Quote from: Simlasa;805330Still, that seems to be the picture a whole lot of Players have in their heads, especially nowadays. I've been called 'disruptive' for even presenting mild arguments against party schemes or having my PC openly dislike another PC.
"It's bad for the story" is how one GM put it.

RPGs are based on group to do adventures and actions based on their actions and thus players will definitely discuss and argue about what to do all the time. Thus there is conflict among players all the time on a table as they discuss the best way to go forwards.

I think it it is perfectly normal for characters not to like each other and in my view (and experience) normal adults who play do not think about it twice.

Since your experience about "what players think" is so different to mine I am very interested in hearing more. Can you tell me if they were these established groups or more of a one off games? Do you see this being now "the norm" in playing and since when has this change happened?

Quote from: Bren;805309Some conflict between PCs is pretty close to essential to my idea of an interesting RPG. It has been a part of my gaming for 40+ years and a game where all conflict is banned sounds even more boring than the first season of STNG.

And for intraparty conflict to be interesting, there needs to be the potential for things to escalate beyond simple debate or harsh words so PvP violence has to be possible. And for some PCs the potential for intraparty violence is central to their character concept - Wolverine type characters would be a typical example, and we see the same thing in some of the interactions between the Musketeers in Dumas especailly in  the later books when their aims differ.

That being said, a game where PCs are headshotting other PCs would quickly lose interest for me as well. I prefer verbal conflict to be frequent, the threat of physical violence to be ever present when verbal conflict occurs, but actual physical violence to be rare and typically to be resolved before the need for head shots.

Frequent headshotting is frequent headshotting. Usually because one of the assholes decides shotguns waved in front of faces when shit gets tense over expenditure for a shared Haven is a good idea. Said shotgun Disarmed and Specified Targeted to their own head brought much-needed satisfaction to disarming Nosferatu.

Honestly, talking goes out the window when you start screwing with a PCs money/resources. It's all about the cheddar.

Quote from: Opaopajr;805314It's from the OOC MADS (out of character mutual assured destruction spiral) when the table doesn't sit around and talk about expectations. If PvP "suddenly becomes allowed" then it is assumed players will specifically build PCs to take out each other. Thus the table spirals into endless grief as an acceptable counter-response between players, GM looking blithely on.

Like jr. high all over again.

Doesn't have to be a logical argument or acceptable behavior. It just has to be the assumed default response of the community of players. I myself find it cop-out bullshit, that players regularly lose their shit so easily and devolve without talking things out, but it apparently happened enough to be received truth.

So I avoid it by having The Talk -- as if with real live adults! -- before actual play.

Hah hah!

Problem is, it's usually those GMs that give the rest of us a bad name.

Quote from: Simlasa;805318I prefer the option for PvP to remain open... mostly as arguments and intra-party theft... with combats being rare.

But that's in an ideal situation with good friends and known temperaments... too many groups I've played with were made up of acquaintances and PvP actions were never going to go well. In-game squabbles were almost guaranteed to spill out into OOC arguments and resentments.
 
Our current Pathfinder group has had a couple of blow ups that shut down the game session while we resolved them.
The most recent one touched off when my PC (a rogue) mentioned to the Fighter PC (a mercenary) that we should cut the Paladin PC out of some recently discovered loot because he'd ran off and avoided the fight. It was just a suggestion that I expected the mercenary to turn down... but before that could happen the Paladin's Player... rather than arguing for splitting the loot evenly... just had his PC storm off and out of the game.
Lots of OOC arguing followed and long e'mails between sessions... leading to a complete reset of the campaign, with new characters and a dictum from the GM that 'all loot will be split evenly' and warnings against PvP actions (not how I would have handled it but I guess it appeases some of the bad feelings).

Heck, I've seen fist fights/blood drawn in games of Diplomacy so it's no surprise that RPGs might fire up even stronger emotions when PCs start fighting amongst themselves.

So the problem is immature players? Not temperments, personalities, none of that: just immaturity?

Struggle GM is struggle GM.

