PvP

I found that PvP DOES happen especially in games with heavy role playing.

* The Paladin places the rogue under arrest when he catches him pick pocketing a weathy merchant.  

* A chaotic barbarian decides to colapse the roof by smashing one of the pillars down with his great maul.  This results in several party members becoming injured or even killed.   The remaining party members decide to punish the barbarian....

* The wizard in the party decides to place the evil Crown of Soldiers on his head, thereby becoming an evil npc.   

* An Evil Party ...  betrayal is a close friend.

There are countless examples.  

There is also the argument that the classes are not balanced unless they are also balanced against each other.    In 4e a striker is always going to be able to kill a controller.   For many this just isn't fair.  I guess, some gamers like a healthy sense of rivalry. 







What is your point, exactly? Specifically with regard to D&D next mechanics. Are you for PvP? Against it?
I don't think it will ever be fair, as players specialize in specific areas. It's very important that they do this, as the diversity gives a party a much greater number of issues that can be solved. The game is about a lot of things, one of its key features is the struggle to attain more power (Experience).

Life for our characters would become a little dull if all we can do is attack goblins or there like. Ghost and undead are a specialty of the cleric / Paladin. Yet some undead totally outmatch a fighter. So how do we measure the effectiveness of the cleric being able to handle a shadow. The cleric is given something extra here (turn undead / spells) so we must take away something from it to make it equal to the fighter. Now in a straight fight between the two the fighter will win. why ? Because the fighter isn't an undead. The feature we gave the cleric here doesn't help in a straight fight. You will never have a good game (IMO) if you try to make all characters equal at all things.
D&D is a team sport. Talking about PvP is like arguing about whether the first baseman could beat up the pitcher. Sure you can speculate on it, maybe even take bets, but why? It's not the point. They each have their role to play, and they do it differently.








Plus we all know the guy holding the bat could take on everybody. 
While I'm not a big fan of PvP in games, it's important that you can create NPC opponents who look like PCs and have reasonably working encounters. I would say that it doesn't work very well in most editions of D&D, at least once you have spellcasters on both sides, due to "he who goes first wins" mechanics; characters tend to be very fragile compared to their lethality.
someone once emphasized team work as part of the 4e mechanic, stating plainly that you need your party and they need you. I think PvP sucks, but I've seen it, and seen places where it was inevitable. the game should not be so structured that play becomes impossible if one of the party members is killed, or wants to go off on their own. A character should be able to go solo sometimes - it should be harder, and generally discouraged, but it's a common trope in many stories. It's even a common trope with many classes we think of as being tactical assets to each other, like the Ranger, Assassin, or Necromancer/Warlock.

In a game where everyone levels at the same time and everyone is roughly equal in power and where you need everyone working together to succeed, these storylines are impossible. But that also means where the challenge is less, the players would always succeed, and where the challenge is greater, they would almost certainly fail. That's not the kind of D&D I want to play. They have MMOs for that.

Options are Liberating
Chris Perkins wrote a wonderful article about how PvP should be handled in a D&D game some time ago.  Here's a link:
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

I was never really much of a fan of the standard "party member fights party member just because" eventuality of D&D PvP.  The game is really more designed for characters fighting monsters, not themselves.

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.

PvP in 4th edition doesn't pan out well because not everyone is made to do damage. Leaders only serve half of their functions while in teams.

Controllers stand apart as something much like strikers. They can stand alone and take down others, by imposing hampering effects from a safe distance and peppering their foes until they're dead.

Strikers are still the best at PvP because they specialize in damage -- and usually, at-will. For whatever reason, even though Strikers usually have an at-will striker feature (like sneak attack), Controllers have no such equivalent. Their role is in their powers. So as soon as the controller runs out of his limited-use, potent control powers, he'll get taken down. That said, if he can kill the striker before that point he's solid.
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
What is your point, exactly? Specifically with regard to D&D next mechanics. Are you for PvP? Against it?



My opinion is that I think there is a need to recognize that PvP does happen in many D&D games.   At the same time I strongly support D&D as a team based game.   I think that PCs should be able to function alone at times.  Perhaps being more versatileis the answer.  Give all PCs the option to do high damage.  That might be a way to balance things a bit more.  At the moment in 4e, the striker always rules the day.    

It wouldn't bother me if D&D Next had some support for PvP.    Even if a reasonable amount of effort went into making sure that all the classes had a good chance of killing each other I wouldn't mind.    I just want all PCs to be at the same powerlevel.    For me it isn't enough that everyone has an equal chance to contribute to combat, I also want each character to be just as powerful.   

