Is "NO PVP EVER!" the only way to stop party members from killing each other?

[suplee215]

Hello, I am a DM for a game and I am recently having problems. Yes, this is one of those thread and I realized that talking to them might be the only way to fix it (I have spoken many times) and that this is just my side of the story and so is inherently biased.
The game began at a local store that currently shut down but migrated to the house. The store was loose on rules and pvp was allowed by most dms and I continued that tradition as that is what the players were used to and what I began playing with. However, one player has a habit of getting into it way too often. When his martial characters (and while there are some differences to them, they all have very similar pushing the limits of chaotic neutral tendencies) are insulted he tends to respond by punching the PC who insulted him or trip them or whatever (he also has a tendency to mess with NPCs, which might be a related issue as he killed a baby they found because the church they were offering to take of it did not offer enough money and killed an NPC who fought alongside them because he wanted the NPC's girlfriend) and also doing pranks. His latest "prank" was to try to push an PC of a player who rubs a lot of the other players the wrong way into a 60 feet hole. Where everyone knew it was a 60 foot hole. luckily he failed his athletics check to do so but it led to the sorcerer then trying to shocking grasp the pusher, which was about to lead to pusher and his father (he had to make a new character recently and decided to make him the unknown show of another party member). This was going to lead to someone's death either this side or not. I do not like telling my players "no you cannot do this" or becoming an all powerful god who can retcon events or make things stop as in my mind that is bad story telling but also not only does the story keep getting derailed but other players are getting frustrated. Also while I am a DM I have put the PVP to a party vote several times just because I think it is a richard move to take away something that has always been a part of the game without everyone getting heard. While some players do not like pvp, most are ok with it in theory at least and so do not vote away the option. SO does anyone have any tips on how to tone down senseless PVP without taking it out of the game altogether?

[Waterdeep Merch]

It's party dependent. Some players will never resort to PvP, no matter how open the rules for it are. Some will try to PvP even if you deliberately disallow it. Some players are tame until X event, or if Y player is involved. Sometimes it's due to very bad roleplaying. Sometimes it's due to very good roleplaying.

If you have one player that's always acting like that and you don't want to deal with PvP and his, frankly, horrifying roleplaying, kick 'em. Call it creative differences, because they are. If it's every player, then that's just what they want to play. Facilitate or find a new group, 'cause them's the breaks.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hello, I am a DM for a game and I am recently having problems. Yes, this is one of those thread and I realized that talking to them might be the only way to fix it (I have spoken many times) and that this is just my side of the story and so is inherently biased.
The game began at a local store that currently shut down but migrated to the house. The store was loose on rules and pvp was allowed by most dms and I continued that tradition as that is what the players were used to and what I began playing with. However, one player has a habit of getting into it way too often. When his martial characters (and while there are some differences to them, they all have very similar pushing the limits of chaotic neutral tendencies) are insulted he tends to respond by punching the PC who insulted him or trip them or whatever (he also has a tendency to mess with NPCs, which might be a related issue as he killed a baby they found because the church they were offering to take of it did not offer enough money and killed an NPC who fought alongside them because he wanted the NPC's girlfriend) and also doing pranks. His latest "prank" was to try to push an PC of a player who rubs a lot of the other players the wrong way into a 60 feet hole. Where everyone knew it was a 60 foot hole. luckily he failed his athletics check to do so but it led to the sorcerer then trying to shocking grasp the pusher, which was about to lead to pusher and his father (he had to make a new character recently and decided to make him the unknown show of another party member). This was going to lead to someone's death either this side or not. I do not like telling my players "no you cannot do this" or becoming an all powerful god who can retcon events or make things stop as in my mind that is bad story telling but also not only does the story keep getting derailed but other players are getting frustrated. Also while I am a DM I have put the PVP to a party vote several times just because I think it is a richard move to take away something that has always been a part of the game without everyone getting heard. While some players do not like pvp, most are ok with it in theory at least and so do not vote away the option. SO does anyone have any tips on how to tone down senseless PVP without taking it out of the game altogether?

