I allow as much PvP as the players want.  I don't encourage it, but I don't discourage it either.

Oddly, I find it happens more in my superhero games than anywhere else. Maybe its the genre. Also, there its rarely fatal.

Again, its paramount to know what your players want out of the game. The more talking openly before the campaign, the less troubles during the campaign.

As I often run convention one-shots, I am more apt to create conflicting PCs and dump them together to watch the sparks fly, but its understood that in those games the conflict is about the MacGuffin which is reached at the end of the session so while sneaky-sneaky stuff may happen in the first 3 hours of the session, the stabby-stabby part usually only happens in the final hour of the event.

I concur with others here that note how PvP can be a campaign killer. In home games, I can see why people would curtail it or discourage it, and I do it subtly by setting up more Us vs. Them campaigns so while their may be PC to PC conflict, its rarely the kind of conflict that shatters the party or results in PC death.

What's fun in a one-shot isn't always what's fun in campaigns.

Quote from: Ravenswing;879877That aside, I've seen many more campaigns sabotaged because of PvP than because of the lack of it, and my observation is that outright roleplay is often stunted in such campaigns ... except for the lucky few survivors who get to develop their characters, at the expense of the people who keep rerolling week after week.  In any event, I'm amused when I see protests at prior constraints on roleplay coming from D&D players: what makes a prohibition on PvP more onerous than the prior constraints placed by alignment or character classes?

Let's just say that our experiences are nearly 180 degrees apart on this. Some of that difference may be due to your considerable experience with LARPs. I've found LARPs to be a very different kind of game than a table top RPG with different needs and constraints that don't map well to table top games.

QuoteMy enduring observation is that the vast majority of PvP partisans aren't looking for competition; they're looking for the sure thing. For every fairly fought duel or above-board conflict, there are twenty backstabbings and sell-outs. There are plenty of GMs out there that tolerate PvP. I'm not one.

Again I'll say our experiences are close to 180 degrees apart.

QuoteSo ... I include the following in every speech I give to a prospective player:

My campaigns are about Us Vs. The Bad Guys. Characters are never to backstab any other PC by word or deed. I expect all players to conform their RP to that value, and find a way to logically and reasonably to do so.

This sounds similar in style and tone to a GM enforcing D&D alignments (specifically Lawful Good). I've seen people do that. Never cared for that either.

Quote from: Bren;879917This sounds similar in style and tone to a GM enforcing D&D alignments (specifically Lawful Good). I've seen people do that. Never cared for that either.

Probably have seen a lot of people do that, given D&D's ubiquity.

I don't consider it a very comparable analogy.  My "alignment," if you choose to call it that, has exactly one tenet and one alone: don't backstab the other PCs.  That's it.  The number of constraints and clauses attacked to even a single D&D alignment (let alone all nine at once) are far more, and as we've all seen, damn near infinitely debatable.

Quote from: Ravenswing;879977Probably have seen a lot of people do that, given D&D's ubiquity.

I don't consider it a very comparable analogy.  My "alignment," if you choose to call it that, has exactly one tenet and one alone: don't backstab the other PCs.  That's it.  The number of constraints and clauses attacked to even a single D&D alignment (let alone all nine at once) are far more, and as we've all seen, damn near infinitely debatable.

Backstab how, like by total surprise? What if they're doing stuff like spreading bad rumors about another PC.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879362How much intraparty conflict and PvP do you allow in your D&D games? Teamwork only, or anything goes?

I'm running into the problem where people are RPing their characters but its inevitably leading to clashes, some which involve PvP.

If you ban the conflict though, then that makes it hard to draw the line on what kind of intraparty tension should be allowed. Or should everyone just always be in lockstep? The problem there is it robs the PCs of their personality and turns the game into a committee.

I never ban PvP conflicts, as they can arise out of the normal flow of a game.

Also, I never introduce them as a GM, by putting PC against PC, as that never turns out well.

Sometimes PvP conflicts add to the game.