For me balance is not just about how PC's can contribue to team. It's about how powerfull each character actually is.    In 4e some characters are much weaker than than others.    Is it really fair to force me to accept that my controller is always going to be far less powerful than the groups striker?   The fact that the striker can always kill me means that,  in role playing terms, I had best not incur his wrath.    Likewise, the striker, if he really wanted, could bully my character around whenever a dispute occured.    In some groups such behavour is perfectly acceptable and encuraged, especially when role playing is extremely important.    In those types of games a player whos character bullies another character wouldn't be taken aside an warned by the DM.   It would be all in the name of role playing.  

The other reason that I would like to see a bit more balance is for purposes of charm person and domination like effects.   When a character is under the DM's control or being role played as such, the game can get out of wack very quickly.   Is it fair that the group's controller won't be able to stop the dominated striker from killing him?         


Chris Perkins wrote a wonderful article about how PvP should be handled in a D&D game some time ago.  Here's a link:
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

I was never really much of a fan of the standard "party member fights party member just because" eventuality of D&D PvP.  The game is really more designed for characters fighting monsters, not themselves.



Thanks for the link I'll check that out. 

My problem is that in every group I've played in (including my 4e game) the characters (not the players) have tried to kill each other.   It really doesn't matter if the game suports it or not.  This happens!

With that said, I do recal a few players who tried to kill each other..  of course that was when I was in high school...


It really doesn't matter if the game supports it or not.  This happens!

Well, yes, but I fail to see how it happening constitutes grounds for it being a supported feature...

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.

Chris Perkins wrote a wonderful article about how PvP should be handled in a D&D game some time ago.  Here's a link:
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

I was never really much of a fan of the standard "party member fights party member just because" eventuality of D&D PvP.  The game is really more designed for characters fighting monsters, not themselves.



Thanks for the link I'll check that out. 

My problem is that in every group I've played in (including my 4e game) the characters (not the players) have tried to kill each other.   It really doesn't matter if the game suports it or not.  This happens!

With that said, I do recal a few players who tried to kill each other..  of course that was when I was in high school...



Why would they try to kill each other so much in game?  Are these people big PvP fans outside of D&D, or are they just naturally antagonistic?

PvP is something I loathe.  I hope they don't even adress it, personally.  Because the only way to make it fair would be to make everyone the same, and that's boring.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]

It really doesn't matter if the game supports it or not.  This happens!

Well, yes, but I fail to see how it happening constitutes grounds for it being a supported feature...



It should be supported because it happens.   

I'm not saying that the developers have to spend a great amount of time on it, but they should at least make sure that the game doesn't break when it does happen.   


Chris Perkins wrote a wonderful article about how PvP should be handled in a D&D game some time ago.  Here's a link:
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

I was never really much of a fan of the standard "party member fights party member just because" eventuality of D&D PvP.  The game is really more designed for characters fighting monsters, not themselves.



Thanks for the link I'll check that out. 

My problem is that in every group I've played in (including my 4e game) the characters (not the players) have tried to kill each other.   It really doesn't matter if the game suports it or not.  This happens!

With that said, I do recal a few players who tried to kill each other..  of course that was when I was in high school...



Why would they try to kill each other so much in game?  Are these people big PvP fans outside of D&D, or are they just naturally antagonistic?

PvP is something I loathe.  I hope they don't even adress it, personally.  Because the only way to make it fair would be to make everyone the same, and that's boring.




Role playing is the main reason.      I'm talking about all my experience playing D&D even before MMO's existed.    My post has nothing to do with video games at all. 


D&D is a team sport. Talking about PvP is like arguing about whether the first baseman could beat up the pitcher. Sure you can speculate on it, maybe even take bets, but why? It's not the point. They each have their role to play, and they do it differently.








Plus we all know the guy holding the bat could take on everybody. 



ok.... How about a hockey game?  


The game doesn't brake any more than if a boxer beats up a vicar in the real world. Yeah it happens. Does it mean the Pope has insisted all his priest take sefl defence class ?
At least in 4e non casters stand a chance. Also a controller can lock down most enemies well enough so it is not a garunteed win for the striker.
The game doesn't brake any more than if a boxer beats up a vicar in the real world. Yeah it happens. Does it mean the Pope has insisted all his priest take sefl defence class ?



A fighter vs a 0 level human. 

One is trained to fight the other isn't.   

How about a boxer vs a shaolin monk?

Now, that sounds more like two classes going at it.   

In D&D every class is trained for combat in one way or another.  




 


Try to define class, then look at it again :p
Role playing is the main reason.  I'm talking about all my experience playing D&D even before MMO's existed.  My post has nothing to do with video games at all. 



So your friends would purposefully put themselves at an impasse just so they could fight?

Was this mainly teenagers, by any chance?
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Try to define class, then look at it again :p



That example is poor and you know it.   It's not like the priest in the real world can cast any spells.   If he could I might consider the argument to be valid.  But it really doesn't work as an analogy.   A real world priest is just a 0 level human with no divine spells. 