OK, having read your wall of text, here's the deal.

1. If this isn't fun for you at all, PvP, you need to be honest with your PC's.
"Guys, this PVP isn't something I care for at this table, so knock it off or get a new DM."

2. If it is fun for you occasionally, but there is too much of it, issue PvP rations.
"You get one PvP initiation for ever three/five/seven (pick one) game sessions. Here is your ration card. You hand it to me when you want to initiate one. I return it when the number of sessions has passed. Until then, I simply ignore and disallow any PvP that you initiate." Then You Enforce This.

3. If this player is griefing the others continually, and it annoys the other players:
"Here's the deal. You are being a toxic player. Here are three examples." (list them, most recent ones better).
"If you keep being a pain and disrupting the fun at the table, you are gone. You are annoying the other players, this Isn't All About You."
"I do this for fun, not to deal with people who are a pain in the neck. I get all of the pain in the neck I can handle at work/home/school/etc."

4. Or just stop DMing for a month or two and see if:
They miss it
You miss it.
The answer to who does or doesn't miss it will give you an idea for how to proceed from there.

[Laserlight]

Concur with Korvin.

[KorvinStarmast]

Concur with Korvin.
Sir, I believe that means that I am buying this next round.
*clears throat*

/me Barkeep, a pint for my fine friend over here. :smallbiggrin:

[suplee215]

OK, having read your wall of text, here's the deal.

1. If this isn't fun for you at all, PvP, you need to be honest with your PC's.
"Guys, this PVP isn't something I care for at this table, so knock it off or get a new DM."

2. If it is fun for you occasionally, but there is too much of it, issue PvP rations.
"You get one PvP initiation for ever three/five/seven (pick one) game sessions. Here is your ration card. You hand it to me when you want to initiate one. I return it when the number of sessions has passed. Until then, I simply ignore and disallow any PvP that you initiate." Then You Enforce This.

3. If this player is griefing the others continually, and it annoys the other players:
"Here's the deal. You are being a toxic player. Here are three examples." (list them, most recent ones better).
"If you keep being a pain and disrupting the fun at the table, you are gone. You are annoying the other players, this Isn't All About You."
"I do this for fun, not to deal with people who are a pain in the neck. I get all of the pain in the neck I can handle at work/home/school/etc."

4. Or just stop DMing for a month or two and see if:
They miss it
You miss it.
The answer to who does or doesn't miss it will give you an idea for how to proceed from there.

Thank you for this. I'll find a way for 2 to be the best. It isn't so much the amount of it as much as the stupidly of it. PVP when two characters come into conflict over different ideas or loyalty? Cool. PvP because the guy you just met made a joke at your expanse? Or PvP because "pushing a guy into a hole is always funny"? A bit too much.

[KorvinStarmast]

Thank you for this. I'll find a way for 2 to be the best. It isn't so much the amount of it as much as the stupidly of it. PVP when two characters come into conflict over different ideas or loyalty? Cool. PvP because the guy you just met made a joke at your expanse? Or PvP because "pushing a guy into a hole is always funny"? A bit too much. Best wishes. Best to do something like this in your own words and before the play starts, and get a little feedback/buy in from the players.

Have fun! :smallbiggrin:

[suplee215]

Best wishes. Best to do something like this in your own words and before the play starts, and get a little feedback/buy in from the players.

Have fun! :smallbiggrin:

Yup, thanks again. Rather than a "ration" system I think I'll just ask them why they are doing what they are doing. Basically they need permission and to reveal their motives for it. Feels like a babysitter to do but I guess I got to.

[Emay Ecks]

I'm a dm who hates pvp. But I don't want to outright ban it either. So I use a system where the receiving player of any "hostile" actions from another player (pickpocket attempt, a lie that relates to loot or that could risk party injury, or physical attack) declares what the instigating party rolls (or what the receiving player rolls for their saving throw). That way if a player thinks the pvp is fun or builds character, they can allow it ("I want Jim to roll to see if he can pick my pockets") or ("That's hilarious! Jim rolls a nat 20 picking my pocket").

