Player versus Player
Every game has players, but roleplaying games are distinct in that they rarely have a clear winner or loser. This is not the case in player versus player, or PvP, roleplaying, in which players pit themselves against one another. There are a number of games in which this sort of strategy is expected. Vampire: The Masquerade, for example, is a game based on the premise that the main characters are bloodsucking fiends who pursue their Machiavellian intrigues in an attempt to gain social and political power over one another.
There are many games, however, that are cooperative by nature. Dungeons and Dragons, for example, is usually a co-op game. PvP strategies in this context are not the norm, and are often disruptive to the general flow of play. When a minority of the player characters is out to exploit the others, PvP strategies hinder the growth of characters and the advancement of the cooperative storyline.
More than that, however, PvP strategies in a game not directed toward PvP play are considered by some to be rude, selfish, and inconsiderate. It is a style of game play that allows one person to have fun at another’s expense. After all, few players would consider it fun to have their characters wronged or killed by another player character. If the character should choose not to retaliate, they continue to be exploited. If they do retaliate, they are being drawn into a cycle of PvP gaming against their will. To the player interested in co-op, PvP is a lose-lose situation.
Game masters should make every attempt to encourage or discourage styles of play in the appropriate games. If a player wishes to engage in PvP in a primarily co-op game, there should be safeguards and risks built into the setting to limit his or her activities. This applies equally to co-op in a PvP game, which can be a very maladaptive strategy for the character. The two styles of play can mingle together, but rarely without co-op players feeling wronged in the process.
September 29th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
Hi,
How do you feel about the inclusion of Alignment to D&D and how it affects co-op vs. PVP play?
In my experience, games that do not feature opposing splat groups, philosophies or political factions as player options tend not to have PVP crop up at all.
Chris
September 29th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
Hello Chris,
That’s a very good question, and one that I’ve heard from a number of friends of mine. I personally feel that, like most game mechanics, alignment can help facilitate play when used correctly. For example, a party or DM geared toward cooperative play should ensure that the alignments of the group fall along at least one common axis (good/evil, law/chaos) so that they are willing to work together. On the other hand, a party or DM wishing to do PvP should ensure that alignments of the group are as dissident as possible. Doing so will help the game along in the direction that the group wants it to go.
As a side note, I have found that PvP doesn’t work very well in a tabletop setting because it involves a lot of note-passing, which incurs suspicion in and of itself. Good players can ignore this, but less scrupulous players will use this fact to metagame. Thus, I feel that games like D&D are much better suited for cooperative play.
I think your point is that drawing lines in the sand with in-game mechanics and groupings can promote PvP, and to a certain extent you’re correct. However, as the alignment system is so integral to the D&D system, it’s not exactly something you can cut out. For example, without alignments, how would you know when Protection from Evil worked and when it didn’t? The trick to stifling unnecessary PvP, I believe, is to provide harsh in-game repercussions for it and to reward cooperative play. This should help put the PvPers in line.
In other words, kill off the neutral evil rogue PC who keeps stealing from the rest of the party and encourage him to play a paladin instead.
I hope this helps,
Stephen
September 29th, 2005 at 8:39 pm
Hi Stephen,
I was thinking generally larger than D&D, such as White Wolf’s political splats in general.
I think D&D without alignment is completely possible, for example, take a look at Tunnels & Trolls. For D&D 3.0 + it’s rather easy to have equivalent protection spells- simply by having them affect monsters based on the “categories” they fall into (Constructs, Outsiders, Abberations, etc.).
I’m not dissing the role of alignment, I just think that it is one of the primary sources of PVP conflict in D&D. For comparison, D&D has classes, and Cyberpunk has roles. Each by themselves do not necessarily encourage or discourage PVP play. But D&D’s alignment system makes PVP happen way more often in heroic D&D than I find in cutthroat, cynical, postmodern Cyberpunk, which is an interesting effect and tells the power and issues of alignment overall.
Chris
September 29th, 2005 at 8:39 pm
I agree with Chris (what a shock).
Stephe, Your ideas about note-passing and “metagaming” are interesting. I suggest that a fully functional PvP D&D game can happen with no note-passing or “secret” information at all. Think about that for a second.
