Player vs. Player: How common is it?

[Octopusapult]

Ok, so I have been in numerous groups over the years where players betrayed, stole from, attacked, and sometimes even killed one another. I thought this was normal. Generally I didn't get involved, I normally play NG characters and never initiate PvP, and normally try and mediate or break it up when it occurs.

One time, about 15 years ago, a player who had a long history of stealing from or betraying the party behind their back and I were in a new group. I was a rogue, he was a fighter, and he was constantly bullying me like he was Biff Tanen and I was McFly. Eventually we came to a place where I refused to swim (my character was afraid of water) and he through me in, where I was attacked by sea monsters and nearly killed. I decided I had enough, and as I was a rogue and couldn't stand up to him in a straight fight I murdered him in his sleep. The rest of the group was absolutely shocked, kicked me from the group, and miraculously resurrected the fighter. To this day they will not let me game with them and whenever I complain to them (some of whom are RL friends) about my current (insane) gaming group, they tell me that as a vicious player killer I don't deserve to play with decent players.

For almost ten years I have played with one group exclusively. They are crazy and have serious behavior problems both in and out of game, but I will say that on my watch none of them have ever resorted to PvP behavior, despite the fact that several of the players in the group have engaged in it in the past.

Recently I have tried to break out of my shell and find a new, more sane group, and to my shock PvP combat is again relatively common in the groups I am looking at.

When I asked my friend about this, he came up with a theory that there are basically two circles of gamers. More or less people with social skills and those without. When someone with social skills tries to play with the latter group they simply leave the hobby. When someone without social skills plays with a "normal" group they are quickly kicked out and will gravitate towards like minded players, essentially forming an under class of "psychotic rejects", a realm to which I have banished myself by retaliating in PvP.

Is there any truth to this? Are there really two "classes" of gaming groups? How common is PvP? How appropriate is it? How does one retaliate if they are the victim of it?

Whatever is fun for the group. Seriously, it is a game. If your character is going to act that way, the group should be ok with it. If they're not, then tone it down. Infighting can be interesting and dramatic, but it can also break the group down and distract. In essence, whatever is fun for the game you are playing.

[Psyren]

All of my groups have universally banned it without exception. And generally, if your players are doing that it means they are bored and you're not challenging them enough. They need to be so afraid of the world that they cling to every possible ally like a vice.

[Segev]

All of my groups have universally banned it without exception. And generally, if your players are doing that it means they are bored and you're not challenging them enough. They need to be so afraid of the world that they cling to every possible ally like a vice.

Unless the only kind of game you run is one wherein literally everything controlled by the DM is out to kill anything not controlled by the DM, and is just looking for an excuse, that doesn't always work. It can, but there are always things which could lead to intra-party conflict, and these are beings who are used to resolving conflicts with violence. In a game where the whole world is out to get you, having a character determine that another party member is also out to get them, or is so woefully dangerous to the party's well-being that they may be turning them over to things out to get them, can lead to less good-aligned sorts being perfectly willing to off the troublesome "ally." The phrase, "With friends like you, who needs enemies?" comes to mind.


The only thing that keeps bothering me, aside from the fact that it's been years and the OP's supposed friends won't even consider that the OP might not (still, to their minds) be a horrible person who doesn't deserve decent gaming experiences, is the double-standard: it was okay to PvP when one character used it to control another, but not when that other responded with the best way he had of opposing that control. To me, it's little different than allowing the wizard to dominate the fighter whenever they have a disagreement, but kicking the fighter's player out if he attacks the wizard when he succeeds the will save for once.

[Talakeal]

Ok, so the incident happened in late 2001. Since then the group has somewhat drifted apart. When the fighter's player runs or hosts a game I am explicitly not invited, and he even goes so far as to tell my mutual friends to lie to me about their plans for game night.