[leon666]

The way we solved it was every few months our Dm would come up with an elaborate Arena and we'd have a pvp battlewith 0 consequences (alternate realm or some such explanation)

[Pex]

As a player I don't tolerate it at all and am no longer shy about saying so. If the DM enables/enforces it, game over for me. If the DM doesn't want to take sides then it's a table issue. If the majority is with me, great. Problem player either shapes up or ships out. I'm happy with either outcome. If the majority is against me, game over for me and good riddance.

Hostility is not what I want in a roleplaying game. It's the nature of the genre at this point in my life that it takes effort of time and energy to schedule a game everyone can make it and travel to get there and back. I have no patience for male bovine feces.

[GlenSmash!]

As a DM PVP is the least fun thing for me to have happen in a game.

I put in a whole bunch of work presenting an adventure and scenarios to the Party...

And they ignore it and fight each other.

No thank you. You can do that on your own time.

[the secret fire]

I don't much care for PvP either, but I allow it...with appropriate in-game consequences. This guy killed a baby, you say? Why is the law not after him? He continually griefs the other PCs...why don't they simply murder him in his sleep? Why doesn't the hard-ass brother of the NPC he murdered track him down and cut his throat? Why not have him develop a bad reputation around town to the point that merchants charge higher prices when dealing with him? "No, sorry...for you, that's 200 gold." Hit him where it hurts...in the character, himself.

In-game solutions are always to be preferred, in my experience. You need to teach this guy a lesson. Everything else is just a band-aid.

[mephnick]

As a player I don't tolerate it at all and am no longer shy about saying so.

I agree with Pex.. Given that I DM 90% of the time it's not really an issue. I tell players straight up that it isn't allowed in my games and generally they create a group of characters where it wouldn't really happen anyway. I've had a few instances where a player will say "I pickpocket the Fighter 'cause I want that gem we just got." and I say "No, you don't." It typically ends there. My only advice without outright banning it is tell the players are session 0 that they are creating a team, either part of an organization, an order, or a family that are expected to work together for a common goal and that's generally enough to quell the "it's what my character would do" crap.

[Honest Tiefling]

It is not a Richard Move to change the rules of the game provided that everyone agrees. So talk to your players and see what everyone wants. And it's also not a Richard Move to realize that many people aren't having fun and have compromises or the like. People's tastes change, that's fine to a degree, and this is a perfectly fine degree. As the DM, you need to be comfortable and having fun with the game. Sounds like this guy is way out of bounds for multiple reasons, so the rest of the table might be agreeing with you, suplee215.

It also occurs to me that we shouldn't use Richard in that sense. I nominate Rupert to replace it. That PC is chaotic evil. Killing someone for the chance to get your Rupert wet is a little beyond neutral in my opinion, let alone BABY MURDER.

I think a gentleman's agreement is in order. PvP is on the table, but it's a last resort. Therefore, no killing for insults, no killing to get sex, etc. It should have build up and be dramatic and most importantly, fun for the victim. I think everyone else might be okay with that, and you could do a rule of no PvP unless all parties involved agree.


My only advice without outright banning it is tell the players are session 0 that they are creating a team, either part of an organization, an order, or a family that are expected to work together for a common goal and that's generally enough to quell the "it's what my character would do" crap.

Always good advice. Quoting to display it, because it might cut down on things. Having advantages to being a part of said organization will make the players more likely to stick with it as well.

[willdaBEAST]

I think a lot of us are on the same page, PVP isn't truly the problem, players frivolously using PVP to be "edgy" is the issue. Unless your players are extremely good at roleplaying and mature, I think you have to bake in reasons for them to travel with a party at character creation. Edgelord McMurder is not going to have a lot of friends.

While playing DnD I come across the same two situations over and over: one PC wants to steal from the party, or a PC feels slighted for something and attacks another PC "because my character would do it". Neither of those are engaging scenarios and it always seems to be the same two hollow character archetypes: the shady rogue and the psychopath warrior.

