One of the possible scenarios for Ravenloft was that one of the PCs could end up replaced and turning on the group when most inconvenient. Fairly common. Though that isnt really PVP. The player is playing an NPC.

Is the character capable of attacking another character? Then yes.

If your character can do it...your character may do it.  I never artificially constrain player actions, only advise if it looks like they are forgetting something their character probably wouldn't forget, but that's rare.

Quote from: Skarg;880154Again, 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.

What you have said here and in this previous post is exactly what I was trying to say.

Quote from: Ravenswing;879977My "alignment," if you choose to call it that, has exactly one tenet and one alone: don't backstab the other PCs.  That's it.

It could also be viewed as requiring the player characters to have some relatively minor disadvantage like a lesser Code of Honor. The last vestige of required alignment that I care to enforce is that player characters must be vaguely heroic: not attacking other heroic characters (there's more important battles for all of them) and not starting fights with "neutrals" (that is, the innocent bystander NPCs) and not doing anything else that's so repellent it puts me off (like extreme torture). And, like all alignment systems, subject to my judgement as GM of what crosses the line. It's mostly just an abstraction for more powerful heroic characters enforcing that standard, since the actual process of such enforcement is not something I want to spend time on.

I would say it depends on the game. On the sort of "adventuring party" premise as seen on D&D, Shadowrun and most Supers titles it may be disruptive if not used with moderation. On games like Paranoia, Amber or Monsterhearts though, it can be as intense as people want.

If I say "No rape of PCs." and you decry that as me over riding your choice and oppressing your freedom. Then sorry Bren. There is the door and hopefully it breaks every bone in your body on the way out.

The current group I DM for has a "No PVP" rule and that is the groups rule not mine because they got fed up with the disruptions in previous groups. Verbal sparring and other chicanery is fine. But offing someones character is not. They dont want it and you wouldnt be allowed it by them.

Or to put it another way. I have enough to deal with. I dont need potential problems that can be curbed with a simple. "Dont do that." If you give everyone a box of matches. Someone will eventually burn down the house because they have a box of matches. If rather not have to deal with putting out fires, even accidental ones, when I can just make sure there arent any matches in the house.

Or same reason as I dont have kids as NPCs.

Now in other sessions I may say up front. "No limits.".

Or I may base limits on what I know the players dont like. Like current.

PVP can be fun. Or it can be absolute Hell. Figuring out where you as a DM or player stand at any given group is impirtant because every groups going to have slightly different views whats ok and what is not.

Quote from: rawma;880297It could also be viewed as requiring the player characters to have some relatively minor disadvantage like a lesser Code of Honor. The last vestige of required alignment that I care to enforce is that player characters must be vaguely heroic: not attacking other heroic characters (there's more important battles for all of them) and not starting fights with "neutrals" (that is, the innocent bystander NPCs) and not doing anything else that's so repellent it puts me off (like extreme torture). And, like all alignment systems, subject to my judgement as GM of what crosses the line. It's mostly just an abstraction for more powerful heroic characters enforcing that standard, since the actual process of such enforcement is not something I want to spend time on.

A "Code of Honor" disad is an interesting way to handle it, and may work better for those who get all squirrelly at the GM Telling Them What To Do.

That being said, I don't require "heroic" behavior generally, and have even had what can be safely termed an all-evil group.

Quote from: Ravenswing;880368A "Code of Honor" disad is an interesting way to handle it, and may work better for those who get all squirrelly at the GM Telling Them What To Do.

That being said, I don't require "heroic" behavior generally, and have even had what can be safely termed an all-evil group.

I don't care for evil characters. But my "vaguely heroic" requirement isn't pointless heroic sacrifice or dictating what heroic actions must be taken or requiring lawful stupid or any alignment (D&D alignments are usually ignored or unworkable). It's for banning the antics that make the game unpleasant for me, which includes direct PvP. I don't think anyone has actually crossed the line since I adopted the policy.

Quote from: Omega;880355If I say "No rape of PCs." and you decry that as me over riding your choice and oppressing your freedom.

I'd first have to question why you felt the need for a rule like that. As in, "Is raping a PC something that happened in your game?" not to mention, is it something happens often enough that you needed a rule to stop it from disrupting more than that one awful session. Because honestly, if you need a rule like I don't think I'm going to want to play with you and your players.

If your point was to ask if there is there a line of behavior by PCs that I am uncomfortable with you could have just asked.

Some of my most memorable experiences have included PvP action, and the only time there was hostility was when the PC that got killed was being such a colossal douche that everyone else thought the character in question richly deserved it.  

Once, when I was DM, one of the players told me after the session that he was tired of playing the paladin and wanted to try something new, but he wanted to give his PC a truly memorable send-off: by turning on the group and attacking them (suicide by player character). I told him he was welcome to try -I assumed the other six PCs would make short work of him. His PC killed several outright, severely wounded the rest, robbed them blind and then he really started fucking them over! He used their stuff to hire a merry band of cutthroats, went around murdering villagers and other good guys and blaming his former comrades for the deed.

Now, did the other players cry like little bitches? Did they beat me up and turn me into a useless amateur theater asshole like John Wick, who is too fucking stupid to understand that it's a game and that sometimes in games, you don't come out on top? No and no. They licked their wounds, raised their dead, gathered such help as they could and went after the PC who betrayed them. It took them a while, but finally they destroyed him and his henchmen and set about  trying to undo the damage their ex-member had done. The best part for me as a DM is that I could just sit back and let both sides go at it: they were effectively writing their own adventures while I was the referee. When it was over, the player's new PC was welcomed without issue.

In another case, our PCs had all reached high enough level to start building strongholds, temples and the like, as well as attracting followers. Some of us chose to pool our money and build together, allowing some to keep adventuring while others stayed behind to oversee construction (we took turns), while others didn't. One of the other players had a higher-level PC and also had a plan: Why not just raid the construction site and steal everything of value? He'd not only help himself to a huge amount of loot, but he'd also have his own fortress built that much sooner (and ours that much later)!

This led to all-out war, with the PCs, followers and allies on both sides going to the mattresses. All those floor plans for castles, all those men-at-arms, all those valuables were gone in no time flat, as were a few of the high-level PCs. The most sadistic DMs would've been hard pressed to wipe out so many PCs and their treasure so quickly. It was a blast! Again, there were no grudges or hard feelings.

If a DM is worried that one of his players might be a fucktard, I would recommend the following: Tell them at the outset that no, you won't intervene to stop one PC from attacking another but memories are long and like Lynne Cheney, payback is a bitch

Heh, if I sat down at a table and they had a "no PC rape" rule, I'd probably need to know the history of that before I went any further.

To be honest, I've never seen anyone kill other player characters "for the lulz".  For the money, sure.  Because they were possessed by an evil sword, sure. For self-preservation, sure.  Because shits and giggles? No.  I guess those people get weeded out before they get confident or powerful enough to try that crap.

Even with pickup groups at FLGS's I don't see much random PvP.  I do see a lot of people blatantly abuse a no-PvP rule though, by fucking with characters who have codes of honor, insulting gods, rulers, whatever, just because they're protected.

Quote from: Robert E. Howard"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

It seems to me that there are many different situations (game types and players types), and that no-PvP rules seem like a fiat way to stop certain unwanted PvP situations from happening, but that those unwanted PvP situations only come up in certain situations, and are only problems in certain situations (mainly with certain types of players).

There are other ways of dealing with players who do unwanted PvP stuff besides disallowing PvP, but I can see where if your players contain one or more players who seem prone to annoying PvP but you otherwise like playing with them, then a no PvP rule would seem to fit.

You might also try having them play as adversary players sometimes. That is, not in the party, but running some/all hostile NPCs.

Quote from: Skarg;880590You might also try having them play as adversary players sometimes. That is, not in the party, but running some/all hostile NPCs.

Eeesh, no.  Did that exactly once. 2nd edition GURPS pushed the concept of an Adversary, and one of my players from my 2nd group volunteered to be the test bed for the 1st group.  He knew nothing about the characters, and all he was running was the senior sergeant in charge of the mook guardsmen tasked to capture the group.  No magic, no nothing, five sword-and-board 50 pters, five crossbowmen.

Came within a whisper of a TPK.  He was ruthless, he played smart, and he sure as hell took no chances.  He had one of his men put a crossbow bolt in the belly of the party mage after he surrendered, just to demonstrate what he'd do to the other three who were captured alive if they so much as hinted at resistance.

It was a good bit nastier than the heroic swashbuckling paradigm I was doing with that group could sustain, and I didn't repeat the experiment.

Quote from: Ravenswing;880632Came within a whisper of a TPK.  He was ruthless, he played smart, and he sure as hell took no chances.  He had one of his men put a crossbow bolt in the belly of the party mage after he surrendered, just to demonstrate what he'd do to the other three who were captured alive if they so much as hinted at resistance.

My kind of player!

Did you tell him he was supposed to pull his punches?

Quote from: CRKrueger;880534Heh, if I sat down at a table and they had a "no PC rape" rule...

I've never had a GM announce this, but it would be less weird than "there are no child NPCs in this game"(!?!).

As GM I've always had 'no raping the PCs (male or female) without player consent' as a GM-side rule, I would hope my GMs do too, and by implication that would extend to the PCs too. I don't think any PC has been raped in any tabletop RPG I've ever GM'd or played in; but in some settings it's a theoretical possibility if the PCs get captured, & it's worth the GM considering in advance how he/she will handle it. I suspect it's one of those things where as a player I might be ok with it from a female GM I trusted, but not from a male GM. I'd rather not find out, though.