I'll give one specific example of a campaign that allowed PvP to maybe show where I'm coming from.

We're playing in a roughly historically accurate Western, circa 1868.  One guy, who is black, wants to play a black ex-union soldier.  No problem, but the GM tells us all before the game starts, that people aren't necessarily going to accept us because we are PCs and that Racial, Religious and Political hatreds are a reality.  We all agree.

Ok, so this game has random chargen and Perks and Flaws, some of which are personality based (I generally loathe these, but rolled with it).  Anyway, I ended up with a Chinese guy who had two flaws Lecherous, and Clingy.  Well, we all were laughing uproariously because we could see what was gonna happen.  Being lecherous, he was going to try and get with whores, and being Clingy, was going to hang around them too much and/or piss them off.  Since he was Chinese, this was most likely going to get him killed.  So, the GM said "You can accurately play the character through to his death, or just roll up another guy."  I decided to roll up another guy just because I wasn't really in a comedic mood.  I'm bringing this up because here we have sexist and racist elements combining, and instead of turning the setting into a farce by pretending what we all knew would really happen doesn't happen, I made up a new character.

That same campaign... One new player, who was kind of a weaselly fuck, we hadn't decided to kick him out yet, but it wasn't looking good, made up a character who later referred to the black guy's character a "dirty nigger" when talking about him to another character while the soldier could hear him.  The soldier called him out on it, and told him to apologize.  The player was actually cool about it staying totally IC and saying something like "I may be a nigger, but I sure ain't dirty, and I'm not taking that from someone who didn't fight for his country."  The jackass player drew, and the soldier gunned him down.  Of course the asshole player asked why none of our characters did anything, and one guy said "He killed plenty of white folk for the North, no reason why he can't kill one for himself now and again."  I said "You just learned an important lesson, don't insult anyone you don't know is slower then you.  Your character can't make good use of that information, but you can with your next character."  He decided not to play again, and we were happy he didn't.

Yeah we could have spent all this time coming up with table rules so that none of that could ever possibly happen, or we just played it out, the asshole left, and the rest of the non assholes never drew on each other.  We argued sure, sometimes heatedly, and once or twice, arguments escalated to the point where 1.) Both sides came to an agreement or 2.) Someone's gonna die.  There was no characters backing down then killing someone in their sleep, or somehow engineering their death.  Just like guys probably did in those days, the characters worked it out, found out where each other's lines were and didn't cross em after that.  When one character died (not from PvP) there was no carrying over of grudges.

I'd rather spend time talking about how to help players immerse and roleplay then talk about various handcuffs placed on their actions.  I truly think a lot of the "facts" that people accept or even what they think as a preference comes from never getting with a certain group that did things differently.

Quote from: CRKrueger;805948You 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 support this message.

Quote from: PrometheanVigilI can't see that working on the large scale. In fact, I KNOW that doesn't work on a large scale. I've had too many players across different games and different environments that, despite being well-meaning and cool about other stuff, will have and have had their PCs showdown impromptu with other PCs because an in-game line got crossed. Didn't have to get violent but it weren't passive in any way shape or form.

Then you know absolutely nothing.
I have been DMing and playing across the decades and for various groups. Some in campaigns spanning a decade. And out of those the PCs have never come to blows over differences unless it was an honour duel and doing subdual. And that was on Oriental Adventures. To date as a DM I have never had a PC kill another PC.

I have though had a PC turned temporarily NPC due to madness kill off another character during the moment. But in that case it was me the DM running the character.

Which is not to say the group is a well oiled mesh of camaraderie. Oft its anything other than. But that is not PvP. That is role playing.

I probably have little new to add, but when has that ever stopped anyone from posting?