Quote from: jeff37923;805319I prefer PvP at the table so that Players can police their own. You know that one annoying as shit guy who keeps fucking with everyone's fun during the game while claiming he's "just role-playing his character"? Yeah, fuck him and his character, let another Player Character just off him.

I believe in the power of players self-policing, too. It's amazing how much more of an impartial party you're perceived as when you cultivate that behaviour. Works spectacularly well with 8+ player tables.

It works so well that I've had a few different players ragequit in different games because other players developed an allergy to their bullshit and had a GM-approved allergic reaction of mind-controlling/sabotaging/outright murdering their PC.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;805320You encourage players assassinating other players in all of your games? It's one thing to let in character conflicts develop and resolve themselves, and another if the DM feels the need to intervene in character to character relations to gin up some bloodsport.

At any rate, I'm not sure what you mean by "going around." There have always been players who don't like PvP mortal combat. It's not exactly a new strain of influenza.

If your experience is that DM encouraged PvP autocorrects asshole behavior then you haven't had very creative assholes, which is a good thing I guess. The good ones can wipe an entire party in one fell swoop.

The trick is that the good players don't need combat to wipe a party which makes me wonder in turn what your experience has been? Fortunately and thankfully, I usually don't just have "good" players, I have great players. Former's creative, latter's just not socially awkward. Big difference in my experience.

I actively encourage all forms of asshole deterrance. I've dealt with some serious badguys before and each time I learnt a new form of shithead denial tactics like Razhiel absorbing souls to gain new powers. Best bit is once you've got players subscribing to such beliefs, you can start to take a well-earned backseat while your players fuck with anyone who wants to try it. It's satisfying.

This may interest people who need to deal with these issues when writing RPG books:

This week I discussed (in my class) with few people who had RPG playing background and came from rural areas. They had one very important observation: "In a city you can always throw away someone who is arsehole but you cannot do it in a village where number of players is tiny." Thus they considered it vital to have tips in RPG books for dealing with such people that work beyond "drive them off" as they were often starting to GM/Play the game...

Quote from: Nikita;805335I think it it is perfectly normal for characters not to like each other and in my view (and experience) normal adults who play do not think about it twice.

I'd have thought pretty normal as well. The games I've run have always had a fair bit of rivalry and conflict... and I can't recall much complaint about it... but I'm running those for old friends or newbies... not veteran gamers I meet at the game shop.

QuoteSince your experience about "what players think" is so different to mine I am very interested in hearing more. Can you tell me if they were these established groups or more of a one off games?

Established groups that I joined or that were newly formed... but not one-offs.

QuoteDo you see this being now "the norm" in playing and since when has this change happened?

I have no idea if it's 'the norm' but it's struck me as common since I started playing again (rather than just running games). Way back when I was first playing it seemed quite expected that other PCs would steal from you or backstab you... fuck with you just for a laugh. I've seen way less of that over the past ten years or so.  
Heck, our High School AD&D group was mostly made up of kids from our church's youth group and we had all sorts of intra-party combats and assasinations and plotting and general dickery. No one ever rage-quit over it.

Truthfully, in my mind it goes hand in hand with a general trend towards 'easier' games where the PCs are pretty much guaranteed success... why argue about a plan when the GM will see to it that any plan succeeds? Why fight over loot when it's practically raining from the sky?
The Pathfinder group I play in doesn't work that way (we fail a LOT) but a couple of the Players seem to think it's a bit harsh (thus the stomping tantrum and GM's semi-capitulation)... and as a whole still think we should be of one mind and never fight/argue.
Maybe it's some extension of that 'Just say yes' philosophy... I dunno. I'll ask them more about it next game.

I'm not saying it's a huge issue or 'wrong'... just that I've had to adjust my expectations/play-style towards something that feels a bit more Kumbaya than I was used to.

Quote from: Simlasa;805330Still, that seems to be the picture a whole lot of Players have in their heads, especially nowadays. I've been called 'disruptive' for even presenting mild arguments against party schemes or having my PC openly dislike another PC.
"It's bad for the story" is how one GM put it.

