Player versus player combat


Gamer Life General Discussion


Has this ever been a device in your games? How/why was it handled?


No, the GM when starting the game says, "there will be no PvP, you're a team working together."


Yes, with certain players. My hard and fast rule is that character v character conflict shall not lead to player v player conflict. Any additional stipulations are dependant on the players for that game.

Generally it is best to avoid this, unless you have a very solid handle on the players' tolerance level for it. If hurt feelings are a possible result from the pc death that is a possible result, best to skip it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Last time we had player on player combat in our game, I had to call the cops.

It's not a gaming device I would encourage.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

The final battle of Reign of Winter nearly came down to player verus player combat. My Winter Oracle was conflicted and nearly sided with the witch queen in preference of eternal snow. I discussed it with the group beforehand, and ultimately decided that the loyalty to the party was greater than the lure of his ideal world.


Tried it once. Didn't work. Some people are too competitive and get all whiny/angry when they lose. The munchhkin of the group can't separate in character conflict from player conflict so...yeah. It doesn't happen anymore.


Player vs Player combat is the slippery slope to derailed campaigns, hurt feelings, retaliation characters and wasted session time.

We almost had an inter party conflict last session. Two people who won't change their minds and find themselves backed into a corner, story and roleplay wise.

Sometimes you have to remember to step back and ask does this help the game or hurt it?


The finale of our Way of the Wicked campaign nearly ended that way, as a devil made an offer that myself and another PC couldn't take IC (it literally defied our whole motivation) and three other characters were devout enough to Asmodeus and insisted we follow his orders. Fortunately we talked it over and they decided to work with us...before I Dominated all three into slavery.

Kitsune Lich Compulsion Master - one way or another, you will obey.

Thankfully, we're all mature enough that we could have had the fight and it would have been fine, but it's not like that for a lot of folks.


During downtime I'm throwing in a gladiatory style tournament for our people that don't have any downtime skills such as crafting or profession. That is something I've seen done and the players enjoy the bragging rights of winning the fights. Outside of that I have a rule when building characters, which is that if you build a character that conflicts with the rest of the party, they will be killed off before it becomes an issue.


We've had some PvP as exhibition match arena-type stuff in a couple games, which tended towards light-hearted and fun competitive play.

We've also had a couple light-hearted roleplaying sessions that featured "PvP". One incredibly memorable session occurred when the party decided that our dhampir bard (who was keeping his lineage secret) was actually a werewolf! It explained everything, we decided.

We went about "proving" this by our rogue purchasing a silver dagger and sneak attacking him.

"See!? The silver dagger injured you! You *ARE* a werewolf!"

Tone is everything. If everyone at the table is laughing, there's no problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a PVP bout is fought to the Star Trek fight music from Kirk vs Spock, no one can ever get angry. Ever.


We had a large fight at the end of our Rise of the Runelords game with one of our party characters:

Spoiler:

The Sorcerer decided he wanted to be the new Runelord of Greed (and was displaying tendencies throughout the game), so he gave us the option to leave the throne with everything there or face certain death.

We (the scraps of the party) decided that it was something that couldn't be tolerated so the Fighter and the Rogue (who was being framed as the villain by the Sorcerer) made quick amends (we originally started the campaign with just us two) and took out the threat as fast as possible.

In game it was fantastic as it was all planned between the GM and the Sorcerer behind the scenes, but what made it really work was that we decided as a group that PvP would be allowed under circumstances that would increase everyone's enjoyment. This became an extremely memorable combat and bookend to the game, ending right where it began (as most of the treasure was thrown away to taunt him) with the two who unwittingly became allies.

However, I've also been on the bad end of a PvP conflict where we lost a friend who went a little ballistic and started attacking us out of game on the states of people's moral character. His ingame character did something against a high ranking Commander in martial controlled Lastwall and our Paladin had to restrain him out of principle (nonlethally) until he apologized or chose community service at a later date (fixing swords, gathering firewood, etc). He decided against both options and started going berserk in and out of game and pretty much broke the door on the way out in a tantrum fit because he 'couldn't do what he wanted'. The worst part was we tried to explain (in and out of character) that if the Paladin didn't obey in Lastwall it would be mutiny and that the player would have to try to restrain him nonlethally if he were to remain in the military ranks. He explained what he would do and even gave many other ways out, but the other player didn't want to hear it.

