Player vs Player in D&D (and WHY I don't allow it)

𝐋𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐞 - Reduce prep time and improve your games with this monthly D&D magazine ▶▶ / thedmlair
RPGs such as Dungeons & Dragons are usually built around the concept of cooperative play. However, what happens when players versus player (PVP) comes into game? Business as usual or epic failure? Let's talk about PVP in D&D and what it might mean for your game.
Arbiter of Worlds ▶▶ amzn.to/3hLhnDS
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐌 𝐋𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐞 - Get back issues of Lair Magazine, map packs, 5e adventures, and other DM resources ▶▶ the-dm-lair.myshopify.com/
𝗧𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗵 𝗟𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺𝘀 - Get your DM questions answered ▶▶ / thedmlair
𝐃𝐌𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐑.𝐂𝐎𝐌 - Get free D&D 5e adventures and DM resources ▶▶ www.thedmlair.com/
𝐍𝐄𝐖𝐒𝐋𝐄𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐑 - Get free D&D 5e adventures and DM resources in your email ▶▶ thedmlair.getresponsepages.com/
𝐊𝐈𝐂𝐊𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐄𝐑 - Order my level 1 to 5 adventure module, Into the Fey, here ▶▶ www.kickstarter.com/projects/...
-----------------------------SOCIAL----------------------------------------------
Discord ▶▶ / discord
Twitch ▶▶ / thedmlair
Watch my D&D games here ▶▶ / thedmlairstreams
Twitter ▶▶ / thedmlair
Instagram ▶▶ / thedmlair
-----------------------------SUPPORT THE CHANNEL-------------------------------------
PATREON ▶▶ / thedmlair
CHANNEL MEMBERSHIP ▶▶ kzbin.infojoin
DM LAIR MERCH ▶▶ teespring.com/stores/the-dm-lair
-----------------------------AFFILIATE LINKS-----------------------------
D&D PRODUCTS I USE ▶▶ www.amazon.com/shop/thedmlair
VIDEO GEAR I USE ▶▶ www.amazon.com/shop/thedmlair...
-----------------------------CREDITS/DISCLAIMERS---------------------------------------------
Editing ▶▶ Zack Newman
Art ▶▶ Adobe Stock & Wizards of the Coast
Music and Sound Effects ▶▶ Epidemic Sound
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Some videos on this channel are unofficial Fan Content permitted under the Fan Content Policy. Not approved/endorsed by Wizards. Portions of the materials used are property of Wizards of the Coast. ©Wizards of the Coast LLC.
#dnd #dungeonsanddragons

[@theDMLair]

𝐋𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐞 - Reduce prep time and improve your games with this monthly D&D magazine ▶▶ www.patreon.com/thedmlair 𝗧𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗵 𝗟𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺𝘀 - Get your DM questions answered ▶▶ www.twitch.tv/thedmlair 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐌 𝐋𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐞 - Get back issues of Lair Magazine, map packs, 5e adventures, and other DM resources ▶▶ the-dm-lair.myshopify.com/

[@michaelstowe2167]

I once created a magical dungeon that teleported each party member to a different part of the dungeon when they entered, then manifested shadowy imitations of my players to fight against them. I had the players roleplay the fight against each other's shadows. It went well. The shadows had all of their abilities, but only 1/4 of their health. It was a fun way to let the players have a taste of PvP without actually fighting each other.

[@AidanMcLaughlin-le5wq]

You are a genius. Some people are just mentally built to be great dms

[@MrExplosion449]

When I was a relatively new DM, I had a nightmare player that decided to start killing party members, just coz, and each time I questioned it, all I would get would be ‘its what my character would do, stop railroading me’, sadly I hadn’t been DMing long enough to know to tell him ‘no’ eventually a few sessions later, I did, and he had a full blown tantrum and rage quit

[@fosyatheiguan1868]

You did the right thing. Some people better play single player games, not ruin everybody's game

[@justinblocker730]

Rules: 1. PVP is ON! 2. Have a back up character, same level.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

Me: "Immorality is my name... Vengeance is inevitable."

[@Hudston]

It's definitely counter intuitive that "Player vs Player" gameplay only ever really works in D&D when the players cooperate.

[@neb985]

PvP can be very satisfying if done carefully, but everyone at the table has to be on board with it.

[@ramgladore]

I'd be cool with it if it makes sense. I understand that not everyone gets along with each other and I'm sure fantasy groups are no exception.

[@pietrosilvi6671]

You should also distinguish between PvP and PCvPC. The latter can be a blessing, but it has to come with the agreement that any argument/conflict exists only in the game and not at the table.

[@neb985]

@@pietrosilvi6671 100%. There should definitely be discussions out of game before trying any PCvPC scenarios about making sure everyone is on the same page and if anybody has any specific lines they don't want crossed.

[@jonathancrosby1583]

Yea we have a unwritten 75% rule as long as 75% of value makes it to the party you can pocket some hell I had a player who was secretly the bbeg and being a pure that guy bardto sell it and that didn't even cause that much of an issue and when the character died to massive crit and the deception came out the other players appreciated the intent and found it funny

[@craigtucker1290]

@@ramgladore I think that is how most mature players run with it as opposed to the immature ones that just seem to do so for attention or creating strife. If it makes sense and it is something the PC would do to a NPC in a similar situation, then it shouldn't make a difference if it is directed at a PC. Who controls the character shouldn't have influence over whether an action is going to be allowed or not.

[@nythrius4326]

Got invited to a game, session 0, "This will be a campaign with PvP elements." Thanked the DM for his time and left. I wasn't angry or upset, and I hope that everyone who was there had a great time. But PvP is not my idea of an enjoyable game to relax and have fun with. So to all you DMs who address this up front and let us know, thank you.

[@mykediemart]

Agree. I play (or DM) to have a group team up and take on the "world".

[@erc1971erc1971]

I agree 100%

[@DaDunge]

I mean I would be fine with it if it's explicitly said that it's allowed. But what annoys me is people who assume it is.

[@monkeysk8er33]

Weak

[@Hudston]

And that's what session 0 is for. Good on your for graciously backing out, too many people would stay quiet and put up with it just so they can play and ultimately end up spoiling it for everyone else too.

[@falkfire389]

Rogue: "That's a 20 on the die! ....which is a 39 total." Thank you. More of this.

[@Boss-_]

My group has a bit of a competitive collective play combined with a bit of individualist play (not that I heard of these classifications before today, so thanks. Now I can act all clever and well-read in discussions) We enabled PvP some 20-ish sessions in, when a moment for it arose organically. I stopped the game for a brief moment, asked everyone if we're gonna allow PvP. Everyone agreed, and since then we occasionally do a bit of it, tho it was only that first time an actual attack happened. The other times, it was mostly scheming and conspiring, but I think the game is richer for it (I wrote this before you predicted my words, shut up). As a result of one, we ended up having a trial for a character, where the ship NPC crew voted on his fate. The scheming PC was trying to get him convicted, another player to defend him (tho badly, as is the character), and the dice decided he lives. Now the formerly accused is waiting for his time to strike. Not that I recommend this for other groups, I've seen people get upset for a lot less. But it's not been a problem for us. Besides, PCs drop dead a lot in this campaign, so nobody's attached to theirs too much.

[@zorcon4]

Ha ha! That ship trial sounds like it was a great story. I would say most of my groups 'PVP' was individual scheming. We had one case were a PC was subdued, taken to town, and then the party debated weather to turn him into the constable or banish him from the group. But other than that, it hasn't gone beyond character v character debate/arguing. That said, I expect sometime in the future of my Dark Heresy campaign that the party will fight 3v2 to the death.

[@sundaydnd]

I think the most important part of this reply is that you STOPPED the game. In my experience that is what new GMs are missing is knowing when to stop, bring everyone out of character, and have a discussion.

[@twilightgardenspresentatio6384]

These classifications caught me off guard - great description of play style!

[@AnarchyWerebitch]

Sounds like a great group to be in!

[@thegrenmaster1]

I do not allow spontaneous pvp at my tables. However, story based pvp and individualist actions that have been built upon previously (often with my knowledge) can be allowed in moderation, as there is no sudden surprise action, and it ends up fitting the narrative of the story, ie player has corrupted object hidden, other pcs have had a chance to notice and or deal with it, then that arc can be resolved, in the case of my group, in pvp that ended a pc (and loved it because it was a satisfying end to their character).

[@saibogu002love]

PvP is funnier when you are the one betraying for sure ! From my experience a lot (not all mind you) of the people who i saw first agreeing to PvP to then get upset about it, are the ones who thought they would be the one to do it and the others to be happy. And when consequences arrived or someone got to this faster than them...

[@goliathcleric]

I think you nailed it on the head. When players agree to PvP, they often aren't agreeing to PvP. They're agreeing to be the one to initiate it but not to be ok the receiving end.

[@DolFan316]

Oh absolutely. Tv Tropes calls it original position fallacy. In the words of the site it's described as follows. "A situation in which a character is in favor of some action, revolution or social system because he assumes that he will be in the group that benefits from it (or fails to realize that he will be in the group that will suffer). Inevitably, Bob will be proven wrong, with the double whammy of knowing he supported the measure that caused his suffering when he thought it would happen to somebody else." A whole lot of that thinking is going on today, but that's another story.