The DM, on the other hand, now runs a different group in another town. He has invited me to play with him a couple of times, but he always makes it abundantly clear that I am on probation and at the first sign of conflict I will be shown the door and not invited back. Also, whenever I tell him about one of the crazy problems that comes up in my group he gives me a lecture that more or less says "Yeah, that's what you get for being an anti-social PvP player, you really can't expect decent people to game with you."

[TandemChelipeds]

It is no where near that simple. It is not just the ''bad social skilled people'' that do PvP.

The top three I'd think would be

1.Mean People If a person is mean all the time...well then they are mean all the time. If the guy just insulted five people, stole a parking spot and kicked a dog before the game....then when he does some PvP in the game, is really not too much of a shock.

2.Selfish People If as person is selfish all the time...they will stay selfish during the game. And PvP is a great way to get a person out of the way...

3.Bullys This is the most common. If someone is a Bully, then PvP is just another way to ''beat up someone''.

Aren't those all just different forms of poor social skills, though?

[ComaVision]

Aren't those all just different forms of poor social skills, though?

Not necessarily. You could do any of those with high social skills. Ted Bundy was very charismatic.

[Knaight]

Aren't those all just different forms of poor social skills, though?

Plenty of jerks have plenty good social skills. It's what lets them get away with being complete tools all the time.

That said, I wouldn't consider that a decent explanation for PvP. If there's the specific case of someone bringing it into a game that they know full well has it frowned upon, then they're being a bit of a jerk. Otherwise, it depends on what the game focuses on. Sometimes character conflict is the entire point, sometimes it's the party versus the world, sometimes you just have Paranoia.

[Segev]

Ok, so the incident happened in late 2001. Since then the group has somewhat drifted apart. When the fighter's player runs or hosts a game I am explicitly not invited, and he even goes so far as to tell my mutual friends to lie to me about their plans for game night.

So, the guy who initiated PvP but lost is bitter, still, that he didn't get to have retaliation-free bullying time? How mature.

The DM, on the other hand, now runs a different group in another town. He has invited me to play with him a couple of times, but he always makes it abundantly clear that I am on probation and at the first sign of conflict I will be shown the door and not invited back. Also, whenever I tell him about one of the crazy problems that comes up in my group he gives me a lecture that more or less says "Yeah, that's what you get for being an anti-social PvP player, you really can't expect decent people to game with you."

Have you yet taken him up on it? Have you ever had a time when you've had to restrain such an urge when playing with him, and only did so because you were "on probation?"

Have you protested, when he gives you that lecture, that it was one time, and that you were provoked? I'd try to get him to talk to you about it and to consider things from your side. Also to consider whether you've done anything of the sort since.

I mean, holding it against you all this time and telling you that you are not a decent player nor do you deserve to game with decent players is insulting if untrue. And a friend should be willing to discuss it and change their view if you've either changed or things can be shown not to be how they perceive it.

[Mastikator]

Aren't those all just different forms of poor social skills, though?

Poor social skills means you can't interpret other people's body language and have difficulty with things like metaphors, sarcasm and various other non-linear communication. Someone with bad social skills will often misunderstand people and often be misunderstood, there's no malice involved in having poor social skills.

Being a bully is a matter of sadism and power play, the most dangerous bullies are the ones with good social skills. Same with mean, hateful or selfish behavior.

Though, having poor social skills can easily be misinterpreted as being mean or selfish, but that's just because the person is bad at communicating.

[Segev]

Poor social skills comes off as callous and inappropriate more than mean, in my experience. The times poor social skills come off as mean tend to be when a high-social-skill bully is deliberately manipulating things to make said low-social-skill person appear mean, usually as part of a tactic to bully them by using the rest of the group as a bludgeon.

[Silus]

*1000-Yard stare* I've seen some ****...

My current group tends to gravitate towards manipulation, sneaky you-can't-prove-this-in-character type of PVP which drives me friggin' mad.