We had one campaign where two PCs took an instant dislike to each other and things escalated; It never involved combat, but one of them slept with the other's fiancee, was banned from their wedding but decided to tunnel in regardless, going through an expensive mosaic the PC had just paid for, then the PC slept with the bride on her wedding night.

Another pair hated the sight of each other, to the extent that one of them killed the other, then skinned him alive and wore his skin as armour (the slain PC was a minotaur), but sent his soul to the Eternal battle (Gloranthan campaign) so that it couldn't return to take vengeance.

A third pair had no real PvP rivalry, until one PC sold the other to a zoo, selling his magic items and equipment to someone else in the process. the PCs didn't have a problem, but the players didn't speak to each other for over a year.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879362Example in my current game: one of the PCs is the sheriff of town; another PC broke the law (for arguably good reason). The sheriff doesn't know that though and it's only natural that he try to bring the lawbreaker into jail. But if he does that, what is the 2nd PC supposed to do? Just give in? More than likely he'd try to resist arrest and then a fight will break out. And after that it might be hard for the party to get along. OR everyone flees from the sheriff and now that PC is left behind.

In that situation, the Sheriff might turn a blind eye to the lawbreaking, as the lawbreaker is his friend. That could cause other issues down the line.
The Sheriff could also try and arrest the PC but might arrange for him to escape, or might rig the trial so that he gets off. If he broke the law then the sheriff might feel duty bound to arrest him and see that he gets punished.

All of these are reasonable outcomes and could add flavour to the game.

The important fact is that the lawbreaking PC broke the law knowing that another PC is the Sheriff, so any PvP conflict was initiated by the players themselves.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879362How much intraparty conflict and PvP do you allow in your D&D games? Teamwork only, or anything goes?

Pretty much teamwork only, with some wiggle room.

I don't demand that everyone play nice with each other, but I do say "D&D is a team sport. Work together or the monsters will eat you." The strong majority of times that I remember, PvP has lead to a disrupted group and was ultimately sourced in player friction and not character friction.

I can remember one person in a campaign long ago where PvP worked. She had an agenda for her characters. She furthered this agenda through diplomacy, favors, and veiled threats. The key thing that made her characters work was: not all characters had the same agenda (but most did), she worked with the party fully to accomplish the goal, and if she moved directly against another party member is was always through a third party. (Directly meaning kill them, as opposed to politically.)

I'm OK with PvP, if you tell me beforehand, and if you don't make a fuss when you lose.

Quote from: Ravenswing;879977I don't consider it a very comparable analogy.

I know, but I do. In both cases the GM is over riding player choice by telling the player how they must play their character. It's patronizing and it bugs me. What makes the annoyance worse is that I see no benefit to having such a rule.

But I haven't ever used such a rule. Nor have I ever needed such a rule. And the only times having such a rule would have significantly changed the game was over four decades ago when I played D&D as a teenager and with teenagers.

Clearly you think there is a benefit or you wouldn't have the rule. Thus this isn't something on which we are likely to agree. But aside from that one really annoying thing you do, you sound pretty cool.

Quote from: Ravenswing;879877That aside, I've seen many more campaigns sabotaged because of PvP than because of the lack of it, and my observation is that outright roleplay is often stunted in such campaigns ... except for the lucky few survivors who get to develop their characters, at the expense of the people who keep rerolling week after week.  In any event, I'm amused when I see protests at prior constraints on roleplay coming from D&D players: what makes a prohibition on PvP more onerous than the prior constraints placed by alignment or character classes?

[/COLOR]Seems like a "same page" issue if the GM's intent is a cooperative campaign allowing PvP, but players are deciding to backstab each other regularly.

If a D&D GM allows incompatibly-alligned characters (or in any RPG, characters who would naturally dislike and conflict with each other) into a PC party together, and then insists they not act against each other, then that seems to me likely to just be an annoying artificial constraint.

Quote from: Ravenswing;879877
I've seen so many examples over the years of bad feelings, strained friendships and conflict spillover from PvP that I decided over three decades ago it wasn't worth it. My enduring observation is that the vast majority of PvP partisans aren't looking for competition; they're looking for the sure thing. For every fairly fought duel or above-board conflict, there are twenty backstabbings and sell-outs. There are plenty of GMs out there that tolerate PvP. I'm not one.

