Actually, I did PvP once, but it was retconned.

Players were assholes, decided they were bored and their characters would shoot our commanding officer, because they didn't want to be ordered around by an NPC.

I and the GM were just agape, so I shrugged and say 'well, I guess I shoot them.'

But we adjourned and worked it out.


Now that I'm a parent, I'm realizing how often parenting small children applies to gamers. USE YOUR WORDS.

Assholes.

(They were friends of the GM, and later screwed him over in RL.)

Quote from: Kiero;805865You've mentioned three games I have no interest in playing. PvP might be appropriate for those games, but not as a general principle.



False dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to have a pretty credible, realistic-seeming world, without the PCs at each other's throats. More to the point, it makes sense not to treat your closest allies and comrades-in-arms like rivals.

Oh definitely in most games we don't have PvP. Insisting on PvP is as narrowing as banning PvP.
Basically anything that narrows the roleplay and character options for the players is something I try to avoid.
I want fully fleshed realistic believable PCs who occupy a well realised internally consistent world.
Saying you can't do this or you have to be like this is to be the thin end of the railroad, like maybe a sidings or one of those stations that is only open on Thursday afternoons or something.

QuoteNone of which precludes all the scheming against people outside the party, of which our games have a lot.

Time spent pissing around scheming against the other players is time not spent engaging with everything else going on outside the player-group. I don't need "intensification", I need getting on with playing the game.

It makes it slow because it's wasting time on a pointless activity that detracts from other stuff.


The only time something like that did happen was when a PC was temporarily mind-controlled during a fight. It's really easy, by mutual agreement, to avoid all of that nonsense.

See I don't differentiate between PCs and NPCs in terms of the way the world works for them they are all actors in a world in motion. Plots against PCs and plots against NPCs same same.

Casting pvp as pointless when we are playing games where we pretend to be elves ... I mean you are being ironic right?
Anything the players as a group enjoy and that increases everyone's fun is a good thing and should be encouraged. The whole thing is pointless of course but I love roleplay it's great the more of that the players do the more immersed they get in the shared world the better.

Quote from: Sommerjon;805866Like I said; caricatures.  I find it boring.
Next you'll say is something about a dark wizard type who secretly works for the bad guys is in a group with a paladin...

So what motivations do you give your PCs? I mean I have tired to answer the question and give a list of motivations that may result in PCs working with others they do not entirely trust.
How do you rationalise your groups of fully cohesive PCs what is the backstory what is the motivation of the PCs ?

QuoteI figured you did since you seem to have a firm grasp on the number of games that start in taverns.

Ah the irony meter is broken again

QuoteOh look there's that dark wizard type who secretly works for the bad guys is in a group with a paladin.
W00T! for Caricatures.
Yeah, never seen this set-up before. :rolleyes:

Yeah it's actually going to be a really interesting issue to see how it develops. The guy playing the Warlock this is his first ever roleplaying game of any type. The guy playing the paladin has been in my gaming group for about 2 years-ish but before that no RPGs so I know the entire exposure he has had to RPGs. He played a rogue like strontium Dog he played a Dragon that ran a diner and he played an alien superhero who was incredibly strong and could fly really fast.
The Dragon role went all PvP as it was a Fables game using the amber engine and it kind of was bound to but the Super hero game was very different as the PCs were well super heroes so very limited scope for PvP. In the Stront game the PCs were so oppressed by everyone outside of themselves that they naturally bonded.
I set up a standard RPG cliche exposing it to brand new players to see how it develops. We needed hooks as to why the warlock would be there and the options the player chose meant that I had fewer options. Should be intriguing. Remember cliched old cheese is only cliched and old if you have seen it before.

QuoteDefine similar.  
No I haven't met up nor have I run games where the group met up in a tavern in 20 years.
You know why?  I grew tired of seeing the same tropes over and over and over again.  The games ended up being the same shit, same plans, same tactics, same, same, same.

hehehe its a standard convention which is why you can laugh at it.