PvP is for MMO videogames...

..and PCs against PnCs with levels of classes.   

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Role playing is the main reason.  I'm talking about all my experience playing D&D even before MMO's existed.  My post has nothing to do with video games at all. 



So your friends would purposefully put themselves at an impasse just so they could fight?

Was this mainly teenagers, by any chance?



No, they would role play and if the role playing called for a bit of conflict then it happened. 

PvP happens with groups of all ages.   
 


PvP is for MMO videogames...

..and PCs against PnCs with levels of classes.   




Well before MMO's D&D characters fought each other.   This has nothing to do with video games and everything to do with role playing.   


It's not like the boxer has a sword either >.<

I regularly play with a person who turns on other players when they don't get there own way. In the name of role playing. I respect her need to do it. It's important to stay in character to her.  I always respond in character. I run ^^
There's nothing wrong with it. The consequences of losing are pretty big and normally it's damage to subdue rather than all out war to avoid them. 
If you guys don't believe me that PvP was part of the game then what about all the AD&D modules that included PvP in the encounters?      I can name several modules that have this at the heart of the main encounter.  

In addition, what do you think happened when a character was dominated or possessed in AD&D?

This is an important topic especially if D&D Next is going to attract the attention of old school gamers. 








Role playing is the main reason.  I'm talking about all my experience playing D&D even before MMO's existed.  My post has nothing to do with video games at all. 



So your friends would purposefully put themselves at an impasse just so they could fight?

Was this mainly teenagers, by any chance?



No, they would role play and if the role playing called for a bit of conflict then it happened. 

PvP happens with groups of all ages.   
 



Huh.  I see no reason to roleplay to the point where two people are at such cross-purposes that they must "kung-fu fight" to decide the victor.  I mean, at that point the rest of the party should hop in and stop the two hotheads. 

PvP just defeats the whole point of a co-op game.  It's like trying to play Battletoads and accidentally hitting the other player, and it just devolves into a hitting match until the game over screen.  Much better to pick the "I only hit my enemies" option and get along.

Also, a note about "not talking about video games".  You might not be, we are, because video games are a type of game now.  For many of us, that's all we have, possibly all we have besides card and board games, to use as reference.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
I found that PvP DOES happen especially in games with heavy role playing.

* The Paladin places the rogue under arrest when he catches him pick pocketing a weathy merchant.  

* A chaotic barbarian decides to colapse the roof by smashing one of the pillars down with his great maul.  This results in several party members becoming injured or even killed.   The remaining party members decide to punish the barbarian....

* The wizard in the party decides to place the evil Crown of Soldiers on his head, thereby becoming an evil npc.   

* An Evil Party ...  betrayal is a close friend.

What you have described here for the most part are sociopaths.  Some others are examples of why the old alignment system being tied to class mechanics was a mistake.  And one isn't even PvP.

1) Paladin: linking the paladin's class features to alignment is a discussion for another thread.  Suffice it to say that I think it was a huge mistake.  But the main problem here is:

2) Rogue: making a rogue who will openly break the law in front of the paladin is just asking for trouble.  You are clearly doing something just for the sake of causing a problem.  Hense: sociopath.  The best thing you can say here is that at least he didn't steal from his friends...

3) Barbarian: acting without concern for your friends.  Sociopath.  At best you can say that it was an accident, and hopefully the player will act him as having learned a lesson...in the future he will be more careful.  If not...sociopath.

4) Remaining party members: if by "punish" you mean "attack and try to kill"...sociopaths.  Presumably these people adventuring together are friends.  If a friend makes a mistake, you don't just kill them, even if that mistake leads to someone getting hurt.

5) Wizard.  As soon as someone becomes an NPC, you no longer have PvP.  Having someone's character turn evil is a great way to go when someone becomes bored and wants a new character.

6) Evil Party.  Sociopaths.  People use evil characters as an excuse to play a sociopath.  But even an evil party doesn't have to all be sociopaths.



ok, so role playing a character who is a bit of a sociopath is just not allowed in D&D?


Yeah, I do not like PvP myself (at least in D&D).

Generally, the other players should step in once two hotheads are close to coming to blows. Mediators are necessary at this point, and lots of good roleplaying can be had instead of chopping your (former?) friends head off.

The good roleplay begins when you try to actually resolve these things without picking up your sword. There is, most of the time, something higher at stake than "you stole from the rich and give to the poor, my paladin complexes demand that you surrender yourself to the local police forces, so that we may loose against Evil McGrimEvil who is out to destroy the world!".

If there is no other way out than fighting, I would argue that one player is intentionally doing this.



So your solution is to force players to act against their characters personality for the sake of the game, simply because the mechanics will break when combat ensues.