[@craigtucker1290]

One of the best cases of PvP I experienced, not the first mind you, was watching two other players challenge each other to a fight in the middle of exploring a ruined city to determine who was the more deadly fighter. One was a 1/2 mul gladiator from Athas with singing sticks and the other was some ridiculous homebrew soul lives in his hand creation that if he died, all one would need to do is cut of his right hand and place it on a corpse so he might live again. We, the players, had stopped them from fighting earlier by using a wand of viscid globs to put them on a time out, but we let them go to it this time. The bet was that the gladiator couldn't kill the homebrew in just a few hits, the homebrew was wrong. Now what made this even more amusing is that no one liked either of these two characters, so when the gladiator killed the homebrew, everyone turned on the gladiator feeling fully justified. At this point the homebrew player asked one of us to cut off his right hand and place it on a corpse so he could live again, yet he failed to disclose this secret to anyone else in the party. Instead, both character's were burried in those ruins with the homebrew's soul to rot in the ground, trapped, never to find peace in the afterlife on the outer planes. Good times.

[@adamelliott4257]

Oooh, just gives the idea of: “Okay hands up anyone who wants pvp…. Okay cool those characters can have pvp initiated on them but may not initiate it.” When they kick up a stink point out they didn’t want pvp they just wanted to annoy the rest of the party.

[@INeedaName-cb2qw]

Let's gooo! Luke did a video on PvP! So glad you're covering this topic! I had expirienced PvP in one of my first Pathfinder campaigns and it very quickly tore the party apart. Resulted in two character deaths. So glad our GM was willing to retcon that, because our reason for starting pvp in that campaign effectively boiled down to "ThAtS wHaT mY cHaRaCteR wOuLd dO!" Save your swords for the dragons, you can't slay them if you slay your comrades!

[@EatAnOctorok]

I'm just going to allow in-character context to take its course. I feel this particularly with factions. I can't expect the one character who's allied with the next quest's target to just sit out those battles. I don't believe for example, that Waterdeep offers an opportunity to join the Zhentarim naturally, but Lost Mine of Phandelver does, and since I'm going to be DMing a linear timeline, that could mean a LMoP character allied with the Zhentarim, might join Dragon Heist. Hell, Lost Mines itself, despite being intended as a tutorial campaign, creates faction complications by giving opportunities to join pretty much all five of the main factions, and the Zhentarim are integral to the conclusion of at least two acts in that campaign.

[@kyleward3914]

In my most recent campaign, after winning a drinking contest against a dragon, the party cleric cast Banishment on the sorcerer. Because of how we'd ruled the spell earlier (it got a lot of use), the place they were counted as another plane from where the sorcerer came from, so he was going to have to take the long way back. His player made a new character, ran him for a few sessions, then had his original character show back up at a dramatically appropriate moment. No one got TOO upset about it, but it did throw a bit of a spanner in the works for several sessions.

[@spazzyphantasm]

Banishment only last for a minute then the creature returns their space or as close to that space as possible. Not sure how that could do what you just said to a game, except by making it an involuntary planar travel spell. Which is a 7th level spell. A dm can go hey guys, this spell is raw now very easily. Next time do that because banishment is very fun in combat.

[@immortaldestruction4072]

@@spazzyphantasm I think they were playing a character from a different plane, like 1 of the Fey options (rabitfolk, satyr, eladrin) with the feywild, shadar-kai and the shadowfell, a tiefling from the lower planes, or aarokokra and the plane of air. Banishment has a 2nd property where when used on an outsider (someone from another plane) they don't get brought back after a minute, I'm guessing that's what happened.

[@kyleward3914]

@@immortaldestruction4072 That's more or less the case, yeah. It was a weird case because of some campaign setting stuff that had caused us to make some unusual rulings, but what you mentioned is the important bit. He wasn't native to the plane they were on, so he wasn't automatically coming back.

[@immortaldestruction4072]

@@kyleward3914 which plane were you guys on and which was he from just out of curiosity?

[@kyleward3914]

@@immortaldestruction4072 It's weird and campaign specific, as I said. He was essentially from the domain of the goddess of air and chaos, and they were in the domain of the goddess of alcohol and worldly pleasures. The weird part, I guess, is that my world is a massive ocean. At this point in its history (sort of a prequel campaign to other campaigns I've run in the past) there was no land. Each deity had a truly massive ship. So each of these was somewhere in what would normally be the same plane, but we'd ruled they counted as different planes for this and similar effects that had come up before.

[@Ollioxis]

I recently had an extreme person in my group that decided to betray the group for her own benefit. She stole a holy item that would protect the town from undead monsters and used it to protect herself. However the group found out and intentionally killed her off themselves because of the betrayel. She was not fully OK with it, even tho i warned her multiple times about it... She kinda ruined the game for herself that way... :/

[@williamknox6648]

Betraying the group lifts any "no PvP" rule. You turn on the group you die by the group

[@craigtucker1290]

You handled that the best way possible by warning the player of the possible consequences and not interfering with player agency by allowing the other players to deal with her. This is how players learn about consequences without having the DM having to act as a parent and ban certain actions. Also, congrats for letting the players tell their own story in this matter.

[@james35813]

My DM has told everybody that if we betray the party enough to cause PvP, we need to make a new character that better aligns with the group. Our evil character will become a NPC.

[@craigtucker1290]

@@james35813 You might not have a particularly good DM as the DM is not supposed to dictate PC actions.

[@james35813]

@@craigtucker1290 Fully disagree on both points

[@VerityCandle]

A problem I've had a couple times as a player has been when another party member was about to harm a friendly or innocent NPC and my character was present and wanted to protect that NPC. I tend to play more "heroic" type characters, so I feel like they wouldn't be okay with just letting their "friend" hurt someone who's innocent. In both cases, I tried to persuade the other character first, but when they didn't listen, I kind of ended up looking awkwardly at the DM and asking "how do you want me to handle this??" I didn't want to PVP the other player, but I don't know how else to resolve the situation. Both of those times, the DMs just said to "handle it in character" and basically said that PVP was fine for them. Also in both cases my character (and me as a player) was only willing to fight to subdue the other character (using non-lethal damage, or non-harmful spells like calm emotions to get the other PC to stop). It never went as far as anyone actually taking damage, but the opposing player was annoyed with me stopping them from murderhobo-ing. The other players at the table all generally agreed with me that harming friendly NPCs was bad, but they weren't as driven to act on it as I was. I still don't know if I was the jerk in those situations (or maybe we both were?), or how I could handle it better if it came up again. Was the other player the one starting PVP because they're the ones who were about to seriously harm a friendly NPC? Or was it me because I was the one who was ready to start a fight with another actual PC?

[@theDMLair]

Situations like that are rather gray. It seems like the murder hobo player/PC had a different approach to the game that didnt mesh with everyone elses. They were playing an individualic game and not collectively. If there wasn't an established norm for the game perhaps no one is at fault there.

[@robertmurrhee6016]

You were just doing what your character felt morally obligated to do, interfere with an unjust act, the needless killing of an innocent. Neither you, not your character did anything wrong. You simply acted according to your character's alignment & sense of morality & right & wrong.

[@Scorpious187]

In most of the games I play in and in games I run, we have limited PvP. That is, the party is expected to cooperate with one another and maintain a relatively good alignment, but if a party member does something against the party (even if they aren't exactly aware of it), PvP is a viable option for dealing with it. This came up in my bi-weekly campaign I play in on Sundays when the players found out that the goliath chef had been paying to have random aarokocras murdered and then cooking them to serve the party as "turkey". None of our characters realized he was doing it because he was a good chef and we all trusted him. To his credit, he was a goliath barbarian and the thought that cannibalism might be wrong in the eyes of other members of the party just didn't register with him. But the party immediately cut him out of the group and then our wizard broke her Staff of Power over him, downing him and outright killing her, because she felt so defiled that she couldn't live with herself anymore.

[@romanabanin2216]

Cannibalism is about eating the same species as you are. Unless you are all bird folks...

[@goose6752]

Tell it like it is, Luke!! I know that when I play, I like to play the Big Damn Hero; and it really chaps my ass when someone decides their going to play the as evil as I'm allowed to be chaotic neutral whom my good guy would never team up with, but I'm forced to accept because the basic conceit that this is a game and we are an adventuring party. If we're going to play evil pvp, lets get that out in the open at the start, so I can design my character to be good at murdering my friends and stealing their stuff since that's what that game is going to be all about.

[@studentofsmith]

Player with an evil PC: "That's what my character would do!" Everyone else with good-aligned PCs: "Well kicking your character out of the group/killing them/turning them over to the authorities is what *our* characters would do!"

[@AuntLoopy123]

@@studentofsmith I told my players, "You may only play an evil character on this adventure, if your brand of evil is 'I'm selfish,' or 'I'm sneaky,' or something like that, but your goals absolutely align with the party, so you will do everything in your party to keep things running smoothly for the party at large, because that helps you achieve your selfish/sneaky goals." Evil doesn't mean, "I'm mean to people and I kill puppies." It can mean something else, entirely. Like, "the ends justify the means," and so long as the ends and means don't disrupt the party, that's fine. Basically, you can be evil (or "chaotic neutral") and still be an excellent friend and party member, and an asset to the group. Maybe you don't want to rule the world. Maybe you just want to overthrow the baron that destroyed your ancestral home, and rule his barony, instead. Vengeance is evil, right? Good is forgiveness, and neutral is just letting it go, and seeking vengeance is evil. Heck, I'd even deal with murderhobos, but only for a one-shot or short adventure. Because actions have consequences, and as DM, it's my job to figure those out, and so I want to keep things as simple as possible, because I don't have the time/energy/mental capacity to figure out how to give evil murderhobos consequences, without it leading to a TPK. Balance is hard. Still, for beginners, at least, it's MUCH easier to just say, "No PvP this game, and No Evil PCs." Keep things Good/Neutral, because introducing evil to the party, itself, is playing on Hard Mode.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

@@studentofsmith True Evil Character: "Armatures... Don't be Stupid Evil. That's not how you rule the world. Especially in this economy with the Noble hierarchy keeping records of their trusted contacts... Those who fail at being Evil will be food for the Dire Wolves!"