I do think you’re right that D&D is *meant* to support cooperative play. The whole idea of “the party” exists for just that reason. The party does not have to be compatible along alignements to be functional, though. In fact, if you *want* strife among your band of brothers who brave death together, then opposing alignments are perfect.
See the TV series Firefly for an example of a “mixed alignment” group that makes for very interesting interactions.
PC conflict and friction is highly desirable for many kinds of play. For too many players, PC conficlt means player conflict, though. If that’s the mode you’re in, it’s probably not worth the hassle.
September 29th, 2005 at 8:40 pm
Hey Chris and John,
Before I respond, I must say this is a nice little debate we’ve got going here. Thanks for all the feedback.
That is an interesting observation, Chris, and not one that I would generally expect. Cyberpunk would seem, not necessarily PvP-oriented, but certainly more geared toward PvP than games like D&D. Your take on alignment creating character conflict does seem to be valid. I suppose it’s just the old D&D player in me that wants to stand up for the virtues of a system that has existed in the genre without significant change for decades.
With respect to your comments, John, I have no argument that an effective PvP D&D game can be accomplished. It has been my experience, however, that when PvP happens in tabletop games, it involves a lot of secret communication between players and the game master. There are, of course, ways around it, and players who want to be truly sneaky about their PvPing will find them. I remember playing a Nephandus in a game of Mage: The Ascension once where all of my schemes happened via email prior to the games. Nobody suspected that the girl scout cookies were laced with poison.
As for a mixed alignment party, it can certainly work, but should naturally involve a lot of the conflict that you mentioned. A party of characters that crosses the good-evil and/or lawful-chaotic axes should be dysfunctional at best, never able to agree on a course of action even in the direst of situations. I can see how such a party might be able to cooperate, however, with one or more neutral characters acting as intermediaries. An evil monk and a good barbarian might be able to coexist, for example, with a neutral bard keeping them in line. I can’t honestly say that I’ve ever watched Firefly, but are there any characters that fit this peacekeeping description?
You are also correct in your observation that PC conflict tends to lead to player conflict. In my years of roleplaying, I have made many attempts to separate my character from myself, and I feel that it is a duality that can never be entirely achieved. This is because, to those who care about the game and their role in it, we pour some of ourselves into our characters. We are gamers, not actors, and our game persona would not be what it is without our input.
That being said, I have sat down with players after they screwed (or were screwed by) my character and had a friendly chat to the effect of, “Hey, it’s nothing personal. My character hates you, but we’re cool.” I may inwardly feel irritated at them, but I acknowledge that they didn’t set out to make me feel that way, and my ill will does eventually fade.
Maybe I’m the only one who feels this way. Any thoughts?
September 29th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
Hi Stephen,
By the way- I’m not knocking D&D in that regard, though I think the Alignment system needs more advice on how it gets used, both by players and DMs in order to better craft the style of play the group wants.
I’ve seen some nasty stuff break out across Lawful Good vs. Chaotic Good on issues that really shouldn’t be that serious. I think play works best when its seen as personality traits and less as a 2 dimensional model to be adhered to. Unfortunately, it become usually the only major source of understanding a characters’ personality for most groups and therefore, becomes a rift instead of a roleplaying device.
Chris
September 29th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
Perhaps part of the problem is that players are creating their characters saying, “What alignment should I make this character?” rather than, “What alignment best describes this character’s personality?” When you’re a chaotic good ranger, your motives are very stereotypical and clear. But when you play a ranger with a streak of wanderlust who hates animal cruelty, your motives are more well-defined. In one case, you regard yourself as a member of an alignment based upon your personality. In the other, you let alignment define your personality. The difference, I think, is clear, and this may be the reason that you guys have seen so much character conflict in the past. Just a thought.
September 29th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
In the other, you let alignment define your personality.
That’s exactly the problem. Alignment has tradtionally been seen as a “hard” box which people had to fit into, even losing levels if they tried to change it. Instead of playing a character first, a lot of folks have gotten into habit of playing a 2 dimensional stereotype.