I'd have been very tempted to respond with, "Well it might be bad for your story, but that's only because your story sucks" or "Well since I never signed up to be a puppet in your theater I'm not all that concerned with sticking to your story."

Quote from: Ravenswing;805331I despise PvP.  I always have.  It's the most unforgivable sin at my table, and any act of backstabbing greenlights the rest of the party to kill your character, no questions asked, with the explicit warning that a second offense means ejection from the campaign.  Period.

You jumped from PvP conflict immediately to backstabbing without any intermediate steps at all. It seems like a number of people who have rules against any PCvsPC conflict seem to equate all conflict with backstabbing. That doesn't correspond to my experience and it lacks nuance, but at least you make your preferences really clear.

I may be misunderstanding what you are saying due to the very strong aversion you have, but are characters allowed to disagree in game and if so how are the characters supposed to resolve their disagreements?

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805339Frequent headshotting is frequent headshotting. Usually because one of the assholes decides shotguns waved in front of faces when shit gets tense over expenditure for a shared Haven is a good idea. Said shotgun Disarmed and Specified Targeted to their own head brought much-needed satisfaction to disarming Nosferatu.

Frequent headshotting sounds incredibly boring. Obviously the first mistake was not killing the Nosferatu right from the start. After all, the only good vamp is a dusted vamp.

QuoteSo the problem is immature players? Not temperments, personalities, none of that: just immaturity?

Yep.

QuoteIt works so well that I've had a few different players ragequit in different games because other players developed an allergy to their bullshit and had a GM-approved allergic reaction of mind-controlling/sabotaging/outright murdering their PC.

In over 40 years of GMing, I've never had a player rage quit. Mature players do help, but we were all immature once. What really helps is addressing out of game problems – and all player problems are out of game problems – out of game. You can't fix stupid and you can't fix assholes with game rules.

QuoteI actively encourage all forms of asshole deterrance.

The only effective asshole deterrence occurs in the real world.

Quote from: Nikita;805341This may interest people who need to deal with these issues when writing RPG books:

This week I discussed (in my class) with few people who had RPG playing background and came from rural areas. They had one very important observation: "In a city you can always throw away someone who is arsehole but you cannot do it in a village where number of players is tiny." Thus they considered it vital to have tips in RPG books for dealing with such people that work beyond "drive them off" as they were often starting to GM/Play the game...

Feeling stuck with the hand you are dealt socially is another version of the primary geek social fallacy. But you can't fix people problems with game rules. There are a million books that try to teach you how to manage, lead, communicate, assert yourself, and deal with conflict. Why would anyone look to game rules to teach them how to better interact with other human beings when there are so many other resources available that are specifically targeted to that purpose?

It's also a fallacy that you need more than two people to roleplay. If you can't find one other person in your village who isn't an asshole, then you probably need to find a new hobby, move to a new location, or realize that maybe you are the problem. (Generic you, not you in particular.)

In my new game High Strung, PCvPC gaming is actively encouraged. You need Hope to survive, and Hope is ablated by daily life. You can gain Hope by gigging and by recording, which is limited, or you can gain Hipe by screwing with your bandmates. Now there is no combat mechanically in High Strung, so the worst you can do physically is punch another character in the nose, but you can do all kinds of nasty tricks like seducing a PC's S.O., or screwing with their stash, or sliping another PC a laxative just before a gig. So no real violence, but lots of screwing around. It is a prime source of fun in the game.

-clahs

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805339The trick is that the good players don't need combat to wipe a party which makes me wonder in turn what your experience has been? Fortunately and thankfully, I usually don't just have "good" players, I have great players. Former's creative, latter's just not socially awkward. Big difference in my experience.

I said exactly that: PvP/combat isn't required to for a "good" player or "good" asshole to torpedo the whole shebang.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  There's no technique available to an non-asshole player that isn't also available to the asshole player. PvP is no solution for an asshole player. PvP can take care of an asshole character, if that character doesn't employ PvP to take out everyone else first.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805339I actively encourage all forms of asshole deterrance. I've dealt with some serious badguys before and each time I learnt a new form of shithead denial tactics like Razhiel absorbing souls to gain new powers. Best bit is once you've got players subscribing to such beliefs, you can start to take a well-earned backseat while your players fuck with anyone who wants to try it. It's satisfying.

