Simple enough topic, do you allow pvp in your games?
Has it been allowed in games that you have seen?
Is there nonlethal duelling between pcs? Testing of characters.
Does it go further than this?
Does the dm you play with (or you) absolutely forbid it, or has it never really come up?
A curious beholder wants to know. Cheers.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is allowed in our games but usually discouraged because it distracts from the game. We usually run APs so for instance we are in Serpent Skull currently it is highly unlikely that any PVP will happen. Down the road we plan on Skull and Shackles and I expect there to be some PVP in that game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like playing a barbarian with a will save so low that every confusion spell has him guiltlessly beating the snot out of his fellow party members.
Outside of that I permit PvP as long as everyone is still having fun. When someone yells "enough" or the laughter turns to an awkward junior high dance vibe I end it quickly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would highly discourage it, but I wouldn't put any invisible force fields around the PCs.
When I GM, I usually start the campaign off with a disclaimer that the players should create cooperative PCs who are highly motivated to adventure. There's nothing worse than a party that's stuck with a PC who leaves everybody asking "Why do we hang around with this jerk, anyways?"
Simple enough topic, do you allow pvp in your games?
Yes, but it never happens, except in one evil campaign we did. LOTS of in-party kills there. I've threatened other character in the party.
Has it been allowed in games that you have seen?
Again, in the games I have played, it rarely comes up. We've never had to forbid it.
Is there nonlethal duelling between pcs? Testing of characters.
Did that once. My cleric with power attack and smite ability against the rogue. No armor, no weapons, no spells. I smote the hell out of him. He used feint and pulled off one or two sneak attacks, but he didn't stand a chance. :)
Does it go further than this?
Nope. If there's another evil game we'll see.
Does the dm you play with (or you) absolutely forbid it, or has it never really come up?
It has never been forbidden, as its never become a problem. We like to work together.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I discourage it although i wouldn't forbid it. I make it clear, that more often then not, if PVP is used to solve disagreements in game, that often lead into disagreements outside of the game, and eventually lead to the breakup of a gaming group.
Dueling I suppose is a different matter, if both players want to do that.
But what people often forget when they bring up the PVP angle is this:
Pathfinder simply isn't designed for PVP. It goes against the entire premise of a group of specialist working cooperatively risking their lives, and overcoming challenges together.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simple enough topic, do you allow pvp in your games?
Define "allow." I don't expressly forbid it, but I don't encourage it either. Sometimes the over-confident barbarian needs a good back stab to remind them that they aren't the only one that can do some damage.
Has it been allowed in games that you have seen?
I've been the GM for every game I've seen for the past 15 years. I have seen it twice in that entire time. Once, a newer player was adamant about getting the sparkly out of a treasure. A veteran character told him he could fight him for it. The new player was killed (yes actually killed) just because the vet wanted to show him what's what. I allowed it because it was, quite literally, the end of that character's first encounter, and we had just started a campaign. Rolling up a new character at that point was an important lesson in humility, and an important lesson about the reality of death in the campaign. After that nobody fought.
The second time was also over some loot. A fighter thought they saw the thief pocket something from a stash (failed the perception but made the sense motive) and accosted her about it. She continued to deny (Bluff) but the fighter already had a strong enough feeling that she was lying, so he cracked her with some non-lethal damage. Seemingly, again, to show her what's what. I allowed it, the rogue fessed up to the deed, and we moved on.
Is there nonlethal duelling between pcs? Testing of characters.
Does it go further than this? I think these all got answered by the previous answer.
Does the dm you play with (or you) absolutely forbid it, or has it never really come up? Again, I think these got answered by the previous answers.
My 2cp :)
I don't encourage it, but it happens. Often I force attack rolls for unarmed strikes to deal nonlethal damage, as one particular player of mine has a tendency to play... Let's call them "haughty and insufferable" characters, who are prone to slapping fellow party members when they don't get their way, and who are prone to receiving such abuse in return.
Hasn't happened yet, but they'll die eventually, and it'll likely be from provoking someone into killing them. Maybe another PC, maybe not.
I'd like to one day run a cooperative, friendly, and fully good-aligned group, but it seems like quite a few of my players like to try and be as evil as they can get away with in every game.
I would highly discourage it, but I wouldn't put any invisible force fields around the PCs.
I think this covers how I feel.
Have I seen PVP, yes. Has it ever gone well? Not that I have seen.
What I have done though is have a "bad dream" night where players could have their characters fight each other for fun. They even mixed characters from other past games and not in the "game". That way they could see what could happen and yet it was not going to have an impact on the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let the players decide. if one player is being a douche, the other players have a right to take it out on his character.
