He needs to understand that everyone's definition of 'fun' is different and his isn't matching yours when it comes to D&D. I don't blame you for not wanting to allow PvP, so either he accepts that he won't be able to PvP and plays with you guys or he finds another group that allows it. You just need to stand firm.

Exactly, his version of "fun DnD", would probably ruin somebody else's experience. Unless everyone agrees to PvP, there should absolutely be zero PvP.

I mean, there is harmless stuff among players you trust. In one of our games, my character decides to be nice to the little old lady we were staying at and go chop up a load of firewood. Another player decides to wander over and watch, and he starts heckling me. So I cast silence on him, which was a power I just unlocked, so I could chop wood in peace. Technically this is PvP and I guess I could have cast it on myself if it had been an issue, but this was just a funny situation which made us all laugh. So absolutely zero PvP? I don't think that is necessary in all cases, but PvP that causes zero harm, zero negative effects to the OTHER player (I don't care if you PvP and YOU suffer negative effects) and is meant to, and achieves everybody having MORE FUN at the table, sure, that seems okay with me. Another situation that I will admit was more iffy was a different character of mine casting Shatter on a group of enemies that had surrounded a party member. It killed all of the enemies but the party member went down too. I only did it because I knew I still had several healing spells at the ready and it was the quickest and safest way to end the fight. Again, I myself do now consider this borderline or even crossing the line for acceptable PvP.

Nah, the second one is just what happens in battle sometimes. You weren't intentionally trying to down him, so it's not PVP. It just so happened that ending the fight downed him, and you could heal him right after. I'm of the same opinion that harmless fun is okay, pranking and the like so long as it's not just the party rogue constantly stealing from you and using your resources. If they steal, but give it back that's okay.

A way OP might kinda allow this. A thunder dome situation. This character steps in and fights against anyone willing. If none of the party want to fight, then DM introduces the champion. A 20 lvl barbarian they whips the shit out of this paladin. Also, OP might let the player attack the party, and the city guard arrest him indefinitely. Or the party kills him and he's out of the game. There's ways to deal with this.

The easiest solution though is just telling the player, out of game, "no, we're not doing that." Though a non-canon after session fight between PCs could get his PvP need out of his system.

Viva La dirt league did that. It was a fun series of side episodes

Oxventure had a one-off recently where all the characters had to fight to the death in a hunger games style event.

Yeah, sounds similar. Rob, the DM had a four area Map with different terrain(and penalties for staying in one area too long, plus lair actions) and after every round there was a chance for major terrain changes in any given area. He also had chests that would spawn items from a random table to aid in battle (magic items, potions, etc). And if they refused to engage and hide, just tanking lair actions and such, he’d have the “god” start hitting them with lightning. It wasn’t right away, but it prevented the rogue from just hiding the whole fight until he only had to engage the last guy. He was still able to sneak and hide, but needed to actively participate. It was pretty nifty.

Done this before.  Had a few fluff opponents where the gold reward expenientially increased then suddenly out steps the dragon ready to throw down in the ring.

😅😅😅 Dragons are greedy AF yo. That's wild. We're at lvl 20 in our campaign, and I'm not sure I could solo an adult dragon on my own.

You've made your position clear. Just stick to your guns, and if the players asks again just bluntly say "no". The terms of the game are clear, its then their choice if they play in your group or not. If he thinks your rule ruins the game, he's welcome to leave.

‘If you want a PvP DnD game then feel free to start your own campaign!’

For me, it comes down to consent. The DM has already set the ground rule, no PvP. But the other player involved in the potential PvP needs to grant consent to be engaged in this activity. I'm concerned how this player acts in real life, let alone a game, if they don't get that no means no.

The DM sets the rules. One of the more important things for a player to learn is that what the DM says goes. Your decision not to allow PvP protects you and the other players; I wouldn't budge on this. Talk to him in private, telling him that your ruling stands and you won't answer the question again. If he doesn't want to play in a game without PvP then that is a valid preference and his choice. He can play with the other DM who allows it at their table.

This is why at my table, my rule is the "defending" player gets to narrate the outcome, and whether or not any rolls are to be made. PvP can still happen, but only with consent. "John, Stabby McQuickhands would like to try to pickpocket your character. How does that resolve?"

