|
I am just curious as to what people think about player vs. player conflict within a game when both players are acting in character.
On the same note, what is the general consensus on one player using an ability to impose their will on another character and force them to take actions they would not otherwise take? Even if this is something that would be "in character."
I allow characters to fight in game as long as it is without question something that is viable for their characters (as they have played them) to do. Outside of this scenario, I do not allow direct use of abilities that would intentionally harm another character (AoE attacks hitting another player or other actions similar in effect during combat are allowable, etc...) or cause them to lose control of their character for any period of time.
I outright ban it. I've seen too many games go down hill when players can attack other players.
As our DM says, "Shots do not hurt other players." We do also make situational exceptions, such as AoEs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I try to discourage PvP, because in my experience it either starts with or quickly degenerates to players being d***s to one another, and the idea of the game is to have fun. Fun does not happen when someone is trying to spoil your game.
As to mind control, NOTHING annoys a player more than having their sole representative in the game taken off them. You basically make one player a mere observer as they get s****ed over.
one time in 3.5 we had a guy play a Hellfire Warlock (still not sure how he got it approved....) and he was so OP that he HAD to be a bad guy and we spent the rest of our 3.5 careers building characters around the idea of "could i kill lesko?"
it made it kinda fun going into it knowing that we were fighting each other
we also had a DM throw our characters into a Hunger Games situation where the last man standing won
after the campaign we all got rezzed with no penalties
another occasion we had a PC who was playing what he wanted to be a CE character (and the DM HATED it) he decided to do something that in-story made him the bad guy (put a geass on him) so we had to hunt down and defeat one of our own
later he got turned into a recurring NPC in our campaigns and almost had a "team rocket blasting off again" feel to it, it was kinda fun
so it all depends on the GM and how he handles it
but sometimes players who tick off the rest of the group need to be put in check since he wont listen to the DM and its no fun when you dont get to play your character and you have to do what the DM tells you
so from experience, if the player wants to sect off and oppose the group, let him, and he will get put in his place
|
PvP doesn't really come up in our games; the players tend to back off before it comes to that. Or if things escalate to a fight, the other players tend to intervene to prevent dire consequences, and everyone tries to pull their punches as much as possible. This isn't a rule; it's just what we all do.
As for social abilities and such: a long-standing rule across a dozen of our campaigns is that social skills can't tell PCs what to do, believe or feel. The player is always free to make up his own mind. The GM can't do it, and other PCs can't do it.
Magical mind control is a different case though, although even that's limited. If you Charm another PC, that player is still running the PC, but within the parameters of the Charm; same with Dominate Person. It happens very rarely though.
That doesn't mean all the PCs like each other; we run a lot of Vampire: the Masquerade campaigns, and the PC vampires occasionally fly into blood-rages and assault each other, but so far never with lethal consequences. We tend to play around that: if your PC is insanely angry at the other guy, he'll smack him around, push him into walls and furniture and do some damage, all that, but in a way that RPs the anger and frustration, not aiming to do maximum (deadly) damage. Enough to give a good scare and vent some aggression, but without PC deaths.
And this works pretty well for us.
As for social abilities and such: a long-standing rule across a dozen of our campaigns is that social skills can't tell PCs what to do, believe or feel. The player is always free to make up his own mind. The GM can't do it, and other PCs can't do it.
i disagree with this to an extent
its the GM promoting meta game, as my character should have to convince his character what to do, not me convincing himexample, my paladin with a +9 diplomacy check shouldn't have to 'forget' that he can do that and NOT be able to tell my summoner (with a -1 WIS modifier) what the best plan for going into a cave is
im not saying that one player should be able to control the other players, but they shouldnt be able to just ignore him when its convenient for them,
especially in situations where i tell someone not to steal something or not to kill someone
so long as its reasonable, social skills, and respecting your characters stats should matter when communicating with other players, at least i feel
obviously if you abuse it, its a problem
In our game last night we had a situation where one player was affected by Charm Person. Since our party is still fairly new to each other (haven't formed the same inter-party bond that you develop after 6 months of in game time together) and the Character was Evil, it was completely "something he would normally do" to attack one of his own companions.
On top of that, because he has (in character) been super shifty and continuously obfuscating his abilities (insisting that he's just a "gem merchant" even though he was commissioned by the king to join the party and was seen being pretty handy in combat), it was completely reasonable to believe that he had betrayed us and was working to help our enemy. This led to about 4 rounds of two players whaling on each other.