"So the old grumpy soldier that I EXTORTED FOR MONEY TO JOIN THE PARTY just threatened me. I'm gonna hire two of the PCs to kill him while not having a paper trail back to me." is the latest example. "Best" part? This was by one of the oldest (like 40's-50's) players in the group that insists he's really a nice guy and he just plays evil characters 'cause he finds it cathartic. *Cue endless eye rolling*

Then you have the Vampire Rape incident and the Magic Sword.

If I ever run a game for them again (Pathfinder if anything), straight up mandating no PvP on pain of embarrassing polymorph, gear destruction or straight up insulting character death (Kicked to death by gnomes for example).

[Sith_Happens]

Have you yet taken him up on it? Have you ever had a time when you've had to restrain such an urge when playing with him, and only did so because you were "on probation?"

Have you protested, when he gives you that lecture, that it was one time, and that you were provoked? I'd try to get him to talk to you about it and to consider things from your side. Also to consider whether you've done anything of the sort since.

More to the point, have you called him a farsighted ***hole yet? It's been thirteen ****ing years, there's something seriously wrong with someone that holds a grudge for that long because you make-believe stabbed someone else. Does he refuse to play Halo against you because you picked up the rocket launcher one time ten years ago when he was assuming "rifles only" but never actually said so to you? Same thing.

[Galen]

To be honest, in ~20 years of gaming I have seen, let's see, only one full-blown fight between player characters.
I have seen a lot of conflict, skirmishes, friendly tussling, tripping and grappling, practical jokes, players thwarting each other's plans, stealing each other's stuff even, but actually attempting to kill another PC, only once. And it wasn't even successful.

[Jay R]

It is no where near that simple. It is not just the ''bad social skilled people'' that do PvP.

The top three I'd think would be

1.Mean People If a person is mean all the time...well then they are mean all the time. If the guy just insulted five people, stole a parking spot and kicked a dog before the game....then when he does some PvP in the game, is really not too much of a shock.

2.Selfish People If as person is selfish all the time...they will stay selfish during the game. And PvP is a great way to get a person out of the way...

3.Bullys This is the most common. If someone is a Bully, then PvP is just another way to ''beat up someone''.

I find argumentative people - people who just want to win the argument every time - at least as common than any of these, and more likely to break up a game.

[copycatcat]

More to the point, have you called him a farsighted ***hole yet? It's been thirteen ****ing years, there's something seriously wrong with someone that holds a grudge for that long because you make-believe stabbed someone else. Does he refuse to play Halo against you because you picked up the rocket launcher one time ten years ago when he was assuming "rifles only" but never actually said so to you? Same thing.

And, for that matter, it isn't like he even started it.

This person is holding a grudge against you for 13 years for exacting revenge in a make-believe game or placing your character in a near-death experience in an environment they have an irrational fear of.
Honestly, he's going so far as to tell your friends to lie to you. Why do you even want to play with him anymore after that? Also: why do your friends agree to lie to you, as it seems is the case?
The person you described's behavior is at least thrice as bad as yours. Heck, his in-game actions were at the very least comparable to yours. He initiated PvP, you retaliated. You, it would seem, were merely roleplaying your character in a way that makes sense.

tl; dr A group that holds a grudge against a player for 13 years for player killing shouldn't be a group that lets people roleplay bullies who would throw a hydrophobic into sea-monster infested waters.

I find argumentative people - people who just want to win the argument every time - at least as common than any of these, and more likely to break up a game.

There is one other: Provoked people, which seems to be the case with the OP. The other player roleplayed a bully who threw a hydrophobic into water. I wouldn't have been surprised if his character had drowned from this even if there hadn't been sea monsters in the water. I'm very confused about how he survived with the sea monsters. Unless he was rescued- but then the fighter made a a**hole move that didn't even speed up the game, let alone circumvent an obstacle.

[The Insanity]

Hm. I've noticed that some people on this boards use a very loose definition of the word "friend". Because honestly, I wouldn't call whatever those guys are, "friends". "Acquaintances" at best, but probably something worse.