[@klauskeller6380]

@@AuntLoopy123 "the ends justify the means" is basically the best example of neutral on the chaotic-lawful part of the alignment and not on the evil-good part

[@MonkeyJedi99]

I read/hear PvP and immediately think of attacks and deaths. The pocketing or hiding of loot never really entered my mind as a PvP activity. Now that I watch this, I can see why PvP is a broader definition in tabletop than it is in MMOs, and how my previous definition is more accurately PK or player killing.

[@DolFan316]

What I have a hard time wrapping my mind around is why the characters in a PvP are even together to begin with. It seems too unbelievable that they would all mutually agree to adventure together and THEN suddenly decide to turn on each other. The only scenario in which PvP makes sense to me in context is if the group is forced to work together by a more powerful authority figure.

[@leorblumenthal5239]

I once played in a campaign where the party split into factions based on alignment. As a result the evil PCs in the party initiated PvP, which essentially wrecked the campaign. As a result of this experience, which occurred early on as a player, as a DM I generally don't allow PvP. I encourage cooperative play in my games. The sole exception where I not only allow PvP, but encourage it, is in the Paranoia game, where Troubleshooters are supposed to be out for themselves. Of course, Paranoia Troubleshooters have a six-pack of clones, which they are supposed to burn through as the PCs kill each other.

[@rossburton8775]

I don't just encourage cooperative play. I mandate it. Make characters who will work as a team. If you don't then you are playing as Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Game. If playing alongside the rest of the players and PCs isn't for you then my game isn't for you. Go find another one. If the campaign changes and factions form such that the PCs have to split and take opposite sides, then the players decide among themselves who are the PCs from now on, and who are NPC villains. The players whose characters are now NPC villains make new characters. If just one does this, that's easy, they make a new character and the new character joins the group.

[@rossburton8775]

Player A - "My ranger just sits brooding in the corner and refuses to join the adventure." Me as DM - "Are you sure? OK, your character does that. The rest of you, what do you do..." *proceed to have 3 hours of fun gameplay with Player B, C and D going on the adventure, Player A does nothing and is welcome to try again next week with a new character who does go on the adventure*

[@AuntLoopy123]

@@rossburton8775 That's pretty much my idea, too, except I would come back to Player A, every half hour or so, and give them ten seconds to have a turn. "I order a drink, and ask for information," will actually be rewarded with SOME information, but likely information the rest of the characters already know, because they ALSO asked for information. "I follow the party," will be met with, "Make a Survival check," with a really high DC and a likely response of, "You have no idea which way they went." If the jerk rolls a Nat 20, "You think they probably went north." IF Player A apologizes for being a jackass, and realizes that not going along with the party is not going to work, and says, "Look, I want to join the party," then he can find the party. But pull that sort of stunt again... Mind you, there ARE times when it's appropriate for some edge-lord to be edgy, and even break from the party to pull his own sneaky investigation stuff, and if we all agree to it, in the moment, that's fine. But don't edge-lord me, just to be edgy. I'm the DM who designs a round and well-lit tavern, so there are no dark corners to brood in. Heck, even Aragorn, the one who started the whole, "I sit in the dark corner and stare at the party" thing got up and got involved, the moment something went down. And then he LED the party. I saw a D&D story once of an edge lord who became the heart and soul of the party, while maintaining his edge with everyone he didn't trust, which means everyone not in the party. But he worked WITH his own party, always. I believe the player even warned the other players, "I'm starting out edgy and stand-offish, but as we progress in our friendship, I'll become more open with my friends." It made for a good story. But good grief, you have to turn edge into character progression, not the whole character.

[@rossburton8775]

@@AuntLoopy123 Yep. Massively agree with this.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

@@rossburton8775 Me: "Let's go on a jolly corporation in which we may or may not live through it." Lv4 Rogue: "I attack this PC." DM: "Are you sure, Rogue? Even when six other players are a part of this campaign?" Lv4 Rogue: "Yes." DM: "Well... Eldritch Sorcerer, he's all yours. I'll get this player a new character sheet after you're done." Me, as the Variant Human Lv3 Echo Knight multiclassing lv1 Sorcerer: "Polarm Master + Warcaster = Opportunity Attack to Cast a thunder elemental Cantrip which negates the Rogue's Reaction Action, before he even attempts to walk toward me for his attack... Now that my turn has begun... I bonus action to manifest my Echo and I attack two times with extra attack... Then I move my Echo behind the Rogue." Rogue: "I surrender???" Me: "I only honor those of whom I deem worthy... Your soul is payment enough... Berserker Mercenary, execute this traitor." DM: "Here is your new Character Sheet, Rogue. Just a heads up... The Eldritch Knight was talking with a few rich and powerful Nobles along with the other 4 player characters at the tavern inn. Your new character will not gain the benefits nor anything from these Nobles. If you try to do this again, then don't expect just the Eldritch Knight from forcing you to create a new character once more."

[@aqacefan]

I just got into a new AL group that's tending towards PvP... because one of the players is a 7(?)- year old murderhobo Rogue. Thankfully his mom is also in the group... and even she was unhappy with how he was acting, to the point of her character trying to cast Sleep on his. Hope they had a chat on the way home from the last game...

[@jipke7430]

Bro is 7, can't judge him

[@IdiotinGlans]

I do session zero. My first campaign I didn't abd it ended with an arachnophobic player almost having a panic attack when I pulled out a large, super creepy token of a Phase Spider I wouldn't put in adventure if I knew about said arachnophobia. Got my lesson there.

[@AuntLoopy123]

I didn't do a Session 0 at the start of my campaign, because I am a first-time DM, and I studied a lot (like, for a year before I felt confident) before I began, but somehow missed on Session 0. For a while, I thought, "Oh, no! What will I do?! I have spoiled the campaign, forever, by not having a Session 0!" Then, I just said, "Nope. I'm gonna talk to my players right now." And I did. And I probably will again. I do feel very glad that I already knew about my sister-in-law's neck-cracking phobia, so I know to never narrate someone dying from a broken neck. I mentioned it to my niece, and she didn't know that about her mother, but my sister-in-law was REALLY grateful that I remembered, when I said I would avoid that, specifically, in our "New Session 0" at the table, where I also told the group that if any of them ever have an issue, they need to use their words and tell me, even if it's in the middle of a session.

[@crabmaster8174]

My first campaign had PvP, it only occurred due to other players' boredom and immaturity. It was one of my least favourite parts of D&D until I realised that normal games don't have it. PvP was symptomatic of a poorly run and lead campaign with easily bored players.

[@daenemarker9027]

Last time I experienced PvP-ish behavior was when the GM allowed someone elses character to intimidate mine with a roll. It didn't feel right and strengthened my believe in not doing PvP without deep consideration of how others might feel about that. I do allow PvP in one way though: The character(s) affected gets to decide the outcome, no dice rolls. It can be made into a memorable RP-moment.

[@craigtucker1290]

That was the GM removing your player agency as no matter what is rolled, unless it is a magical effect, a skill cannot make a PC do or feel anything. That is the same problem with not allowing PvP as it is removing player agency by not allowing player's certain actions they normally could do if a DM/GM isn't coddling their behavior. Both types of actions are wrong as they both take away from the player's choice.

[@vileluca]

PvP is something to be discussed Session 0. That way everyone knows what to expect. Some people like it, some don't.

[@AuntLoopy123]

And it's OK to have a mini "Session 0" during the campaign, to say, "Some of us may have changed pages since we started, and that's OK. Let's just review and make sure we all get onto a page we can agree on NOW." After all, if your players are just starting out, they may hate the idea of PvP, but after playing for months, they may decide they are up for it, after all. Or the opposite. Session 0 can happen any time, and as many times as you need it.

[@vileluca]

@@AuntLoopy123 Sure. Only in that case it might be best to get an anonymous poll of the players so that certain (possibly underpowered) players aren't socially pressured into agreeing.

[@RyuuKageDesu]

The one time I allowed PvP was a scripted story arch, where a player temporarily lost their character, and played a character posing as help. There was some back stabbing, and plenty of communication between the two of us, before the player got his original character back. The players had a great time, I had a great recurring villain, and it reiterates Luke's intellect devourer story.

[@theolddm]

in my long experience, this is definitely best worked out in session 0, or even before as you are talking to players who want to join. Personally, I don't like PvP, so my campaigns have none of that, along with players having a reason to adventure with the group (i.e. no edgelords, loners, etc.) I also don't allow mixed alignment.. either the party is good/neutral, or evil/neutral (I have run both good campaigns and evil campaigns). I also have guidelines around Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Stupid (how NOT to play those). I also have a 'No Wangrods Tolerated' rule. Basically, if you are going to cause problems for the group or me as the DM, you are not invited.

[@dovahchicken935]

That's fair ruling, I get the players and then determine what's best for the group, I allow about anything that's mature and realistic, if it's pvp, I ask that it makes the game progress or have flavor.

[@matthewcamp5882]

My DnD experience is rather light by comparison to most, but I don't see why you have to blanket rule no mixed alignments. Seeing as true alignment is fluid depending on character development, alignment shifts into and out of either side can truly enrich a campaign Also, as a chaotic stupid, how dare you put limits on my lovable dumbarse! My whole party both love and hate how well I can play a well meaning idiot with a concerning connection to fire, and there is little that is more enjoyable than letting the BBEG get halfway through their monologue and interrupting with taking one of their veiled threats literally "Continue to defy me and I'll make sure no trace of your existence remains-" 'Yeah, we did make a bit of a mess back there, didn't we? Thanks for cleaning it up for us, love.'