We all made good decisions in character, and once the cleric explained that he had been enchanted, apologies were exchanged and no harm was done. If you're players are mature and talk out their reasoning out of character then this kind of conflict is ok.
Even with characters that are diametrically opposed (mine is NG and his NE) as long as you don't jump in to immediately trying to murder each other (even a Paladin shouldn't do that) and you allow the interpersonal tension to build organically then a big confrontation between party members shouldn't be a problem. Your players just have to be mature enough to accept the in-game consequences for their in-game actions.
By consensus, all of my recent groups have banned PvP entirely. Of the dozens of times I've seen it done over many game systems, many play groups, and many years of playing, I've never seen it enhance a game. I have, however, seen it ruin a few. If you want to play PvP, join your local LARP group or buy an MMO.
There are two things PvP aggressors forget when they use "my character would do it" as an excuse. First, the characters aren't the ones who chose to spend their Tuesday evening playing a game - the players are. The players in a tabletop RPG chose a small-group collaborative recreational activity, and it's important that all of the players have fun.
Second, you want characters to act realistically? Fine, nobody would put up with your crap. Imagine the life of an adventurer, out in the wild, assaulted daily by terrible foes, trusting your companions to take shifts watching over the group at night when you're vulnerable - what would an adventuring party do if a companion turned on them? Likely the aggressor would be killed on the spot, but at the very least he would be forced to leave the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.... Since our party is still fairly new to each other (haven't formed the same inter-party bond that you develop after 6 months of in game time together) ....
This would be why character generation time is more than "put numbers on page time". In my group, if you haven't come up with a reason why your character is willing to put your life in the hands of the other members of this party... you aren't done making a character yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who picked out that personality for their character? They did. It’s an old bad excuse “Well, my PC is CN and had a bad childhood so of course he acts like a Richard”. Umm, no- *YOU* picked his alignment and drew up his background.
Don’t allow PvP, and don’t try to control it IC. Stop it right now, in the bud, by sting down with your players, and talking with them like adults.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Dude you're being a richard"
"I'm not being a richard! My character is a richard. I'm just playing in character"
"Dude, you're a richard for choosing to play a character who is a richard."
Heh, nice Vincent.
I have rarely had to deal with PC vs PC conflict. When I have had to deal with it (either as GM or as party leader) I've taken a very direct and decisive position. As the GM I simply tell the players that if they want to do PvP they need to find another GM because I don't want to GM an arena.
As the party leader I decide which player is being a jerk and my character will tell his character that if he can't play nice, he can either leave voluntarily or he can go out feet first.
It's out of the player's hands. You can only blame their Creative Muse.
I am just curious as to what people think about player vs. player conflict within a game when both players are acting in character.
I have seen this happen a couple times, and in my experience it has never worked out. Players, even adults, simply cannot see an attack on their character as anything other than an attack on themselves. The player who loses the PvP conflict is always left hurt and upset, both with the other player, and possibly with the entire group for allowing it to happen.
I strongly recommend disallowing it, or at the very least strongly discouraging it.
"Dude you're being a richard"
"I'm not being a richard! My character is a richard. I'm just playing in character"
"Dude, you're a richard for choosing to play a character who is a richard."
This is soooo true....
|
|
I have run a game in which player vs player conflict was encouraged. This took place in the Werewolf: The Apocalypse setting in which they could fight to become "alphas" of their pack in which I home ruled several bonuses and abilities linked to that status. There were of course rules defining when, where, and how a challenge could be issued. I think it gives credit to the group that this was not a common challenge, and the few times it did happen, everyone had a great time with it. Even those that did not participate would RP their character cheering on, or sneakily assisting their favorite in that particular combat.
I don't think I could pull so,etching like this off with my current game group, because as Lord Pendragon said, I can see several members of the group taking great offense or building an uber character simply for the purposes of ensuring a win every time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I outright ban it. I've seen too many games go down hill when players can attack other players.
Same here.
Allow aoe's to hurt other players, no one suddenly becomes immune because an ally was careless with a fireball.
Allow pvp. As the neutral dm, it isn't my place to tell the players what to do or restrict what they want to do.
Allow fumbles that can hit or crit allies. Very rare though, memorable when it does happen.