Unrestrained PvP is jet fuel for a serious asshole player. If you are playing favorites with PvP opportunities in support of the players that you think aren't assholes, then you might as well just call it GM fiat, and be done with it.

PvP is important, in my opinion, because without it as an option the games are lacking verisimilitude. But it's incredibly tedious when when it's overused.

There are folks that don't like it (at least one has weighed in here), and if those games work without it, more power to them. To think that anti-PvP sentiment is just now "going around" means that you haven't noticed what's been going on in 50 years of RPGs.

Quote from: Bren;805348The only effective asshole deterrence occurs in the real world.

This should be printed on the $100 bill, because it's money.

In my experience, it's usually the most disruptive "I'm only doing what my character would do" assholes who are against PvP, obviously used as a shield.  In just about every campaign I've played, which usually go long-term, PvP is just assumed to be a possible consequence, like anything else.

When you have players who are actually immersed in the setting and roleplaying their character, PvP will be rare and usually very interesting.

If you play with adults, PvP won't be a problem, nor will non-PvP.

If you don't play with adults, PvP will be disruptive, leading to players worried more about offing each other then their enemies, and non-PvP will lead to nothing but passive-aggressive arguing and general social dysfunction.

"The characters are meant to be cooperative" means right off the bat you're making 3rd person decisions treating your characters as fictional characters...no thanks, I like roleplaying.  If the characters decide to be cooperative, or the reverse, so be it.

I enjoy co-op only. I actually find the new wod settings hard to use, because every player could potentially be part of a different organisation and have different orders. That makes it hard to play without having player vs player or you have to ignore the faction orders and let the party goals overrule them.

Personally I am against it. Character conflicts and arguments are fine and I have no problem with characters having different goals and seeking different rewards. But outright PCs attacking and killing another PC, not my style of play. Thankfully I've never been in a group where that was a problem. One time a PC was working against the group but his character was being mind controlled by the bad guys and no one knew. That was understandable.

But any player who thrives on being and asshole and killing the other PCs to "win" or be "cool", I don't want to play with that person.

I prefer PvP conflict over combat but it has never been ruled out in our campaigns. I find it irrational that good and evil characters are going to be in sync on most situations, let alone all. Players are actively encouraged to express those goals to the GM and the GM should give paths for all characters to obtained those goals and not be surprised when diametrically opposed goals leaf to strife.

If that leads to some form of violence and the players handled it with maturity I'd be ok, it just hasnt.

I think the last few editions of D&D have moved away from any sort of inter group conflict and as a side note: the rules have gone out of their way to minimize fatracide which I'm completely against.

If your wizard throws a fire ball into room then everything not immune should burn. None of this "enemies only" of 4e and carving out zones in 5e. AoE affects should be dangerous in tight quarters. This sort haphazard use of AoE attacks is what usually led to PvP conflict at our table. I'm totally against neutering the consequences of these attacks which I think is directly related to limiting PvP conflict.

I don't see it as player vs player. But player character vs player character. The players are having a blast during it. If a player says they have issues with that happening in a game, they don't get invited is all. Players are screened first before allowing them into a game.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;805379I don't see it as player vs player. But player character vs player character. The players are having a blast during it. If a player says they have issues with that happening in a game, they don't get invited is all. Players are screened first before allowing them into a game.

Oh! Yes! I was specific in my comment - it's PCvPC, NOT PvP! Never, never PvP!

-clash

Quote from: Doughdee222;805372But any player who thrives on being and asshole and killing the other PCs to "win" or be "cool", I don't want to play with that person.

Me either, that's why I play with people who thrive on roleplaying, which every once in a while can honestly result in open conflict between characters.

Quote from: Nikita;805322RPGs are based on implicit assumption that players form a group that works together for a common goal. Thus they are co-operative by nature. Subsequently pitting players knowingly against each other does not work in long-term campaign but it can work in a single shot adventure (perhaps played in a convention).

