Does anyone think that the characters should be able to duke it out to settle disputes (keeping in mind the players have no trouble with each other)?
Or should disputes be solely left to the realm of roleplaying?
If PVP battles are allowed, do they need retooling?
This is a player to DM question, here, interested to know what others think.
These kinds of things can happen is both players agree. Never to really solve an OOC problem, or a critical problem within a group. In such cases, one of the PCs should turn NPC.
The root problem in most of these situations, however, is that one of the players has opted to play a character that likes to cause trouble. They like their character to have an advantage over the other characters and feel that they're more important.
In the case of the rogue who steals from the pot to be "in character," a story we've all heard before, the rogue's player is just being a thorn in the party's side, placing his importance over the other players'. It is important to remember that the rogue is not stealing from the party because it's the only option to stay true to the character, in fact, the action is only "in character" because the antagonist player decides it is. The characters may not know that the rogue is stealing, but the players do. It creates animosity at the table, and opens the doors for metagaming as the other players want their rightful loot.
There SHOULDN'T be any conflict that can't be resolved through roleplaying unless both players and the DM have talked about the conflict as a plot point beforehand. If the rogue ***** in a cleric's pie, the cleric could simply withold healing from the rogue for a while and ask him to say he's sorry, or a simply backhand or non-lethal beating of a mace could be very effective. Role-playing situations that have no mechanical benefit or drawback should be resolved with similar role-playing. The rogue *****, the cleric informs everyone in a dwarven bar that the rogue "Really hates those beardies."
However, if that same rogue steals from the pot, sells separate loot, and still takes their "fair share" from the rest of the loot, then it's something that the DM should step in and take care of, before it escalates to character death and hurt feelings.
D&D is a game, and though the rogue who spits in a paladin's drink adds flavor and conflict to a game, the warlock that attempts to kill the same paladin is a game-ruiner.
Being able to deal 1[W] to each of five foes doesn't help in a 1on1 against someone able to deal 5[W] to a single target.
PvP combat is fine as long as BOTH players are in agreement, the combat is in-character reasons, AND isn't an attempt to resolve an out-of-character issue.
Mirtek's note about class balance in a 4E game is definitely something to keep in mind. However, there is a balancing feature already built into the game: the Melee Basic Attack. Strength vs AC, 1[W]+StrMod damage.
Melee Basic Attacks carry no special damage provisions, and have no secondary effects. If you leave actual weapons out of the equation (i.e., use fists) or have both parties use the same weapon (just about everyone is proficient with a quarterstaff), it levels the playing field quite a bit. In fact, it's possible that this situation may give an advantage to someone you may not expect. Consider the following:
PC 1: Staff Mastery Wizard with a Str of 10 and an Int of 18. Base AC is 14.
PC 2: A fighter with a Str of 18 and Int/Dex of 10 each. His base AC is 10.
The two decide to settle a disagreement by whacking each other with staffs (think Robin Hood vs Little John). Since the combat is non-lethal, armor is not worn. The wizard's AC actually goes up to 15 thanks to his Staff Mastery, while the fighter's AC is pretty miserable at 10. The wizard gets +2 to his attacks and hits the fighter on an 8 or better. The fighter gets +6 to his attacks, but needs a 9 or better to hit the wizard. The wizard has a slightly higher chance to hit, but the fighter has the advantage of both higher HP and doing 3 more points of damage on a hit. The two could fight to first one bloodied or until one is knocked out. I'll leave it to the statistics buffs to decide who has the better chance to win in each case.
From a fluff perspective, the fighter is holding back (and not using his Fighter Powers) because he knows it's barely a fair fight when he pulls his punches, and the wizard is going all-out without actually resorting to spell use.
Some people can talk things through. Sometimes though it works out that they beat the hell out of one another.... And PvP doesn't HAVE to end in death you know. Though I'm fine with that outcome as well depending upon the chaacters/story involved.
As to changing it? To what? Why would you need to add additional game rules?
Just let the players set any limits they like - such as dueling to first blood, bloodied, unconcious, 10 rounds, etc etc etc.
For the most part don't go for anything more than a nasty beating(subdual damage).
But if they go at it, you have to work it up wit ha dilauge(sp?).
I would say in my experience its usually not a very good road to go down.
If the players DO like each other and the conflict is ENTIRELY in-character, then why not? I like DrMorganes' method of fighting unarmed or with very basic (blunt) weapons. Stopping when bloodied is a good idea.
In the campaign I'm PCing a dwarf in right now, it's in the Eberron setting. Dwarves don't like goblins. The goblin, of course, is a friend of mine that goes back, what, 8 years now? Out of character, we spend a lot of time actually coming up with more ways for our characters to hate each other until they finally set aside their differences.
The dwarf wants the goblin (rogue) to stop stealing, often following him around with the warhammer drawn and at the ready. We've made a bit of a meme out of something that actually happened in a combat against NPCs once and it carries over into our roleplay and non-combat encounters as well.
During one session, he commented "oh, reflex saves? I can beat all of their reflex saves!" while looking into a room with four undead soldiers in it. So, my dwarf (strength cleric) decided that it would be a brilliant idea to test this theory. I rolled an athletics check against his acrobatics as defense... and successfully picked him up and then threw him three squares into the middle of the room.
It didn't bode well for his hit points, but it was hilarious. Out of character, the party and I all agreed that it probably wasn't wise to do that in NPC fights any more without proper planning (e.g., the rogue readies an action to swing at the enemy while passing overhead; the cleric throws the rogue as an improvised weapon, dealing 1d4 + STR mod upon impact + the rogue's attack).
The dwarf now finds all opportunities to pick up the goblin and throw him.
It's a fun way of resolving in-character conflict without a fight.
I'll probably bring up the PvP combat to our DM though and see if he likes it. I like the idea of unarmed combat until bloodied... it would just suck if a real encounter happened to immediately follow it up! ^^;
That said, they did do this duel while I was making a visit to the restroom, and it was over 5 gold pieces. So, the duel was 100% not serious at all, and the two are good friends. It's actually a terrible example of actual IC conflict.
In actuality I would discourage character to character conflict, since it is usually counterproductive. (In fact, I have a house rule that PCs cannot affect eachother with any kind of roll, attack or otherwise, unless the other allows it...)
Let's say there's a theoretical situation where two characters in the party are working for the same goal, but they just don't get along. Maybe one's Good and another Evil, or there's a religious dispute or the Rogue pooped in the Cleric's apple pie or something.
Does anyone think that the characters should be able to duke it out to settle disputes (keeping in mind the players have no trouble with each other)?
Or should disputes be solely left to the realm of roleplaying?
If PVP battles are allowed, do they need retooling?
This is a player to DM question, here, interested to know what others think.
hell yes. if players say "i want to do X" then let them.
I don't care if it's stab the cleric in the eye socket, kill your precious NPC, or whatever they can come up with.
In real life do DM's tell you who you can and can't fight? No.
Think about it. How many people here have ever been mad enough at someone they hang around with regularly that they've actually said to themselves, "the only solution here is for one of us to die"? Sane people do not think like that.
And assuming the combat is lethal, but you survive (he doesn't finish you off), are you *ever* going to want to be near someone who nearly killed you again?
Unless your character is absolutely nuts or some kind of fanatic, there should be no reason for PCs to ever settle a dispute violently.
I think pvp is fine as long as there's no risk for one of the characters to be completly killed. I'm all for settling with equal terms (as with the quarterstaff idea), but realistically no fight, outside of professional fighting, is ever completely fair, someone always has the advantage.
If I were DMing I'd let it all happen until someone decides to use lethal force, by that time the rest of the party would be forced to interfere and stop the bickering.
And, how exactly would you stop two characters if they wanted to go at it?
If one player tells the DM that they pull out their sword and swings at another
character, what is the DM going to do? Say no? You can't do that, characters can't fight other characters?
I have participated in many duels over the years with my characters, some I have won, some lost, sometimes the fight was to first blood, sometimes it was to unconsciousness. It hasn't happened that I have ever fought to the death, but I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibilities.
I think games full of possibilities are best, tension in the party isn't always a bad thing. But having said that, that doesn't mean that all duels have to be to the death.
Because they both had high HP and to hit, I had them arm wrestle OOC (which was funny as hell because they were skinny non-athletic types or similar builds). The winner I described as pointing the sharp point of his sword after successfulling felling him comrade in the combat challenge.
\Think about it. How many people here have ever been mad enough at someone they hang around with regularly that they've actually said to themselves, "the only solution here is for one of us to die"? Sane people do not think like that.
While this is very true in real life, in real life sane people do not have the job description of "magically enhanced murdering hobo." Adventurers in D&D do. :P
Seriously though, if the players have no animosity towards each other in real life, and it's strictly an IC thing, then I have no problem with it. However if it leads to bad blood between the players, I'll step in quickly to try and mediate a resolution to the problem.
If the PCs are coming to such a colossal train wreck of interactions that they're willing to kill one another, odds are one of the two would have, ICly, said to himself 'frag it' and walked out of the party well in advance of that, or petitioned to have his opposition ejected.
Think about it. How many people here have ever been mad enough at someone they hang around with regularly that they've actually said to themselves, "the only solution here is for one of us to die"? Sane people do not think like that.
And assuming the combat is lethal, but you survive (he doesn't finish you off), are you *ever* going to want to be near someone who nearly killed you again?
Unless your character is absolutely nuts or some kind of fanatic, there should be no reason for PCs to ever settle a dispute violently.
Most "sane" people don't kill other people because they don't like the idea of going to jail. I think the quote in my sig covers that very well. You've never been angry enough to want to harm someone?
To the OP: Personally, I feel that if two characters want to fight that they should have the option to. If the fight turns lethal and one of them dies, well, it's time to roll up a new character. I don't support that sort of behavior when I DM, but I don't disallow it either. The other characters in the party might decide to break it up, but I would in no way force them to get involved if they didn't want involved in the dispute. In game problems shouldn't be solved by out of game actions by the DM any more than out of game problem should be solved via characters in the game. Just my two cents.
I've never had it lead to or stem from any animosity between players, but like others have said, that's when it would be time to step in. Otherwise, as long as everyone's having fun, let them play. It's their game too.
or to restrain her in other situations, because she'd never want to hurt another party member, and is rather overly rash sometimes.
Normally we avoid bringing OOC conflict IC, but ... it happens. it's not pretty. >>; But it happens. We try and sort it out...
And, our characters are very much not sane ... the blackguard sticks with us because the voice in his head tells him to, the whisper gnome thinks she's an orc (she's chieftain of a tribe even...), the druid muses in terms of abstract logic, the bard prefers to drink the blood of creatures while they're alive...
Don't believe anyone's tried to kill anyone yet, though with the whisper gnome and the blackguard death threats are pretty much par for the course. Both are quite committed to the party though -- one by his god and one by her loyalty ... so they aren't going to leave. And, I haven't been able to scare the bard off yet ... though remember, hit on orc chieftains at your own risk ... ;)
Solo PvP warfare is a fun and balanced way of playing the game...unless you suck....or are a warlord.
And by that I of course mean their PC's...Not the acctual players. Fortunatly we are all good enough friends to keep it IC at all times.
I hate chaotic stupid people, but its always what their character would do...
(keeping in mind the players have no trouble with each other)?
IMX, players who want to have their characters fight over an IC issue always have an OOC issue.
IMX, players who want to have their characters fight over an IC issue always have an OOC issue.
I've only seen this happen with a few players... and all of them were crappy players. I have seen a few very good players have some fights in character that were completely IC.
the Rogue pooped in the Cleric's apple pie
I lol'd hard on that, thanks :D
1. Force everyone to have alignments that don't increase the propensity for these scenarios.
2. Not inviting people who play that way regardless of alignment.
1. Few players are wholly mature enough to not get bent OOC if their character dies.
2. D&D isn't particularly balanced for pvp.
3. Far too often players determine that since they are just playing a game, they can have their characters fight to the death as a first response over stupid petty things instead of attempting to resolve issues using more logical and less lethal measures. This is metagaming.
IF a real roleplaying device of 2 characters call for them to resolve a conflict by combat, then fisticuffs are a good (and believable) solution in most cases. I mean when you disagree with a friend or coworker, you don't eviscerate them, even if you wanted to, because of consequences. Its equally unrealistic to think that PC's are so careless as well, or that consequences won't catch them.
I am not saying inter party battles never occur or that there won't be a time when players kill off each other's characters. But I am saying that more often than not, and by a huge margin, it harms the game more than any helps it.
I make it a rule that other players are not allowed to attack each other, but are allowed to leave the party or vote a party member out. I've had this rule ever since I had a game where the players decided to TPK themselves. It was a huge let down for me as the DM and I did not continue the game after wards (and I still get blamed for not stopping it from happening years later).