What I have done though is have a "bad dream" night where players could have their characters fight each other for fun. They even mixed characters from other past games and not in the "game". That way they could see what could happen and yet it was not going to have an impact on the game.
Oh I do something like this all the time. When we don't have enough time to run a real session but a couple members of the group still want to game. I even have a back story set up for them. A group of high level wizards and clerics want to be entertained. So they "teleport" (not the mechanical one but with these I'm hand-waving a lot of stuff anyway) the players to an arena and have them battle it out. Sometimes they teleport the PCs and then summon up some monsters and have them fight them. The PCs get no experience, no treasure, and if they die, the clerics resurrect them and after it's all over the wizards send them back right where they "picked them up."
I didn't mention this in relation to the OP because I was just thinking of actual campaigns, not just gaming sessions in general.
From a DM who has dealt with "PC vs. PC" situations before, there are some scenarios where it's okay and some scenarios that are NOT okay. If 2 PCs just want to to fight to test their characters in a friendly duel, that's fine (as long as it doesn't cut too much into game time, and the other PCs are fine with it and/or occupied with something else). I do enforce normal combat rules, however, so the players do have to be careful about not killing each other, and if they want to deal nonlethal damage they must do so per the rules (-4 to attack). And if they're out in the middle of nowhere, they have to think about healing afterward or continue the game with both of them in whatever condition the duel leaves them in. If they are in a large settlement, however, they can duel in an arena where magic is set up to prevent death and to heal the characters automatically after the duel. This discourages duels from taking place in he middle of an adventure, but I don't completely disallow it.
On the other hand, a situation where one PC is purposefully trying to kill another PC is usually NOT okay - especially when the hostility stems from a player angrily taking out his frustration on another player. That's when it's time to stop the game and mediate. The whole point of the game is to play together and have fun. Pathfinder is a cooperative game, not a boxing ring.
If a PC is trying to kill another PC because of pure role-play and NOT because of player hostility, THAT can be a gray area. If the PC is affected by something that is causing him to attack the other PCs, that's usually fine, unless it escalates to the players getting seriously angry. I tend to let the dice fall where they may and if it means bad stuff happens to the players, then so be it. I am also the type who rolls for NPCs in clear view in front of the players (GMs shouldn't be scared of dice).
Otherwise, I tend to enforce SOME degree of PC cooperation. If a PC just doesn't like another PC, that doesn't mean it's okay to attack them. If the PCs can't find SOME common ground to work together, then the game is moot anyway. If it's just 1 PC, I usually just straight up tell the player to find some way for the PC to cooperate, or it's not going to work. Even if the PC does so reluctantly, that's fine. Not liking other party members can actually result in some entertaining role-play, and that's great as long as they're still together when it's all said and done. If a PC is having trouble biting the bullet and cooperating, I try to make some suggestions to the player, such as "He's only doing this for his family back home, and knows that if he screws this up it's all over" or something similar.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Allowed it at first until it became disruptive to the game. Now i insist that characters cooperate. If i specifically say that there will be no PvP in my game, violators of this rule are punished in game by debilitating their character for a significant period of time.
|
It depends on your definition of pvp I suppose. I've stolen things from other characters before (swiped a ring of sustenance from a new character cause, well, I wanted it) but nothing that would be considered detrimental.
Even if the players in our group are playing an evil aligned character we have an understanding that you don't screw over your party members. There are plenty enough things in the world trying to kill you as it is, the party doesn't need to worry about each other as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've stolen things from other characters before (swiped a ring of sustenance from a new character cause, well, I wanted it) but nothing that would be considered detrimental.
I actually consider secretly undermining other characters to be WORSE than open conflict!
|
|
It depends on your definition of pvp I suppose. I've stolen things from other characters before (swiped a ring of sustenance from a new character cause, well, I wanted it) but nothing that would be considered detrimental.
Even if the players in our group are playing an evil aligned character we have an understanding that you don't screw over your party members. There are plenty enough things in the world trying to kill you as it is, the party doesn't need to worry about each other as well.
yeah because stealing their stuff isn't detrimental...
Unsanctioned PvP is not allowed in any game I run. Punishment is becoming a NPC. That said I do allow PvP when all players involved in the instance agree to it. It also almost never happens. But nothing ruins a game's fun faster than when one character targets another. So I keep a tight reign on it at all times.
Let the players decide. if one player is being a douche, the other players have a right to take it out on his character.
I certainly agree there.
Great stories people. Please share more.
Simple enough topic, do you allow pvp in your games?
I have no house rule against it. I also play PFS where it is absolutely forbidden.
Has it been allowed in games that you have seen?
Yes.
Is there nonlethal duelling between pcs? Testing of characters.
Yes.
Does it go further than this?
Yes.
Does the dm you play with (or you) absolutely forbid it, or has it never really come up?