"He is now named Stabby McQuickhand."

Tough call, but fair.

Quite frankly, after reading some of your replies its abundantly clear your friend is a child.

He is quite emotionally stunted, but we are all adults. I'm all too patient and soft-hearted, however, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Upvoted for compassion, but IDK what favors you'd be doing by enabling his behavior.

I've dealt with man children at the table before. It doesn't matter if it's in your nature or not, you need to be firm and not budge even a little. Don't let him attack players, steal from players, rules lawyer or murder hobo. He will ruin the game for you, the other players and eventually himself. Seriously I mean it, don't give an inch. This is how D&D horror stories start.

He's going to ruin your game, even if you stick to your guns and say no. Urge him to find a game that's a better fit for him, and toss him. Or regret, later, that you didn't do it now.

Why is he demanding PvP when he hasn't even had a single session in your game yet? That's an enormous red flag hinting that this guy only wants to ruin the experience for everyone else. And what's this "ruining the fun of D&D" business? It's a TEAM game! That's like saying the best part of soccer is scoring own goals. Tell him he seems like a bad fit for your game. Outside of specific PvP one-shots, I don't see this working out at all for anything outside of that.

It's probably just a kid that doesn't know any better.

Yeah this sounds like, "I SHOOT THE BARTENDER" 5 seconds into the first session and then complaining "But I'm allowed to do anything I want, right?"

"What do you mean the guards arrest me? No fair!!!"

I'm guessing from the previous one shot experience and that D&D is a game that you can do almost anything in. He's really new to this and is showing a lot of interest in D&D for the first time, so I don't want to shrug him off yet as I really just feel as if he doesn't really know. I'll probably run a PvP arena one-shot for him to show him since telling isn't working right now. If his behavior keeps persisting however I will probably kick him out. He is a good friend outside of the game, so I want to be a little bit more communicative than immediately kicking him out from the group.

I'd be hesitant on the arena idea. Since he's so focused on this PvP thing, he already has the idea that PvP is what D&D is all about, and an arena situation would just double down his thought process. Maybe give him a go in an actual game, with the instructions that you will veto anything that could upset other players.

I'll be running the scheduled one shot for now as I've already done a decent amount of prep for it with a set date and time, session 0 this week saturday, and session 1 shortly thereafter. I've already established that anything that could upset other players is not allowed, so he's been trying to ask people if he could pvp with them to no success 💀. Everyone in the group are all good friends as well so, I don't think he'll ruin the game as much since its his buddies as well he will be upsetting. I just really want to change his view on this before we proceed to the more serious campaign because I dont really think he'll be having any luck finding another group with the mindset he has right now.

It's good that the rest of the group knows about and knows him well enough that everyone can collectively tell him to knock it off. You may find that he will either give it up and start enjoying himself, or he will immediately try to attack someone, get upset that he wasn't allowed to do it and quit on the spot. Worse case is that he won't give it up until you have to stop playing, and then reschedule without him. Good luck with your game. I hope it works out.

Thanks man! I hope everything works out as well. Ill talk to him in a bit to just reaffirm my stance on this and that my descision is final whether he likes it or not. I doubt he'll find another group to join since he is so new, and because I think he's quite committed to the group since all of us are friends. I just hope I can help him experience what really makes D&D so great. Ill offer him the arena as well if he and the other players want to join in too. All I want is for my friend and the other new players at the table to have fun and really get to fall in love with D&D like I did.

I once invited a friend to play dnd bc she said it looked fun but she didn’t think she would be good at it. When I started to explain the rules, she said something to the effect of “but how do you know who is winning and who is losing?” I excitedly explained it isn’t ABOUT winning or losing, it’s a collaborative story and the dm just guides the players and structures the game, but all the players (ideally) are on the same team. Her response was “oh. But I WANT there to be winners and losers.” Turns out she was just not interested in what D&D actually has to offer, so she decided not to play after all. I suspect there may be something similar here. If he wants it to be a PvP competitive kind of game, maybe he needs to consider if he actually wants to play.

Yep. He might be more interested in a war game, like frost-grave.