[@theolddm]

@@matthewcamp5882 Yeah, not saying one way of playing is better than the other, just saying in my games, that's generally the way we roll. I've been playing and DM'ing since 1979, and I've got horror stories around players playing stupid (either chaotic or lawful.. can go both ways) or evil and pulling the 'that's what my character would do' card whenever they would do something against the party or other players, which usually resulted in the end of the group if it kept repeating, especially when there was a Paladin in the group. The 'chaotic stupid' I'm referring to is more the CN or CE aligned player who are backstabbers, steals from the party, stabs the shopkeeper in town just because, etc. Really stupid crap like that which causes issues for not just themselves but the whole party. (However, if the campaign is an evil aligned campaign, I do allow those, as then it's known and expected that the players are likely evil and/or chaotic, so it open season. Again, all depends on the type of campaign.) I'm just so old now, I don't put up with the drama given the limited play times that we have. In the end, I let the players do what they want, but my game world is grounded more realistic, ala if you commit a crime, you will get arrested or worse. Consequences are real. I should also point out we don't play pure 5e, it's modified 5e leaning heavily back into 1e/2e playstyle, so these few 'rules' are just a portion of the modified ruleset we play by.

[@teeweecindy5909]

Yeah. I’m playing in my first campaign and my character brought a bear back to life (it was protecting the forest or just scared and had attacked us) on retrospect maybe I did the bad by saving the bear, but then my friend’s character killed it again without hesitation. I didn’t get mad at them or anything but i still felt it. It’s weird that you posted this now since this just happened in our last session.

[@DaDunge]

Openly antagonistic playstyles is PvP even if you don't directly attack a party member. That was a shitty move by you friend.

[@RIVERSRPGChannel]

Yes PvsP is not something we do at my table. Good points though.

[@Kougaiji38]

One of the easiest ways to include elements that are pvp like without being pvp is to make a general rule that no rolls can be made against other players. So if someone wants to pitpocket, or fight, or seduce another player, the aggressor initiates it and the other player describes the result with no dice rolled. It turns pvp experiences into rollplay experiences. That way no one's feelings get hurt.

[@minutemansmonitor]

My first (completed) campaign as GM was a Star Wars story. It involved a lot of in-character tension and some mild PvP fights along the way. One of the characters had the idea to betray the party, and he worked it out with me. We dropped narrative hints along the way that it was coming but the other players didn't figure it out until the final session. It was epic. The betrayer narrowly escaped with literally 1 HP, and the other players had a nail-biting showdown with an Imperial Inquisitor and a platoon of stormtroopers. That player group was one of those once-in-a-lifetime groups. I haven't been able to find a group since then that would be capable of handling in-character intrigue like that.

[@assembly2593]

I had two of my four players bail right before a heavy combat session so I didn't have enough time to adjust the encounter so the two that showed up wouldn't die. I asked the two players that showed up what they wanted to do and they said PvP. We play on a VTT so I loaded up a colosseum map and let them spar. They put some gold pieces down as a wager for who would win 2/3 rounds. Player death didn't matter since it was "sparring/training" and was all in good fun. They are new players so it gave them a chance to not only get more comfortable playing their characters, but also allow them to have some friendly competition between each other. It was a ton of fun.

[@chrispbacon4910]

Hey luke i just started my first dnd session as a dm and it was fantastic.ive been learning lots by tuning into your channel. Thank you for the great content you rock!

[@kodiakthebear4422]

I don't like pvp, but it's not because I am less mature than other players. It's as you mentioned, that I enjoy D&D and other TTRPGs because of the lack of competitive game play. Another great video Luke!

[@yonkapala]

I think the maturity level comes into question only after agreeing to pvp and not knowing how to handle when you're the one not benefiting from it. Knowing what you don't like and choosing to skip it is maturity. I have a very narrow point of pvp that I do enjoy, which means that most times I will opt out of a campaign that has pvp as a play style.

[@michaelcohen8259]

I agree with you. The implication that only mature people like PVP is insulting. I play the game so that I can cooperate with other people, which is far more mature than stealing from, killing or betraying your "friends". What I find is that those who like PVP intend to cause it at some point or another. CONFLICT is fine; I'm playing a character with mental problems. I would assume that someone will call her out for her strange (but in no way harmful) behavior but will not try to kill her but instead try to force her to get help (or remove the curse, dispel the magic, etc). That kind of PVP harms nobody's PLAYER and is in fact a very mature way to play.

[@CoolCat68]

my group constantly has arguments and fights...one time a few of them battled and a character died...My group is savage lol wow am i the first commentor again!

[@bosunbones.8815]

Our Dm has engineered an interesting scenario in Curse of Strahd. My character's Sister has been turned by Strahd and my PC is desperately looking for a cure / reversal method and is very defensive. We also have a Paladin in the party...... We know where the boundaries are and are having a blast with it but boy does it get tense! 😂

[@Tirath]

Easy to work around as long as the Pally isn't playing lawful stupid.

[@bosunbones.8815]

@@Tirath He's not. I got a good bunch I'm playing with. We're all work colleagues and we know when to push the conflict for the RP and when to pull back for the story. It's worked so far.

[@Daredhnu]

Pretty much agree with everything you said in this video, have seen PvP work out well only once, in well over 2 dozen lengthy campaigns.

[@jenmqkeeper]

My group has done some PVP one shots that are silly and fun, but we're mostly cooperative in our campaign. Like there might be some light shenanigans between characters from time to time, but never anything that upsets other players. And I think that's a reasonable way to do it.

[@rustlepalace-inn7229]

With the rogue who steals loot ahead of the party, in my game he would unwittingly have bound himself to a cursed item and I would just make it bite him in the butt for awhile till he got the point lol.

[@WhyYouMadBoi]

>Allows rogue to go ahead >Punishes player if they do something most players will do Stop, thats stupid and makes whatever it was useless now and makes characters no longer want to pick anything up.

[@rustlepalace-inn7229]

@John Hasben I see it more as creating plot conflict out of potential player conflict. Now they can figure out how to deal with that together. Still make it fun, but try and take the focus off what the player is doing and back to the situation. You do you tho bruh, ain’t no one way to play this game!! 😄

[@craigtucker1290]

If you change an item from normal to cursed specifically for the purpose of dissuading a player from looting ahead of the party, then not only are you a cheater, but you are no longer acting as a fair arbiter of the rules and betraying the other players trust. It is on the same level as a player fudging their dice rolls. If, however, one of the items was cursed before the rogue decided to loot it, that would be acceptable and fair.

[@rustlepalace-inn7229]

@@craigtucker1290 ….of course it was cursed before he looted it. 😬

[@craigtucker1290]

@@rustlepalace-inn7229 That doesn't sound all that convincing and players get wise to such things, eventually. This can erode trust or lead to the rest of the players to replace the DM with someone who can be trusted and not overstep their bounds.

[@TyanFH]

I have been having session zero since the 70's. I agree on PvP is not good for the game, overall but of course there are exceptions as you stated. Thank you for what you do.

[@erc1971erc1971]

Speaking of Session 0's...last time we started a campaign without one, we had an East Texas University game where every single last PC had the Repair and Survival skills as their specialty. So yeah, we always use them, if just for character creation :P

[@odin8886]

Leaving a comment for the algorithm. I regularly have a session 0 for games. I'm mostly doing online games with people from all over, so I go over my DM homebrew rules, class and race limitations, go over my backstory template, talk about expectations, and answer any questions. Very good for finding out what kind of players I'm looking at with people I don't know.

[@Remrie]

I lowkey listened to your opening advertisement of Lair magazine at half playback speed and it was genuinely hilarious.

[@Oriansenshi]

Thank you for clarifying the definition of PvP. I think your definition is really easy to wrap my head around.

[@twilightgardenspresentatio6384]

Man, I thought I knew about play styles and player versus. Thanks for the additions.

[@erickling4016]

Back during 4e...I was the Rogue, I was skimming off the top of the treasure when finding it out of sight of the other party members. DM was fine with it, I think they always added a little extra because of a side conversation we had after I started. Most of the party was ok with it as long as the amount was within reason. I occasionally bought healing potions and shared willingly. One player argued against it several times despite the support. I stopped doing it to avoid the drama. No, it was not discussed ahead of time.

[@oliverwilhelm6171]

In one of the most recent games I was in, the DM actually sprung a PvP... event... on us. The goddess of madness put a no-save curse over the party and had us all fight each other to the death while the goddess of healing stuck around to auto-rez anyone. Which... well, the party's rogue was a pacifist inspired by the Thief series who had only ever used nonlethal combat beforehand, being suddenly thrust into an IC deathmatch against their will. The rogue won, and carried the mental trauma with that for the next few sessions before deciding to leave the party - the player really enjoyed being 'the ray of hope', the character who was always optimistic and found a way around the darkness of the setting and after a veritable conga lines of further traumas decided the character would leave to sort out their head. The character had been a party favorite so it was a bit of a hard blow. Their new character is pretty alright, though. The DM did end up apologizing, having not realized that it would've been that big of a deal - just figured a PvP session would've been some fun. And it would have! If it hadn't been IC. Edit: The players were all fine with each other, it was a character-driven choice.