Some situations that dragged on for weeks could have been ended far quicker with some pvp, so I am not going to ban it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a richness and depth to the story that would be missed if players didn't (in-character) argue, and once in a while come to blows with each other. Anything worth fighting for (the quest, the goal, the story) is worth passionately believing in. Thus players who really play their character's personality, alignment, personna are likely to butt-heads with each other from time to time. As long as this makes sense from a character and story perspective, and so long as the heated debate or brawl is relevant to the story, it tends to become an important part of any campaign. Sometimes great adventuring groups are forged upon the disputes they have with each other, like steel is tested in fire. With each incident, once attacks are being made, the GM must provide a fair opportunity for combatants to roll for initiative. Provided the GM remains neutral, and gives every benefit of fair play, and uses the NPCs, setting, or his own calm composure to moderate this player v. player conflict, the results usually return to equilibrium, and each of the PCs learns to understand the other. This happens all the time in movies where great heros sqabble before strengthening their teamwork resolve (The Avengers is a particularly recent example).
I stress also, that the brief nod of the referee, in this case the GM, helps to send the clear message that he will not tollerate bad outcomes. Typically, one player begins excitedly by staying they clober so-and-so over the head with such and such, then do the action that the other player was previously preventing. A clear signal and tone is set when the GM says, "Hold it right there. I want an initiative roll from each of you." This speaks volumes and must be done before commenting whether the player will succeed or not in his intended act. This action on the part of the GM begins a fair and governed match and clearly points out that 1) you may not get what you want, it depends on the dice and 2) this player v. player action will be regulated by me and follow the game rules. I have found, that without breaking the spirit of the roleplay moment, the GM can communicate a willingness to honor character freedoms within the context of the game, provided the parties still know the GM maintains the authority to judge the event. Players value this freedom, and once the GM allows this to occur a time or two, it tends to never happen again in a particular campaign.
A critical event occurs when it becomes more than just battle and more than just brawl. The intention of one player to kill the other PC outright is something that can ruin a campaign, upset the group dynamic, and potentially ruin the game experience for 1 or more players. Thus, if this occurs more than once every few years of real time, the onus is on the GM to improve the context of his campaign and the story glue that binds the party together. That is, if player v. player conflict occurs too often, the fault lies not with the players but with the expectations the GM has set about the nature of the adventuring group within his realm, and should seek out the elements of story that were insufficient to bind the group more cohesively together. Only after the GM has re-examined his own story machinations, can he look to finding other players who will not trash his campaign with petty in-fighting. To conclude then, in-fighting has a place sparingly and should be executed fairly with initiative rolls and other adherances somewhat magnified due to the importance of the loss of a player character, and the potential death of a PC at the hands of another player should be viewed by everyone as a serious event capable of tipping over the fun, the story, and the campaign.
Good call, and on the avengers reference. Pirates of the caribbean and the early conflicts would be another one.
This is an interesting discussion, and I've been meaning to practice a bit with Survey Monkey, so I made a survey on this topic. Please fill out the survey, and please only one time. I'll post the results in this thread.
Hooray, I have some answers already!
This is an interesting discussion, and I've been meaning to practice a bit with Survey Monkey, so I made a survey on this topic. Please fill out the survey, and please only one time. I'll post the results in this thread.
Your survey has no space for "none".
So, the most useful PvP that occurred in a game...
Problem:
A PC whose modus operandi included trying to pull off crimes against any NPC we encountered that were (a) badly-planned, (b) poorly-executed and, (c) horribly-timed. Often resulting in dragging the entire party into fights no one wanted to have, or to have to waste the combat time upon.
My solution:
My character poisoned this fellow's character with a paralytic, and used a scroll of geas/quest (which I bought out of pocket for the purpose after it became apparent that remonstration was a useless tactic) to forbid him to engage in any criminal activity without notifying the rest of us of his intent and seeking counsel on timing and methodologies.
So, yeah, it was PvP... but it worked out that time, with that group in that game. YMMV.
Was I having badwrongfun?
Well, yes, it did, but you were lucky and note "and get back at my character (partly done)." This is what happens when you try to solve a OOC problem IC. Sure, you can kill/geas or whatever a disruptive PC, but it doesn't stop the PLAYER from being disruptive.
What works is sitting down like adults and discussing the issue.
I can think of three times that I've been in heavy PvP conflicts.
The First was back in College. Someone who didn't GM or play in our group much decided to GM and run an all evil campaign, midlevel (1st or 2nd ed). We were assembled by a King type, and before we get the hint of what the job is, one of the Melee Types (playing a Cavalier-ish attitude) started verbally sparring with one of the other Melee types, a third jumps in and its a 2 on 1 fight. The Cleric & Wizard (of which I was one) realizing the Campaign is over before it starts, started to cast AoE spells into the Fray, because we wanted to at least do something before the end ;-) Overall bad concept with little-no reason for cohesion and a few "needing to grow up" types in the group (and no, I'm not excluding myself from that).