[copycatcat]

Hm. I've noticed that some people on this boards use a very loose definition of the word "friend". Because honestly, I wouldn't call whatever those guys are, "friends". "Acquaintances" at best, but probably something worse.

Well, definitely worse for fighter-player. "Acquaintances" for those who agree to lie to you(or maybe worse), friends who stood up against him.

But yes. How are you still friendly with a person who would hold a 13 year grudge for something in a make-believe game?

Saying that the PvP incident wasn't justified is like saying Inigo Montoya's revenge wasn't justified: potentially true, but what the heck, man?

[emeraldstreak]

One time, about 15 years ago, a player who had a long history of stealing from or betraying the party behind their back and I were in a new group. I was a rogue, he was a fighter, and he was constantly bullying me like he was Biff Tanen and I was McFly. Eventually we came to a place where I refused to swim (my character was afraid of water) and he through me in, where I was attacked by sea monsters and nearly killed. I decided I had enough, and as I was a rogue and couldn't stand up to him in a straight fight I murdered him in his sleep. The rest of the group was absolutely shocked, kicked me from the group, and miraculously resurrected the fighter. To this day they will not let me game with them and whenever I complain to them (some of whom are RL friends) about my current (insane) gaming group, they tell me that as a vicious player killer I don't deserve to play with decent players.

Their reaction was not surprising at all. You were lashing out of your ordained status place in this group.


Generally speaking, violence as means of resolving status conflicts is most common in less socially mature groups. Mind you, another common sign of less socially mature groups is grasping for black&white explanations of the world, as the one your ST friend spinned.

[emeraldstreak]

Ok, so the incident happened in late 2001. Since then the group has somewhat drifted apart. When the fighter's player runs or hosts a game I am explicitly not invited, and he even goes so far as to tell my mutual friends to lie to me about their plans for game night.

The DM, on the other hand, now runs a different group in another town. He has invited me to play with him a couple of times, but he always makes it abundantly clear that I am on probation and at the first sign of conflict I will be shown the door and not invited back. Also, whenever I tell him about one of the crazy problems that comes up in my group he gives me a lecture that more or less says "Yeah, that's what you get for being an anti-social PvP player, you really can't expect decent people to game with you."

That's just nonsense. You sound like a chill guy to play with. Good groups have no problem subtly enforcing a positive atmosphere of gaming that new players easily adopt.

[Exediron]

One time, about 15 years ago, a player who had a long history of stealing from or betraying the party behind their back and I were in a new group. I was a rogue, he was a fighter, and he was constantly bullying me like he was Biff Tanen and I was McFly. Eventually we came to a place where I refused to swim (my character was afraid of water) and he through me in, where I was attacked by sea monsters and nearly killed. I decided I had enough, and as I was a rogue and couldn't stand up to him in a straight fight I murdered him in his sleep. The rest of the group was absolutely shocked, kicked me from the group, and miraculously resurrected the fighter. To this day they will not let me game with them and whenever I complain to them (some of whom are RL friends) about my current (insane) gaming group, they tell me that as a vicious player killer I don't deserve to play with decent players.

While not a strictly reasonable reaction - or overreaction, which is what it was - this was frankly pretty understandable. From your character's point of view (and I'm not sure if he would be wrong) the fighter just tried to kill you. On that basis, and accepting that you can't defeat him in a fair fight, quitting the group would have been the best thing to do, but snuffing the creep before you did so was quite understandable from the morally grey point of view.

When I asked my friend about this, he came up with a theory that there are basically two circles of gamers. More or less people with social skills and those without. When someone with social skills tries to play with the latter group they simply leave the hobby. When someone without social skills plays with a "normal" group they are quickly kicked out and will gravitate towards like minded players, essentially forming an under class of "psychotic rejects", a realm to which I have banished myself by retaliating in PvP.

This, however, is crap. Even ignoring the fallacious definition of social skills being employed here, this is like some demented form of social racism, and I can't imagine what other qualities your friend must have to merit the retention of that designation. For me, I think this person would be 'that jerk I used to game with', not a friend.