Players are human and thus they often do things that either accidentally or by nature go against each other and groups I've played have been mature enough to accept it as part of their characters' behaviour.

All actions in my game table are done face to face with each other (including plotting each other) this seems to be the order of the day. However, at the same time I've noticed following (this is from my own experience only): Players can "screw" each other in a campaign while being part of same group is entirely possible but it works when stakes are not important. They are always frown upon when stakes are vitally important to group survival or greater task at hand.

I have seen a couple of times some immature players to blow up on player versus player actions but they are banned from gaming since they frighten some players (and I do not like bullies). Main reason to this seems to be player seeing him versus others attitude and thus not embracing the co-operative nature of game.

I also believe that any action done behind other players back actually heightens psychology of players potentially acting against each other (although I do not have academic studies to back this up).

Thus I suggest following: allow players to do what they wish as long as they do it openly to all. This causes self policing that both allows and even condones actions and reactions based on character actions but also diminishes more aggressive behavior. I do also assume that my players are adults.

Sounds quaint. No shade but it does, hah hah.

And honestly, that doesn't sound like an emotionally healthy group on all sides. Lacking self-esteem and having anger problems. It sounds like defending aganist the man-eating plant rather than pulling out its roots before it grew teeth.

Quote from: Simlasa;805330Still, that seems to be the picture a whole lot of Players have in their heads, especially nowadays. I've been called 'disruptive' for even presenting mild arguments against party schemes or having my PC openly dislike another PC.
"It's bad for the story" is how one GM put it.

Are you fucking kidding me?

I eat GMs like that for breakfast. I'm fucking serious, that pisses me off -- I don't know about Ravenswing but that's actual fucking backstabbing to every other GM out there.

Quote from: Ravenswing;805331I despise PvP.  I always have.  It's the most unforgivable sin at my table, and any act of backstabbing greenlights the rest of the party to kill your character, no questions asked, with the explicit warning that a second offense means ejection from the campaign.  Period.

But I certainly disagree with the OP that anti-PvP is in any way, shape or form a "general notion going around ..." unless by that he means "... in my own gaming circle."  PvP's always been around and will always be there, and I suggest it's probably become more popular than in older times with the rise of MMORPGs, where there's far less of a social compact of cooperation.

Whoah, no-one said anything about backstabbing! Touchy as fuck over here. Seriously though, what happened to you? A "sin"?

Yeah, see, I don't do "social compacts". I find them unhealthy when they 9/10 times lead to the above quoted type of GM and players.

Quote from: Omega;805332Its seen as usually, but not allways bad because it is one of THE most common methods a disruptive player will use to ruin everyone elses enjoyment of the game. And because 85% of the time is one, maybee two jackasses wanting it and the rest of the group is against it.

One reason for opposition is that it means no one is likely to make it past level 1 for very long. Pretty much no adventure is going to survive either out the door, or once treasures been collected. Because at least half the incidents reported were the killer using it as an excuse to grab all the loot and "win"...

Another reason is as noted above. It can easily lead to a death spiral for the gaming group.

Personally a reason I dislike it is because it gets absolutely boring as all hell very very fast. It is probably one of the most unimaginative gags to pull ever in a session.

If I want that sort of play I'll get into a Paranoia session. Otherwise if theres a player killer in the group then either they are out, or I am. The old gag of "But I was just being in character!" is a guarantee boot out the door.

Now. All that said...

There are situations where it can be fun. It can even be alot of fun.

The oft mentioned magic user reincarnated as an otter incident came about from a double-blind PC group vs PC group event and was one of my more memorable and interesting sessions.

Another avenue is the arena where players are pitted by force against eachother. There is even sparring where you are doing subdual damage instead of to the death. And of course there are doppelgangers and intellect devourers that can turn a group in on itself really well if things go catastrophically. A helm of alignment change could do that too.

There are other viable avenues where it can be interesting.

"I kill all the characters in their sleep and take their loot." is NOT interesting. "I stab my companion in the back at the tavern - because Im Evil!" is NOT interesting.