Usually never comes up, as I tend not to play with sociopathic ass hats.
Last PvP in game I was involved in was the result of another player and myself entering the same gladiator tournament. We of course, faced each other in the final bout. Both of our character's honor would not allow us to back down or pull punches. I nearly killed the other character before they yielded.
Before that it was nonlethal combat to try to prevent the idiot gnome from pulling the Lever of Obvious Self-Destruction. He pulled it. We nearly died. There was another episode where a paladin destroyed a magic item that was coveted by the wizard in the party. Three PvP fights in about a decade all told. That doesn't include cases of the player not being in their right mind (charm, suggestion, domination, being replace by a doppelganger etc.)
|
|
yeah because stealing their stuff isn't detrimental...It depends on your definition of pvp I suppose. I've stolen things from other characters before (swiped a ring of sustenance from a new character cause, well, I wanted it) but nothing that would be considered detrimental.
Even if the players in our group are playing an evil aligned character we have an understanding that you don't screw over your party members. There are plenty enough things in the world trying to kill you as it is, the party doesn't need to worry about each other as well.
A ring of sustenance isn't going to make or break a character. It's not like I swiped his spell component pouch in the middle of combat. If a character is *that* reliant on a simple ring then I question their usefulness to begin with.
Were I going to run a standard campaign, I think I'd borrow a page from the Forgotten Realms, and require Adventuring Companies to have charters that are registered in Absalom. (You wouldn't have to go to Absalom to form an Adventuring Company, but the charter papers have to be filed in Absalom.) Members of the Adventuring Company would, as a standard requirement, be forbidden from making offensive actions designed to hurt, injure, maim, control, or incapacitate another member who is acting of his or her own free will. This isn't saying it can't be done -- but there would be consequences. If it happens a lot, your Charter might be revoked -- preventing you from taking adventuring jobs in most parts of the world.
With my current campaign idea, though, if the players have the energy and inclination to argue amongst themselves to the point that fists are swung, then it's time for another fight-just-to-survive encounter. If I do my job right, by the time the characters get to the point that they have the time and power for PVP, they should be a tight-knit group of brothers who will accept problems with another character as 'Oh, that's just Gerdorf, it's his way.'
PVP is fine as long as good reasons with appropriate cases can be made. and stealing items from party members counts as pvp. as does monster griefing.
a rogue better have a good reason for stealing the wizard's spellbook and i don't let "but i'm a rogue" fly.
the hell knight better have a reason to attack the Chaotic Neutral fighter than "dave's character is a bandit. he must be punished." when player character combat occurs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
yeah because stealing their stuff isn't detrimental...
The rogue in a campaign years ago swiped my paladin's holy symbol as a prank. There was some note-passing with the DM going on, I think, which can grate my nerves too. Anyway, soon thereafter, before I noticed it was gone, we are trapped in a room with a mob of level draining undead. The cleric was almost anhialated the first round. Even my meager turn undead would have made a difference, but I had no holy symbol to use. 4 of the 6 party members died..
Were I going to run a standard campaign, I think I'd borrow a page from the Forgotten Realms, and require Adventuring Companies to have charters that are registered in Absalom. (You wouldn't have to go to Absalom to form an Adventuring Company, but the charter papers have to be filed in Absalom.) Members of the Adventuring Company would, as a standard requirement, be forbidden from making offensive actions designed to hurt, injure, maim, control, or incapacitate another member who is acting of his or her own free will. This isn't saying it can't be done -- but there would be consequences. If it happens a lot, your Charter might be revoked -- preventing you from taking adventuring jobs in most parts of the world.
With my current campaign idea, though, if the players have the energy and inclination to argue amongst themselves to the point that fists are swung, then it's time for another fight-just-to-survive encounter. If I do my job right, by the time the characters get to the point that they have the time and power for PVP, they should be a tight-knit group of brothers who will accept problems with another character as 'Oh, that's just Gerdorf, it's his way.'
This is sorry to say, an awful idea. Seen the idea that you must be registered with all these binding contracts, applied on a party. It was ridiculous, the dm was not objective and his lawful attitude was leaking through.
|
|
A ring of sustenance isn't going to make or break a character. It's not like I swiped his spell component pouch in the middle of combat. If a character is *that* reliant on a simple ring then I question their usefulness to begin with.yeah because stealing their stuff isn't detrimental...It depends on your definition of pvp I suppose. I've stolen things from other characters before (swiped a ring of sustenance from a new character cause, well, I wanted it) but nothing that would be considered detrimental.
Even if the players in our group are playing an evil aligned character we have an understanding that you don't screw over your party members. There are plenty enough things in the world trying to kill you as it is, the party doesn't need to worry about each other as well.