Personally, my experience has been that the commonality of PvP scales pretty much directly on the inverse of how serious the game is taken by its players, with a little hike at the very end just to throw off the formula:

One-off Games: Nobody cares, so PvP is disturbingly prevalent. There isn't any investment in the characters, which makes it acceptable to most.
Most Games: There's enough continuity and investment for PvP to be discouraged, but it still might crop up from time to time.
Serious Games: At this level the game and its characters will go/have probably been going for years, and knocking one of them off is usually a serious no-no.
The Truly Hardcore: Is where it swings around again. At this level people are so invested in their characters that it's acceptable again for the PvP to occur if it happens organically.

My own group is in the last category. Character killing is certainly something to be careful with (player killing is straight out - we don't want the police getting involved), but as long as everyone sticks to the 'Gentleman's Agreement' and rein in attacks that would result in the loss of particularly well-established characters there aren't any rules. Mind you, we all play multiple characters, so the impact is significantly different than what it is in a standard group. Player internal battles are far more common; I like some friction between my own characters, and every now and again it boils over. That said, I think the last time characters from two different players actually even threatened each other in earnest was three years ago, and the last time I can recall it really happening violently was more like six years ago; in that instance it was my druid going against the evil wizard party leader whom he felt had crossed the line one time too many, and it ended in a stalemate with both retreating anyway.

I think in general the most important rule - and the only one you need - is to make sure you clear it with the player who's about to lose a character first. In your example, you could say "Look Bill, my character is phobic about water and there's sea monsters in there. He's going to take your character throwing him in there as an attack. If you go ahead with it there's a good chance they're going to fight at some point." That gives him an out if he doesn't want a fight, or a chance for the group to weigh in and say that while they consider Bill's unprovoked attack acceptable they won't hold with you knocking him off. That would be when you quit the group, by the way. But odds are he didn't realize what he'd done was so bad, and just blindsiding him with a teamkill is a bit harsh.

[copycatcat]

While not a strictly reasonable reaction - or overreaction, which is what it was - this was frankly pretty understandable. From your character's point of view (and I'm not sure if he would be wrong) the fighter just tried to kill you. On that basis, and accepting that you can't defeat him in a fair fight, quitting the group would have been the best thing to do, but snuffing the creep before you did so was quite understandable from the morally grey point of view.

He didn't quit- he was kicked out, following which the fighter. He had assumed that it would be understandable by the group, to which he was introduces with no special warnings by a player who he has many PvP experiences with the past, to have revenge on a party member who bullied his character throughout the campaign had and thrown a hydrophobic character into water, which was a near-death experience for other reasons as well.
There isn't much even between nearly causing accidental death and murder. The only example I can even think of is spellbook burning- and I'd still argue that unless you destroyed the spellbook, or gave it to somebody else who will do so or is far more powerful than you and unwilling to give it back, it's less extreme than what the bully player did.

[Exediron]

He didn't quit- he was kicked out, following which the fighter. He had assumed that it would be understandable by the group, to which he was introduces with no special warnings by a player who he has many PvP experiences with the past, to have revenge on a party member who bullied his character throughout the campaign had and thrown a hydrophobic character into water, which was a near-death experience for other reasons as well.
There isn't much even between nearly causing accidental death and murder. The only example I can even think of is spellbook burning- and I'd still argue that unless you destroyed the spellbook, or gave it to somebody else who will do so or is far more powerful than you and unwilling to give it back, it's less extreme than what the bully player did.

I know that he didn't quit. I'm saying he should have quit - rather than killing the other character - if it had become clear the group would tolerate the fighter's action but not his, which he would have found out from talking it out beforehand. I agree that the fighter's action was quite possibly deserving of such a reprisal.

[TheCountAlucard]

Two of my players are intentionally going to bring their characters' interactions to a head, mostly because one of the concerned PCs respects strength - he's a pompous, arrogant jerk, but if the other guy stomps him into a mudhole, that's going to shrink his oversized ego a bit and probably mellow him out some.