As far as the OP's player, anyone killing a baby is going to become a local pariah. I would take that player aside and ask them, "how do these actions reflect upon your character? How does everyone else in the party see your PC?" If the player doesn't recognize a problem, ask more directly, "why would anyone travel with a hyper sensitive murderer, who messes with potential NPC allies and likes to perform pranks on his party?" I think the only honest answers the player can give you are: "the game's not so serious, I'm just being silly" or "I guess I have some issues I need to work out". Both of those mentalities are disruptive for the rest of the group.

[suplee215]

I don't much care for PvP either, but I allow it...with appropriate in-game consequences. This guy killed a baby, you say? Why is the law not after him? He continually griefs the other PCs...why don't they simply murder him in his sleep? Why doesn't the hard-ass brother of the NPC he murdered track him down and cut his throat? Why not have him develop a bad reputation around town to the point that merchants charge higher prices when dealing with him? "No, sorry...for you, that's 200 gold." Hit him where it hurts...in the character, himself.

In-game solutions are always to be preferred, in my experience. You need to teach this guy a lesson. Everything else is just a band-aid.

That was 3 different characters. The baby killer got slaughter by the war cleric and a paladin inside the church he was talking to. The NPC backstabber got killed by the guy he killed due to the clone spell. Perhaps it is more the player but I am trying to work with him. He is also still in high school which might explains things.

[suplee215]

It also occurs to me that we shouldn't use Richard in that sense. I nominate Rupert to replace it. That PC is chaotic evil. Killing someone for the chance to get your Rupert wet is a little beyond neutral in my opinion, let alone BABY MURDER.
.

Well it was multiple characters the player has played, not one. Also, my first name is Richard which is why I used it.

[the secret fire]

That was 3 different characters. The baby killer got slaughter by the war cleric and a paladin inside the church he was talking to. The NPC backstabber got killed by the guy he killed due to the clone spell. Perhaps it is more the player but I am trying to work with him. He is also still in high school which might explains things.

It sounds like you are dealing with his characters' foolishness appropriately, then. At this point, I would simply threaten to kick him from the game. You can't cure stupid.

[Lance Tankmen]

I allow it but haven't had to deal with it beyond a duel. I do say if its your goal to simply kill the party then piss off, or to steal and magically think that the player wont find out. but i think if i had a player like that , there would be other problems with them besides selfish mentality

[Honest Tiefling]

Well it was multiple characters the player has played, not one. Also, my first name is Richard which is why I used it.

Semantics, if he's playing the same character over and over again in my opinion. But if he's in high school, take him aside and explain why people aren't having fun. He's a big boy, I think he can withstand some criticism. If not...Maybe he needs to learn the hard way. Keeping him in an RPG group that resents his presence isn't really going to benefit anyone.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I concur with the consensus here-- your problem isn't with PVP so much as it is with a problem player who likes to harass the other characters in the game.

[Phoenix042]

Our group's solution is, I think, the best by far to this problem:

When one player attempts to directly attack another, force a saving throw, or influence them with a skill or spell or some such, the targeted player decides how to resolve the attempt.

So, the player might decide that they don't like that instance of PvP, and so they can say "The attack misses. My character looks at you with eyebrows raised and asks what the hell you're doing."

Or they might decide they wanna go along with RPing an in game conflict, and so they say "Your attack takes me off guard and hits harder then you meant it to; It's a crit, and now I'm in shock. Reflexively, I cast sleep."

Or they might decide to resolve it as fate decides, and have dice roll as normal.



This way players are never required to sit by while other players decide what story their characters get to tell.

By empowering players to decide how to resolve PvP, you give them the freedom to tell stories that involve in-party conflict if they want to, or avoid it if they don't.

[suplee215]

Thank you all. Part of it is he's not that bad all the time until it matters. Only a few people say something about and when I ask questions or try to do a session 0 about what you will change or not change most of the group is just "it's ok". Until it's in the moment and even then it is a 40/60 split.