So ... I include the following in every speech I give to a prospective player:

My campaigns are about Us Vs. The Bad Guys. Characters are never to backstab any other PC by word or deed. I expect all players to conform their RP to that value, and find a way to logically and reasonably to do so. The first offense involves the death (one way or another) of the character, the second permanent expulsion from my table. Period.

I'm thankful I've only had to lay the hammer down about four times in thirty years.

Hmm. I have seen a variety of different types of PvP, including many very interesting ones, many of which were not outright combat or betrayal, but involved roleplaying character differences, and the possibility of force or undermining or splitting up more than actual fights. If there were a GM prohibition against the possibility of those options, then those situations would have been artificially forced into something else, such as the players ignoring their differences and forcing their characters to get along because the GM doesn't allow conflict.

That is, with an agreeable working mix of GM and players and game type, PvP options can be positive. The places where PvP become problems seem like dysfunctional situations which I don't see being completely solved by forbidding PvP - I think the dysfunction will still be there and tend to show up in other ways, where PvP could actually be a natural solution (Generally, a lone violator will end up getting punished & reformed, killed, or kicked out, unless the other PC's are unwilling to act, which is often, it seems to me, also due to the same artificial "oh but we're a party, we can't act against a PC party member, that would be wrong, even though they are stealing our stuff, bedding our wives, ruining party relations with everyone else, beating us up..." which again seems like a larger dysfunction to me.)

Quote from: Bren;880024Clearly you think there is a benefit or you wouldn't have the rule. Thus this isn't something on which we are likely to agree. But aside from that one really annoying thing you do, you sound pretty cool.

Oh sure.  We tend to agree on many things.  

Quote from: Skarg;880030[/COLOR]If a D&D GM allows incompatibly-alligned characters (or in any RPG, characters who would naturally dislike and conflict with each other) into a PC party together, and then insists they not act against each other, then that seems to me likely to just be an annoying artificial constraint.

Oh, absolutely, and I think that runs in tandem with the notion that certain games and genres have paradigms inseparable from PvP.  Part of the process of character creation, for me, is ensuring that such built-in conflicts don't appear.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;880003Backstab how, like by total surprise? What if they're doing stuff like spreading bad rumors about another PC.

"Characters are never to backstab any other PC by word or deed" is, IMHO, pretty unequivocal.  Unless I was dealing with a complete novice to RPGs, I wouldn't expect to need a long, involved explanation of everything that encompasses.

Quote from: Bren;880024I know, but I do. In both cases the GM is over riding player choice by telling the player how they must play their character. It's patronizing and it bugs me. What makes the annoyance worse is that I see no benefit to having such a rule.

How is it any different from the DM saying "This will be a human only campaign" or "No Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil Alignments" or "No spellcasters allowed"? Its just another house rule to either ease types of play, encourage types of play, etc.

If the DM says "No attacking other players characters." then you can either say "sure." Or walk.

And what if YOU want to kill in their sleep another players character for the gigglez but THEY dont want any part of it? Are you saying then that the player who doesnt want to be offed by their own party members is over riding your choice and patronizing you?

Quote from: Omega;880100How is it any different from the DM saying "This will be a human only campaign" or "No Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil Alignments" or "No spellcasters allowed"? Its just another house rule to either ease types of play, encourage types of play, etc.

I don't think that it is significantly different from a DM saying "No Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil Alignments." I already said so.

Quote from: Bren;879917This sounds similar in style and tone to a GM enforcing D&D alignments (specifically Lawful Good). I've seen people do that. Never cared for that either.

Prohibiting or requiring humans or spellcasters doesn't control how the humans or the spell caster's are allowed to act. I see those as different in kind to the GM assigning the PC's personality and value system. One is "here's what's in the world" and the other is "here is what your PC is allowed to think and do." You don't have to see those two things as different. But I do see them as different.

QuoteIf the DM says "No attacking other players characters." then you can either say "sure." Or walk.