[@AuntLoopy123]

That's when you say, "You heard of the multi-verse and split timelines? Yeah, for this session, we're going to play in an alternate timeline. Your characters are all themselves, except for one or two slight differences, based on the fact that your backstories are not QUITE the same. What those changes are is up to you. For this session, in the alternate timeline, all of your characters have been brought to a gladiator pit, and you will be having a Battle Royale, to the "death." It's not actually to the death, because there is a healer on the sidelines, who will automatically stabilize anyone who goes unconscious. But since she only brings them to stability, and not back to consciousness, the audience thinks they are actually dead." So, you can choose to have your character NOT be the optimistic ray of sunshine, and you also have no guilt, because you know you didn't kill any of your friends, even temporarily. AND, it never happened to your "real" characters, anyway. OR, just say, "I want to do a one-shot Battle Royale. Just nothing but a big old gladiator fight, with a bit of RP, maybe, at the beginning and end. Create some Level X characters. You all get Y amount of money and Z amount of magical items of the same tier, and they all must be approved by me, in advance, to ensure that they remain balanced. You have two weeks to prep your characters and inventories for the Battle Royale." You can even sell it as practice for learning how to do combat better. Heck, you could even have it be set at an Adventurer's College, where you are studying combat techniques. You can have the players fight each other, and you can have the players fight as a team. Heck, you could even have your established PC's trade character sheets, so that each player can say, "This is how I would play that character," and see if they can teach each other things about the players. You know, how sometimes you just itch to tell another player, "Remember, you have X ability! You can use X ability!" but you don't, because you don't want to be rude. If you trade character sheets, you can teach each other things you know, as well as make new discoveries about the things you missed on your own character sheet, and you won't take anything personally, either. Heck, it could all be a dream. One of those lucid dreams, where everyone took a potion before bed, and shared the experience, but it was all just a bit off reality, with a purple sky and blue trees and red granite and everyone behaving differently than normal.

[@oliverwilhelm6171]

@Arkryder 52 The rogue's leaving was sort of a wake-up call for the rest of the characters, at least. The rogue's influence is felt even with the current party, who now go out of their way to consider nonlethal tactics. So I suppose in the long run, it was a matyrdom for the rogue's moral compass.

[@badgerburns521]

Hey Luke I have been dm'ing for some time now and do sessions zeros [but only when its a player I've never met before]. These are the two sets of rules I apply to 'pvp'. • Dice rolls against one another - For roleplay, Yes! e.g., the Bard rolls persuading Fighter he is right. • Dice rolls against one another - Player Vs Player - None another pair • PC Secrets - Yes - introducing your character but keeping backstory back. That can be a fun & enjoyable way to reveal your character progressively to the party & if we do play campaigns, you’ll each get personal stories that are yours to divulge as much or as little as you want • PC Secrets - NO - for regular mechanics - Work as a team. This means Team gold Team Xp Team treasure. and the final two • Player Agency - This is the right for the player to play their character how they want to play their character [within reason] rather than someone else playing it for them. • Party Agency - The right for the party to challenge consistently poor play that negatively impacts the campaign on regular basis. Having these rules does tend to cut out the vast majority of problems before they even start. That said I have one group who play just for the fun and when I explained the group loot idea, to a man they said they were fine with the rogue stealing everything. Which he has since done and each time they laugh about it.

[@matthewcooper8112]

The answer to the pvp question for me is...if there is consent between the whole party and an understanding and professionalism between the players it’s ok, but the justification should never be “oh my character would do it”. A player should always ask themselves what might motivate their character to do an action, and say “why would my character do this”. In situations like this, one could look at the non-pvp option and try and find a reason their character might chose that path. But if there is absolutely no alternative that is reasonable then a player shouldn’t be shamed for pvp if there is that consent and professionalism in the party.

[@Isheian]

I’ve had thieves stealing from the group but never had it found out in campaign. The one time I had players kill one of their own, the offending player had for arbitrary reasons betrayed the group almost leading to all their deaths. So they recovered and murdered that character. The player got upset, even after we all called foul on his actions.

[@itsyaboiexplosion9377]

I dont think that is a good way to handle it usually (obviously im not gonna tell you how to run or play your game) but in a case like that instead of killing the chara talk to the player and explain like adults why it was a problem and find a way to reconcile the behavior

[@craigtucker1290]

I think that *is* a good way to handle it since the DM did not interfere and both the offending player and the retaliatory players were free to act the way they wanted to. I don't think it player had any right not to expect such a thing from happening to their character after what they did was allowed to happen.

[@itsyaboiexplosion9377]

@@craigtucker1290 the problem here lies is that it caused animosity within the players themselves not just the characters if it wasn't a issue that the players had with it then it would be fine but the way they put it, it seemed like the players(not just the characters) were butting heads on this. stuff like that can lead to a toxic game environment, regardless if they should or shouldn't have expected it

[@craigtucker1290]

@@itsyaboiexplosion9377 But that is normal the first time something like this comes up and it is how "those players" have to learn rather than the DM having to act like a parent which they shouldn't be doing in the first place unless the players are literally children. Otherwise, the players will sort themselves out through their own actions. If you don't let the players handle this and instead decide to step in, then it just perpetuates this kind of behavior from the one player who will always test the limits and leads to quandaries of what kind of behavior the DM will have to intercede and create an expectation. Will you stop the PC from stealing from every NPC or just from stealing from PCs? Such decisions can ruin the immersion and verisimilitude of the game world as sometimes the character can do a thing and the next minute they can't. And if this means losing one player over it, so be it, as they should have known better if they are mature. That player needs to learn one way or another that such behavior has in game consequences for their character otherwise they will continue to be toxic without the rest of the players being able to do anything about it which will upset the rest of the party as they ask the DM to parent the trouble player which is a far worse then upsetting one player. Once our group got past the first PvP, we never had an issue with it again as we realized 1), it is only a game, 2), characters can act just as bad as people in our own world, and 3), there are consequences for such actions.

[@itsyaboiexplosion9377]

@@craigtucker1290 there is a difference from babysitting and governing over your game. my policy on this is they do something wrong in the game that disrupts the other players fun i let them do it but after the game i talk to them and tell them that if they continue then they will be forced to leave. and I will force them to leave it continues instead of creating tension within the player group and letting it unfold, talking to the player and letting them know the situation and telling them to stop will cause less real world problems. letting the players get revenge doesn't teach them anything it just pisses them off if you want to show that actions have consequences in game then do it through the groups choices and not some disruption

[@sleepinggiant4062]

I always tell my players that their fun is not more important than another player's, and should not be at the expense of their fun. Playstyle 3 would never realistically happen. You would never travel with someone you don't trust. Plus you would get a thousand insight checks to know something was up (and DMs never do that because they don't know until it's too late). It is not a coworker you spend the daytime with, that's a bad analogy. It's a travel companion that you sleep helplessly next to, and they can slit your throat. You would be very cautious who you allow next to you that has the means to easily kill you. Session 0 is not an actual session. It's setting expectations and can happen over email, or posted on a message board, or discussed at the start of the first session. It is simply sharing campaign info, rules, etc.

[@Sceadusawol]

I don't consider a rogue pocketing some of the loot without telling the other characters to be PvP. That's just living up to the rogue trope. I have done it many times, myself. Mind you, I have also tempered it with generosity - the light-fingered thief with a heart of gold, if you will. On one occasion, the party I was in needed to buy a McGuffin but couldn't afford it, even collectively. Apart from me. They didn't realise how much I had pocketed over the last 6 months (real world time). Knowing that we needed this item, I went back and bought it. Told the party I "acquired it", and they all thought I was a master thief (in character - out of character they thought it was hilarious that I did this).

[@Ambers128]

I had a rogue in the party that went through my inventory and pickpockets me. A bit of shocking grasp, and he never did that again.

[@Sceadusawol]

@@Ambers128 Oh, I would never advocate stealing *from* a party member, but if it hasn't been claimed, it's fair game. And a rich rogue is (or should be) good for the party.

[@krulcazey]

Running my first ever campaign. We are about 1 year in playing. I wanted the players to create any character they want and play however they wanted. I wanted a pure sandbox world. It worked great for a long time. One character was a bit of the "lonewolf" rogue type and not very trusting of others. Considering the backstory and the world it fit perfect. Some small hickups interacting with npc and players made for some fun and awkward scenes. About a month ago two characters got into an argument and it ended up with the rogue attacking the other player. The other player, a druid, just wanted to end the conflict and decided to retreat into their quarters but the rogue kept attacking and pursuing. The table got really awkard and silent. After a few rounds of this i decided the other players heard this commotion and they rushed to intercept. The rogue at this time was playing over skype and the rest of us was irl. She is a great person and a theater kid who wanted to explore the character properly and got a bit to much into it. also, as she was over skype she couldnt read the table and see the other player getting irritated and the rest of us just being quiet. I had a talk with both players after the session about it and they resolved it. she toned down the "edgy" part of her character and we moved on. When i DM next time i will talk with the players about PvP and if they want it to be a thing or not. Just so we are all on the same page.

[@AuntLoopy123]

That's great! And you know, you could take a short break, at any time, and have a quick, two-minute, "Just so we're all on the same page, here, do you consent to a continuation of this PvP?"

[@michaelwolf8690]

Few people remember a campaign where everyone heroically saves the kingdom for long. Almost nobody forgets a campaign where the BBEG was a player character and the clues were there all along. Not just betrayer players but just the scenes where characters that are all rough edges get in one another's faces and find a way to make peace with their rival for the sake of the greater good. It's just good gaming. What's never good is players versus players, no matter what your characters do to one another your players should respect one another and keep their animosity completely in character. If your players can manage that effortlessly then they need to not have hostility against other player characters. What rarely works as well as you imagine is allowing players to have conflict or make selfish decisions but force them to work cooperatively, not take actions against one another, or not allow characters to be thrown out of the party. Someone at the table will always game this system to be obnoxious to others without facing consequences in game.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

I usually am rather strict with respect... Meaning... I have no problems in defying a DM who is protecting a liability to everyone else on the table. A free for all is fine... An idiot who attacks and kills as a disruption to the game... Will be executed. Sure, the DM is God... But Gods die in my hands. (Be respectful and play your Character competently. Do not cause a problem that would force my hand... Basically, don't be Alignment Stupid and give me a genuine reason as to why such Character does x, y, and z.)