Buddy, if your character did that to my character, my character would beat yours within an inch of death, and then prevent him from being healed magically. The point is you stole from another PC. That is a big no-no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rogue in a campaign years ago swiped my paladin's holy symbol as a prank. There was some note-passing with the DM going on, I think, which can grate my nerves too. Anyway, soon thereafter, before I noticed it was gone, we are trapped in a room with a mob of level draining undead. The cleric was almost anhialated the first round. Even my meager turn undead would have made a difference, but I had no holy symbol to use. 4 of the 6 party members died..
That is an interesting story. Was the thief one of the dead?
Either way, harsh payment for a "prank".
As a DM I forbid conflicting alignments for the PCs. I rarely allow Neutral PCs and never Evil ones. So no PvP ever happens on my table.
Yeah stealing IS PvP... You would have lost your character in my game.
Even if they were a rogue and an archetypal thief?
Immediate your character is out of the game is so harsh, I almost don't believe it. Almost.
|
Not banned, but highly discouraged and restricted.
A character acting against other party members under a number of circumstances has happened, and it's usually accepted. Life is hard, but if you're an adventurer, it's harder.
Sometimes, different opinions can only be settled via a duel, and that leaves no hard feelings.
A character acting against other party members in a direct/violent manner or through subterfuge/sabotage/theft for selfish reasons - greed, haughtiness, enforcing one's opinion using force or violence, etc. - is considered the path of the enemy, regardless of alignment or class choice.
Your companions are your life savers, not resources to be abused.
Usually a player that acts that way is given a communal lecture about behaviour, some harsh treatment by other PCs, and eventually (rare) the player is not invited at the table any longer.
Disruptive play is not considered enjoyable or productive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tell my players that I strongly dislike evil/obnoxious PCs. That precludes most PvP by default. I also tell my players that if they want PvP I will adjudicate the fight, but when complete I will not be running the game anymore; someone else has to take over.
Many years ago I played in a game where the DM •encouraged• PvP. It was so bad that players would make 'teams' to band together for when the inter-party strife started. Yes, many years ago. I never had fun at that table. =/
GNOME
We get so invested in our characters, to be betrayed like that leaves big wounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without them it can be avoided a fair bit, but sometimes conflict arises without people being pure dicks. We can all get jealous, stroppy or offended, or get into a position where it makes sense to roll those d20s, at YOU!
Even if they were a rogue and an archetypal thief?
Immediate your character is out of the game is so harsh, I almost don't believe it. Almost.
There is nothing wrong with rogue archetypes.
I am just keeping it fun for everyone. If you want to steal someone's magic ring then get their permission first or the Iron Heel of the GMs High Heeled Boots will crush you.You can have fun being all thiefy at the NPCs. I don't mind. But I hate it when someone thinks it's fun to ruin some other player's good time.
|
|
Without them it can be avoided a fair bit, but sometimes conflict arises without people being pure dicks. We can all get jealous, stroppy or offended, or get into a position where it makes sense to roll those d20s, at YOU!
My party argues a lot. No matter what the campaign is. Part of the role play fun for us is having such different personalities come together and solve mysteries. We enjoy the discussions even though sometimes they can get ugly. With that said 99% of the time it can be resolved without actually attacking one another. A poster earlier in this thread had the right of it that a character is more likely to leave the party then try and murder them. Since I am struggling to understand could you further explain a situation where a character throws fireballs at his friends?
I've got a few, most of these feature one dick though, ha ha ha.
Caster keeps hitting knight with his spells, not so much damage, but really frustrating. Knights says stahhhp. Caster does not. Knight challenges caster to the pain, death if he gets unlucky. Caster accepts, blats with spells, they are saved, multiple limb breaks ensue.
Caster acts all haughty and proud, playing that character it would seem. Cowardly, refuses to back up the party, later they are struck for chunks of damage post combat. Not a duel.
Pally thinks the fighter/barb is turning to heresy. Searches the heretic at sword point for unholy symbol.
New monk kicks drunken monk awake. Drunken monk thrashes the new monk for his impertinence.
My favourite though. Cocky caster and barb in a combat, caster hits the barb in the back for a lot of damage. Doesn't apologise or placate barb's warrior spirit. Combat ends? Barb rages, hunts down the caster (through field and barn) pierces them with a harpoon and bashes them into unconsciousness.
Necromancer caster tries to play the politics game, assassinates npc to move up in the world. Arrested with force. Party splits in support or condemnation. Later tries to blast a pc and guards with magic, but is in an antimagic area (mens rea, no actus reas this time). Attacks a pc with negative energy while being marched to his execution. Is killed in the street and then hung.
The casters in these stories are all different characters.
Some are dicks, some are playing their characters, some are responding to offenses and slights.