Obviously. At no point did I say that Ravenswing can't prohibit intraparty conflict in his games. I just said I found such prohibitions by the GM patronizing and annoying. Now a lot of the other things he does in his campaigns sound interesting so I might put up with this one thing that bugs me. Or I might not. And if not, my feet still work.

QuoteAnd what if YOU want to kill in their sleep another players character for the gigglez

Then "YOU" are an asshole and we'd be better off playing without YOU. Rules don't fix asshole.

QuoteAre you saying then that the player who doesnt want to be offed by their own party members is over riding your choice and patronizing you?

No. I was talking about the GM being patronizing. And I was talking about playing with players who aren't the sort of assholes who find it fun to kill characters "for the gigglez". Rather than trying to fix assholes by putting rules in place I'd rather disinvite the assholes. Because they are going to be assholes about something else besides killing PCs for the shits and giggles. And then we'd need a rule to stop them from doing that. But they'd just find some other asshole thing to do...because they are assholes.

Well at least now you are on the right track.

Your previous argument made it sound like you were saying anyone telling you "No" was over riding your actions. Especially if your actions walked all over someone else.

But putting some limiters on can cause some problems to not crop up. Many players wont cause trouble if they dont have a specific tool in hand to urge them to.

It is of course not going to stop the chronic game breaker player.

Quote from: Omega;880128Well at least now you are on the right track.

Your previous argument made it sound like you were saying anyone telling you "No" was over riding your actions. Especially if your actions walked all over someone else.

I haven't changed tracks. With respect, I think you misunderstood what I said. This is from my first post in this thread (emphasis added).

Quote from: Bren;879400Rather than create a no PvP rule, I find it more useful to play with people who aren't assholes and to suggest that everyone remember that an RPG is a group activity so everyone in the group should make some effort to ensure that what they do in the game does not unduly detract from the enjoyment of the other players, e.g. don't be an asshole and kill other players for the lulz.

While it would have been better had I written, "don't be an asshole and kill other [strike]players[/strike] PCs for the lulz" (mea culpa), I expect you understood my intent despite my misstatement. I clearly indicated that even without a no-PvP rule, killing for the lulz was not acceptable.

These are two other quotes (emphasis added).

Quote from: Bren;879917This sounds similar in style and tone to a GM enforcing D&D alignments (specifically Lawful Good). I've seen people do that. Never cared for that either.

Quote from: Bren;880024In both cases the GM is over riding player choice by telling the player how they must play their character. It's patronizing and it bugs me. What makes the annoyance worse is that I see no benefit to having such a rule.

Here I clearly indicate that my concern is the GM overriding a player's choices for that player's PC not the actions of another PC. From context I think it should have been clear that I was not saying a player shouldn't be allowed to be annoyed if his PC was killed by another player's PC and most especially if the motivation for the death of that PC was "the lulz."

Quote from: Omega;880128It is of course not going to stop the chronic game breaker player.

Agreed. The only solution is to get rid of that asshole.

Again, there's a very wide range of activity that could all be considered "PvP", with "kill PCs in sleep 4 lulz" and "my character is a disguised monster/spy/whatever here to betray the party" to more interesting things like "my character has different morals or allegiances or goals so those could have me resisting what others want to do" or possible scheming with real in-character situation-meaningful reasons, or disagreements and scuffles that aren't deadly, and other things that good interesting roleplaying gets up to that isn't just being a childish jerk, but still might involve some characters in conflict up to and possibly including serious violence. As I mentioned before, if serious violence against PCs is something that is possible and allowed, then players have that to consider, which can be interesting and make sense, without actually involving fighting happening. But if PvP is just not allowed, or the GM says they'll always kill any PC who attacks another PC, then that whole dynamic is removed from actual play.

If players don't think they can or should get into conflicts with others ever, that can also enable more dorky behavior by problem players who may take advantage of that. I often see questions on the likes of rpg.stackexchange where players and DMs are having problems with someone being a jerk, claiming loot, stealing loot, etc (like the example here of the PC sleeping with another PC's wife etc), which it seems to me would tend to be reacted to by threats or violence or breaking up the party, unless that's off limits.