves?


One of these things is not like the other. This distinction (between DM and player) is part of the fundamental rule set for D&D. It's baked into the cake. It's accepted by all parties going from the start (just as opposition in a sporting event is accepted by all parties). Opposition from people who were "supposed" to be on your team is not part of the game (without explicit, up-front notice).

Note that it is very easy (and common) for DMs to cross the line between portraying antagonists and being antagonistic toward the party. DM vs Player behavior is a form of PvP, and not a good one. That's human nature.



"Everyone's fun depends on everyone else" is not a general rule for D&D. It's a general rule for all multiplayer games, including those which are based upon player-versus-player dynamics. In fact, the very concept of playing relies on all participants acting in mutual good faith so that no threats, deceptions, competitions etc. acts during play are confused for serious threats, deception, competition etc.

Playing and games are tools for breaking conventional social rules without offending. Just like humour and jokes are means of talking about touchy subjects with good intent.

Yes yes, going over the rules of the game you're going to play is good practice, no idea why you need to call it as "session 0" when you can do it at session 1 during the first fifteen minutes.

Consider three scenarios:

PvP is off. Players are expected to find reasons to work together and at least grudgingly cooperate. When expectations differ, players resolve it in a way that keeps the game running.
PvP is the default. Players may choose to work together, but betrayal and switching allegiances is normal and expected. Hidden motives and secret-keeping are expected and normal.
PvP is possible, but not the default. Characters generally work together, but could be betrayed at any point for any reason without warning. Secrets that you share with "teammates" may be used against you at any time.


I prefer scenario 1 as a matter of personal play style (when playing D&D). I could imagine scenario 3 working in a D&D game, but those games are not to my taste. I've seen scenario 2 cause more hurt feelings and broken games than any other single factor and will absolutely refuse to play in such a game. I don't need my games to stress me out or cause me interpersonal friction. I'm good at that enough already by myself.

I think we can agree that the potential for antagonism between players needs to be discussed before the game begins so everyone is prepared and can consent. I will continue with a "find a reason to work together" policy because I don't see what benefits allowing antagonism brings beyond a nebulous "freedom to play a concept" which is already hedged in by the nature of the game itself (and the setting. No Gnomes!). I have seen the problems allowing it brings.

[Frozen_Feet]

Bad analogy. Players in D&D are not typically playing on opposing teams, and aren't expected to. A better analogy would be to describe a player who deliberately takes the ball forcefully from players on his own team, and kicks it out of bounds because that's fun for him, or tries to kick it into his own team's goal because he's decided he likes the other team better.

It's not an analogy. It's an observation that social friction can be caused by things which are fully expected due to the nature of the game. That's why "player intentionally and knowingly did something which causes friction" is too broad to be useful for deciding culpability. You need to blow up both the "intentionally" part and the "social friction" part and look for additional proof in the specifics.

Let's examine your examples in this light:

1) Two of your examples specify what the intent is. No intent for the first are examined, no alternative intentions for the last two are examined.

2) It can be observed that in games which are played for training or "for fun", in contrast to playing in a tournament or such, all of these acts can be and are performed "for fun". As isolated events, these are entirely unremarkable and typically don't lead to lasting social friction. Why? Remember your own remark about "consequence-less game". When playing for training or for fun, the specific actions you outline carry no effect outside that one specific game. This is why those acts, as isolated events, can be done "for fun". It is homologous to telling a joke: the specific context informs other players that the outrageous act is done without ill intent, and hence it is funny. To everyone, not just the player who did the act.

3) Now let's look at those alternative intentions. Forcefully taking a ball from your teammate and deliberately kicking a ball out of bounds are things which can be done for strategic reasons in serious contect, either because the teammate was clearly out of it or to buy time. No-one likes it when these are done, but they can be justified given a specific game situation. Because of this, they, too, are not very remarkable as isolated events and the social friction they create is usually resolved fairly easily. Of your example acts, only scoring a goal for the opposing team is something I can't really see a strategic justification for.

Let's look at a homologous situation in D&D: a Fighter on the frontlines is fighting a bunch of orcs. It is practically certain that on the orc's next round, the Fighter will be struck down. The fighter asks for help from the last other player character on the turn order, a Wizard. The Wizard has the option to cast Cure Critical Wounds from a wand to keep them alive for that round. However, if they do that, some of the orcs will run past the fighter and practically certainly kill the Wizard and other player characters, costing the fight for them. An alternative is to cast Fireball on the Fighter, killing the orcs and the Fighter, but ensuring the rest of the party won't get overwhelmed. Hence, the Wizard neglects the Fighter in order to Fireball the orcs.

These kinds of situations naturally emerge in D&D and all other tactical group games. The question, again, isn't whether they cause friction. They surely do. It's about what to do about it. One standard is to accept that it's a game, and you don't hold actions which are done to "win the game" against other players as long as their justifications pan out. The other standard, which I'll talk more about when I have time, is to decide these situations are inherently wrong ("because they cause friction" etc.) and contrive the game so that they don't happen.

4) As before, isolated acts aren't good examples of the sort of repeating patterns which would actually raise concerns. So let's examine which sort of repeating patterns we might see with your examples:

Forcibly taking a ball from a teammate: is it always the same player taking the ball from the same teammate? That's the sort of proof you'd want for interpersonal problems between players. Is it forcible enough to risk injury? That's the sort of proof you'd want for bullying. Instead, is a player just generally hogging the ball from everyone? That's the proof you'd want for pure selfishness.

Kicking the ball out of bounds: is this done in both serious and non-serious games? Is there no strategic value to it? If the player could have passed the ball to a teammate, is it always a specific teammate he's avoiding? That's proof of interpersonal problems. Or is he just generally avoiding passing the ball to anyone? That's stalling and proof that the person has issues with playing the game at all.

You can pretty much take these guidelines wholesale and apply them to two most common social faux passes in roleplaying: speaking over another player and engaging in OOC natter on the middle of their turn.

---

Again, didn't manage to reply to everyone. Will keep doing this one post at a time when I find the time, if I find the time.

[Red Fel]

Player A: *Has a character that supremely values thing x. X might be not murdering innocents, not starting fights without provocation, or even a sacred value for a cleric or a paladin*
Player B: *Does thing which violates x or makes x impossible*
Player A: *Has PC attack player B's PC in retaliation*
Player B: "Hey, no fair, PvP isn't allowed."

I'd like to point out something that I don't think has gotten quite enough coverage in this thread.

Player A's character has something very important to him, X. Player B's character violates X, and Player A's character's response is to attack.

Setting aside whether Player A was inconsiderate for tying the hands of the party with respect to X, or whether Player B was inconsiderate for antagonizing Player A, I think we can all agree that (barring extreme situations1) Player A's response was disproportionate.

People offend my values all of the time. Seriously, it's obnoxious. I see people every day on the street, just... Continuing to exist. It feels like they're spiting me. Know what I don't do? Jump out and punch their faces in. Know why? Disproportionate response.

Can we focus for a moment on that fact? The fact that, as has been mentioned, negotiating is a thing? The fact that this PC's first recourse is violence against another PC, absent extenuating circumstances, is a problem. This is true irrespective of the presence or absence of PvP rules. Even where PvP is allowed, I expect my PCs to have a reason for it, and "I just wanna punch you a lot now" isn't quite a reason. It's fine if you're playing a CE character for whom violence is the metaphorical hammer to the world's nails, I suppose, but if you're playing, say, a Paladin, we're going to have some issues.

1"Extreme situations" meaning things like, say, X means "No murdering innocents." I'd say, yeah, if Player B's character engaged in some baby-killing, Player A's character might be justified towards a bit of violence.

[Segev]

The fact that you had to alter and add corner-case context to my examples demonstrates that you know what I mean. I don't feel a need to respond specifically to your corner cases, because I don't believe anybody was arguing against them, nor that situations where players have to make tough choices that can weigh harm to one PC over the group can arise. Such situations are not what was being discussed, and are definitely chances for a jerk who wants an excuse to pick on other PCs to squirm around a "no PvP" rule.

But that doesn't address the fundamental point I was making to you, Frozen_Feet, about your analogy being bad.

Your analogy is bad because it equates two different games in a way that, well, they're not analogous.

D&D is not a game where two opposing teams of players (in this context, "player" is exclusively "the guys controlling PCs") are trying to defeat each other, with the DM as a referee. D&D is a game where, if there is an "opposing team," it is the DM. (Though in my experience, healthy games typically have the DM be torn between sides, as he's trying to impartially run a world but wants to make a fun experience for his players more than he wants to "win.")

"It's not fun to lose at soccer, and yet both teams are trying to make the other team do so," is a bad analogy because the point you were using it against was discussing one player deliberately screwing with other players' ability to achieve their goals in D&D. Which is why the comparable thing would be a player on a soccer team deliberately trying to make his team lose the game. (Sorry for giving specific acts he might pursue to achieve that; I should have realized you could construct corner cases where such behavior is not motivated by a desire to make his own team lose.)

I'm not arguing in favor of "no PvP" as a blanket rule. I'm simply pointing out that your analogy is bad.

[AceOfFools]

You really need to have self awareness about these things, and not build characters that are deliberately at odds with the party.

As an example: if you and your friends get together to play a game about (semi-)heroically hunting monsters, and you play a character who will fight to defend monsters who have nice teeth, you've created the problem.

Same with any player deliberately choosing to play a known problematic archtype. If your group doesn't want to play PvP, that starts at character creation.

[kyoryu]

You really need to have self awareness about these things, and not build characters that are deliberately at odds with the party.

As an example: if you and your friends get together to play a game about (semi-)heroically hunting monsters, and you play a character who will fight to defend monsters who have nice teeth, you've created the problem.

Same with any player deliberately choosing to play a known problematic archtype. If your group doesn't want to play PvP, that starts at character creation.

Thus, Session Zero.

The idea that character creation is done by players, before the game, with no knowledge of what the game is or what the other players are making, is responsible for more campaign deaths than anything else.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Player A's character has something very important to him, X. Player B's character violates X, and Player A's character's response is to attack.

Setting aside whether Player A was inconsiderate for tying the hands of the party with respect to X, or whether Player B was inconsiderate for antagonizing Player A, I think we can all agree that (barring extreme situations1) Player A's response was disproportionate.

This is probably because D&D is a game about killing things. Outside of a few cases involving mind controlling magic, characters do not have any mechanical tools in D&D that do not involve killing people. Therefore, killing is how they naturally overcome their problems.

[icefractal]

Player A's character has something very important to him, X. Player B's character violates X, and Player A's character's response is to attack.

Setting aside whether Player A was inconsiderate for tying the hands of the party with respect to X, or whether Player B was inconsiderate for antagonizing Player A, I think we can all agree that (barring extreme situations1) Player A's response was disproportionate.I'd say it depends entirely on what X is.

If it's just something minor, or it's a situation that there's plenty of time to talk about (and some chance of success by doing so), then going straight to combat would be disproportionate. But if it's something major and imminent ... well, the PCs in most campaigns kill foes all the time with that level of justification.

In the OP's example, I'd say that both "This monster is going to eat people!" and "He's trying to kill the holy being!" are situations that nobody would blink an eye if you started combat with an NPC for.


To take another example, the movie Surrogates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogates#Plot). You better believe, if we were playing a game based on that, my PC would absolutely shoot Greer (the protagonist) if it was necessary to cancel the virus, fellow PC or not. Yeah, he's not technically attacking me, he's 'only' going to kill thousands and **** over millions more, but if that's not a good reason for combat then 99% of fights in RPGs aren't.

Seriously, that movie. How the **** was that presented as a 'good' ending?

[Knaight]

In this particular case? Yes. Again: PvP is ubiquitous in other games and sports. People can and do learn how to deal with it from early childhood. Clearly, it isn't that difficult. In addition, internalizing the player-character-distinction and understanding that characters can act against other characters without this meaning players are acting against other players allows the same set of rules (say, D&D) to be used for more different games.

PvP is ubiquitous - that doesn't mean that people who are totally fine with it in places where it's expected are on board with it showing up elsewhere. Take board games - I fully expect a game of Puerto Rico (which is competitive) to be incredibly cut throat, with people deliberately taking turns just to screw over opponents, whether that means rotting their crops in the harbor during a shipping phase you barely ship anything in or building a building you don't even need to deny it to an opponent. All's good. That doesn't mean that someone deliberately sabotaging the group in Pandemic (a cooperative game) is considered acceptable. RPGs are at an odd place; with a few noticeable exceptions they don't really specify whether they're competitive, cooperative, or somewhere in between. They don't specify whether character conflict is supposed to be part of the fun and indeed a cooperative activity where the players create interesting character conflict together or whether it conflicts with a core of a well oiled team working cooperatively. Sure, you get your occasional Everyone is John, Fiasco, or Burning Wheel. For the rest though, there's a very real situation where people assume that they're playing a cooperative game, and that someone is deliberately screwing with the game instead of deciding to actually play it; finding that irritating is hardly unreasonable.