Take note that this is totally different from inter-party personality conflicts. Thats usually expected to occur if the players are playing their characters well and they really are an eclectic group of misfits.

That sounds like a weak GM at the head of that game, total honesty.

Why is it a gag? See, this is what I don't get. These immediate preconceptions that it's immature. Or if a player does sleep-stabs, that it's not allowed to play out with the natural consequences thereof, or the GM straight-out punishing that player because they can. It just sounds like not bringing dickish behaviour to account which can lead to a player thinking its ok to do as a "gag" because the red flag behaviour goes unchecked.

Arenas are awesome. I tend to get all Roman Colosseum with them and shit. Anyway, seperation of church and state approach is not the way

Quote from: Omega;805333Thats a good example of a bad DM. Or one burned on a bad player using personality conflict to be disruptive. It can certainly happen. Ive been in a game with such a player.

I thought so. This might be where this now-emerging-for-me-in-this-thread mindset stems from.

Quote from: Bren;805348I'd have been very tempted to respond with, "Well it might be bad for your story, but that's only because your story sucks" or "Well since I never signed up to be a puppet in your theater I'm not all that concerned with sticking to your story."

You jumped from PvP conflict immediately to backstabbing without any intermediate steps at all. It seems like a number of people who have rules against any PCvsPC conflict seem to equate all conflict with backstabbing. That doesn't correspond to my experience and it lacks nuance, but at least you make your preferences really clear.

I may be misunderstanding what you are saying due to the very strong aversion you have, but are characters allowed to disagree in game and if so how are the characters supposed to resolve their disagreements?

Frequent headshotting sounds incredibly boring. Obviously the first mistake was not killing the Nosferatu right from the start. After all, the only good vamp is a dusted vamp.

Yep.

In over 40 years of GMing, I've never had a player rage quit. Mature players do help, but we were all immature once. What really helps is addressing out of game problems – and all player problems are out of game problems – out of game. You can't fix stupid and you can't fix assholes with game rules.

The only effective asshole deterrence occurs in the real world.


Feeling stuck with the hand you are dealt socially is another version of the primary geek social fallacy. But you can't fix people problems with game rules. There are a million books that try to teach you how to manage, lead, communicate, assert yourself, and deal with conflict. Why would anyone look to game rules to teach them how to better interact with other human beings when there are so many other resources available that are specifically targeted to that purpose?

It's also a fallacy that you need more than two people to roleplay. If you can't find one other person in your village who isn't an asshole, then you probably need to find a new hobby, move to a new location, or realize that maybe you are the problem. (Generic you, not you in particular.)

I wish I could be that naive but GM'ing domestically and for clubs (i.e. the real world) knocks those ideas outta ya head real quick. 'Thankful for that, though.

So you're advocating for what Ravenswing is saying, then? With the headshotting and shit.

To an extent. Seems short-sighted, though. Fuck with the assholes who are disrespecting your players and yourself in-game and they ragequit or get the message and take a seat. Everyone wins.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;805351I said exactly that: PvP/combat isn't required to for a "good" player or "good" asshole to torpedo the whole shebang.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  There's no technique available to an non-asshole player that isn't also available to the asshole player. PvP is no solution for an asshole player. PvP can take care of an asshole character, if that character doesn't employ PvP to take out everyone else first.



Unrestrained PvP is jet fuel for a serious asshole player. If you are playing favorites with PvP opportunities in support of the players that you think aren't assholes, then you might as well just call it GM fiat, and be done with it.

PvP is important, in my opinion, because without it as an option the games are lacking verisimilitude. But it's incredibly tedious when when it's overused.

There are folks that don't like it (at least one has weighed in here), and if those games work without it, more power to them. To think that anti-PvP sentiment is just now "going around" means that you haven't noticed what's been going on in 50 years of RPGs.



This should be printed on the $100 bill, because it's money.

You didn't say that though, hah hah. But I get where you're coming from. Thinking we may be on different tiers now, though. Unrestrained PvP is lovely -- see below.

