PvP experience...

I just saw something in another topic about how PvP is a bad thing for some GMs... Well... I'm definitely against that. My players usually express their character's personalities quite well on our games, and so, if one character really wants to fight another - I let them. In my RPGs I already had fights between players to set matters ("strength is everything" characters), so the winner would decide (fistfight, not actual fight-to-kill). I also had a real fight after one of the PCs, tortured, revealed the hiding place of another PC... 4 members of the party (from 6 players) were imprisioned and tortured after that, all because the first character broke under the torture... after the two characters that were free freed the other 4, one of the imprisioned ones attacked the first character tortured, attacking to kill... They started fighting and another player joined in to defend the losing side (as his character was more close to that character)... They almost killed themselves, stopped by a paralyzing magic from another player, who knew that would lead to nothing... Afterwards, things were only resolved because of the manipulation skills of one of the characters, who was able to convince the attacker that even he would end up talking after the torture, and that there was no possible way someone could resist that...

If you and your players have bought into the dynamic that it is acceptable for characters to hinder, steal from, and attack each other, then more power to you. Unless the game explicitly states otherwise, PVP is not something that is included as a standard assumption of the game and you'll have to resolve any such matters with house rules. For my part, there's a whole world of monsters and villains whose player (the GM) doesn't get pissed off when you kill and rob them, so perhaps that's the best place to start before setting one's sights on fellow players' characters.

Sure, PvP is not a common thing... But I really don't see why it should be forbidden... In fact, I think that it's something that makes the game more real... So, you're a knight, and you get into a party with a rogue/thief/assassin... Do you really trust the guy you just met three hours ago in a tavern? It makes interaction between characters something more essential for the game. They need to talk to each other, learn more about each other... If they don't, how can they trust the assassin when it's his turn to watch during the night? No character of mine would sleep confortably with a strange assassin watching his back... But if there's no real danger, than every player resorts to metagaming. In my campaigns, if your character is a bastard who would certainly stab someone in the back for some bucks... Well, it's other player's problem if they trusted you too much. Always say this before the start of a game, never had problems (until now).

First, I didn't say forbid it. I said if your game system does not support fair and balanced PVP mechanics explicitly, you just allow the target to determine the outcome so that the interaction is consensual. And yes, you do trust the guy you met three hours ago in the tavern because of [reasons]... and that's about recognizing you're playing a game and taking full control of your character which is a construct in a game, not a real person. Metagaming is not a bad thing inherently. Check out this article: You Are Not Your Character . A good roleplayer knows that he's in a game and uses that knowledge to make the game better for everyone else by saying "Yes, and..." then coming up with plausible reasons consistent with established characterization. If "My character wouldn't do that" is your mantra, then you're not taking full control of your character and saying "NO" to the game except on your own terms which is dickish to say the least. If your players are bought into a paradigm where they have to sleep with one eye open to worry about a fellow player's rogue nicking their loot or slitting their throats, then carry on. I'd take a pass on such a game.

Fighting as a duel just to test skill so no one dies is something perfectly fine as long as the other players don't mind the two duelists taking the game astray for a few moments. Most systems aren't PVP balanced so fights can be terribly one sided but that is another story. As for fighting to kill as long as it works within the game story I say yes. If that evil sorcerer just tried to make a contract with a devil you were about to kill I'd warrant a paladin would at the very least subdue him. Or if two character backgrounds conflict with no possible solution, for example: a character was betrayed in his past and since then has zero tolerance for traitors, and now one of the other PCs betrays the party. Well in the end it all depends on the players. If they don't mind that hard element and to, if case be, roll new characters go for it. Otherwise, specially with new players, just skip it.

White said: Fighting as a duel just to test skill so no one dies is something perfectly fine as long as the other players don't mind the two duelists taking the game astray for a few moments. Most systems aren't PVP balanced so fights can be terribly one sided but that is another story. As for fighting to kill as long as it works within the game story I say yes. If that evil sorcerer just tried to make a contract with a devil you were about to kill I'd warrant a paladin would at the very least subdue him. Or if two character backgrounds conflict with no possible solution, for example: a character was betrayed in his past and since then has zero tolerance for traitors, and now one of the other PCs betrays the party. See " 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer ," especially #3 and #5. (Some NSFW language in that link for comedic effect.) Well in the end it all depends on the players. If they don't mind that hard element and to, if case be, roll new characters go for it. Otherwise, specially with new players, just skip it. Agreed. Buy-in is required.

I love myself some conflict and player versus player action and - of course - always get buy-in beforehand so it doesn't escalate into actual player versus player instead of their characters... Though I do have to say that some people easily take it too far, trying to kill off a player character 'just' because they stole something f.e.. Just because its fantasy/sci-fi/whathaveyou doesn't mean murdering someone for every tiny offense would be the first thing on someones mind. With the right group it does lead to a lot more in game discussions and (imo) deeper characters.