My standard party recruitment tactic is having one PC hire a party for a particular thing. I find it works in pretty much any genre from the Thief hiring some muscle for a bank job to a guy that just bought a old wreck of a spaceship hiring a mechanic and renting their spare shuttle out to a prostitute...
My other favoured option of course is having the PC start half way up a tower being shot at by guys on the ground and one guy asking how did we get into this mess.... but i am also a fan of flash backs and non linear time lines so ...meh

The whole of this debates comes down to taste for sure but as I said up post to me it's a bit more than that. Banning PvP restricts player agency. I go out of my way not to restrict player agency to the point where my standard Xp model requires the players to set objectives for their PCs that exist outside of lets raid the castle/rescue the princess/retrieve the McGuffin. Increased player agency leads to deeper roleplay which leads to increased immersion that is why I play rpgs, not to have my guy roll 6d10 damage and kill the giant but too do the roleplay.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;805879Estar does raise a good point here. Online we speak in terms of ideal game groups, and while many people like to say they weed out all by behavior by pruning players, in practice it is more complicated. Not all bad behavior comes from total assholes. Even great players who everyone likes can have bad habits. And like Rob says, sometimes you put up with one ssshole because they are there with someone who isn't one. You can also have situations where complete non assholes clash because their personalities don't jive. I think a GM having tools for reducing the impact of bad behavior at the table is fine and understandable.

Or you just say "I'm not interested, thanks."  There are a good number of my friends I just won't game with because our tastes are too different.  Asshole/nonasshole has nothing to do with it.

Not gaming is better than bad gaming, and if I don't enjoy the game more than I enjoy it, it's bad gaming for whatever reason.

I was going to reply (very late to the party), but Nexus said everything I'd have said.  I don't mind some character conflicts and conflicting goals, but I as a player have no desire to deal with PvP/backstabbing/etc at the table and I can't imagine playing a character that would travel with a group of people where that was the norm.

Quote from: Nexus;805869I find most PvP dull personally. It takes the focus off the world and turns it inward, narrowing everything down to inter PC plotting and growing OOC grudges as characters are bumped off and replaced by new characters that all mysteriously have vendettas against the guy/girl that ganked their predecessor. As a gm I feel like I'm just there to watch the players roll dice against each other and as a player I'm bored. I want to go out and see the world and the game as the GM has set. In character I start to wonder why I'm hanging out with this group of contentious borderline psychos.

I know and acknowledge the playstyle works for others but its not my cuppa tea.

See here is where you are being way more condescending then anything I said (although probably without realizing it), basically your entire paragraph is one entire gross logical fallacy.  Let's break it down.

Quote from: Nexus;805869It takes the focus off the world and turns it inward, narrowing everything down to inter PC plotting and growing OOC grudges as characters are bumped off and replaced by new characters that all mysteriously have vendettas against the guy/girl that ganked their predecessor.

This is a player problem, not a PvP problem.  Allowing PvP does not make the game suddenly all about PvP.  Period.Full.Stop.  If it does, that's your players, and that's it.  So I'm not trying to be condescending or "manly" but it's not a case of "We don't like it" but, quite literally "We descend to high school level with it, so we have to ban it to have fun."

Quote from: Nexus;805869As a gm I feel like I'm just there to watch the players roll dice against each other and as a player I'm bored.

Again, player problem.  If the institution of PvP turns your group into KoDT without the humor, then yeah, you probably do need to ban it.

Quote from: Nexus;805869I want to go out and see the world and the game as the GM has set.

That's what all my games are about as player and GM, how odd that a metagaming behavioral rule wasn't needed to achieve it.

Quote from: Nexus;805869In character I start to wonder why I'm hanging out with this group of contentious borderline psychos.

You realize that in real life, there is nothing external stopping you from buying a shotgun, taking it to work and unloading it into your coworkers right?  Yet somehow you don't.  PvP does not turn characters into contentious borderline psychos, the players do.

Quote from: Nexus;805869I know and acknowledge the playstyle works for others but its not my cuppa tea.

Not sure if you even mean it, but here is where the condescension becomes so thick you need a chainsaw to cut it, and this is the core of your gross logical fallacy.  Allowing PvP does not mean liking PvP any more then allowing Character Death means you like it when your character dies.  Since we don't have all the problems your group does with PvP, not banning PvP doesn't mean we like all the problems you've seen at the table, it means we just don't have them.