[@tscoff]

When I’m a DM I do have Session Zero. That’s where I set the rules for building PCs in that campaign.

[@Immudzen]

We actually had a game that has come close to PvP a few times that is not supposed to have it. A new player to the group kept casting spells on group members without asking first (polymorph, flight etc. stuff) that they wanted to be a surprise. These spells have often been unwelcome at the time and led to a number of bad fights. It go to the point where I asked the person out of character to stop. I ended up threatening his character in game if he did it again and the DM decided to stop it at that point.

[@yvindheilo229]

Good topic! Fearing a confrontation between my players in the near future. Not really sure how to proceed! :)

[@iantyrrell5008]

I have an Arcane Trickster in a campaign that although wasn't an urchin, spent a lot of the time on the streets with the urchins whilst his dad worked three jobs to put what little he could on the table, blah blah blah. Anyway, in the game, my AT was employing urchins in a city to keep an eye on an NPC. One of the players was playing his character as a high born and was badmouthing my AT for trying to help the lower members of society. All in-game time this character really upset my AT and after that session, I asked the DM what his feelings were on PVP. He said he was okay with it. My AT wasn't going to kill the other character himself, but he did a lot of in-game manipulation to get the other character into serious trouble with a local criminal organisation and powerful mage. Turns out the character got himself killed the next session. What I'm saying is sometimes PVP does have its place in a game for role-playing purposes, but it has to be for that reason only, and not vindictiveness on one person to another.

[@bannisher]

Over 25 years of gaming we had exactly one evil campaign with pvp allowed. We still talk about how crappy it was.

[@craigtucker1290]

Over 3 decades of gaming, PvP always allowed and some of the best stories were about those particular incidents. I think only half involved evil characters, while the other happened due to a conflict of goals, morality, or beliefs.

[@luizfelipe1911]

Always a really nice content, thanks luke!

[@theDMLair]

Thanks!

[@_Woody_]

I agree with you. But me personally, I need the possibility of PvP at some far away point in the campaign. I play DnD for the ability to create and embrace stories. For people like me it is another form of art, of drama, comedy and of tragedy. I have had so many Characters for which I envisioned a fitting dramatic end at the hands of another of the PC's. The fight on top of a mountain, a battle to determine the superior ideal. The reveal to have betrayed them from the start and staying undercover until the very end. Stopping a comrade that has gone too far after the world was saved or disagreeing on the groups terms and leaving them but alas, they can't leave witnesses. All the time pvp is bad. Poetic PvP is a must for me. It is the essence from which I draw my very interest in the game. The possibility to experience such stories myself.

[@DigeoBM]

I only enjoyed on pvp experience, it was a oneshot, and it was something that the DM came up with, he talked with one of the players before and he was one of the BBEG's minion...it was a surprise and it was fun..... and our characters never met again...so we had no problem with that

[@malcolmrowe9003]

I would imagine that it would be best to keep PvP to one-shots or to try it out in a one-shot to see how the players handle it before allowing it in a longer campaign.

[@walkomidit]

I don't remember where I got this from but what I like to do is let the player being "attacked" set the dc. That way if the player is starting to get upset the dc tends to get higher. Most of the time my group is fine with a little bit and will set reasonable DC's but I've also seen some DC's of 30. It's a nice solution to not take away agency but still keep people happy.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

My unwanted PvP DC is always 30... Because I usually execute PCs who waste my time... For even death does not end for my character. (Bad Ending: Revengance)

[@brilliantcut2488]

Back when 4e first came out, I started off with a rogue in an annoyingly large group. "Somehow" I got picked as the treasure guy (the guy keeping track of the loots). After a few sessions of watching a large chunk of the table not paying attention to anything that didn't actively involve them, I realized I could fleece the hell out of them in plain sight and none of them could pull their heads out of their asses long enough to notice. It was to the point where the GM would say "You find 4000 gold" and I'd tell the team "Alrighty, we got 3k gold" and they'd all grunt approvingly while the GM would roll their eyes.

[@AuntLoopy123]

Well, clearly they were OK with it.

[@dakotarandolph4714]

My group has never had too much pvp outside of fighting tournaments. However most of us have had an experience playing a pirate one shot where my triton cleric of Udine was found at the end of the dungeon with a choice. Allow my captain and crewmates to steal a precious artifact of hers, or confront them. Which he did. We all had an epic fight as another member was planning to betray everyone so it was 2v3 which we lost, but was fine as we all had an amazing time with that session.

[@MrInitialMan]

The _one_ time I was ever involved in PvP, we were on a quest to track down a magical thief that had robbed several town treasuries. My character, a rogue, was secretly a rogue/warlock (DnD 3.5, and boy was that a fun combo) and was himself the thief (I had suggested this to the DM in Session 0, and he was on board with it, but the other players hadn't known). One of our party members was a Paladin/Justiciar of St. Cuthbert, and he FINALLY used Detect Magic and Knowledge: Arcana on my character and realized what was going on. I said "I'm sorry, but my character is going to fight like a cornered animal if you try to arrest him." We actually discussed what equipment the Paladin/Justiciar would need to take down my character. Then the DM let us go at it. My character won, but the DM said that the fight attracted the attention of SEVERAL clerics of St. Cuthbert, and my character ended up with so many manacles on him the clerics had to carry him. He and the Paladin/Justiciar would actually become friends, believe it or not. The other time I saw it in our group was we were in a village with a hand-to-hand fighting tournament going on. , and of course our fighter and barbarian were all eager to get involved. They ended up facing each other, but they agreed, "this is sport, not actual combat." And then beat each other to a pulp, and had ale together in the tavern afterwards.

[@alexpjp9082]

I do love a good bit of player vs player from time to time (as a DM and Player). If there is a dramatic character or story reason why it would happen. But you need a group that all trusts each other, and you need to make sure that everyone is not only happy with PVP in general but happy with the specific instance of PVP which is about to happen. And of course, you gota trust your players to not be deliberately vindictive. If something has happened to put one PC on the 'other side' to the rest of the party and they need to bounce, CCing or knocking players unconscious is fine, but coup de grace is completely unnecessary and not going to fly in that situation. Of course sometimes a fight to the death is valid in some dramatic and impactful narrative moments, but in that case both characters really need to be on board with it. That is my experience at least.

[@fern1009]

In short - not for pugs you just slapped together on Discord or in a club with people who don't know each other. For my first game I'm outright banning, and made sure my players agreed to said bans, on all so-called "player v player" activities, excesive lone-wolfing and desertion from a fight exccept for overwhelming odds. A good DM should know this and set clear rules rather than let the players clash on such.

[@alexpjp9082]

@@fern1009 There are two sides. There is the really interesting narrative side that happens when the PC's world views or goals clash and tense and emotionally invested conflict comes from it. (when done right of course) Then there is just selfish players, who only care about their own characters, and would happily screw the rest of the party- and so frustrate their players- for the benefit of their own PC's. And that ain't gunu fly.

[@BlueTressym]

That sounds like a sensible approach.

[@Rik_Lazer]

Our group had a touch of PvP the other week. After an almost fatal encounter where our PCs were taken hostage, my PC was told that after he tried to buy the rest time to run, they were killed after he was knocked out. When they were rescued, my PC punched his best friend because my sister was also one of the people that was hurt in battle. It was his bad plan that we followed and in an emotional outburst a punch was thrown. Then the tears right after.

[@GiblixStudio]

Maturity is indeed the key. In the 30 or so years I've only had 1 group that managed pvp among each other. Which was actually really cool. since it was 2 different playgroups in the same world, at the same time, working against each other without even realizing it. Then when their PC's met up.... that's when I invited all players from both groups and actually have pvp against each other. Instead of me playing NPC baddies. in many groups since it always escalated sooner or later. It starts innocently with in party drama and conflicts. which i'm all there for. Cleric using "Hold Person" on the rogue. The rogue no longer assisting that PC during combat. cleric placing Glyphs in the rogue's chamber. Nothing big at first....eventually it grows into a PC having made a pact with a devil, being able to summon a few low tier devils as troops. And then having an all out brawl with the rest of the group. Almost destroying the entire campaign. We had to have an evening where we just talked about how to proceed. And the player was very stubborn and was not easy to change. Campaign was almost destroyed at that point. I ended up having to give the ultimatum of his PC becoming an NPC baddie and he makes a new character. Or he leaves the table entirely forever. This is what happens in most cases.

[@Ixnatifual]

Also, being old doesn’t equal being “mature” in this context.

[@miketannhauser5511]

One of my favorite twitch streaming RP group has a Session Zero for every new game they play and they make a point of laying out all their lines and veils, what they want and don't want in their game.

[@AuntLoopy123]

DM: NO, I won't allow you to do that. Player: You're RAILROADING ME! DM: No, I'm not. Railroading is when I put you on tracks and say what you MUST and WILL do. It's not railroading to simply say, "No, you may not step on that landmine and break the game." Player: But I WANT to step on the landmine! DM: Then find another game with a bunch of landmines and step on them all, to your heart's content. Not here. I won't allow you to break THIS game. Player: Wah. What about player agency? DM: You have the agency to find and join a game that would allow you to step all the landmines you want. THAT is your player agency. If you choose THIS game, at THIS table, then you are also choosing the rules that go with it. And what you want to do is against those rules. Deal or leave.