I have seen several very honorable and cool headed characters come to blows.  Trial by combat was not out of the question, especially between two knights.    In fact, a knights code might require that he defend his honor by combat.   Between two comrades, first blood might be an option. 

In addition, party members are not always friends.   There are many other reasons for a group of adventures to be adventuring with each other.    


ok, so role playing a character who is a bit of a sociopath is just not allowed in D&D?



Well, that depends on what kind of group you like to play with.  If you happen to like sociopaths and dealing with the enormous headache that such play brings in then I suppose a person either rollplaying or actually even being a sociopath isn't that big of a deal.

Me, as DM, I'd have a serious talk with the sociopath.  There's no room at my table for someone who's only come to the game in order to screw with his friends.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
At my table the sociopathic character is the next to die so eveyone can have fun.
in 2e, you could calculate the EXP value of a player character. In PVP, with the exception of things like Assassins, Paladins discovering an Evil Traitor, and other rare justifiable events, instead of getting EXP, you could have an optional rule that says they lose XP - because its just so karmically and psychologically devasting to break up the group. Then players would have a tangible incentive to think twice - like "do I really want to leave the party that badly?"

You could even double the XP loss if the character has the same alignment as you.

With the case of a Duel, if both players agree that XP should be awarded rather than lost, then it's acceptable as well. Both Wizards and Warriors (even paladins) duel. I don't know about clerics, rogues, or psions.
Options are Liberating

There is still always another way but fighting. Unless you are obtuse and absolutely want to force the conflict.



I agree, but if my character is NOT a pacifist and gets into bar fights all the time, he isn't going to have an aversion to punching the elf in the groin for turning his beard pink with a cantrip.



Plus we all know the guy holding the bat could take on everybody. 



ok.... How about a hockey game?  



I was talking about hockey.

Saying "this should be a feature because it happens" is not really an argument. There are also numerous people who cheat at dice rolls. Should that somehow be incorporated into the game? Players killing players is a problem. The way it should be solved is a chapter in the DM's guide explaining how to avoid it when possible, and deal with it when necessary. 
ok, so role playing a character who is a bit of a sociopath is just not allowed in D&D?



Well, that depends on what kind of group you like to play with.  If you happen to like sociopaths and dealing with the enormous headache that such play brings in then I suppose a person either rollplaying or actually even being a sociopath isn't that big of a deal.

Me, as DM, I'd have a serious talk with the sociopath.  There's no room at my table for someone who's only come to the game in order to screw with his friends.



So you think that if a player's character is a sociopath that the player is also a sociopath?  



It seemed such a wonderful idea of the Warden, Give them all a hobby, let them occupy themselves with an RPG instead of rock breaking... sigh...

Plus we all know the guy holding the bat could take on everybody. 



ok.... How about a hockey game?  



I was talking about hockey.

Saying "this should be a feature because it happens" is not really an argument. There are also numerous people who cheat at dice rolls. Should that somehow be incorporated into the game? Players killing players is a problem. The way it should be solved is a chapter in the DM's guide explaining how to avoid it when possible, and deal with it when necessary. 



Equating role playing with cheating?  Really?

If role playing calls for it there is nothing wrong with it.      Also, if a player killed another player I would phone the police.    




So you think that if a player's character is a sociopath that the player is also a sociopath?  




That's not what he said and you know it.

There's a reason "Chaotic Evil" is actively discouraged in the PHB. Parties full of characters bent on destroying each other don't work.
ok, so role playing a character who is a bit of a sociopath is just not allowed in D&D?



Well, that depends on what kind of group you like to play with.  If you happen to like sociopaths and dealing with the enormous headache that such play brings in then I suppose a person either roleplaying or actually even being a sociopath isn't that big of a deal.

Me, as DM, I'd have a serious talk with the sociopath.  There's no room at my table for someone who's only come to the game in order to screw with his friends.



So you think that if a player's character is a sociopath that the player is also a sociopath?



DO I assume that a person playing a sociopath is a sociopath?  No. 

Do I think the person RPing the **** has some issues to deal with, and I'd prefer them not do it at my table?  Yeah.

Whay, again, does the elf in your above example turn the barfighter's beard pink?
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]

So you think that if a player's character is a sociopath that the player is also a sociopath?  




That's not what he said and you know it.

There's a reason "Chaotic Evil" is actively discouraged in the PHB. Parties full of characters bent on destroying each other don't work.



ok but he said that as the DM he would talk to the sociopath therby inferring that the player is a sociopath. 

Now, I've played a Lawfull Evil campaign.   The wizard in the group looked at the fighter skin as a possible source of new spell book pages.    It was a lot of fun.

How about a dark and evil Drow campaign?    Sounds like a lot of fun to me.

Chaotic Evil campaigns are a bit of challenge, but with a simple plot deivice or two they can work. 

 


Sign In to post comments