That do-anything line from him is so tired. Real life is also a place where you can *do anything*, that doesn’t mean you should or you won’t be stopped by a higher authority. 🤦‍♂️

I'd ask him more about why he thinks PvP would be fun. What is it about PvP that feels fun to him? Why would he want to "divine smite everyone in the party"? He wants to kill his own teammates??? Why? That's bizarre to me. He seems to be treating this as though he's the main character in an RPG and the other players are like NPC party members. I'm guessing he's bringing video game mentality to D&D, which doesn't really work for most tables. Does he run around in MMOs ganking other players in PvP areas? Because I can guarantee vitually no one will enjoy that in a game of D&D.

> I'd ask him more about why he thinks PvP would be fun. What is it about PvP that feels fun to him? Why would he want to "divine smite everyone in the party"? He wants to kill his own teammates??? Why? That's bizarre to me. It can be fun if you have really narrative-focused/storyteller players who trust each other and the campaign is player-driven and evil-ish. My most recent campaign ended with the party disintegrating into PvP then disbanding and it was 1) consensual and 2) generally well-received. However, we are all close friends and all checked in before and after the final session about everyone being cool ooc with what went down. That said, this doesn't sound like why op's player is interested. I agree that this sounds like someone thinking about this like ganking in an mmo and not like "the other PCs are effectively your guildies in this scenario, not the random newbs you're pwning in Stranglethorn Vale."

>since telling isn't working right now Dude, you gotta be firm here. No means no, and he keeps badgering you on it because he's trying to wear you down. Say no, it's final, if you ask again I won't play with you. At some point you have to get firm and solid with him. If it ruins D&D for him, that's his problem, not yours.

Dude just kick him out. You’ve tried to explain it to me and curtail him and he throws tantrums and ignores you. Throw him out before he ruins the fun because he will.

Yup. We should really pin the [Resolving Basic Behavioral Problems in Your Tabletop RPG Group chart.](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-72e247fbd7f39a0043ecbb3febc4262f)

God these posts are infuriating. 

Yet another "How the fuck are you expecting random strangers on the Internet to fix this for you?" post. 99% of posts on this sub can be solved with "Act like an adult and talk to them"

Like OP is getting more or less the same advice over and over but still not really getting it. Absolutely infuriating, especially when that advice comes from DMs who have successfully dealt with that exact type of player before.

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that folks aren't actually asking advice. They're asking for validation. Bloody hell I'm a grumpy old shitbag today.

"One of my players wants to set the house we're playing in on fire, then launch mortar strikes at the area until all of the players have been reduced to a heap of molten plasma. How do I tell him no?" - Pretty much seeing this twice a day at this point.

And as is often explained in these posts it's a matter of brainstorming, trying to get a fresh set of eyes on the situation, and hoping for an angle of approach to the issue one has not already thought about. OP had already talked to the friend. Several times, it seems. Friend is not listening. OP asks other people if they have an idea on how to approach that because he doesn't want to just go, "Don't show up for my game at all."

You're right. You're absolutely right. I don't know what's up with me. Must've rolled out the wrong side of the bed, and woke up feeling punchy today. Pay me no mind, friend.

A random stranger on the internet appreciates your self-reflection and introspection. I hope you have a great day!

And to you 👍

On the r/EDH subreddit, we got tired of repetitive posts like these and eventually enforced them to only post on weekly "Salty Saturdays," threads. Call it "Group Grumbles Monday," or something. Mods, please. We should really pin the [Resolving Basic Behavioral Problems in Your Tabletop RPG Group chart,](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-72e247fbd7f39a0043ecbb3febc4262f) at bare minimum

Let's be honest here. This guy is clearly an idiot. >he keeps making comments about how he will divine smite (He plays a premade paladin) everyone in the party and my beloved NPC bard Melody Fae This is something a 5 year old would say. >Every time I try to explain it to him, he keeps telling me "I'm ruining the fun of D&D" He's an expert in what will "ruin the fun" of a game he's played *once*, *briefly*? Just kick him, I can't imagine he's going to bring anything to the table other than annoyance.

I mean, if he's playing a paladin, they don't go around murdering people, so it's strongly against his class type. If he does attack a player and tries to use divine smite, just say his diety does not heed his call to unnecessary killing and the ability fails. There are a number of ways to disallow PvP, especially with paladins since they're honorbound warriors. I allow PvP in my games, but both players have to agree to it like a duel request in video games.