Who said anything about playing favourites? I positively encourage assholes to show their cards. What happens is that 9/10, the threat of PvP being for real in the game from the get-go tends to end it before its even thought of because now they're sticking their neck out. It ain't a gag no more (see above). Just like in real-life, 'start waving a gun at people, prepare to get shot.

I'm not 50yrs old, though. What kind of supposition is that? Hah hah! Who says that, really...

Quote from: CRKrueger;805355In my experience, it's usually the most disruptive "I'm only doing what my character would do" assholes who are against PvP, obviously used as a shield.  In just about every campaign I've played, which usually go long-term, PvP is just assumed to be a possible consequence, like anything else.

When you have players who are actually immersed in the setting and roleplaying their character, PvP will be rare and usually very interesting.

If you play with adults, PvP won't be a problem, nor will non-PvP.

If you don't play with adults, PvP will be disruptive, leading to players worried more about offing each other then their enemies, and non-PvP will lead to nothing but passive-aggressive arguing and general social dysfunction.

"The characters are meant to be cooperative" means right off the bat you're making 3rd person decisions treating your characters as fictional characters...no thanks, I like roleplaying.  If the characters decide to be cooperative, or the reverse, so be it.

Good man. This is more in line with my own experiences.

I'm starting to get the feeling a significant amount of the responders here fall into the latter category you mentioned which speaks ill of them and the games they play in. Not healthy, son. 'Hope that's not the case.

That last statement is how everyone should be going into games. Like equity, you gotta come with clean hands.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;805358I enjoy co-op only. I actually find the new wod settings hard to use, because every player could potentially be part of a different organisation and have different orders. That makes it hard to play without having player vs player or you have to ignore the faction orders and let the party goals overrule them.

I'm a dedicated, specialist NWOD GM (see my sig). Most probably why I don't see the problem with PvP in all its forms and without restriction, hah hah!

Generally though, once you start ignoring all those crore factors (and they are core factors, this is NWOD after all), you've already started to canabalize the game and develop bad GM traits. Very easy to do with NWOD, very demanding game but I do love it.

Quote from: Doughdee222;805372Personally I am against it. Character conflicts and arguments are fine and I have no problem with characters having different goals and seeking different rewards. But outright PCs attacking and killing another PC, not my style of play. Thankfully I've never been in a group where that was a problem. One time a PC was working against the group but his character was being mind controlled by the bad guys and no one knew. That was understandable.

But any player who thrives on being and asshole and killing the other PCs to "win" or be "cool", I don't want to play with that person.

That's why it's one of my biggest gaming pleasures to fuck with those who get off on fucking others. I don't have time for wanton PC killing, especially if that was the only reason a player joined in (which I did have one time but that asshole didn't last long and got his PC's ass beat by a Fighting Style specialist)

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;805375I prefer PvP conflict over combat but it has never been ruled out in our campaigns. I find it irrational that good and evil characters are going to be in sync on most situations, let alone all. Players are actively encouraged to express those goals to the GM and the GM should give paths for all characters to obtained those goals and not be surprised when diametrically opposed goals leaf to strife.

If that leads to some form of violence and the players handled it with maturity I'd be ok, it just hasnt.

I think the last few editions of D&D have moved away from any sort of inter group conflict and as a side note: the rules have gone out of their way to minimize fatracide which I'm completely against.

If your wizard throws a fire ball into room then everything not immune should burn. None of this "enemies only" of 4e and carving out zones in 5e. AoE affects should be dangerous in tight quarters. This sort haphazard use of AoE attacks is what usually led to PvP conflict at our table. I'm totally against neutering the consequences of these attacks which I think is directly related to limiting PvP conflict.

Fucking A! Now there we go. That's the killer right there. Area of Effect! I get the sense that's even too much for some of the responders here (which tells they either houserule it away or certain spells might get outright banned even when the end justifies the cost or it would just make sense for the character).

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;805379I don't see it as player vs player. But player character vs player character. The players are having a blast during it. If a player says they have issues with that happening in a game, they don't get invited is all. Players are screened first before allowing them into a game.

Now if this happened more there would be no worries and I honestly think the hobby would be healthier for it.