The Second was a couple of years ago. The Campaign was set up in an Eberron-esque tech world that included a "TV System" based on Magic. We were a Trouble Shooter type group that was burned (like Burn Notice). We were, as a group trying to redeem ourselves while our public personas were Anti-Human Terrorists. I was the lone Human in the group. We had a couple of Social Encounters to try to get out of our Jam that our Hot Headed Barbarian decided to Charge/Kill instead of talking, so when one of these came up and a Close Friend from my character's Childhood came up, and he was about to charge, I asked the GM for a Sidebar. Basically, my character was being forced to choose between the people he was currently fighting with and being called a traitor to his own race, or saving his childhood friend and redemption, we chatting for a minute, and I explained I can't see PvP not happening, and he said, ok and understood. So my character attacked the Barbarian as he charged, and sided on the NPC side for the fight, and was able to escape with the other NPCs (through Teleport type magic). My character became an NPC at that point (so I had to bring a new character in) and actually became one of the BBGs of the Campaign. After the incident, I did talk to the other players and explained why he did what he did and no one felt I shouldn't have done what I did.
The third resulted from my character being Cursed (3 different ways). I forget the exact how, but the Curses were ripped from my body and embodied in physical form. But it also ripped a couple of potent benefits my character had, and I wasn't ready to let them all go (if I could have cherry picked, sure). One of the other PCs was close to killing it, so I laid into him. Sadly the campaign ended because the GM moved shortly after that, so we were never able to resolve the situation fully (we basically ignored it to do the final gaming session). It would have been interesting to see how it would have fallen, because the character who mine had attacked, was not a party favorite. Since we started the new campaign (same group, one of the other players is now GM), there's been no carry over of resentment from that.
So theres a good example of the Ugly, the Good and the Eh. Do I think a Mature (Attitude not age) group can handle the occasional PvP situations well? Yes. Do I think that rampant PvP can be handled in any group for long? No.
i think the point of any game is to have fun and unless you are playing an arena one shot or something there is no fun getting killed by another character nor is it good to spoil the fun of someone else by killing their character. Pathfinder specifically and role paying in general is a team game where everyone works together to overcome obstacles and have fun playing together. Now conflict between players where players disagree and etc is ok but outright PVP is the antithesis of good role-playing because of the team element to the game. I hate PvP with a passion and i would rather just walk from a game before i do it.
Well, a char of mine duelled and easily defeated another pc after he kept hitting mine with area of effect spells. The duel left his char broken and ruined and in need of a lot of healing. That was a lot of fun!
He took enjoyment from hurting my char, so I took enjoyment from hurting his, ahhh, balance restored.
Got to stay impartial, it can really sap morale for a dm to say, no, you can't do this, this or this.
I thought this was 'merica! That we were controlling our npcs you know?
|
|
Hmm, I just realized I made a mistake in the survey; I've killed a fellow PC once, although it was sort of an accident. He was possessed and trying to exit the disease/possession quarantine area, which I'd said before I wouldn't allow anyone to do without thorough examination. So I shot him (elf archer) and got maximum damage, putting him at -10.
I felt really bad about it, although I wouldn't have done it differently.
It's happened in my games, but when it has, they've never expressed a desire to use lethal force. The characters generally trust and like eachother before long, and don't want to see eachother dead.
On the topic of Diplomacy rolls, I've ruled that Diplomacy checks can never convince a character to personally do something they would not do, just get them to back off. They can't convince the paladin PC to torture someone, but Diplomacy can get him to leave instead of stopping them.
Your survey has no space for "none".This is an interesting discussion, and I've been meaning to practice a bit with Survey Monkey, so I made a survey on this topic. Please fill out the survey, and please only one time. I'll post the results in this thread.
I'm sorry, for which question? I thought I included "none" or "other" on all of the required questions.
(15 responses so far, a great start. Thanks everyone!)
I outright ban it. I've seen too many games go down hill when players can attack other players.As a question of curiosity on the matter (actually, addressed to anyone who outright bans PvP in their games) how do you deal with the actions not covered under that ban (i.e. actions against NPCs) but which are the actions which other characters would consider PvP to be the only fitting response?