[Vhaidara]

Extent of PvP in campaigns I've been in:

My warforged bitch-slapping our barbarian when he tried to assault (for no apparent reason) what turned out to be a high level paladin asking for our help. Twice. As in two separate occasions. I was the least good member of the party at LN.

The dwarven fighter casting Sleep on my gnome bard to get him to shut up. With an axe. Gotta love non-lethal.

The entire party gibbing my warlock because he murdered a bunch of innocents for power. this was planned, because I was bringing him back as a hellbred paladin.

[Threadnaught]

Give these people a teaching job, they could learn which children are bullied and join in. And if the victims do anything to alleviate their situation, they can choose between beating the victim for their response, making an attempt to get them arrested, attack their families, or help the bullies track them down and help finish them off.

[Remmirath]

Holding that against somebody for multiple years, no matter the number, strikes me as fairly ridiculous. Given that, I wouldn't game with them again if I were you, even if they do ask you to join them again at some point -- too high of a chance that something else seemingly innocuous will get them on a different weird banishment trip.

My general view on fighting between characters is that so long as it's all right with all players involved, it's all good. I personally always prefer in-fighting to holding back on what a character would actually do (be it my character or another person's character in question), but I understand that some people feel differently on that, so I'll certainly check on people's views on such things when joining a new group. I already know that my current groups are cool with it, so no need to check there.

I would say that some level of in-fighting between characters is really fairly common, though. I cannot come up with a reason why your old group would have had such a strongly negative reaction to it, unless perhaps they had been playing that very same game with the very same characters for many years and failed to let you know that killing other characters was discouraged... and even so, that would only warrant being miffed for at most a few months, and probably not even that.

That said, I think the last time characters from two different players actually even threatened each other in earnest was three years ago, and the last time I can recall it really happening violently was more like six years ago; in that instance it was my druid going against the evil wizard party leader whom he felt had crossed the line one time too many, and it ended in a stalemate with both retreating anyway.

I think there were a few times in the last couple of years -- mostly surrounding the Tower Incidents -- but it did seem reasonably unlikely that most of them were going to attempt to make good on their threats. (And he only backed down because of the bear. )

[emeraldstreak]

Holding that against somebody for multiple years, no matter the number, strikes me as fairly ridiculous.

But it really isn't for a lot of people.

[Dycize]

You know thinking about it...

What was the DM doing? He apparently approved the action of actually killing the character. And apparently no eyelid was bat until the fighter was found with a knife in the back. It's like a basketball player entering the court with a machine gun, announcing that since his team cannot beat the other fairly, he is going to gun them down. And it's only after he shot the opposing team dead that the referee calls foul.

Did it all happen in secret papers and it's only that suddenly the DM announced "Okay so now Talakeal kills the fighter in his sleep" and everyone went crazy? Or did they just watch with their mouth open, staring blankly while you made stealth / damage rolls? It's the kind of thing, as a DM, you should say "Woah stop there dude, you're really going to kill him? We don't do stuff like that in our group!" and simply retcon the player's solo night action (and it's the kind of stuff that's -really- easy to revert). But it seems the whole thing was allowed to go through and they even went as far as a resurrection.
It doesn't add up to me. And it really doesn't help that group's case of being entitled to being part of the smart do-good do-well don't-pvp kind.

[Talakeal]

It was 2e where an attack against a sleeping character is an automatic kill.

[Dycize]

Well, he still allowed the attack to go through. That's really the main problem I see with the the setup here.

"After all this bullying, my character decides he's had enough and kills Fighter in his sleep.
-Well... Okay... So... Now Fighter is dead. Party, what do you do?
-WHAT HE KILLED FIGHTER, THE MONSTER, GET OUTTA HERE!"
That's what it seems like to me (in a very summed up way).

Or maybe that's really just me.