The other issue is that just because one person wins or loses the PVP match doesn't mean that the conflicts over, it just means that you can never sleep during that players (not necessarily characters) watch again because they may want revenge.
What I don't tell them is that the result is that they're both going to die.
It either creates a noise that attracts a nearby danger, or I take the other PC out later as a result.
So... It's an unspoken reality of any game I ever ran. "Go ahead and kill each other. I'll help."
I don't really tolerate that kind of stuff.
One exception is if I have two people that have been working hard and closely together to create a tense relationship between their characters on purpose. If they've shown that they are mature enough to handle it, interested in the proposition, that it's agreed upon by both parties all along, and that there is a resolution they've already taken into account...
In other words, if they handle it responsibly I let them make their story. If it's not being treated responsibly, I kill them both.
"Here, start over. Don't be an idiot this time."
Easy peasy.
But then I crave the wonderful days of vikings or cowboys. Where we solved our problems with sex, violence, and yelling. Screw peace, equality, and civilization. The strong should not appalogize to the weak!
As far as the post above me saying that most often PvP players tend to also be min-maxers. I game with a bunch of powergamers, and they're hardly much for PvP...
Maybe I just know exceptions. But generally they don't mess with the other players.
A: They're more useful alive then dead.
B: They aren't certain they can win. Jeremiah powergames generally by combining several classes, James powergames by using a bunch of splatbooks, I powergame by making **** up as I go along. "I throw my spear at a nearby boulder! That'll cause my foe to have to make a reflex save or take XdY bludgeon damage!"
(avoiding spoilers)
We end up chasing after the princess. The warlock is convinced she is evil and should be killed. The warlock IC attitude is very neutral-evil (only caring about himself). We catch up to the princess but she needs to be carried. The warlock says he will. I protest but he promises not to hurt her and got to her before I could. We're in a hurry to escape the room which has a swirling vortex spitting out aggressive spirits. The party, minus the warlock and I, escape the room. The warlock is next. As he passes by the vortex he tosses the princess INTO the vortex and hurries out of the room! Through a good roll and DM generosity I'm able to grab her as she spins by and pull her out. We hurry out of the room and catch up to the party, with the warlock still in the back of the main party.
IC, I should have then planted my battle axe into the warlock's neck, followed by a coup-de-grace. I gave my word to protect the princess. The warlock just proved his promises were empty and worse off his goal/actions could very well start a war where thousands would suffer/die. Better to kill the one to save thousands. What's an honorable (Good not Lawful Good) dragonborn fighter to do?
As it happened,the LGS had already stayed open way late for us to finish up so the issue got bypassed. From then on the princess stayed next to me even when that meant she was on the front line with me, anything to keep away from the warlock. If it had been an ongoing campaign I would have, at the least, later reported the warlock to the mercenary company and the leadership of the region we had come from.
OOC we had no issues between us throughout the session.
I'm not talking about "Bob and Jake don't get along". I'm talking about this
As he passes by the vortex he tosses the princess INTO the vortex and hurries out of the room!
because it is disrupting the game you thought you would play.
That's like getting to the end of Keep on the Shadowfell, and then trying to help Kalarael finish the ritual.
It isn't an issue with the character, in this case, the player himself is out-of-place.
Others can not.
Character violence is only ok if both players like the roleplay involved. otherwise its likely the end of the campaign.
Now that we're all adults playing 3.5, rules like that aren't necessary. My current campaign has had heaps of PvP fighting and its all been lots of fun. It's come about because the party are on a really long quest to stop their world falling into hell (this quest has been going for about 3.5 years real time and about half that game time) and while the party are all committed to this goal, they have divergent alignments and vastly different reasons for it.
We've had characters dominated by other PCs to stop them from killing peasants, we've had a PC have their thumbs cut off by other PCs as punishment for what they perceived as stealing from the party (in a magical D&D world that isn't really too great a punishment, but as he was a 2 weapon dagger fighting rouge it really cramped his style til he got them regenerated). We've had characters plot behind other characters backs to fight on a different side in a large battle where there was no obvious right or wrong. We've only had one PvP fight to the death though, and tat was on Ysgard, where you come back to life the next day, but the magnitude of the dispute did cause the victor to leave the party as soon as he had killed the other guy. All of these have been alot of fun and have had big effects on how the characters have developed, so to justified PvP i say huzzah.