For example (just to pose an extreme hypothetical) the party is chasing the bounty on a criminal, and one party member tells the GM they're going to do something nasty, like torturing the fugitive's innocent wife to try and get her to spill information, or whatever. It's not PvP in and of itself (so not covered by the ban). But once they start doing it, I personally would find it a far worse experience than allowing PvP to be told instead "no, your character can only try to convince him to stop; if he doesn't listen you can't actually take any offensive action against him, and you just have to sit back and watch him torture her."
You can swap in any of the moral dilemmas that crop up in Pathfinder discussion from time to time (whether or not to kill the goblin kids in the encampment you just raided is another old chestnut) but the gist is the same. In the context of such a ban, how do you deal with situations where a character feels it would be a fundamental violation of what they stand for to stand by and allow another character to do something without attacking them?
I'll answer your question with two of my own.
1) In real life, how many times have you had a conflict with someone? (Social, moral, financial, etc.)2) In real life, how many times have you resorted to deadly force to resolve a conflict?
I hope your answers are similar to mine:
1) many times
2) almost never
Most of the time it's simply not necessary for the GM to "do" something to resolve a situation between characters. The characters/players find resolution in their own way. Just like the rule against stabbing your friends in the face with swords doesn't prevent you from resolving conflicts with them, it doesn't prevent characters from resolving conflicts either.
We've always allowed PvP in all the games our group has run; it just seems unnatural to arbitrarily disallow such actions by fiat, and we're friends enough that it's never really soured anything in Real Life. Everybody just accepts that its part of the character interactions and role-playing aspect, and has fun with the story created.
This is the way I feel on it. If two characters in a party do not mix well, it's quite possible for them to come to blows over it and pulling shenanigans to disallow that feels like it is unfairly controlling the characters. (This assumes the players themselves can deal with it with no hard feelings of course, in which case some out of game discussion is needed).
Side note, I've played in a game where two characters got to the point that they couldn't stand each other. They got into a PvP situation in town and put the town we were in a panic before getting arrested/disappearing (one each).
Afterwards, the DM put them in a situation for a 1-on-1 fight with no interruptions, with the result being that the one who lost simply would make a new PC.
Pretty straightforward, more or less, and I think letting it play out in game is better than the GM just saying "Nope, doesn't matter if your characters would do that, no PvP in this game."
Just my opinion of course. YMMV.
Edit @ Blueluck: That is true, if the characters are able to resolve it without conflict. On the other hand, they might not be able to resolve it without conflict either. It's quite variable, depending on a lot of factors.
Besides, most characters are murderhobos. I'm sure lots of them think battle is a good method of resolution... whether it be to the death or not.
Your survey has no space for "none".This is an interesting discussion, and I've been meaning to practice a bit with Survey Monkey, so I made a survey on this topic. Please fill out the survey, and please only one time. I'll post the results in this thread.
I'm sorry, for which question? I thought I included "none" or "other" on all of the required questions.
(15 responses so far, a great start. Thanks everyone!)
Q 2&3, the first questions have no "None" options. The lowest level of PvP is "Conflict".
So what happens when a PC is put in that situation? Like I said in the above examples, say the other party member is doing something along the lines of torturing/killing an innocent NPC. They're not listening to what you're saying to them. It's not a question of "talking out the nuances of loot distribution" or "clashing personalities", it's a question of "if you actually want to save his victim(s), you need to take the other guy down now."
When you play with mature people, rarely does anyone go down that road. We have not had anything like that happen in over a decade in three groups, one of which has the son of the DM in it, who started at age 16.
Generally, we tend to play Good aligned groups, and thus even the neutrals know that the other PC's and players won't like it, so they don't.
So, no one in any of my 3 groups (there's some overlap, of course) would ever put another PC in that position.
Of course, I am now 60yo and have been playing since 1974, and most of my fellow players are middle-aged professionals, so our group dynamics are different. The DM's son at now 21 is by far the youngest.
Mind you, we did have a little break and played an "all evil" game for a few months and had fun backstabbing, plotting and such.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll answer your question with two of my own.
1) In real life, how many times have you had a conflict with someone? (Social, moral, financial, etc.)
2) In real life, how many times have you resorted to deadly force to resolve a conflict?I hope your answers are similar to mine:
1) many times
2) almost never
How many times have you taken a weapon and killed multiple sentient features, then looted their remains as a way to make a living?
How many times has your town been raided by orcs, and had townspeople dragged away to slavery or worse?