I don't ban PvP for the same reason I don't play Tenro Bansho Zero, I find it ridiculous that I can't die unless there is a box on my sheet I've checked to allow the GM to kill me.  Similarly, I find it ridiculous to say I can never attack a player character except if he's under magical compulsion.  Not "Your character has taken an oath not to", but "it's a table rule".  It makes as much sense as sitting down at a SJW's table and hearing "Characters will not have heterosexual sex, indeed male PCs will not touch a female PC or NPC at all under any circumstances oh, and killing orcs is murder."

Why do I find it so weird?  Again, not because I get off on psychotic play, it's because for decades now I've never seen psychotic play erupt as a cause of PvP.  Disruptive players show up now and again, sometimes they use PvP, sometimes they don't, but they leave and everyone else gets back to playing.

Now, all that having been said, there is NOTHING wrong with you not liking PvP.  However...

Realize that the reason you don't like it isn't because it turns players and characters into psychos - because it doesn't have to, if it does, it's because your players want to act like psychos.  Mine don't.

Realize that the reason you don't like it isn't because then the campaign becomes all about PvP - because it doesn't have to, if it does, it's because your players go there.  Mine don't.

Realize that the real reason you don't like it is because of purely personal preference based mainly on the fact that as a GM you want the players to interact with what you spent time preparing for them to interact with and not decide to do their own thing, and as a player you do the same.  Which is 100% fine, I get disappointed when characters decide to miss out on stuff I thought would be really cool, too, but...them's the breaks.  Leave the other stuff aside, or admit it's a problem with your players, not the playstyle itself, because there's a whole lot of people here who aren't seeing what your seeing.  

If lots of people eat peanuts without having a problem, but you can't, the problem isn't peanuts it's you (your players, in this case).

tl;dr - I don't have a problem with you saying you don't like it, I have a problem with everything else you're saying which insinuates gross incorrect assumptions about why I don't ban it.

Quote from: Callous;805934I was going to reply (very late to the party), but Nexus said everything I'd have said.  I don't mind some character conflicts and conflicting goals, but I as a player have no desire to deal with PvP/backstabbing/etc at the table and I can't imagine playing a character that would travel with a group of people where that was the norm.

Outlined your faulty logic for you.  Of course you wouldn't travel with a group of psychos who are going to off you at any opportunity...unless you're playing Paranoia.

The thing you're missing is, not banning PvP doesn't mean that becomes the norm.

Not liking PvP =/= banning PvP.
any more then
Not liking character death =/= banning character death.

Quote from: CRKrueger;805935See here is where you are being way more condescending then anything I said (although probably without realizing it), basically your entire paragraph is one entire gross logical fallacy.

I think you've taken my post in completely the wrong way. I'm not trying to present a logical argument for why my way of playing Let's Pretend is objectively superior to yours or anyone else's. I'm stating the opinions I've formed from experience but they are just that: opinions and preferences not objective facts.

Like I said, I'm not saying PvP heavy games can't work, shouldn't exist or anything of the sort. But that they don't work for me and I've explained why. If your experiences are different and its more fun for you. Then that's great.  Keep on playing how you like. I can't "logically" disprove your opinions or preferences anymore than you can mine. And I don't think you're hallucinating or lying about your experiences. Different people like different things.

I'm not sure how saying "Its not my style but I don't think its badwrongfun." is condescending? I haven't said people that engage in PvP games are all assholes or immature or the like just that have different tastes than me. I'm not sure that is more condescending that veiled insults and implications of being immature or even "unmanly" if you restrict PvP actions.

I've never, not once in 30+ years of role playing been in a game what I described didn't happen to some extent or another or that heavy violent PvP didn't sour the mood of the game. Not once, not once across countless games and many groups so it's not just a problem with a single group.

You've had different experiences. I'm not going to deny that but I base my choices on my experiences as I'm sure you do.

And please don't decide what my reasons are. The reason why I make it explicit that it is banned as that isn't worked for me. It's got nothing to with my players wanting to act like psychos but it find it best to make sure the game's expectations are laid out up front and clearly so potential players can make an informed choice if they want to participate or not. I have large player base with frequent new members and I don't assume they all share my tastes. PvP has never added anything to any game I've been in and is usually an active problem so I restrict it the way some restrict other activities and I don't play in games where its allowed.