I actually tried to tell him this earlier today, but he just shrugged me off and said I was "Karen-explaining" to him.

That’s a red flag in it of itself. Do you really want to have someone at your table who has no problem calling you names when they’re told no?

Then he doesn't understand the class type. There is an oathbreaker subclass, which allows more not so honorable actions, but that still doesn't warrant wanton killing.

"No PvP. Still want PvP? Then get fucked."

Stand your ground. Let him know if he keeps harping on this shit he's out, and if he does keep it up, follow through and kick him.

DTMFA. Dump him from your table. Right now. Look, I get that you want to resolve this by changing his idea of fun to something that will work at the table, so that you can have enough players. But how he responds to this ultimatum is his own decision. You can't make it for him. And he is telling you the kind of gameplay he finds fun. You can't make him find fun in not PVPing. If he does play at your table, he will not have a good time, whether that's from bristling at not being allowed to PVP, from the social fallout from the other players, or from there no longer being a game for him to play because nobody wants to play with him anymore. All you can do is accept that this is how he wants to have his fun, and be straight with him that this is not where he's going to find any.

>This came from his first ever experience playing D&D a few weeks ago at a birthday party >he keeps telling me "I'm ruining the fun of D&D" I mean no offense to him, but he doesn't even know what "fun" in D&D is yet... So just keep saying no, or uninvite him to the one-shot if he keeps it up.

You're not being a bad DM or a bad friend for saying no and standing your ground. They're not the only player at the table, and it's your responsibility as DM to make sure everyone has fun, not just them. Maybe in the next campaign you do you can have a PvP element or ask the group to vote in if they want it or not during session zero, but aside from that stand firm if you don't want PvP in this campaign. Personal gripe / vent: This is the negative influence video games have on ttrpgs. Everyone just seems to want to prove they can beat another player because ego. Have to PvP! No, you don't. It's ok to play WITH your friends, not just against them.

No For an experienced group PC vs PCs can be a good

Oh shit Tho just got PVPed halfway through their comment.

sorry PVPed

I'd ask then why they are so interested in pvp. The outcome will be either the rest of the party team up on the paladin trying to smite them and he needs to make a new character, or he somehow kills them all then everyone needs to make a new character

It is about **Time**. For a One Shot you have a limited amount of time to get through a game session, a PvP combat while working through a One-Shot storyline is time consuming, and ultimately unnecessary for the overall storyline and conclusion. You could also try to understand why R is so insistent on PvP. Perhaps he enjoys the competitive aspect or wants to explore conflict between characters. If so, you could suggest alternative ways to engage with those elements within the game without resorting to PvP like taking part in competitive challenges (arm wrestling, darts) or practical jokes (snake in my boot, spiders in my bedroll) If push comes to shove just say "No", and move on.

I get the feeling you guys are young, in addition to being inexperienced. Your friend's desire to PvP is reeeeally not uncommon. Unfortunately, it's usually a bad idea, and you've already drawn that line. Maybe tell him PvP won't happen on your game, but is there a different opportunity for it? Can you guys PLAY an unrelated session with PvP, maybe a session in an arena, gladiator style? Setting boundaries and saying 'no' is hard. Bravo to you! I hope you keep your line, buy I don't think finding a place for it is bad. Your friends attitude, however, will impact your game. He will probably try to attack his party. When he does, remind him of the expectations you SET and REINFORCED AT SESSION 0. Tell him 'no' in-game when he tests it. At this point, I wouldn't even let him do anything remotely against the party, like stealing or pre-emptively taking group loot. DnD isn't a video game. It's a collaborative experience that doesn't work if people arent playing together.

Thanks for this :))

Devil's Advocate: you're right, DnD is not a video game. Why would you endorse turning Friendly Fire off then? That seems pretty video gamish to me. But love this response! OP's table, OP's rules. 100%

Many video games don't even have friendly fire. It's adjustable in DnD 😉

Truth. There have been some pretty annoying NPCs in video games that I would have totally taken down, if the game would just let me. 😆

"Either accept no for an answer or find a different group"

The biggest red flag I see here is this guy saying "the fun of D&D" is making the game un-fun for other people.