In my view,

• PvP as such is toxic; it's player versus player, not character versus character, and that has already ruined any roleplaying advantage it might confer.
• Conflict between player characters often works poorly because the rules generally don't support reasonably equitable combats when one player has gone all out on planning the ambush -- high level characters in D&D usually have too many ways of killing a target before the target can respond. (5e seems to have reduced this tendency, but I haven't played enough or at high enough level to say for sure.) PC vs NPC conflict doesn't usually suffer as much from this, because the GM can rule out the more unfair strategies on both sides.
• Most conflict in real life doesn't involve killing or maiming people you disagree with; there's plenty of room for disagreements to occur without going to violence.
• If the disagreements are really significant enough to lead to violence from the point of view of the characters involved, and all of the players accept where it's going, then I'm mostly OK with it, although I prefer campaigns where that is less likely to occur; usually PvP involves player preferences and not character preferences. I once killed one of my own player characters because that's where the role-playing went.
• The natural game world consequences of being tracked down and hanged or whatever might discourage some disruptive players, but why go that far if you can just make an agreement not to murder each other's characters? View it as a game abstraction if you like; psycho killers don't make it to being player characters.
• Not every unpleasant player is easily spotted or dealt with; I played in a campaign where one player was primarily interested in showing up other players, under the pretense that he was role-playing better, but by coincidence always in a way that conferred advantage on his characters. He was also good at manipulating some of the DMs in the multiverse. Eventually this fragmented the gaming group.
• A lot of the descriptions of dealing with unpleasant players involve the other players killing that character and the unpleasant player either reforming or leaving the game. In my experience, unpleasant players are more likely to be good at tactics and to be minmaxers and so on, and do not try to confront multiple player characters at one time (or even one player character unless it's a sure thing). The other players are more likely to accept disadvantages that actually matter or not to focus solely on abilities that support PvP.

i can not remember when it was the last time i had a new player in my group. pvp and other, less problematic, interactions are different when you game with the same people for a decade and a half.

Quote from: jibbajibba;805909So 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 ?

So what motivations do you give your PCs?
My last character was a Human Bodyguard(EotE) who was tasked to guard a Duros Archeologist(PC).  My motivation was to keep him alive.  If he died, I failed.  
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.
I find them to be thin at best "Ego - you know that anyone one they meet you will be won over by your charisma and charm. They simply wouldn't be able to imagine doing you harm." I see no motivation in that.
How do you rationalize your groups of fully cohesive PCs
I don't.  I start the game after they have become fully cohesive PCs.
what is the backstory
For them to decide more often than not.  I give the past X history(depending on the ages of the PCs).  They then come up with how they became a group of fully cohesive PCs.
what is the motivation of the PCs?
That would depend on setting/game/genre/etc.

Quote from: jibbajibba;805909Remember cliched old cheese is only cliched and old if you have seen it before.

This person hasn't read a book, watched a movie, like, ever?
 

Quote from: jibbajibba;805909The 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.

I don't agree.

Another typical miscommunication that appears to be plaguing this thread is that several of the posters are assuming that anyone that doesn't agree with them is promoting the extreme alternative. That and there are few personal definitions of what PvP is floating around but its assumed everyone is talking about the same thing.

Quote from: Nexus;806011Another typical miscommunication that appears to be plaguing this thread is that several of the posters are assuming that anyone that doesn't agree with them is promoting the extreme alternative. That and there are few personal definitions of what PvP is floating around but its assumed everyone is talking about the same thing.

Entirely agree. Its like the non-pvp Crowd think that not banning PvP means you are playing a game where the PCs are all gladiators facing each other in the arena.

the reality is that mostly it never comes up. Allowing PvP is just like not imposing rules on how treasure is split.
Kruger has said it a few times in the thread. Not banning PvP doesn't mean that all your players turn into arseholes and PCs start slaughtering each other. In this regard its just like real life.

Quote from: jibbajibba;806019Entirely agree. Its like the non-pvp Crowd think that not banning PvP means you are playing a game where the PCs are all gladiators facing each other in the arena.

the reality is that mostly it never comes up. Allowing PvP is just like not imposing rules on how treasure is split.
Kruger has said it a few times in the thread. Not banning PvP doesn't mean that all your players turn into arseholes and PCs start slaughtering each other. In this regard its just like real life.

The fuck it doesn't.  If I don't Ban PvP Everywhere every motherfucking gamer is at each other's proverbial throats in a nanosecond.  God damn gamers.
My bad, I thought we were doing hyperbole hour.

Quote from: jibbajibba;806019Entirely agree. Its like the non-pvp Crowd think that not banning PvP means you are playing a game where the PCs are all gladiators facing each other in the arena.

Or that if you restrict it you're playing Carebears Adventures meets the Superfriends and the PCs aren't allowed to exchange so much as harsh looks without the nanny gm smacking them on the back of the hand with a ruler.

Edit: To make sure my point is clear. There's been allot of exxagerated claims coming from all sides of the issue.

Quote from: ostap bender;806000i can not remember when it was the last time i had a new player in my group. pvp and other, less problematic, interactions are different when you game with the same people for a decade and a half.

A long term steady group does make things much smoother. I'm more willing to take risks with my long term players and friends, for one thing. I know them, they know me and we've all built up allot of trust and cred with each other so even if things go wrong they don't blow up.

Quote from: Nexus;806037Or that if you restrict it you're playing Carebears Adventures meets the Superfriends and the PCs aren't allowed to exchange so much as harsh looks without the nanny gm smacking them on the back of the hand with a ruler.

Of course no one actually said the Carebears thing, while on the other side we have had everything from "murdering psychos" to the mating call of the terminally hyperbolic, "toxic", if you can believe that.

Quote from: Nexus;806038A long term steady group does make things much smoother. I'm more willing to take risks with my long term players and friends, for one thing. I know them, they know me and we've all built up allot of trust and cred with each other so even if things go wrong they don't blow up.

If I had to play weekly with a random assortment of Juggalos I could scrounge from the game store, or players who act like they're in a WoW battleground, then maybe I'd view things differently.

The idea of a long-term, stable player group of friends who are experienced roleplayers needing a table rule to keep things from descending into KoDT is just so alien to my experience it is mind-boggling.  It's like having my best friend and his wife over for dinner and making sure they agree not to steal the silverware before I let them in the door.  It's just...Bizarro world...literally.

Take your regular group of players and they're Frodo and Sam, remove the ban and it becomes Varys and Littlefinger, or fuck that, from the way you guys make it sound it becomes Gregor and Sandor Clegane or Driz'zt and Entreri.  Really, really, hard to believe.  If you don't have a regular group of players, fine, I'd handle it differently, but at least the behavior you claim actually has a possibility to exist in a random changing group.

Quote from: CRKrueger;806058Of course no one actually said the Carebears thing, while on the other side we have had everything from "murdering psychos" to the mating call of the terminally hyperbolic, "toxic", if you can believe that.

No one actually said "If you don't like PvP You're a worthless piece of shit that isn't worth gaming with." either. Some seemed to feel it was implied. There was certainly enough implied "lack of manliness" or whatever being thrown about early in the thread along with implication that if you don't allow PvP there is no conflict at all allowed and your PCs must all be "True Shining Heroes United"

But yes, you're correct no one said those exact words but they were sure as Hell implied along with a good amount of snark and condescension, that only the only people that banned PvP were those that were "mature" enough to handle it. Not everyone that enjoys it everyone that didn't allow PvP didn't refer to murdering bands of psychos either.

There's been hyperbole thrown around on both sides (Hell, even the idea there are just two sides is an exaggeration). This "my side (or people I mostly agree with) are persecuted innocents being picked on by those mean other guys is crock that doesn't contribute anything constructive just internet tribalism and a poor middle left to die alone and unmentioned.

Quote from: CRKrueger;806058The idea of a long-term, stable player group of friends who are experienced roleplayers needing a table rule to keep things from descending into KoDT is just so alien to my experience it is mind-boggling.  It's like having my best friend and his wife over for dinner and making sure they agree not to steal the silverware before I let them in the door.  It's just...Bizarro world...literally.

Speaking for myself, we have a large group of players. Some of them enjoy PvP type conflicts, others don't. So its best to get the ground rule straight up front.

I don't allow a PvP as it pretty quickly snowballs into something unpleasant even it starts minor. Grudges built up, people get mad or hurt and it doesn't contribute anything to the game that I find worth the trouble.

QuoteTake your regular group of players and they're Frodo and Sam, remove the ban and it becomes Varys and Littlefinger, or fuck that, from the way you guys make it sound it becomes Gregor and Sandor Clegane or Driz'zt and Entreri.  Really, really, hard to believe.  If you don't have a regular group of players, fine, I'd handle it differently, but at least the behavior you claim actually has a possibility to exist in a random changing group.

What the fuck are you talking about? Seriously. I never said that. I said IME, it never ends well and creates ongoing issues over time and that I don't like the tone PvP conflict creates around the table. Being charitable, I'll assume your either mixing what I've said up with other people (maybe from an argument you've had before) or just assuming that because I don't agree with you that I must think some pretty specific things so you can get your rage on.

Quote from: jibbajibba;805820Imagine a Game of Thrones setting without PvP or a Blade Itself setting or a Firefly setting or a Battlestar Galactica Setting or a Breaking Bad Setting or a Godfather Setting.... in fact name a setting based on a popular film, TV show or book that has no risk of PvP and you end up with the Carebears or the Smurfs and even Smurfette started off an an enemy agent working for Gargamel.....

I wouldn't say no one said it. I'll say that Krueger didn't say it though.