I don't know if this is a common occurrence in groups, but the discussion of whether we should allow PvP in our group came up, and it made me wonder what the general consensus was on the matter. I personally dislike it as I think it can get out of hand (with people making characters specifically to get revenge on the character who killed them, and sometimes simply fun being ruined because of one That Guy), but others in the group have argued that it adds more to the realism of the adventure.
Please note that this isn't me asking for advice on PvP in the group I play in (that's all sorted), but rather what do people think of player versus player combat in general?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No sir, I don't like it.
There are certain scenarios where I can see it working (where there are irreconcilable in-character differences that can't otherwise be resolved AND both parties agree to it), but those are such corner cases I feel comfortable generally putting a straight ban on PvP in my games.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Short answer: Nope.
Long answer: It's ultimately self defeating to any hope of cooperation when a group of characters who murder and loot for a living realize that they can murder and loot each other. You go pretty quickly to the ending of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A World of No!
There is a reason it is banned completely from my table.
1- PvP always hurts at least one of the players. Making the game unfun.
2- PvP destroys the team completely by turning it into factions or a bunch of solo players.
3- If you are doing PvP realistically then these people would likely either stop doing missions together or be booting people out of the group constantly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like a little PvP action with my wife "I cast Hold Person" she'd say breathlessly, "not before I use my readied action to cast Sunder on your robes"
Our marriage has never been stronger :-)
I am not strictly opposed to PvP, but I game with people that I trust to be mature enough not to be jerks about it. I'm by no means a veteran, but in my three years I've had two cases of PvP or near PvP:
We came close once in Way of the Wicked, with the group split in two and legitimate worries on both sides that it would come down to combat. Our characters managed to talk it out, though. (The incident was partially initiated by a command spell cast by a PC on another PC, so I guess that in itself might count as PvP?)
And then, the one time we actually had full on PvP, was just a few weeks ago, maybe a month. One PC was told by a devil to kill one of the other party members, and she chose to turn on the party rather than the devil. She was a follower of Zon Kuthon, whom the devil was (claiming to be?) acting as a servant of, and she wanted to prove her faith. So combat happened, and she managed to convert another PC to her side mid-battle, by offering sexy times. According to our GM, this other player sent her a message immediately after switching sides, saying that he was prepared to make a new character should he die.
So we lost the two traitor PCs, got two new ones instead next session, and had fun with no hard feelings. I have no issue trusting the new PCs, and I don't have any issues trusting these players' characters in other campaigns either. There was some friction from the beginning (friction makes for great RP), and the Kuthite had been growing more and more estranged for quite a while, so it didn't exactly come as a surprise either. Had it been out of the blue and with no good in character reason, I'd have to reexamine my opinion of these guys as non-jerks.
Creating characters with the intention of killing other PCs and ruining other players' fun is not cool.
I don't know if this is a common occurrence in groups, but the discussion of whether we should allow PvP in our group came up, and it made me wonder what the general consensus was on the matter. I personally dislike it as I think it can get out of hand (with people making characters specifically to get revenge on the character who killed them, and sometimes simply fun being ruined because of one That Guy), but others in the group have argued that it adds more to the realism of the adventure.
Please note that this isn't me asking for advice on PvP in the group I play in (that's all sorted), but rather what do people think of player versus player combat in general?
Allowed, but there must be in-game reasons for it. If someone is a traitor, coward or gone off the rails, I as the dm give the nod.
As such it can be very beneficial to the story and the continuance of the game. In one such sandbox game, a player styled himself as the new evil baron in the region. The other players brought him down but spared his life. A couple of very good sessions.
So I am for it, but it has to have a point.
Never allowed, unless it's a special one off all evil game or similar.
It can lead to hard feelings, and then a death spiral as players start holding grudges and killing other PC's for attacks in the past.
|
Usually banned.
Allowed it once with cooperation of the player involved. In Kingmaker, one of the characters was evil and worshipped Droskar but was the only person in the group who had Knowledge (Religion) so no one knew he was evil. When a clerci joined to replace a deceased PC, the dwarf in question said he was going to have to retire the character. He and I worekd out a good send off for him, with being a traitor, underground city, the whole works. The look on the other players' faces as they realised he really was a traitor was a thing of beauty, and that was one of the best sessions we've had, but as a regular thing it screws the game over.
In general, it is a bad idea. I'd like to think that there is a group out there that is mature enough to be able to handle PVP should it come up, but I know my group isn't one of them.
Working against the other PCs on some aspects I think is okay, but it has to be limited in scope. Such as during a Birthright game, manipulating NPCs to work against another PC, or sabotaging one of their trade routes, etc. But that's really a different style of play.
Not a fan, personally. That's not why I play the game.
I've been GMing for a long time. PvP is not a good thing.
I have never seen PvP work out well in a group. PvP erodes trust, it causes storytelling to break down, and increases tension between players that can have real-world negative ramifications on interpersonal relationships.
When I was younger, I used to reluctantly allow a little PvP as long as it didn't get out of hand. I won't do that any more.
I'll spare you the details, but I was GMing a group that ended with a huge real-life blow-out over in-game PvP. That incident ended the campaign, the gaming group, and some real-world friendships. That incident left such a sour taste in my mouth that I stopped playing any RPGs for almost a year, and quit GMing for almost a decade.
So... PVP: Don't do it.
Generalyl when pvp happens lately at my table I convey the following one way or another:
"Ok, you want to pvp, even just a little, you may do this action if you want, but if you do you HAVE to be willing to loose your character as a consequence. Not immediately, perhaps not ever, but if this small/large act of pvp you just committed into somehow winds up with you having to make a new character then thats it, you just have to accept it. If you cant accept that then no, you cant do pvp."
Additionally I never allow unprovoked/spontaneous assassination of someone else's character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly discourage PVP unless it is in a game like Paranoia. I've seen people get in literal slap fights over Monopoly and Risk and lose friendships and relationships for things like PVP. If you want to cut pieces out of each other for probably OOC reasons, do it somewhere else.
I default to active PvP, but have been known to play in or GM no PvP games (ie PFS).
I rarely have issues with it. Players rarely actually "full on red" PvP each other, even knowing it's an option. It mostly keeps them from doing dumb things to screw each other up as they know that the consequences will come from their group rather than just the GM.
Some of the best stories still told 15-20 years after the fact from our group started with light PvP (and the in-game consequences).
That said, it's all consensual PvP. Folks don't come into a game thinking there is no PvP just to find out that there it's a potentially PvP active game.
-TimD