Reconciling Player Motivations

[GreatWyrmGold]

I'm involved in a D&D game at a nearby game shop. The DM wants to let the players direct the direction of the campaign, which is fine. Unfortunately for him, the players are a gaggle of grade schoolers and me. I designed my character to have reasons to go along with whatever the kids decide to do, because I want them to have a good time and continue playing TTRPGs.

Which wouldn't be a problem, except that the two kids with strong ideas of what they want to do have gone in completely opposite directions:

• One of them wants to be an infamous criminal type. His exact words are wanting to "raise his bounty," which I take as an indication that he watches One Piece. This is fine, in a vacuum.
• Another one wants to support justice and the law and stuff. This is a bit less self-directed, but it's still a clear in-character goal. It's fine, in a vacuum.

But obviously, if one player wants to support the government and another wants to defy the government, finding adventures which suit both characters is tricky. I tried to nudge the players into synthesizing their divergent motivations into one plan of action, like the two of them working together to take over the city from both sides of the law or something. But nothing came of that suggestion, so either the kids couldn't think of anything or they forgot.

The DM resolved this issue by having both the cops and some criminal organization contact the party with the same adventure hook. Both wanted us to go into the same dungeon to retrieve the same magical artifact. This doesn't not work, but it doesn't seem like the kind of player-directed campaign the DM talked about wanting to run.


I guess part of the problem is that it's a campaign premise that would have worked better if he was working with a group of experienced players, but he's the most recent person to volunteer as DM so he got the newest players (and me). If I was him I might talk with the other DMs, but I'm not, and I don't want to tell him to scramble the campaign. I'd rather provide constructive advice.

I realize this is a bit of a pickle, but do y'all have any advice for my DM? A potential path he could pave that would let both of those players pursue both of their goals?

[Mastikator]

Introduce a bit of democracy. Ask the other players which direction they want to pursue, add your own vote last (perhaps as a tiebreaker). Do a bit of debate club, each player has X amount of minutes to make their argument. Bring post-it notes and pens, then tally the votes. Whatever is most popular goes. Two loud players do not decide where the party goes, ALL the players must have a say!

[Pex]

In One Piece one of the characters joins the Marines to fight for Justice. Are the two players friends and both want to play One Piece?

Provided the player who wants to raise his bounty doesn't mean be a murderous hobo of slaughter they can work together. The Justice player helps the Raise Bounty player in his shenanigans against corrupt tyrants and other official government types who do not have the people's welfare at heart. The Raise Bounty player helps the Justice player fight against the great evils, the stereotypical undead and fiends but also slavers, cultists, con artists, bandits, and murderous hobos of slaughter.

[Anymage]

If this sounded like everybody was up to the task, this is one of the main reasons why session zero is a good idea. Discussing campaign themes and how the party fits together works a lot better than just expecting everybody to make their own characters separately and hoping everything gels.

Since these are grade schoolers, though (and a new DM), I'd shelve the idea of a player driven sandbox and build in some heavy rails. Let the kids have the same dumb adventures we all had when we were kids. Have adults on hand to handle the inevitable character conflicts or "it's what my character would do"s that happen when people start exploring the concept space of RPGs. And try to enjoy the game for what it looks like it'll be instead of what you wish it could be.

[Unoriginal]

I'm involved in a D&D game at a nearby game shop. The DM wants to let the players direct the direction of the campaign, which is fine. Unfortunately for him, the players are a gaggle of grade schoolers and me. I designed my character to have reasons to go along with whatever the kids decide to do, because I want them to have a good time and continue playing TTRPGs.

Which wouldn't be a problem, except that the two kids with strong ideas of what they want to do have gone in completely opposite directions:

• One of them wants to be an infamous criminal type. His exact words are wanting to "raise his bounty," which I take as an indication that he watches One Piece. This is fine, in a vacuum.
• Another one wants to support justice and the law and stuff. This is a bit less self-directed, but it's still a clear in-character goal. It's fine, in a vacuum.

But obviously, if one player wants to support the government and another wants to defy the government, finding adventures which suit both characters is tricky. I tried to nudge the players into synthesizing their divergent motivations into one plan of action, like the two of them working together to take over the city from both sides of the law or something. But nothing came of that suggestion, so either the kids couldn't think of anything or they forgot.

The DM resolved this issue by having both the cops and some criminal organization contact the party with the same adventure hook. Both wanted us to go into the same dungeon to retrieve the same magical artifact. This doesn't not work, but it doesn't seem like the kind of player-directed campaign the DM talked about wanting to run.


I guess part of the problem is that it's a campaign premise that would have worked better if he was working with a group of experienced players, but he's the most recent person to volunteer as DM so he got the newest players (and me). If I was him I might talk with the other DMs, but I'm not, and I don't want to tell him to scramble the campaign. I'd rather provide constructive advice.

I realize this is a bit of a pickle, but do y'all have any advice for my DM? A potential path he could pave that would let both of those players pursue both of their goals?

I have to say that having the newest DM handle the newest players is kind of a pretty bad idea for a game shop. It's putting the people who needs the most X with the people who have the less experience giving X, on both side of the equation.

That being said, I think your DM already found the solution: the characters want the same thing, just for very different reasons.

If and when those different reasons start affecting the plot and the characters' development, your DM will have the player-directed campaign he wanted.

Just have to advise him that conflict between PCs can be a great thing, as long as it doesn't spill into conflict between players. Properly directed conflict creates motivation, and motivation is a necessary fuel.

Heck, with the right rivalry you can have a legendary campaign.

It will be a big weight on the DM, but a player-directed campaign always is.

[King of Nowhere]

I'm involved in a D&D game at a nearby game shop. The DM wants to let the players direct the direction of the campaign, which is fine. Unfortunately for him, the players are a gaggle of grade schoolers and me. I designed my character to have reasons to go along with whatever the kids decide to do, because I want them to have a good time and continue playing TTRPGs.

Which wouldn't be a problem, except that the two kids with strong ideas of what they want to do have gone in completely opposite directions:

• One of them wants to be an infamous criminal type. His exact words are wanting to "raise his bounty," which I take as an indication that he watches One Piece. This is fine, in a vacuum.
• Another one wants to support justice and the law and stuff. This is a bit less self-directed, but it's still a clear in-character goal. It's fine, in a vacuum.

But obviously, if one player wants to support the government and another wants to defy the government, finding adventures which suit both characters is tricky. I tried to nudge the players into synthesizing their divergent motivations into one plan of action, like the two of them working together to take over the city from both sides of the law or something. But nothing came of that suggestion, so either the kids couldn't think of anything or they forgot.

The DM resolved this issue by having both the cops and some criminal organization contact the party with the same adventure hook. Both wanted us to go into the same dungeon to retrieve the same magical artifact. This doesn't not work, but it doesn't seem like the kind of player-directed campaign the DM talked about wanting to run.


I guess part of the problem is that it's a campaign premise that would have worked better if he was working with a group of experienced players, but he's the most recent person to volunteer as DM so he got the newest players (and me). If I was him I might talk with the other DMs, but I'm not, and I don't want to tell him to scramble the campaign. I'd rather provide constructive advice.

I realize this is a bit of a pickle, but do y'all have any advice for my DM? A potential path he could pave that would let both of those players pursue both of their goals?

this solution is only temporary, i doubt the dm can keep coming up with those plot hooks if he wants some actual resolution to the story.
yes, the premise would work better with experienced players. inexperienced players need more direction. there's a lot of things that we identify as toxic/disruptive behavior, but for inexperienced players they just look a fun idea and they lack the experience to work out the consequences.

Introduce a bit of democracy. Ask the other players which direction they want to pursue, add your own vote last (perhaps as a tiebreaker). Do a bit of debate club, each player has X amount of minutes to make their argument. Bring post-it notes and pens, then tally the votes. Whatever is most popular goes. Two loud players do not decide where the party goes, ALL the players must have a say!

that indeed. you can't have a campaign where half the players are champions of good doing good and half are champions of evil doing evil.
you can have a campaign where the evil teammates in the good party work towards a good goal for a reward. but it seems the evil character wants to do evil.
you can have a campaign where good and evil together work to stop an apocaliptic threat. but that would require a story-driven campaign, not a character-driven one.
if the criminal type would be fine working for good against an evil government, this could be solved, it would give both players a common goal. but again, doesn't seem the case here.
by far the safest way is to decide that the party will be all good or all evil, but the dm saw this as too much railroading.

well, someone has to make concessions for this to work

[Vahnavoi]

If one player wants to play a cop and another wants to play a robber, then the best choice of game is cops versus robbers. You don't reconcile these motivations, you pit them against one another and use that to drive the game forward.

This isn't actually difficult at the tabletop, not even in a D&D like game. Lean into a turn-based structure, let players plan and act separately as they would in majority of tabletop games in existence. Forget silly truisms like "don't split the party", leave it up to the players to decide if to co-operate and how much.

[Errorname]

I realize this is a bit of a pickle, but do y'all have any advice for my DM? A potential path he could pave that would let both of those players pursue both of their goals?

You could make the reigning powers tyrannical lawbreaking usurpers and aligned the lawful player with loyalist rebels. That way "supporting justice and the law" and "being an infamous criminal" can sort of work to a common purpose, do the same things for different reasons.

I don't know how possible that is with the established status quo of the game, and without knowing the lawful player I can't speak to how comfortable they'd be with playing Robin Hood.

[KorvinStarmast]

Treasure hunting. If you have new players, one of the best ways to get them to learn the game is through a treasure hunt.

PCs of differing alignments can join forces to find treasure, particularly magical items or items about which stories are told.

Make the quest/adventure for the treasure dangerous enough that if they don't work together the characters will either perish or be captured/taken prisoner by {some kind of bad guy or an arch fey or slavers).
A side effect of this approach is that they will engage in team building and team work.

Or, as Vahnavoi suggested, play PvP .. it can work,...but in this case there is the problem of a few newbies and the OP trying to help them get along. From the OP, GWG doesn't want a PvP game (or doesn't seem to).

[JusticeZero]

It sounds like they're on a treasure hunt. Probably the best thing for them. Next time try to do a session zero. They're young, they're probably not going to want a long campaign anyway. They'll need rails because sandbox is an advanced concept.

[King of Nowhere]

If one player wants to play a cop and another wants to play a robber, then the best choice of game is cops versus robbers. You don't reconcile these motivations, you pit them against one another and use that to drive the game forward.

This isn't actually difficult at the tabletop, not even in a D&D like game. Lean into a turn-based structure, let players plan and act separately as they would in majority of tabletop games in existence. Forget silly truisms like "don't split the party", leave it up to the players to decide if to co-operate and how much.

I would not want to do pvp with new players. It would give them wrong habits.
Besides, the party is more than those 2 people. I don't think the others would enjoy it, just because two vocal players can't agree on a campaign theme

[gbaji]

I would not want to do pvp with new players. It would give them wrong habits.
Besides, the party is more than those 2 people. I don't think the others would enjoy it, just because two vocal players can't agree on a campaign theme

Yup. PVP is generally not a great idea. Doubly so for a table of players, many of whom may not be so interested in the conflict in the first place. It will at worse just hijack the game and enjoyment for the rest of the players, and at worse generate a ton of negative feelings by the players, both for eachother and potentially for RPGing in general. You seriously do *not* want this to be some random kid's first introduction to RPGing.

This is very much why session zero is important. Put me down also as questiong the GM's decision to make the story/plot player/character driven. it's one of those things you read about on GM advice forums, but is not really something I'd recommend either for novice GMs or novice players. Take the player's desires and motivations for their characters into account, but for just starting out with a new group? Just write a simple adventure, and run them through it. Doubly so with younger players. They'll enjoy the heck out of a simple "track down the ogre that's been stealing Farmer John's cattle" adventure.

Make the characters fit into the setting and adventure. Sometimes this will require a little jostling and adjustment, but doing that during session zero (which could actually be a fair amount of back and forth conversations prior to starting the game proper) will save a ton of headaches later. As I mentioned above, you can and should take the players desires into account during this process, but GMs should not be afraid sometimes to just tell players "no", if the character concept is too disruptive, or will just not work with the planned game setting. Having said that, there's a ton of wiggle room in there, but the GM has to talk to the players about this ahead of time. So... the player who wants their character to be a notorious criminal with a "high bounty" can work, but only if the GM makes some adjustments. And sometimes, it's worthwhile to push some of that back on the players "Ok. You want to be a notorious wanted criminal. How do you plan to work with other characters while adventuring?". Let them work out the details. It's often surprising just how capable players are of coming up with some "interesting" rationalizations to make this work if you present it to them as a challenge. And I know from experience that they will be much happier with the result if they had a hand in coming up with it, than if you just told them "Ok. Your character is... <x>".

Let the players do some of the work for you there. And yeah, some of the rationlizations may not always make a lot of sense (especially with younger players), but hey... it's a fantasy game, right? Just go with it. I think the main thing (and the reason why I really do suggest a more traditional GM-run plot/story here) is that you present them with objectives, and then have them figure out how to obtain them. This doesn't mean that their characters can't have longer goals and whatnot, but those are not things you must address on day one, or even day 15. Make the table a succcess first and then you can spend some time on some more character driven/focused storylines.

[Vahnavoi]

I would not want to do pvp with new players. It would give them wrong habits.

Wrong habits for what?

Besides, the party is more than those 2 people. I don't think the others would enjoy it, just because two vocal players can't agree on a campaign theme

You know what the format I pitched actually requires from the other people? Being able to wait for your own turn and tolerate that other people might do their own thing on their turns that isn't 100% what you want - a basic skill that is requisite to playing vast majority of tabletop games. Yeah, kids might not "enjoy it", but that's in the same category as them "not enjoying" other basic aspects of games, such as following rules or losing.

Also, since you missed the obvious: cops versus robbers isn't two people unable to agree on a campaign theme. It is a theme directly resulting from which characters the players made. They served it to the game master on a silver platter. The other players have three basic choices: join team cops, join team robbers, or go off and do their own thing. The game master can present that as a gameplay choice to them using those exact words. There is no reason to think about whether they'd like the idea or not before it's actually presented to them.

---

PVP is generally not a great idea.

This is tabletop roleplayer superstition. It's not backed by anything besides tradition - someone told you D&D is a co-operative game and you're now taking it to your grave, ignoring a huge body of other tabletop games, other roleplaying games included, that exemplify how to do it.

[Errorname]

This is tabletop roleplayer superstition. It's not backed by anything besides tradition - someone told you D&D is a co-operative game and you're now taking it to your grave, ignoring a huge body of other tabletop games, other roleplaying games included, that exemplify how to do it.

Yes, other tabletop games that are built as PvP games are designed with player conflict in mind. D&D is not built as a PvP game, and it takes a lot of work on the part of both the DM and the players to make it work.

[Unoriginal]

PvP isn't good if:

-Engaging in PvP breaks the established boundaries (including stuff like "stealing from other PCs" or the like that is PvP even without violence).

-The players are upset at each other and go into a "my PC can beat your PC" tantrum.

- The players agree to in-character PvP but then get upset at losing.

In other words, PvP is fine for any game, including DnD, as long as it is something the table agreed to and people are mature about it.

The games that have PvP baked into them *generally* meet the "the table agreed to it" requirement, but without the proper maturity those can devolve into horror stories just as easily as any other game

[King of Nowhere]

Wrong habits for what?

this is their first time playing d&d. you get them used to pvp, they will think pvp is the normal way of playing d&d. they join another group - where, like in 99% of groups, pvp is a big no - and they will start stealing from party members and being obstructive, which will lead to them getting kicked out.

This is tabletop roleplayer superstition. It's not backed by anything besides tradition - someone told you D&D is a co-operative game and you're now taking it to your grave, ignoring a huge body of other tabletop games, other roleplaying games included, that exemplify how to do it.

other tabletop games are not d&d, and just mentioning that detracts from the argument.
d&d is good to run a long term campaign, get invested in the characters and the story. that's the main strenght of the system, though it's flexible enough that it can be adapted to other formats. so,, why i believe pvp is bad?
1) i have a hard time imagining a long term campaign where two characters are actively trying to kill each other. what about the other players, are they supposed to pick teams?
2) the party must be split, else the two characters would just stab one another. so you need the dm to track two different parties, give different descriptions, add a lot of burocracy to the whole setting. and if the two competing characters do things behind each other's back, how are you even handling player and character knowledge?
3) both of the above can be solved with experienced players, who can separate players knowledge from character knowledge. i doubt some kids at their first experience can manage it
4) all kids involved want to play d&d. for 99% of tables, d&d does not involve pvp. so, to teach d&d, i would want to teach them the standard variety. they can pick up pvp later if they want. just like i would refrain from excessive houseruling or weird settings for a bunch of first timers.
5) i can play chess and have the opponent "kill" my king, and it's fine. i can play a one-shot of paranoia, and have another character kill my character, and it's fine. but when i spent months building up a character, i am not fine with another player killing it. this whole thing can lead to hard feelings among players, especially when they are kids.
6) the reason we think pvp is generally bad is that it often leads to bad feelings among players. there's a ton of horror histories on the internet about this. unless there's players agreement in advance, but it's hard to get a meaningful agreement from kids who don't even know what the game is supposed to be.

in fact, following that last point, I would say that pvp is very much like bdsm: it's a perfectly legitimate way to have sex, it can be very enjoyable if one has the taste for it. but if a first timer wants to try that "sex" thing that everybody talks about and he's only got a vague idea of what it entails, tieing him up and whipping him is not a good way to teach; you start with something more vanilla. and if someone agrees to have "sex" with you, you can't take out the leash and whip them without additional consent to the specific activity - even if what you are doing is "sex" and they agreed to "sex".
oh, and if you do it wrong, somebody could get hurt for real. and it requires more trust between partners than the regular version of the activity. the more i think of it, the more parallels I see.
and while i'd be happy to try it with a trusted regular partner, i would never, ever suggest it as a first experience to someone new.

You know what the format I pitched actually requires from the other people? Being able to wait for your own turn and tolerate that other people might do their own thing on their turns that isn't 100% what you want - a basic skill that is requisite to playing vast majority of tabletop games. Yeah, kids might not "enjoy it", but that's in the same category as them "not enjoying" other basic aspects of games, such as following rules or losing.

Also, since you missed the obvious: cops versus robbers isn't two people unable to agree on a campaign theme. It is a theme directly resulting from which characters the players made. They served it to the game master on a silver platter. The other players have three basic choices: join team cops, join team robbers, or go off and do their own thing. The game master can present that as a gameplay choice to them using those exact words. There is no reason to think about whether they'd like the idea or not before it's actually presented to them.

you are the one missing the obvious: nobody agreed to cops vs robbers. all the kids just came out with general ideas. and i must stress, again, that those kids are first timers who don't really know what they are doing, or what the game entails, or how their choices impact the game. you can propose this idea to experienced players, but green players don't know how a normal d&d game is supposed to run and how a cops vs robbers is supposed to run. not to mention the dm is also unexperienced and likely unable to handle it.
besides, it's only two players who want to play, respectively, cop and robber. what about alll the others? the op was pretty clear they do not know exactly what they want, except to try this "d&d" that seems to popular nowadays. i see that as a mandate to play d&d as understood and agreed by the average player base, with perhaps some houseruling to simplify the game to deal with lack of experience; to try to give them a d&d experience. i do not take the player's stance as a blank check to propose them something that is not d&d as 90% of tables see it just because they do not know enough to express more clearly what they want and don't know enough of rpg to understand what they are agreeing to. especially not when the practice has a proven record of causing bad feelings among people practicing it. I mean, it's not like they are kids, most of them without much emotional maturity, with an inexperienced dm who is unlikely to be able to handle it all. what could possibly go wrong? if this is not a recipe for disaster, i don't know what it is. I would consider it a good outcome for the campaign if everyone is still talking to everyone else after it ends.

The other players have three basic choices: join team cops, join team robbers, or go off and do their own thing. The game master can present that as a gameplay choice to them using those exact words. There is no reason to think about whether they'd like the idea or not before it's actually presented to them.

"go off and do their own thing"? if one goes off and does his own thing, why is he even at the same table as the others? may as well make a solo campaign. sure, one may have personal objectives that he pursues during downtime, but that's only a fraction of the campaign, he'll be a team member most of the time.
if one character does not buy in the basic premise of the game... why is he even part of the game?

[Vahnavoi]

Yes, other tabletop games that are built as PvP games are designed with player conflict in mind. D&D is not built as a PvP game, and it takes a lot of work on the part of both the DM and the players to make it work.

D&D rule paradigm stems from oppositional wargaming. Nearly every edition of it includes the possibility of pitting player characters against symmetric enemies that follow the same rules, played by another human at the table. That another human sometimes being someone other than the dungeon master isn't a major change at all.

---

PvP isn't good if:

-Engaging in PvP breaks the established boundaries (including stuff like "stealing from other PCs" or the like that is PvP even without violence).

That's equivalent to saying that touching a ball with your hands isn't good because you are playing soccer. Sure, but it doesn't tell you anything about merits of handball or the ease of setting up a handball game.

-The players are upset at each other and go into a "my PC can beat your PC" tantrum.

Hold on. Here, the obvious way to settle the argument is to have the characters go at it and see who, in fact, beats the other. The involved parties are effectively asking for it. Who is the PvP not good for and why?

- The players agree to in-character PvP but then get upset at losing.

That isn't sufficient measure of any idea. Players can be upset for both acceptable and unacceptable reasons, and in both acceptable and unacceptable ways. Also consider: educators around the world make children play games against each other specifically to create situations where said children can get upset and learn how to deal with being upset with negligible consequences.

In other words, PvP is fine for any game, including DnD, as long as it is something the table agreed to and people are mature about it.

The games that have PvP baked into them *generally* meet the "the table agreed to it" requirement, but without the proper maturity those can devolve into horror stories just as easily as any other game.

See, that's all fine and dandy as long as people realize that the level of maturity required is "didn't flunk preschool".

Like, it's one thing if one's players are literal 6-year-olds and it would be a hurdle to get them to play normal cops versus robbers nicely. But ostensible adults, thinking setting up fantasy cops versus robbers in D&D is somehow hard or a bad idea because someone might get upset? That's ridiculous.

[KorvinStarmast]

Like, it's one thing if one's players are literal 6-year-olds and it would be a hurdle to get them to play normal cops versus robbers nicely. But ostensible adults, thinking setting up fantasy cops versus robbers in D&D is somehow hard or a bad idea because someone might get upset? That's ridiculous.

There's a strain of modern gamers who react that way. Welcome to 2024. I have run into that meme in internet discussions, but only run into it once in a game recently. This was a game that I removed myself from ... for a variety of reasons.
That bit (the end of your post) was one of the elements in play that made me a bad fit for that group because I found that position/attitude to be, while not ridiculous, an obstacle to me having fun in my free time.
I am still in touch with the DM, but not with the other players.

[Unoriginal]

That's equivalent to saying that touching a ball with your hands isn't good because you are playing soccer. Sure, but it doesn't tell you anything about merits of handball or the ease of setting up a handball game.

I'm not telling anything about the merits of one or the other. I'm saying "don't cross the established boundaries" is a requirement for something to be acceptable.

Might be stating the obvious to you, but it's a requirement anyway.

Hold on. Here, the obvious way to settle the argument is to have the characters go at it and see who, in fact, beats the other. The involved parties are effectively asking for it. Who is the PvP not good for and why?

You misunderstood what I wrote. I wrote that it is a problem if there is a player-to-player issue and that results in them making their character attack the other.

That isn't sufficient measure of any idea. Players can be upset for both acceptable and unacceptable reasons, and in both acceptable and unacceptable ways. Also consider: educators around the world make children play games against each other specifically to create situations where said children can get upset and learn how to deal with being upset with negligible consequences.

Being upset (in the sense, "angry at the other person") because you agreed to a PvP situation but lost falls into the "unacceptable reasons", IMO. So long as there was no cheating or similar. There are ways to deal with it reasonably, of course.

See, that's all fine and dandy as long as people realize that the level of maturity required is "didn't flunk preschool".

Like, it's one thing if one's players are literal 6-year-olds and it would be a hurdle to get them to play normal cops versus robbers nicely. But ostensible adults, thinking setting up fantasy cops versus robbers in D&D is somehow hard or a bad idea because someone might get upset? That's ridiculous.

1) There are children/young teens who play TTRPGs, including the ones talked about in the OP. It's something that can't be ignored when we talk about how different players react to something.

2) There are plenty of ridiculous adults in the TTRPG hobby. As attested by the number of RPG horror stories you can find out there.

Of course, playing with toxic people is generally a problem beyond PvP, but it's an area where they're often particularly touchy.

3) I'm not the person saying PvP in DnD is hard or a bad idea. I'm saying that it should be fine as long as those requirements are met.

As you noted yourself, those requirements aren't particularly hard to meet, meaning that it's not hart to do PvP in DnD.

[Errorname]

D&D rule paradigm stems from oppositional wargaming. Nearly every edition of it includes the possibility of pitting player characters against symmetric enemies that follow the same rules, played by another human at the table. That another human sometimes being someone other than the dungeon master isn't a major change at all

Yes, it is. Going from cooperative PvE to oppositional PvP is in fact a significant change, for reasons that should frankly be obvious

Like, it's one thing if one's players are literal 6-year-olds and it would be a hurdle to get them to play normal cops versus robbers nicely. But ostensible adults, thinking setting up fantasy cops versus robbers in D&D is somehow hard or a bad idea because someone might get upset? That's ridiculous.

Well, it happens. Hell, games built for PvP can get tempers flaring, and it gets much worse when people did not sign up for a PvP experience.

It’s not unworkable, but I wouldn’t do it with a group I didn’t know and trust who weren’t all onboard with it

[gbaji]

This is tabletop roleplayer superstition.

Superstition is when people believe a particular outcome when there is no evidence to support it. PvP "generally being bad for TTRPGs" is *not* superstition. It's backed up by decades of evidence that, when introduced into most TTRPG games (especially D&D, which is the game we're talking about here), it nearly always results in unhappy players and often breaks up the gaming table where it occurs.

It's not backed by anything besides tradition

Tradition, which is based off how the vast majority of people who play TTRPGs actually want to play. So folks who want to play differently either need to play a game system that is actually set up for that specifically (Stormbringer, Paranoia, etc) *or* get some serious buy in from everyone involved. Not great options for a novice GM, and a group of young players at the junior table at the local game store.

someone told you D&D is a co-operative game and you're now taking it to your grave, ignoring a huge body of other tabletop games, other roleplaying games included, that exemplify how to do it.

That "someone" being the folks who designed the game, and the folks who have added to it over the last ~50 years. Somewhere close to 99% of the entire game content and rules center around the assunmption that D&D is to be played in a cooperative manner. Dungeon design guides. Adventure design guides. Encounter balance rules. Large portions of the DMG. Arguably every single adventure module/pack ever sold. All are built around the assumption that the PCs are actually "working together" to deal with whatever obstacles the DM has placed before them. It's literally what the entire game is built around.

You *can* play it PVP, but then you have to basically throw all of that out the window to do so. That's not to say you still can't do it, but it requires signifficant modification of the normal methods for building and balancing the game *and* requires universal buy in from the players. This is not something I'd recommend even for experienced GMs and players (I'd recommend playing a different game system). I would absolutely argue against a novice DM allowing this at a table with young and inexperienced players.

Without that buy in, and the entire table of players being experienced, skilled, and mature enough to know exactly what that means and be able to handle it, the usual outcome is one player "having fun" screwing over the other PCs, then the other players getting pissed and killing the first players character, who will then get pissed at them for ruining his fun. And everyone is angry at that point.

This is not superstition. It's what happens. Almost universally. D&D is just a terrible game system to do PvP in. It's far far too easy for PCs to trivially kill other PCs in the game. So any traditional party configuration which allows PvP will result in PCs assassinating other PCs when they are inevitably completely vulnerable to it and can't do anything to defend themselves. The alternative is that there is no actual party, and no trust, and they're all working against each other from day one. And even then it doesn't work well. D&D requires a DM to arbitrate the game. IME, what happens is that if side based PvP is allowed, the DM will tend to allow the "side" that amuses him the most to win. It's really not about the skills or spells or abilities on the character sheets anymore, but who comes up with the most clever or amusing method of "getting the other guy" that tickles the DMs funny bone.

At which point, why bother playing D&D in the first place? It's like Who's Line at that point. The rules and points don't matter. Just describe to the GM what sneaky and underhanded things you going to do to the other players, and they do the same, and the GM just decides who came up with the more cool/interesting plan. No need for actual rules at that point IMO. You know, if that's actually the game you want to play.


IME games that work well as conflict/opposition based games are ones in which the game sessions/scenarios are relatively short, and in which the players don't have any particular investment in the game objects/characters they are playing. No one feels that bad if they lost the last hand in a card game. They throw in the hand, and play another round. No one feels terrible that their king just died in a game of chess either. Set up the board and play again. No one cares that much that their villager got eaten by a werewolf in the last round of werewolf either. Again. You just play another round.

You *can* play D&D in a way in which the players don't have such an investment in their characters that losing them isn't a huge deal. But it runs counter to pretty much the entire concept of playing the game in the first place. It's entirely about playing that character, with their skills, and their abilities, and gaining levels, and gaining equipment, and building them up over time that constitutes the majority of the draw to the game. And D&D is also a game in which "death" (well, loss of character) is one of the key negative outcomes. So trying to make PvP work, while not forcing players to constantly lose characters and have to start over, is tricky at best.

I suppose you could construct a PvP D&D game without those elements to them, and it might be successful. But honestly, as I said above, if that's what you want to play, there are a host of other better game systems to do that in. People play D&D because they want to RP being a member of the Fellowship, and go on a quest to destroy the One Ring. They don't play D&D to RP the competitors in Street Fighter, table top edition. If they want to play that game, they play that game instead.


I think I made this observation in another thread, but I'll repeat it here: There is a huge difference between competition and conflict. Most RPGs are set up for cooperative play, so the former is ok, but the latter is not. If you want to play a game where the players actually conflict with each other, there are a host of game deesigned specifically for that. Play one of those instead.


I suppose I'll also add a personal comment and observation here. Most of the players I've met who actually *want* to play PvP (in a TTRPG), aren't players I want to play with, nor want at any table I'm playing in or GMing. They tend to be motivated by a desire to cause pain and anguish to other players. They get enjoyment out of the other players not enjoying what they just did to their characters. It's not about building up or improving their own characters, but tearing down what other players have built. I find that to be terribly disruptive and destructive play. They also tend to be poor losers, and even worse winners. Anyone who laughs at another player, because they fell for some trick that was set up to kill/harm their character (yes, I've seen this behavior) is not someone I want to play with. Period.

So yeah. Steer young players away from that as much as possible.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes, it is. Going from cooperative PvE to oppositional PvP is in fact a significant change, for reasons that should frankly be obvious

An example of this in online play was grief players in Diablo II (in its first two years) exploiting certain bugs to go hostile in large public games and kill players' characters who were in large games, in the PVE mode, to build XP/Characters. It caused a lot of hate and discontent.
Blizzard caught some well earned criticism for that.
Consensual PvP (dueling) was in the game from day one, and plenty of people enjoyed dueling games. It's the non-consensual stuff that got some of the fan based riled up.

Well, it happens. Hell, games built for PvP can get tempers flaring

There was a story going around, shortly after Joe Montana retired, about his competitive intensity. Even playing ping pong at a party or family gathering - so the story goes - got him in serious "I will win" mode, and he took losing badly. My son-in-law has a milder case of that, to the point that playing golf with him can be a trial. (Ad he's bad at keeping score correctly). My solution to that is, with my son in law, to only play scrambles with him. That way we can enjoy the game together.

It’s not unworkable, but I wouldn’t do it with a group I didn’t know and trust who weren’t all onboard with it

IN a D&D game, good advice. In a game built for PvP, there are no assumption out of line with the play session, usually.

[Vogie]

Thankfully, we have a bunch of media where Good & Evil have to join forces to take on a common enemy. The page of TV Tropes for this is based on the 80s movie Enemy Mine, but there are plenty more recent (and arguably more famous) options. Probably the most famous is Agent Starling & Hannibal Lector going after Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs, but also Commissioner Gordon/Batman, Detective Lance / Green Arrow, Rosalin & Zarek in Battlestar Galactica, about every 4th episode of Doctor Who, The Firefly crew teaming up with Saffron, HRG & Sylar in Heroes, and tons of examples in Star Trek, Stargate, and Game of Thrones.

In general, the Villain/Hero Team up happens when:

• When the Good Guy organization is secretly Evil and Betrays the Good Guy
• When the Bad Guy Organization gets too evil for even the Bad Guy
• When the Good Guy partners with the captured Bad Guy to take down the Worse Guy.

Jumping on the discussion about whether or not PVP should be included, I'll say this: These are grade school kids. This isn't the average GitP or Reddit posters with their experience. We're talking little league baseball but with a d20 instead of a bat.

While we hear a bunch of moaning about "participation trophies", especially from older people, there's a very good reason those things exist. When the kids are young, the goal of the game is NOT to win, but rather to Learn How To Play. You go in starting with a group that knows nothing, and slowly layer on the rules in a way that makes sense, and not moving on to more complicated things until the bulk of them have mastered the previous bit. A part of this will be doing things in a layered, controlled manner, including helping the extroverted players tone it down and giving the introverted players the ability to step out and be included.

All of the interactions that these young kids (and also even with young adult players dipping their toe in the hobby) will have in these first interactions with D&D and other TTRPGs are going to flavor how they view the hobby as a whole from this point on. Every house rule, even if you call it out as a house rule, will be considered as gospel. If those first games of D&D, for example, show that the rogue is going to steal from their allies, the Bard's #1 & #2 tactics are to mindcontrol via Persuasion check and to f**k everything that moves, that fighters should shut up if the party isn't fighting, that the Wizard or Cleric is so supremely powerful the rest of the party are just pawns... those players' will have those biases. We, the experienced players, know about all of these tropes and joke about them because they're awful and it's easier to laugh than complain... but that doesn't mean we should be actively teaching new players the worst parts of this.

You don't want to teach them that their actions are meaningless compared to the glory of the DMPC. We don't want all of the new characters being DarkPastNoParents Loners or Secret Demigods with a fake mustache. When it comes to teaching, especially teaching kids, you've got to teach them everything. And part of that teaching is getting the party to play together in a cooperative manner. Once they understand all of the aspects on how to interact with the game world, interact with the players and can successfully play, then you can start getting more towards the PVP aspect. But you don't sit down at a session zero of brand new players and say "look left and right - one of these people will kill you".

I've got kids and have often sat down and run a game or two with them & their friends every couple years when they ask - and I know from experience that kids have no problem how to act like the main character who can hog the spotlight. They've played video games, they've watched TV series & movies by the thousands that is all about following a single person doing stuff who sometimes occasionally have friends and allies along. The idea that this specific media - playing a TTRPG with a table of players - is going to be group focused, almost all the time, is going to be weird and a bit uncomfortable. They're not used to it. I'm not saying it'll always be like that - I'd love for your group to be able to get to a point where they could play, say, Vampire: The Masquerade and each session could have 4 different players going in 3-4 different directions all the time. But you're not going to start with that.

Another thing to recommend is that if there's a bunch of people, splitting the party is okay. Even the penultimate adventuring party - Tolkien's Lord of the Rings - eventually was 2 players going this way, two players going another way, and the rest of them going in a third direction. Some players won't be able to play with other players, and breaking a big group into smaller groups is likely a way for everyone to get a better experience.

[Errorname]

IN a D&D game, good advice. In a game built for PvP, there are no assumption out of line with the play session, usually.

I was going to get snarky and dismissive about you assuming I was talking about PvP games generally and not specifically D&D, but then I reread what I wrote and that's absolutely how it reads.

[Slipjig]

I think the simplest solution is to give them an Evil government to fight against. In a Robin Hood or revolutionary setup, Pirate can raise his bounty while Cop can fight for justice, both in the same party.

I'd ask for some details from Pirate kid, though, about exactly what 'raising his bounty' entails. If he's Robin Hood-ing great. If he's robbing Spanish treasure fleets, okay (just make the people he's robbing unsympathetic). But if he's thinking he's going to go the full "burn, loot, and pillage" on defenseless villages, that may not be a great fit in a game full of small kids. If for no other reason, because the kids are going to talk to their parents about the game,and if Pirate is leading the party into adventures straight out of the Satanic Panic, parents may stop letting their kids play.

[Kardwill]

I think the simplest solution is to give them an Evil government to fight against. In a Robin Hood or revolutionary setup, Pirate can raise his bounty while Cop can fight for justice, both in the same party.

Yeah, a common enemy is a good way to do it. Facing an evil, oppressive government or a control-obsessed crimelord, the Good Cop and the Renegade Outlaw would find a lot of common ground, especially if the players agreed to cooperate with the DM.

I'd ask for some details from Pirate kid, though, about exactly what 'raising his bounty' entails. If he's Robin Hood-ing great. If he's robbing Spanish treasure fleets, okay (just make the people he's robbing unsympathetic).

If the "raise the bounty" stuff is a reference to One Piece (and it likely is. Showing off you're a badass because you have a huge bounty on your head is A Thing in this manga), then it's likely to be between those 2. One Piece "good guys" have selfish motivations and greedy fingers, but tend to side with the victims/weak against the bastards that oppress/prey on them. And there are entire storylines about how they team up with military/pirate-hunter "law and order" types against a really evil, dangerous common foe (psychotic military officier, cruel pirate warlord, evil mad scientist bound on world domination...)
So the pirate player might be open to "Robin Hood" stuff if they still look good, badass and rebellious in the process :)

[Slipjig]

I agree that's probably the case, but I still think it's worth a conversation. If you aren'ton the same page, you don't want to find that out by him saying, "And now we round up the villagers to sell at the slave market!"

[KorvinStarmast]

For Vogie: nice post

I agree that's probably the case, but I still think it's worth a conversation. If you aren't on the same page, you don't want to find that out by him saying, "And now we round up the villagers to sell at the slave market!"

To which any of us (other PCs) replies "No, we don't." (See this example as one of many on how that simple conversation works).

[kyoryu]

My advice is simple: Don't pitch games as "play D&D". Pitch a more specific campaign concept that gives players direction as to what types of characters they should bring to the table.

[Mastikator]

My advice is simple: Don't pitch games as "play D&D". Pitch a more specific campaign concept that gives players direction as to what types of characters they should bring to the table.

AKA have a session 0 where you tell players what kind of characters to make OR make characters collaboratively during session 0