Looks like your 'friend' needs to find a new group or a new game to play.

Thoughts: * First off, before any other advice: **attacking your NPC bard Melody is not PvP**. I would think for a bit about your NPC, and who they are 'beloved' by, and how that all factors into a one-shot session. My strong suggestion is to not fall in love with your NPCs, and not to let yourself have a DMPC at all, *especially* for a oneshot or a short campaign where your table is full of players already. Recognize that players treat NPCs differently, and get comfortable with some distance between your NPCs and yourself. Don't get attached like players with their PCs often do - these NPCs are part of your toolkit in service to a fun game, that's their one and only point in existing at all. The rest is masturbation and you can do that alone, or it's script writing and you owe it to your players not to hold them hostage for your personal writing exercise. * If your first D&D session was a few weeks ago and you're still playing premade PCs, you are not "semi-experienced" as a player. This player you call R is still new to D&D, and it *shows* in his willingness to talk above-table about how he plans to have his character disrupt the game so he can have his own fun at everyone's expense. * The controlling situation here is "your table your rules". As uncomfortable as it is, if you don't want PvP except under your own grey rules, you're going to have to be willing to arbitrate those in the moment. You don't seem to be having luck with the current situation, so I suggest that you go further than you say in the OP (because to me it sounds like you want to), and *ban all intraparty conflict completely*. No more "if it makes sense in character, is non-lethal, etc etc" conditional rule - screw all that. Make it a hard no. Make the rule: * PvP is entirely disallowed. Your team is a team above all else, and internal conflicts need to be resolved, below- or above-table, without resorting to dicerolls. If your character concept is one in which PvP is possible, Change Your Concept. * You absolutely should talk to your player privately. You should confine yourself to "I-statements" like * *I won't run a game where PvP happens, because I don't find it fun.* * *It makes me uncomfortable to referee conflict among my friends, even if they enjoy it, so I don't want it to happen in games I am DMing.* * *If my table seems wrong for you, that sucks and I'm disappointed to hear it but these things happen.* * *I'd love if if my style could be something you'd like to try out, but this is a line for me and I just can't bend on it. Hope you find a cool game out there that fits your vibe!* * Don't make it accusatory or present the difference like you're right and he's wrong. You're both right, but you want different experiences, and sometimes that's simply not compatible. * Don't make it about him. This is your issue, so make it about you. * Don't feel like you shouldn't have your own lines. I have lots, including the one you're describing and more besides, and my tables run great. Other people do all the stuff I don't like *and their tables run great too.* * He didn't get a wrong impression of D&D, just a different one. It's not on you to "correct" this. It's on you to enjoy yourself and present a fun experience for your players, whether your friend R is in the mix or not. Make your lines clear and get affirmative agreement from everyone, and if they can't agree to your lines, and you don't want to move them, they simply do not have a seat at your table.

My answer would be: "No but if you really want next time I'll write an arena one-shot so you can get all the PvP out of your system and realise how this system is not built for it."

Why endulge them. Let them write their own PvP one shot and volunteer to play in it instead. Don't waste your own time writing that

The king of Dorknerd wants to find the strongest warrior to join his knights of Numbnuts. You've all been selected to try out. Level 8 short rests between rounds, anything goes. Off you pop. Dave, draw me a big circle on the grid. Cool add some columns and off we go. Not exactly much to write.

This sounds fun as hell in any other context but here it might just give an inch to a guy who wants a mile.

It wouldnt be much to write and sometimes its experiencing how bad something is that finally makes it click

Oh, and be sure to help the other players cook up some absolutely busted and unfun builds to show dive smite-enthusiast PVPete what it's like to be on the receiving end of a PVP build.

When running said arena one-shot, you should create a DMPC build around crowd-control so that his char will never even get a single turn. Just to drive the point home.

I might try this after the one shot before the short term campaign im cooking. I dont really wanna kick him out because he really has no idea what D&D really is about, just basic mechanics and rules. We didnt even go over the player's handbook in that previous oneshot so it was very fish out of water experience for him, just a basic Lv5 human paladin premade pc and guidance from the DM that ran it.

"I understand that you're really excited about the idea of PVP but it asks a lot from me as a DM and the other players and right now that's just not where we're at. I've put a lot of work into this campaign and I really think you're going to enjoy it, even without PVP. PVP completely dominates sessions it happens in and I'm worried about the other stuff we won't get to do. If that's a deal breaker for you I'm sorry to hear that, and I wish you all the best in finding a table you'll have more fun at."

you tell me to find a different table Its that easy

Tell him he IS playing pvp. You vs him.

"There won't be any PVP in this one-shot. Nobody will be allowed to directly target another player's character or otherwise attempt to harm them. If that's a sticking point for you, it unfortunately doesnt sound like this particular one-shot is the game for you." You don't need to explain or justify. Give them the choice to participate or not but let them know this is a dealbreaker.

You need to sit him down and tell him why PVP isn’t allowed. Include things like the whole party cohesion, bad feelings, people make characters they really like and don’t want them dead from stuff like this, and how the rules don’t make for very exciting PVP until high levels because PVP in D&D means a different way of creating a character because of how deadly things can be, and then tell him that PVP is not what the game was intended to allow or designed to make interesting. Then tell him you are saying all of this because he is too new to the game to have learned that. And then explain to him that D&D isn’t like other games — all the rules are a guideline, not a baseline, and if he wants to do PVP, he needs to find some DM for whom PVP is acceptable. Those games are usually set up in a way so that either the players don’t care about their character, or there are extra life’s. A lot of games don’t allow for that — once a character is dead in a world, it is dead in that world forever.

This leans toward a mindset that can ruin games, I. e. That it’s a ‘every man for himself’ game instead of a team game. That’s what you need to emphasize to him: you don’t try to tackle your team mates in football, same goes for D &D.

its amazing how almost all dm issues here are mostly not knowing how to establish boundaries

Give him the PVP he yearns for and Deck him. /s

Let everyone in the group gang up on him and kill his character…

I DM'd a lot of 2nd ed in the day, mostly with the same group of friends, I always allowed whatever during my campaigns, sometimes a player would not understand what was normal behavior in the world and get themselves killed/injured or arrested pretty quick by guards or the other players. I'm going to go against everyone else and say just let him do it, but have repercussions for the actions, for one its a misuse of his powers, he could instantly lose his god's favor and just become a lvl1 warrior. He will probably bitch and moan but then maybe he will either change how he is playing or stop playing. It can be a pain as a DM, but normally just letting this shit happen either lets it all play out and get resolved, or might even change the campaign in an interesting way.

> Should I talk to him privately in a more serious manner, or should I just kick him out? Why not both, in that order? Your reasoning for not allowing is perfectly sound and valid so it's up to this player to either change their expectations of the game or get out to find a game more suited to their preferences. I don't allow serious PvP either, just goodnature arm wrestling kind of stuff but nothing more. If player can't accept that, they have to go.

Something he might understand is that the party didn't build characters for PVP. He's playing a front line combatant who focuses on damage output. He'd likely be a lot less eager if he were playing something squishy like a Bard.

If he asks again he Is out of this one shot. If he apologises and agrees to stop being an entitled main character, maybe let him in the next one.

‘No’ is a full sentence

Ban him.

I don't understand PvP and playing against other PCs at all, but if he really wishes to do that... If another player has the same wish then I think you can allow them if it won't ruin the sessions. Like I don't know there's for example second paladin in the party and they fight for their deity? Can't think of anything else rn. It's not only about him or you, even if you allow it, other players might hate it and it'll end up in many conflicts. Maybe if you cannot convince him by yourself ask other players what they think? Maybe they'll outvote him and change his mind? That's what being a party is about, helping each other, having fun and cooperating, so don't be afraid to tell other players about this situation, it's also their business! ;D

There is no good reason for someone to want PVP against the groups wishes. That would be like saying the Geneva convention is molly coddling. Rules exist for a reason. I'd just get rid, guy is giving way too many red flags.