Wait. I think I see where some of the hostility might be coming from. I think there's misunderstanding of terms going on

When I say someone "like PvP" mean that they actively and constantly seek out and engage in it deliberately and inappropriately but they find it a positive element that can add enjoyment to role playing.

Quote from: Callous;805934I was going to reply (very late to the party), but Nexus said everything I'd have said.  I don't mind some character conflicts and conflicting goals, but I as a player have no desire to deal with PvP/backstabbing/etc at the table and I can't imagine playing a character that would travel with a group of people where that was the norm.

I don't even like the general mood open PvP brings to the game. I find it detracts from my enjoyment a great deal without really adding anything. I don't find avoiding it to be unduly restrictive, not anymore than any other OOC restriction (No serial killers, no race X, no one that absoluately hates Race X, etx).

PCs can have conflicts with each other and often do in my games but it doesn't have to come to violence, particularly lethal force or heavy levels of backstabbing.

Quote from: Nexus;805943Wait. I think I see where some of the hostility might be coming from. I think there's misunderstanding of terms going on

When I say someone "like PvP" mean that they actively and constantly seek out and engage in it deliberately and inappropriately but they find it a positive element that can add enjoyment to role playing.

Well, unfortunately, the style of argument goes something like this in true geek passive/aggressive style.  "In X years I've never found anyone who likes Y to be worth playing with because I'd rather have a mouthful of shit then do Y.  Now some people might enjoy a mouthful of shit, more power to them."  I'm not saying you did that, but when you make statements like.

I find myself wondering why I'm traveling with murdering psychos.
And
I understand that works for some people...

It's not exactly clear that what you meant is that you understand that PvP doesn't mean they travel with murdering psychos.

It's really weird how people can have such extremely different events doing roughly the same thing.  It ends up sounding like this.

One guy: "Every time I've placed my hand in fire, it burns my hand, so if you like that kind of thing..."
Another guy: " I use fire all the time, I hardly ever burn my hand.  It's not that I like getting my hand burnt, it's that it doesn't happen"
It's obvious there's a massive disconnect somewhere in there, but not sure it can be sussed out through written communication.

Quote from: CRKrueger;805945Well, unfortunately, the style of argument goes something like this in true geek passive/aggressive style.  "In X years I've never found anyone who likes Y to be worth playing with because I'd rather have a mouthful of shit then do Y.  Now some people might enjoy a mouthful of shit, more power to them."  I'm not saying you did that, but when you make statements like.

That's reading quite a bit into: "This aspect of play is not my cup of tea."  I've played with people that enjoy PvP style games, never said I wouldn't just that I don't like playing in games where its on the table. I think I went out of my way to say that its not wrong or a sin just not my thing.

Quote from: Nexus;805947That's reading quite a bit into "It's not my cup of tea." It seems a little thin skinned.

Eh, as I said, that style of argument usually predicates itself on the definition of "It", which is never defined, but insinuated.  Look at the thread, "immature", "psychos", "focused on pvp".

The anti-pvp group is saying "PvP makes these events happen."  If you like to experience those events, good for you.

The anti-ban group is saying "PvP does not make these events happen, your players do.  We know this because these events you speak of do not happen in our campaigns."

It's not that we experience the same events differently, it's that we have different events happen.

You don't enjoy PvP.  Most of the time, I don't either, just like I don't enjoy character death, but you either have Roleplaying freedom and don't be assholes...or not.

I'm only okay with character vs. character, not player vs. player. But my games seldom have that sort of conflict.

I guess that is another reason for the difference in perspective. There's always been restrictions and limits on what you could play and what you could be in the games I've participated in. Genre expectations, premise, setting, player or gm preferences, etc. Playing with a group required finding something in those limits that you could enjoy, otherwise you find another group.  So figurative freedom hasn't really been a priority in my gaming. Either I like (or can live with) the restrictions implied or explicit or I don't play. I think I mentioned earlier that I haven't been in any totally open "Go anywhere, do anything" sandbox style games.