[@SnowWeaver1]

I have had PvP in my games a couple times. One was a test in joining a faction where the players had to fight each other to bloodied to show their skills in combat. The other times are when two players want the same Magic item and they fight for it (not to the death). These where done with the understanding that they where one off events. My players are good about not having hiding loot wars, plotting the demise of one another, or generally pissing each other off with pvp antics.

[@TylerDickeyMusic]

I think it really depends on the maturity of your players. My Icewind Dale group absolutely despised one of my players characters and constantly got mad at him for stealing loot from the party. However, in one of my other games we had 2 of the 5 members of the party decide to completely betray the party and join the BBEG. No one was upset and, in fact, we all talked for weeks about how cool it was that they would get to face off with each other in the future. (After the betrayal the PCs became NPCs under my control.) Also, in a game of Out of The Abyss I played a character that ended up going mad in the Underdark and killing one of his best friends in the party. I was worried that I overstepped because we had never done PvP in this way before. However, everyone in the group, including the player whose character I killed, thought it was epic. My character ended up dying that night, which I figured would happen, and it is still one of my fav D&D sessions to date. I feel like a lot of people need help remembering that this is just a game and actions made by player characters don't always reflect the character of the player. D&D is where good people IRL can be whatever they want to be. Who they are when they play their character isn't always who they are outside of the game. That's an important distinction.

[@markgnepper5636]

Great stuff friend 👏 👍

[@Pakhan77]

Well presented and totally true. Be cautious and still expect a potential for it to blow up.

[@TDMicrodork]

Player vs player was my previous group longest lasting game. It was a pirate ship in traveler we each notebooks that would give to the gm for things we didn't want the players to know about. Some people would play as agents and try to bring down either the ship or pirate base. It is kind of funny things I did as a dumb kid had a long lasting effect on the campaign but the paranoia when passing a note is priceless. It also helps many of the characters where great stuff you couldn't do in a good campaign.

[@genobreaker1054]

I can only remember one occasion where I used the "it's what my character would do." Due to some long winded in story reasons and lack of trust of a party member, my spell caster started sleeping in a Circle of Protection Against Evil. The problem was that for story reasons, our characters were all supposed to receive visions via magical nightmares that prevent us from getting a full night sleep (and prevents recovering of spells). My character had NO in game justification for subjecting themselves to these nightmares (we had not discovered what they were or why, no one IN CHARACTER knew the source or that they were visions), so I continued to sleep in the Circle of Protection for quite some time, despite the frustration it caused my DM and other players. All I needed was in game justification, DM couldn't come up with any. Also, the only game I think I have ever used that spell. Huh.

[@sp00kytom80]

I feel like PvP is at its best when its to tell a cooler story/have a cooler gameplay experience and not just people trying to "win". Had one PvP where only 2 out of 3 players remained after beating the final boss(I was the guy who died), and one of the remaining players, instead of destroying the dark artifact we were supposed to destroy, absorbed its power, leading to an intense final battle for the sake of the world. Was awesome.

[@radianceguardians]

I agree with you, Luke. I try to avoid PVP in my campaigns. My friends and I like to work together when we play D&D.

[@meikahidenori]

Depends what it is. We recently had a pvp section in our Campaign in order to win the favour of Flamewind which she gave a special item for the next bit of rhe adventure. The downside was that item made them a magic spell target so they still had to work together to protect the favoured character. It was a great story beat but I think it would definitely be only doable if players understand there's a restriction to the pvp. Some groups it's not worth doing something like that with, but it can work with a good group.

[@357Dejavu]

I love PvP in a one shot! Not so much in an on going campaign

[@AuntLoopy123]

One shot "combat training" for the characters and for the players/DM is a good thing. But not for a big long campaign.

[@crimfan]

This is totally a "know your table" kind of thing, for sure. There are a lot of ways for undesired PvP to manifest. The degenerate/immature version is pretty bad and gets old very fast. However, you can absolutely have it happen even with a more mature group as characters develop different goals. I had something like that happen recently: My PC had undergone some notable changes (e.g., switching from a soft Neutral Evil to Neutral Good) and was starting not to fit in the more mercenary tone of the overall group. It felt to me like to stay true to the PC I'd really need to start undermining the other PCs. I'd also decided I wanted to try a new character for a while, so I switched and wrote one that didn't really mind the more mercenary tone and let my prior PC start doing things that actually are kind contrary to some of the group's goals to head off some of the bad things that their actions will lead to, but "off-screen." One thing I will do as DM to allow character defining things like "stealing from the party" that I tend to do is put in a little side thing for a stealy rogue that lets them feel like they've pulled off some cool heists.

[@jcwolf886]

Back when 3.5 was still newish, I had a player who made a completely min/maxed Psion who could end encounters before they really began using his Disintegrate power, splitting it multiple time (Split Ray feat) and then casting it Quickened. We're talking 8 rays of full powered Disintegrate. He used that power to also brow-beat and control the party and control what they did. Eventually, after he had killed a new player's character, I had to ask him to retire the character. Luckily he understood where I was coming from and did so. From that point on I never allowed that sort of play in my D&D games ever again. Until now, which is funny because I don't have to worry about it all from my current group, but they are the type of group where the players will work things out amongst themselves even if one of them went rogue and initiated an attack against the party (including stealing etc.). In fact the Lawful Evil Tiefling Barbarian in the group was rather hostile with the rest of the group at first, but that has since changed and they have accepted her as one of their own despite the rest of the group being Good/Neutral.

[@Lrbearclaw]

9:15 - Had a moment of PvP as a player in a gamestore 5e game. A kid who WAS new tried using "Command" on various people to do as his Paladin wanted. Problem is... I was playing a Monk. He didn't think of that because the others had lower WIS scores (we used the standard array for easier creation for the newbies). So I always saved... So, my character (Half-Elf Monk, Calistie Ces'Tholaes) told him if he tried it again, she'd remove his ability to speak. A couple weeks later (game was weekly), he tried to Command her to give him something she picked up... ignoring that she was the defacto leader of the party. So... she spun on her heel with a jab to his throat. I looked to the DM, waiting to see how he would play it as we DID have a "No PvP rule" so I was going to let the DM decide how to handle it. "Roll for an attack." Now, I was level 5 at this point so only had +6 to hit vs a Full-Plate Paladin (who didn't have his shield on as this wasn't a combat situation), so odds were not GREAT I could hit... but they were there. Natural 20. I rolled damage and it rolled as max (15 at the time) straight at his throat. Cali snarled out "I warned you. Pull that on ANYONE who is an ally again, and I'll rip out your f**king tongue." To which I added (I used a different tone for her than me) "I have Extra Attack..." shifted my eyes to the player's and said "Should I roll for that?" The Paladin and player yielded before I even picked my d20 back up... And the other players knew NOT to screw with Cali. If she said "Enough"... you were probably way past the line.

[@mreval]

Three tales, 2 of which I believe PvP was done well and one sadly not. First of two groups where I think PvP is done well. A campaign that I play in has a rule, what you do to others can be done to you. If you want to steal from the party, then it's ok to steal from you; if you want to pull silly pranks on the party then expect pranks against you; if you run from a fight expect to be left behind; if you try and kill a player character, sleep with one eye open. A perfect balancing act that tells the group, I'm happy with my character taken this treatment. The next is run tabletop like a LARP. This is how I deal with PvP with a group I run. If you want to do something that has an impact on another player have the discussion of what, how and eventual possible outcomes. If both players are satisfied then play the scenario. This still allows full player agency, though it also gives full responsibility of their characters and party. Finally a PvP bad time. Many moons ago, *strokes beard* would be well 20 yrs now. I was playing in a LGS campaign. It was a large group, there were a few experienced players with a bunch of new players. The idea was to mentor the new players, get them excited, thus LGS sells books and the community grew. There was a young neckbeard, who was the one telling the new players all the cool power plays; teaching them how to "win" dnd. I was playing a super stealth long range rogue, he was playing tanky stabby fighter. We just got an item, a bracelet, from a dungeon and was trying to work out what it was. My PC got bored asked for the bracelet and went to simply put it on to see what happens. The fight grappled to stop, failed, and character put the bracelet on. Nothing happened, though the fighter decided that the rogue was to risky to have around in possibly the most on sided fight since sorcerers risking dying from fall DMG from falling asleep the rogue was player killed. What happened next was interesting, I started a new character. Fighter though got legit upset that I wasn't. After throwing a tantrum that got him booted from the game I explained why I was okay. Manly I'm not going be bullied all because, your imaginary thing used an imaginary sword to make believe murder to death my imaginary person. Lesson if the day, don't use PvP to try and bully players because it's a game. If some trying to bully you, don't put up with it, ignore them and if it escalates, make sure you bring completely to the open, rip away there PERCEIVED AND IMAGINARY power. Chances are they'll get kicked :)

[@michaelramon2411]

I have found that "intrigue PvP" (where PCs are keeping secrets from each other, whether the players know the full details or not) is a lot more fun than combat PvP or resource PvP. Especially if every PC gets to have a secret. I was once in a campaign where all the PCs had secret backstories, and the telepathic villain knew them and kept sending us secret messages to manipulate us. That was the highlight of the campaign. In a game I currently run, one PC reanimated a dead boss as a skeleton, put her in robes, gloves and a mask, and introduced her to the party as his never-before-mentioned disfigured mute friend Urga. Great fun, even after the players out-of-universe figured it out.

[@AuntLoopy123]

Oh, that sounds wonderful!

[@michaelramon2411]

@@AuntLoopy123 Actual quote from one of the telepathic villain messages to a PC: "I AM, NATURALLY, AWARE OF YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS WORLD. YOU ARE AN ABERRATION. WHY THEN, DO YOU SEEK TO CLEAR THESE FORESTS OF SOME PERCEIVED ABERRATIONS? THIS IS A RHETORICAL DEVICE, I ALREADY KNOW YOUR REASONS." Good times.