Another time after in Reign of Winter we had a conflict after saving a small town (very early on) and we were going to punish the evil doers (they hung people up from their ankles until they froze to death) by doing the same to them and proving as an example that people shouldn't fear the Witches. One LG party member (and player) didn't agree (2/5 are CG Milani worshippers) so I told everyone to take a step back OOC and discuss what would happen if it did come to blows. We had a good discussion as to what everyone was going to expect if this 'justice' happened and how people would react.

Sure it did take us out of it for a good 10 minutes, but it allowed us to continue the campaign and our characters in a way that wasn't going to cause anguish to the people playing them. In the end the LG guy decided he was just going to shift a little over to NG and let it slide. He later admitted it was his first time roleplaying and really getting into character despite his years of gaming as more of a tactical medium; so it was good that it didn't ruin the experience of getting into character for him as he wasn't sure how best to maintain his characters actions prior and justify stuff so that it didn't break verisimilitude for all the rest of us.

tl;dr Communication and maturity is required.


This is something that I deal with constantly. I accept it as a DM because it is a part of the dynamic of the realm. I do stress that I want them to work together but in the grand scheme of things, we are talking about sentient beings with the their own free will. I will mitigate the conflict generally. when Dming you don't always have the ability to hear everything going on. If its a legitimate issue between characters then I will allow it, but keep in mind that the majority of our group has played together for the better part of 18 years.


Interesting. ..


If the players want a game where they can act against one another, so long as everyone agrees on that before the game starts, I allow for that.

I have yet to GM a game where the player want that, and I have been GMing RPGs since 1984. So I have always had players that self-police in that regard.

Even with the evil party I am currently GMing on an AP, they are united in their cause and do not target one another.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

I would say PvP is super rare in my current group - it has to be justified by the ongoing development of the characters. "To the death" PvP is almost never cool unless it's at the climax of a campaign, and telegraphed well in advance. Even then it can lead to hurt feelings and ruin people's fun. Be very careful and make sure the entire group is okay with it before you go down this road.

Scarab Sages

Our PvP started out as PvGroup.

While playing AD&D, one player, playing the only cleric, withheld cures from the group. He decided he wanted to get paid for his spell use. So the fighters refused to fight the next monster unless they got paid beforehand.

A fighter withholds a piece of a map he had found from the group. The thief sees him do this, so he pick-pockets it, reads it, and puts it back. The player knows this, of course, and runs a thief in the next game.

In the new game, the thief (who was the fighter in the previous game) fumbles his roll to pick-pockets the fighter (who was the thief in the previous game). The group, taking lessons from a Dragon Magazine cartoon, held the thief by his ankles and shook him out.

After this, the group decided that it was a law of the Universe that you can not steal from PCs.


Another important definition I use, if the rogue can use his skills to steal from other party members and the sorcorer can his his spells to trick party members, it is only fair for the barbarian to use what he has on party members. If you open the PvP door, it is okay for Smashy McBreakhead to come through it with his greataxe.


Java Man wrote:
Another important definition I use, if the rogue can use his skills to steal from other party members and the sorcorer can his his spells to trick party members, it is only fair for the barbarian to use what he has on party members. If you open the PvP door, it is okay for Smashy McBreakhead to come through it with his greataxe.

Definitely agreed on that point. Banning PvP also means banning adversarial behavior and things that would pretty much require PvP actions out of the characters. I've seen jerk players use no PvP rules to get away with acting like a!&&~#+s and avoiding the logical consequences of said behavior (granted, those sorts of players usually don't get invited back).

As for the broader issue ... PvP can be fun, but it's generally something you want to make sure everyone at the table is both interested in and mature enough to handle. I've had one or two campaigns that had some fun with carefully measured and controlled PvP, but just like Ravingdork I've actually been in a Pathfinder game that ended with the cops getting called in.


