Here's a question for the minds of theRPGsite: Under what conditions should a GM give XP for PvP confrontations? Does it vary depending on game, playstyle, how cool the PvP confrontation is, etc.? If you normally think a PC shouldn't get XP for PvP, why, and what would it take to change your mind?

This has recently come up in my group as we play Iron Heroes (for most of the group, it's the first time). My group loves our PvP and spent most of the first session of our new campaign trying to kill and enslave one another, forming alliances with one another to kill and enslave the remaining PCs (and nearby NPCs) and so on. Everybody had a blast, but the DM didn't want to award full XP for trying to kill other PCs (we did get some). He wasn't entirely articulate about why he wouldn't, but it seemed that he wanted to use full XP awards as a carrot to lead us down the story or something.

My game worlds are generally hostile enough that the players don't consider PvP a viable choice.  But if they came to blows I would give at least full XP based upon CR.  I'd consider giving out a bonus above and beyond that because an earnestly fighting PC is almost always more dangerous than some ol' NPC.

I generally don't give XP for "good role-play", so I don't know what to choose: I don't give XP for PvP, but neither for other stuff like good acting.

However, I have no problem with PvP, depending on the game. D&D-like games can profit from small-scale PvP (pranks and so on), while other games outright demand for PvP (Paranoia and Capes for instance).

It depends on the situation. If it's appropriate to the direction the campaign has taken I'll give XP to everyone involved (including the next character of the dead PC's player). If it's someone being a jerk they'll get nothing, except maybe an offer to leave if the situation warrants it.

There are certainly games that I'd give XP for PvP, but it's not always clear-cut.

A pretty clearcut example might be if I wanted to warmup a swords & sorcery campaign by doing some gladiatorial combat. Even if it's not necessarily to the death, giving XP as a prize makes sense.

If I was playing a game like Burning Wheel or the Shadow of Yesterday, which give various kinds of points for acting in character, then yes, if "doing in-character stuff" => fighting each other, I'd give points for it.

In by-the-book D&D, I'd give XP for killing other characters...but I'd also make clear that players shouldn't be jerks to each other...and that would include creating jerk, backstabbing characters, or taking PCvPC conflicts to the mat, without everybody being onboard. I only know d20 from hearsay but I gather that XP awards are supposed to based on overcoming challenges. If so there needs to be a real conflict recognized by the players in order for an XP award to be justified; simply slaughtering another PC whose player has been lulled by the assumption that all the PCs are buddies will not cut it.

I've also played games with flat or mission-based XP awards. The practice worked fine for those games, but it was also understood that PvP stuff wouldn't go beyond downtime hijinks.

In short it varies enormously depending on game & playstyle. The concept doesn't even compute for games that use skill checks and/or training instead of session-based or accomplishment-based rewards.

Having had to deal with game groups that have players whose sole source of entertainment is making evrybody else at the table miserable, I totally support PvP and give full XP for it. If the rest of the party wants some jackass player gone by killing his character, I'll let them gang up on him and kill him without batting an eye.

Honestly, it works out pretty well. Usually because it keeps me from telling the jerk that we don't want him back for the next game.

Personally, I'd give a huge XP penalty for anyone at my table who merely _uses_ the term PvP.

XP is reward conditioning, to get all psych on things.  so really, it follows to award it for things you want to encourage at the table.

If you and your group digs PvP and you want lots of it, then by all means.

Why do people assume that PvP = killing each others' characters, necessarily?

I was in a great campaign a while back which culminated in a PvP conflict: essentially, half of the players wanted to help the occult guardians of humanity nuke the headquarters of the people who were keeping humanity imprisoned in the world we know (which is only a small ghetto of the "real" world), the other half were terrified of the reprisals that would result and wanted to stop us by warning the powers that be.

At no point did the players actively try to kill one another, but we were still competing and racing against each other to get to the enemy HQ first. That was great fun.

I give full experience points for player characters. I do boot players who are assholes about PC vs. PC conflict, though.

I'm more about awarding players for progress towards the goals of the game than for generic conflicts.

PvP is more often against the goals of the game than for it. Though I truly can't say never, for the purposes of this poll, I said no.

If there is a legitimate reason for PvP and all characters are doing their best to win then I do give XP for it.  There can be abuse of the rule though, like when a player I know got tired of his character and conspired with the rest of the group to start a fight so that he would get killed off and could roll a new character.  The GM wisely didn't award XP or let the group keep the guy's stuff since it was essentially the RPG equivalent of insurance fraud.  That kind of abuse is rare but I've seen it a couple of times.

This is one of the many reasons I've moved away from D&D's basic experience point system.

Every session, the PCs get 200 xp * (Current Highest PC Level), with additional rewards for improving the play environment (snacks, art, bringing minis for us to use for the night, etc.) and for fun, interesting play.

-O

I never award XP for PVP, simply because it's not something I want to encourage. Conflicts such as these should come naturally from the pcs and is all about characterization and motivations....something that I don't like placing an XP value on. Just a slight detour, I never hand out XP for roleplaying, the group decides who "performed"  the best - there's no set criteria -and awards XP for roleplaying.

Regards,
David R

I think my position has already been better stated by others here.  If player-player conflict is acceptable in the game, than success and experience at it should be rewarded.  If you're using the D&D system, you're kind of limited, because then you can only gain XP for taking out another character.  But if you get one over on your opponent, be it by beating him or her in combat, stealing something valuable from him or her, turning others against him or her, weakening their position in court, etc. you should get some reward.

I would really love to run a game where all the players represented some group, say rival drug gangs warring for tough or city-states on an island.  The players would have statted out characters, maybe several, like their leader, the top lieutenant, a tough soldier, a spy etc.  But they would also have overall stats and some abstract not too crunchy system to monitor the overall status of their kingdom.  And then let them really go at it. That would be awesome.

Hello, Reign.  I hope this system will fit the above bill.