I'm willing to bet your answer to both of those is never, but your character would probably answer differently. Their world is a bit different than ours, certainly much more violent.
I find there are two options. which ever is chosen must be made plain and clear to your players.
1) Intentional PvP is Banned.
2) Intentional PvP is Allowed as long as it is handled like adults. If not we fall into no PvP.
I tend to either pose it explicitly as one of those OR let the Group Vote and le try Majority Rule.
As long as it is handled right everything is fine. I have only had a few players quit do to something another player done. Though most were mainly do to one of them getting mad because they couldn't 1-UP the other. Such as a Barbarian Player rage-quiting because he couldn't beat the Fighter(Gladiator, Swordlord) in a Gladiatorial/Dueling Match.
That... doesn't really answer the question at all. It's true that I've never resorted to deadly force in my personal life to resolve a conflict. But none of those conflicts have been of the life-and-death seriousness of the conflicts that we role-play in Pathfinder to begin with, so the comparison doesn't hold water.1) In real life, how many times have you had a conflict with someone? (Social, moral, financial, etc.)
2) In real life, how many times have you resorted to deadly force to resolve a conflict?I hope your answers are similar to mine:
1) many times
2) almost neverMost of the time it's simply not necessary for the GM to "do" something to resolve a situation between characters. The characters/players find resolution in their own way. Just like the rule against stabbing your friends in the face with swords doesn't prevent you from resolving conflicts with them, it doesn't prevent characters from resolving conflicts either.
My point is that there are many ways to resolve conflict, and you know and have used them in real life. Those methods are still available in game. The GM doesn’t have to “do” something to make them available.
I have been in a number of situations where I’ve had to protect someone’s life or safety, prevent abuse (which is a good synonym for “torture” in many cases), and deal with violent and/or irrational people. In all of those situations, while I’ve sometimes had to use force, I’ve never had to use deadly force. (Tackling and restraining someone is highly unlikely to kill them. Stabbing or shooting would be “deadly force”.)
Police officers are much like “adventurers” in that they’re trained and equipped to wield force, and they confront difficult and possibly violent situations and people on a daily basis. There are 800,000 police in the US, assuming each works 250 shifts per year and encounters only 1 incident per shift that involves preventing crime or harm, that’s 200,000,000 incidents per year, but the number of people killed by police officers in a year is in the neighborhood of 200. That’s a one in a million chance of killing a suspect. Again, irl police are not Pathfinder adventurers, and my point is not that they’re the same. My point is that there are clearly many ways to resolve conflicts without using deadly force against one’s companions.
Heck, even animals, including predators, have myriad ways to resolve conflict without killing each other! Packs of wolves and prides of lions are in near-constant conflict about important issues like food and mates, yet they rarely kill their companions or the packs and prides wouldn’t survive.
So what happens when a PC is put in that situation? Like I said in the above examples, say the other party member is doing something along the lines of torturing/killing an innocent NPC. They're not listening to what you're saying to them. It’s . . . a question of "if you actually want to save his victim(s), you need to take the other guy down now."
What are those characters doing in a party together? At this point, barring a very unusual situation, I suspect players and game master have failed to assemble a functional adventuring party. But, even should this situation arise in a fun and functional group, there are lots of ways to resolve this conflict without stabbing your party member.
tl;dr
Some groups like PvP. Some groups don’t. As long as everyone’s having fun, both approaches are fine. As someone who doesn’t like PvP in his tabletop RPGs, I’m not going to say that PvP tables are badwrongfun, impossible, implausible, unrealistic, or anything other than “not my preference”. What I’m trying to establish is that playing without PvP can be totally realistic as well. It’s not implausible to resolve all in-game conflict without attacking each other, and it’s not badwrongfun to play the game with that agreement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
best solution is to control the meta-game
dont let your PCs make decisions that they cant have their characters justify
if its all in character, then there is nothing the GM should have to worry about
I am just curious as to what people think about player vs. player conflict within a game when both players are acting in character.
On the same note, what is the general consensus on one player using an ability to impose their will on another character and force them to take actions they would not otherwise take? Even if this is something that would be "in character."
The first part I dislike in the extreme. The game seems dark and ugly when people you have to work with can stab you in the back at any moment. As a GM I normally ban such PvP. But... if ALL parties agree that they wish to play out some PvP then I allow it.
The second thing I actually had to live through and it ruined the whole game. Forcing your will on someone is simply wrong. And can be worse than PvP itself.