Only one real PvP for me, during a Ravenloft game. One of the other party members, a wanna be paladin in the form of a cleric (LG, greatsword and shield wielding cleric, Monkey Grip, bah!) came into possession of an old dagger, one which radiated evil, but refused to get rid of it. Once the party hits a village, a mysterious figure hands the cleric a ruby, one the fits RIGHT in the empty space in the daggers pommel. Entire party asks him to HOLY GODS! DO NOT PUT THOSE TOGETHER!

Long story short, cleric does it anyway, and one by one kills us all (GM fiat kill, but we were cool with that, the adventure it caused was awesome) with the cursed soul eating dagger. This traps us in the ruby (clearly a soul gem type deal), we fight and strive to get out, in the end, my PC a ranger/fighter (who was paranoid that he was a wererat, and gave people silver weapons to "kill me if I get any more hairy or grow a rat tail), gets fed up with the cleric (who killed himself with the dagger last, sealing us IN), when he refused to aid our escape and almost gets us permanently stuck in the soul gem.

What did my PC do, challenged him to a fight, and beat him unconscious with a chair leg, and left him in the soul gem, and he didn't even scratch me with that silly sword of his. (the clerics player was also missing every other session, and generally dragging the game down by not giving a crap, so everyone, GM included, was glad that I won, and that he quit)


PvP, when not a starting premise, can kill a group.

In a recent game, when another started PvP against my character, it made the game NO FUN AT ALL for me. Had the GM not stepped in, I would probably have left the game.

If agreed to ahead of time, and openly in front of everyone, it can be fun. Any other way is going to hurt someone.

/cevah

Owner - Gator Games & Hobby

I only allow character vs. character with the other player's consent.

Sovereign Court

The only time I allowed it was in a short who-dunnit game where one of the players did it. (significant campaign houserules - like no divination spells) He got himself in on the investigation, and it was pretty obvious it was him aside from his messing with the evidence and meta-knowledge that it COULDN'T be him. Because... he's a PC! In the end when they were about to figure it out, he separated them and killed them.

But... the campaign was supposed to end there. That was the climax one way or the other. Even then, there was a bit of grumpiness.

In a normal campaign? No. Definitely not.


As I GM I do not allow PvP combat. As a player I leave the game if it happens.

Inter-character conflict on a verbal level is fine with me and can make the game more interesting.


The few times it has come up in games I have played and the one instance in the game I am running, it was never to the death or because of character conflict. It was always more of a sparing/training kind of thing.

That's actually how I taught a couple of new players how combat worked. One of the new players spared with another player. It role played rather nicely since the experienced player was playing a younger character than everyone else. So it was a size the young character up kind of thing.


Yes but with ground rules,
PBP
9/10 game NO PVP at all ever.

but for that 1/10 games where the GM and players must agree to do PvP

1: GM and players must agree that it fits the game play and setting/PCs.
2: GM and players must agree that the die set the outcome.
3: GM and players must agree to make this only PC vs PC and not in fact player vs player.

Table Top

1: All PvP must be done Nude and out doors in a public place, while covered on ants and honey, then after all players and GM must have a group hug.

that tends to stop PvP
:)


Non-lethal PvP like grappling and punching should be enough for most player conflict scenarios.


If your player really want to turn one into a doppelganger and let them have at it you can write it in to the plot or as a side adventure.


I've had character vs. character come up a few times, for in-game reasons.

Generally it is not a good idea unless it explicitly defined as part of the games expectations, especially if a character ends up dying.

I've had player vs. player come up once. His wife almost killed both of us after we went after each other with the mace and sword he had mounted on his wall. Her rubber tree did not survive having a 300lbs man land on top of it.


My normal (non-PFS) gaming groups defaults to PvP active unless otherwise specified, but it rarely comes up. Many of us have been gaming together for 20+ years at this point, so it's generally for laughs or verisimilitude of rp, not because we're playing Grimshiv McMurdersFaces who can't take a joke / criticism.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Player versus player combat All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion