There seems to be this general notion going around that PvP in RPGs is inherently bad, whether in and of itself or as specifically applied to rolling dice to headshot a muthafucker -- muthafucker being that degenerative-asshole-across-the-table-from-you's character.

I don't understand this.

I condone and even encourage this shit all the time in any and all games I host. Puts players on edge and makes em' think twice, ramps up intensity and emotional/economical buy-in value and autocorrects asshole/escapist behaviour at the table: this being my experience, of course. Run several different systems in my modest time as a GM and none of them seem to change how the above plays out -- death is a legit outcome in all cases. Much fun had by all every time which I'm very thankful for.

So what's the deal?

I am fine with it. It can make for some fun gaming but everyone needs to be on the same page. For me it is about whether the players at the table will enjoy this sort of thing. Worst case scenario I'nve seen is you have one guy who thinks it is a player versus player situation and everyone else has to keep killing his characters. Best case scenario is a game where everyone is onboard and embraces the chaos.

Some 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.

It'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.

I 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.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805297There seems to be this general notion going around that PvP in RPGs is inherently bad, whether in and of itself or as specifically applied to rolling dice to headshot a muthafucker -- muthafucker being that degenerative-asshole-across-the-table-from-you's character.

I don't understand this.

I condone and even encourage this shit all the time in any and all games I host. Puts players on edge and makes em' think twice, ramps up intensity and emotional/economical buy-in value and autocorrects asshole/escapist behaviour at the table: this being my experience, of course. Run several different systems in my modest time as a GM and none of them seem to change how the above plays out -- death is a legit outcome in all cases. Much fun had by all every time which I'm very thankful for.

So what's the deal?

I 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.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;805297There seems to be this general notion going around that PvP in RPGs is inherently bad, whether in and of itself or as specifically applied to rolling dice to headshot a muthafucker -- muthafucker being that degenerative-asshole-across-the-table-from-you's character.

I don't understand this.

I condone and even encourage this shit all the time in any and all games I host. Puts players on edge and makes em' think twice, ramps up intensity and emotional/economical buy-in value and autocorrects asshole/escapist behaviour at the table: this being my experience, of course. Run several different systems in my modest time as a GM and none of them seem to change how the above plays out -- death is a legit outcome in all cases. Much fun had by all every time which I'm very thankful for.

So what's the deal?

You 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.

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.

And if that guy's next character is also chaotic dickish, then it's time resort to a good old fashioned shunning.

RPGs 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.

Quote from: Nikita;805322RPGs are based on implicit assumption that players form a group that works together for a common goal.

That is one assumption. One that many people share. It is not universally shared nor is it necessary to play and enjoy RPGs.

It's worth noting that working together towards a common goal does not prevent all disagreements or conflicts. (For examples look at any group activity.)  Personally I find working out how the characters manage their disagreements to be one of the interesting parts of playing RPGs. Of course having PC disagreements be entertaining requires that the players have a common goal of playing an entertaining game together.

Quote from: Bren;805326It's worth noting that working together towards a common goal does not prevent all disagreements or conflicts.

Still, 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 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.

Its 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.

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.

Thats 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.

Quote from: Ravenswing;805331But 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.

Its been around as a problem quite a long time. Theres at least one article in an early edition of Dragon that discusses the subject. Probably several.