Like about 20% of questions posted in this sub, this one falls into the category of “you are the DM. Act like it.” That sounds harsh, but take it with a pep-talk-before-the-big-game tone. You’ve set the rules for this. You’re taking on the role of DM, which most people won’t do. You’re running a story that has certain requirements to run smoothly, one of which is No PvP. Your player can voice his opinion, but this isn’t a democracy. It’s also just a one-shot, or possibly a very short campaign, so it’s not like he’s having to commit to years of a game that’s missing an aspect that’s important to him. If you want to be nice, offer to work on a short future campaign that allows PvP or even focuses heavily on it. And in the game, when he tries to PvP despite all the talks you’ve had, just say “no”. And remember that “no” can be a complete sentence. It’s already been explained to him. But this is your show. DMs aren’t more important than players, but they have a different role. Fulfill that role.

I have a friend with a similar view of the game as this player. I do not allow PvP (skill checks also PvP at my table) unless both players it is ok and it is not breaking up the party, I do allow to seduce everyone who moves simply because of high persuation check (persuation is not mind control and does not take away NPCs agency) and have general "dont be an ass" rule which applies to both - other PCs and NPCs. So I did not invited him to my campaign. He was salty at the beggining, but I reminded him that last time we played together he did not enjoyed my DMing and passiv agrwssive quited the game. He underatood and agreed.

You're the DM. What you say goes. He can either get over it or find a new group who wants to PVP, which is pretty rare from what I can tell.

“Maybe we can do an arena style pvp game another time but it won’t fit into this one shot.”

"No"

"No pvp or you don't play"

My rule is this: You’re a party of ADVENTURERS aka the heroes or “the *protagonists* of the story.” What I tell players is so long as the party is good with PVP or other such devious nature, then these sort of players you mention stay protagonists. But if they go astray from the player group’s desire, then I warn them that such villainous actions may lead their character down a dark path as they are no longer acting in accordance with the protagonist if player group. After all, if you fight against the protagonists, you become an antagonist. I give the player a warning, an “are you sure?” warning, then a “this antagonistic action will remove your character from play, forcing you to make a new player, thereby turning them into a future villain NPC. Do you approve this action?” Then from there if they do, I let the battle go as planned. After which I ask the player for their character sheet and give them a blank one and say mischievously, “I’m holding onto this for later,” whereby I use their character as a future villain that comes and goes. They get the satisfaction to be a PVPer, the players don’t really have to worry about continuous struggle, and I get a free villain I don’t have to write up. Win-win.

Explain to them you didn't tell them No. You told them Hell No. I try to be as open and flexible as possible but PvP has such toxic, game ruining potential. Don't even entertain it, don't try to compromise. They might just need to find another table.

The whole concept of the group/party is that of a team. Has that not been explained to him? Also the fact that the team will be fighting monsters/enemies run by the DM, so he can also have his combat fix.

>Every time I try to explain it to him, he keeps telling me "I'm ruining the fun of D&D" even if i know that if I allow him to do that it will ruin the fun for me and the other players If a core part of how I run my table is 'ruining the fun of D&D' for a player, then that player isn't a good fit for the table. I'm not going to change my game to satisfy them if doing so will ruin the game for myself and the other players. My job is to preserve the enjoyment of the majority, because without that, the campaign falls apart. >I actually tried to tell him this earlier today, but he just shrugged me off and said I was "Karen-explaining" to him. Regardless of whether or not this is your friend's sense of humour, this is disrespectful of your role as the DM. R seems to have some misunderstanding of where the power lies in the DM/Player relationship. If he brings it up again, sit down with R, and tell him to cut that shit out. If he wants to play in this game, he stops asking for PVP - NOW. If he complains this is 'ruining his fun' or that you're being a Karen, he's out. You have made your decision as the DM, and you're not budging. You know your players, and neither you, nor the other 3 players are interested in PVP, and you're not going to run a game you don't enjoy. The world doesn't revolve around R. Either he follows your rules, or he's out. This is his last warning. Now, is he going to follow the rules, or leave? If it looks like he's going to test you on this, just let him know - you can easily run the game with 1 less player. A sidekick takes minutes to roll up, and the other 3 players can use them in combat. Or you can always find another human player to join you - there are way more players out there than there are DM's. If this seems harsh, just remember - in polite society, no means no, and R doesn't seem to 'get' that. You said in another comment he is 'emotionally stunted'. So you need to be firmer. Now, side-note. I would roll up that sidekick I mentioned anyways, because the way R is badgering you, I could see them starting the game and then trying to force PVP anyways. Remember - as the DM, nothing happens that you don't allow to happen. So if he rolls to attack another player, you just need to shake your head and say, "No, you don't. I told you, no PVP. Pack your shit and go." Kick his ass out, tell him to leave, and replace his PC with a sidekick to finish the game.