[@HistorysRaven]

I've only played one campaign where we had a PvP, but it was in the context of a festival and a non-fatal tournament. It was a fun 5v5 with three PCs in each group. There were also 1v1 fights that were there to do, but I don't think any of us decided to do those.

[@williamlee7482]

In all my years as a DM ( 42 ) I've never had any PvP instances nor have I ever had murder hobos in my game . So PvP has never been a problem in any of my games , my players have always helped each other out when they could . I even had one player help outfit another player by giving him 25 of his solar peices ( I use silver in place of gold for buying and selling in my games ) so he could get the best armor before adventuring .

[@itsyaboiexplosion9377]

I’ve had a really cool pvp happen where even though me and the other person were full on ready to kill eachother in game but at the end of it we were fine with eachother. The main reason was because the point of the combat was because they were protecting someone they loved but understood my reason for fighting cuz they had the same feeling but would rather be passive about it

[@Lcirex]

I wonder what fat cat's sticky adorable paws were pilfering while everyone else was distracted by barbarian and rogue's confrontation?

[@zorcon4]

Yes!

[@theDMLair]

Fat cat has pilfered most of the pizza from that table over the years. But the players just keep ordering more. Which of course explains FatCats condition.

[@nadezhdaposlednaya6526]

In the Lost Mine of Phandalver i got the Doppelganger to act more active, rather than sit idle in scripted place. This made a PvP situation similar to the one with intelect devourer. One of the time he acted was after players got the map of the Wave Echo Cave from Cragmaw Castle and were in Phandalin relaxing (the doppelganger survived battle and fled). He ambushed sorceress-noble (he thought to be their leader) preteding to be a tavern maid when she were taking a hot bath, knocked her unconsious, search her room and then interrogated her about the map. Then he left her unconsious again, took her appearance and gone to talk with other players in the evening. I asked the sorceress player to roleplay a doppelganger, giving her a quest to get her hands on map and walk away with it if possible. Player were smart and player super cool, even giving other players some hints she it's the one who she pretend to be (showing she do not know some particular information) but without ruining her role. Well, the rest players weren't so smart and the doppelganger got his hands on map and walked away with it. Btw, in my game i homebrewed that doppelganger assume not only appearance and memmory of the victim but a part of victim's alighnment as well. How he can preted to be someone else if he can't show same alighnment naturally enough? This why he killed the main he stole appearance from (as he did it in drow "face") and then spare the sorceress as he took her appearance allready and she were really a good person (well, actually i've needed an excuse to not kill the PC this lame, but the excuse grew in something cool in my opinion).

[@Reaper0444]

I think PvP can work if done correctly. For example I'm running a game set in a modern/high end technology world. The players were hired by an organisation but they wanted to see each players capabilities. So they all went into a VR combat simulator and had a free for all. They all loved it and it didn't affect their players significantly because it was all in VR. Granted you wouldn't be able to get away with that in a standard fantasy game though. But the concept could stil be used.

[@Comicsluvr]

Note that my personal observations are exactly that, MY personal OBSERVATIONS. Your mileage may vary. To PvP or not PvP comes down to two things, the maturity of the players and the level of familiarity between them. I have friends who have played together for decades and some of our favorite stories come from PvP memories. In most cases, there was an understood line that the players didn't cross. It was accepted that the Thief would pocket a few gems or coins from the treasure chest and we were okay with it because the Thief was the one doing the Trap/Lockpick checks. It was considered part of the Social Contract we all agreed to. The instances of players getting upset were few and far between and, as often happens in social settings, the players that were considered 'troublesome' simply wouldn't be invited back. We would (rarely) have two or more players who would not just agree to a PvP-type of a situation but they would set it up ahead of time for the sake of a good story. Right now, we have a Fighter with Amnesia who was supposed to kill another PC. The target knew that they were being hunted but the first time the two met, the assassin never even hinted at the animosity. She simply didn't remember. Since the whole party is made up of Warforged, there is always the lingering doubt that the assassin might hit a preset point and attack the other PC. Both of the players came up with this and presented it to the DM while we were discussing the backstory of the game and he loved it. There are reasons why real-life people have laws preventing them from harming or killing each other.

[@nabra97]

It may be a bit out of point, but memorizable. Prehistory: 1) we had to hide 2) my character had a scar he got during some rather-for-fan duel in his backstory. During the game, we joked a lot about giving to character some more scars to make the existing one less noticeable. And eventually, I decided to do it really. I had a duel with the cleric, then barbarian and rough took part too. After, both characters and players were OK with it (though I still can't totally understand why we did it).

[@nerfherder5211]

Session zero is great. Doesn't have so be formal with a protocol and stuff. But the key to most problems.. is TALKING about it and most problems that will occurr during the game could have been made easier with some discussion beforehand! Talking to eachother really solves a lot of issues. But don't let it stop at session zero. Discuss your problems DURING the campaign too damnit many problems occurr after session one :'D

[@mikec6111]

Man, I’m glad I get along with everyone I work with. That sounds like Hell.

[@buttmunchmcnugget328]

Dang, that session Zero take was too real!

[@lperkins2]

The worst setup is often allowing "mild PVP", which often turns into blank-card for the rogue to steal from the party, but _doesn't_ allow the rest of the party to kill him (or otherwise _remove_ him from the party). The most recent issue this way I encountered was in a zweihander campaign (think Warhammer 2). Ther's a career that gives an incredibly powerful _Detect Lies_ ability, and we'd previously had issues in a campaign with a fair degree of backstabbing. So we put together a campaign as a _proper_ mercenary company: A core group of combat specialists, backed up by casters, craftsmen, and common laborers. At the head, the _Truthsayer_, who made part of the general debrief a series of "have you betrayed the company" type questions. Initially we just handwaived it as "you go through the usual debrief" since the point was very much to get _away_ from the backstabbing. Then we had _that player_ join. He didn't have a character handy initially, so we gave him 3 of the hirelings for the first session, and he immediately started trying to undermine the party, and play mind games with the debriefings. Not wanting to deal with the drama, we mostly ignored it, but fast forward a few months and the note-passing started taking up too much table time, combined with about a session and a half worth of annoying _detailed_ use of the zone of truth abilities (which ultimately lead to a complete breakdown of the campaign world, as the craftiest of the players had to figure out a way to get unlimited irresistable spells in order to solve the issue... Zweihander is a fundamentally broken system). In the end, the party discovered they were about to complete their transformation into vampires of unknown power, and prepared to lay seige to their transformation location. _This_ finally upset the player controlling them enough that he left the game before we nuked them from orbit. He was perfectly happy to divert table time to other players sitting idle and steal resources from the PCs, but the notion that this _extremely_ cutthroat mercenary company would just slit their throats (or spike their hearts) and move on was somehow a line too far. And yes, I _have_ been in a campaign (almost 15 years ago now), where one of the players was _also_ a GM, and quite happy to have you kill his character if it made sense. Just expect him to return the favor if the story demanded. We had random rolled stats, so if he rolled bad, he'd sometimes intentionally make a character to further the DMs goals, with the expectation we'd eventually (often in the first session) find out and knife him in the middle of the night (or right after the obvious betrayal).

[@williamhoover6902]

I use pvp in an arena setting or once at a monk monastery as part of the training. The players had a lot of fun with it because with the healers present under competition setting it wasn’t possible to lose a character. But playing combat against another player really challenged them. It also is easy for the DM because it runs itself. I ran a free for all for last man standing and it was a blast.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

That's always fun to be part of. I don't usually use them anymore since I've done them to death and I like trying new things in a competitive setting. Like, for example, making all the players bounty hunters competing for a large bounty that only one of them can claim. Something that forces them into conflict make cooperation impossible or unlikely.

[@williamhoover6902]

@@Lobsterwithinternet Interesting take.... I am going to ponder how I can incorporate that.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@@williamhoover6902 You just got to remember to have some sort of time restriction or it can drag out a one-shot for too long or can derail a main campaign. Like my bounty hunter example: The target is a reclusive wizard who lives in a pocket dimension but only comes to the material plane once a year to go to his good friend the duke’s birthday party or the island your adventures are stranded on is slowly sinking into the ocean and they need to reach the other side of the island. Pretty much anything that has a timer that the players cannot effect and that you can control at your pleasure.

[@zorcon4]

Luke, I appreciate the video. I see lots of commentary around the nets about this topic and at first I really struggled to understand all the hate. But I (think?) I get it now. Maybe it's more than the level of maturity, but how long and how well you know the other players. I have had the luxury of being part of the same gaming group for 40+ years--Yes, old players have left and new players have joined, but the 'newest' player joined about 10 years ago. My group started in 1980 (I was in 5th grade). We didn't call it PVP back then, but we started playing in a more selfish/individual play-style only a few years later. Based on your definitions, I would say we generally play Collective PVP--For the most part all the players work towards the end goal of the mission. But they have individual goals, plans, and/or activities on the side/parallel to the campaign. Sometimes those activities come into conflict (direct or indirect), but for us those times are some of the best times.

[@theDMLair]

Yeah I think it has a lot to do with maturity of the individual person and also how long the group has been together. I'm willing to bet that groups that have been together for a long time and our friends and it just played forever together are far less likely to get upset with each other over PVP in the game. It's the new groups that just came together with immature people read young people that tend to have people getting upset about PVP.

[@zorcon4]

Also, I hadn't realized prevalence of the more 'aggressive' type of PVP that was spurring a lot of the heated discussions. That's one thing makes having this discussion so difficult is what we each think PVP is.