[Strangways]

I play only Adventurers League games, where PvP is flat-out prohibited. Based on your description of how your game works, I'm very glad that it's prohibited. As a player, I would have bailed on that game a long time ago. Actions like that at the table always lead to unpleasant tension among the players.

[Malifice]

Hello, I am a DM for a game and I am recently having problems. Yes, this is one of those thread and I realized that talking to them might be the only way to fix it (I have spoken many times) and that this is just my side of the story and so is inherently biased.
The game began at a local store that currently shut down but migrated to the house. The store was loose on rules and pvp was allowed by most dms and I continued that tradition as that is what the players were used to and what I began playing with. However, one player has a habit of getting into it way too often. When his martial characters (and while there are some differences to them, they all have very similar pushing the limits of chaotic neutral tendencies) are insulted he tends to respond by punching the PC who insulted him or trip them or whatever (he also has a tendency to mess with NPCs, which might be a related issue as he killed a baby they found because the church they were offering to take of it did not offer enough money and killed an NPC who fought alongside them because he wanted the NPC's girlfriend) and also doing pranks. His latest "prank" was to try to push an PC of a player who rubs a lot of the other players the wrong way into a 60 feet hole. Where everyone knew it was a 60 foot hole. luckily he failed his athletics check to do so but it led to the sorcerer then trying to shocking grasp the pusher, which was about to lead to pusher and his father (he had to make a new character recently and decided to make him the unknown show of another party member). This was going to lead to someone's death either this side or not. I do not like telling my players "no you cannot do this" or becoming an all powerful god who can retcon events or make things stop as in my mind that is bad story telling but also not only does the story keep getting derailed but other players are getting frustrated. Also while I am a DM I have put the PVP to a party vote several times just because I think it is a richard move to take away something that has always been a part of the game without everyone getting heard. While some players do not like pvp, most are ok with it in theory at least and so do not vote away the option. SO does anyone have any tips on how to tone down senseless PVP without taking it out of the game altogether?

CN.

Kills baby, randomly hurts people, frequent attempts at murder.

It's your fault as DM. Shut this **** down.

[Squiddish]

Unfortunately, even an outright ban on PvP is unlikely to stop two players who really want to beat each other up from doing so. They'll merely scheme and throw the other guy in first.

However, if you're getting more like slapstick or comedic PvP it makes more sense to just let it burn out.

[Quoz]

Well-founded party betrayal is a repeating theme in my group. It doesn't come up every campaign, but it is implicitly always on the table if character's objectives split too far apart. Sometimes it is a secretly evil player - demonic possession (ooc voluntary), recruited by a Sith Lord, ect. More often though it lies along the law/chaos axis. Characters headed in the same direction, but some have a strict code and others will do what is necessary without much regard to consequences. When some players cross a line and others aren't willing to cross, or if one player thinks the group is more a danger than whatever they are fighting against, we let it play out on the table and no hard feelings afterwards - but only if it makes sense, and never as 'just being a ****'.

Straight up PVP is for one shots. But sometimes, at some tables, a well played party betrayal can be a powerful and emotional tool for good role-playing.

[Malifice]

Unfortunately, even an outright ban on PvP is unlikely to stop two players who really want to beat each other up from doing so. They'll merely scheme and throw the other guy in first.


DM: ''Leave my table immediately. Dont let the door hit you on the way out. You were warned.''

Fixes it every time. Surving players... stop.

[GreyBlack]

Quick and dirty fix: next time it happens, ask for motivation. Change the character's alignment; he is obviously acting in a CE fashion if his first response to "I feel slighted" is "murder."

Have the NPCs run him out of town. He will earn a reputation for untrustworthiness as rumors swirl, leading to the group being refused contracts if he's involved.

Because that character isn't involved in the adventure, he will have less XP and gold than the other party members.

This will teach the character to either hide his intentions better or to shape his character up. Either way, win win.