Find a new player. 

I explain to my players that there will be no PvP in game, unless both sides agree and it is only done so as a skirmish, or other form of friendly competition. Any other attempts to initiate PvP will be squashed by me, the DM. If they do not agree to those terms, they can leave the group. If they attempt to ignore those terms and try to initiate unwanted PvP anyway, they will be kicked from the group. This discussion is had at session 0 before the game itself ever begins.

I don’t really know what to say for this specific situation but from my experience pvp is not balanced in the slightest and obviously opens the door to party conflicts being resolved with fights. You’re the DM so you have final say at the end of the day.

Is this person trolling you? Just talk to him in all seriousness, "Are you serious asking about PvP all the time? I've already told you that I don't allow it at my games, but you keep asking. At this point it just seems like you are trying to piss me off. Is that your intention? If so, not only is this *not* the table for you, but you are being a dick and need to quit it. We haven't even had our first session, and you are already the kind of problem player there are thousands of angry reddit posts about." He'll either apologize and quit it, or he'll start gaslighting you, or some other reaction that tries to help him save face. He's the only one who wants PvP. Hold firm. He is free to find another game.

What a nutjob..... Ask him why he wants to fight his colleagues in a purely cooperative game and why he values his fun more then the entire rest of players and DM. I'd kick him from your table....sounds like an asshole.

idk why people have such a problem dm'ing pvp. take 5 minutes before a longrest and have someone spar with him stopping at half hp or on first successful strike (or 3?). you can even jump them in the middle of that night after they are a little weaker to discourage it becoming standard practice.

What is his char alignment? I run a setting where the gods are fairly active with their representatives in the world. If a paladin starts doing things their god would not approve of, they may quickly find our all their granted abilities no longer work. Exe: You attempt to smite, but for some reason it just feels hollow. You do not feel the divine power flowing through you. Following the combat (where the entire party can feel free to team up on them) You try to lay on hands to heal yourself , but nothing happens. You do not feel the power flowing through you anymore.

I'm not sure right now as he hasnt sent me a copy of the premade character sheet but im guessing lawful good since there weren't any oathbreaker abilities he had. I think that might be a good idea if he still wants to continue that route.

"Hey DM, can I PvP? Pretty please?" "No. I have told you multiple times I do not allow PvP at my table and my opinion will not change because you repeatedly ask. Either accept this, or you're welcome to leave."

Usually characters have some level of wish filfillment going on… so if one is ‘misbehaving’, or headed in that direction, I’ve found its helpful to think about the need/want that may not be being fulfilled.  Some people just eant an opportunity to be chaotic and unpredictable when in real life they have to always be calm and controlled. Or maybe to be more powerful than those around them, or to be able to have success while flirting. If I notice play trends that have the potential to be disruptive to the game, I now try to meet the needs in a less disruptive way. How can the chaos be channelled into specific parts of a session? Let’s adjust HP of this monster so the player who just wants their character to be strong gets an awesome kill, instead of the player who gets 2/3 of the kills in most battles. Add an NPC who might actually be receptive to a little flirting so the character can stop aggressively flirting with other PCs. Etc. 

I don't know if this is kick-worthy yet, but stand your ground. At the beginning of session 0-1, reiterate that PvP is off the table, and that the fun of the table as a whole comes before the fun of one player. If he leaves, no big loss. If he tries to PvP during the session, simply don't allow it. He'll either get the message or he won't be your problem as a GM anymore

Honestly, I allow pvp by nature of the campaigns I run (snotty manipulative noble folk manipulating each other and the party where it’s possible for pvp to occur, not that it should if the party is truly committed) However clearly you’re running a game where it’s a cooperative adventuring party without influence from NPCs that doesn’t have influence of medieval politics, plus, Melody Fae sounds like an interesting fun npc so I’m going to rule that you should either give him one more chance, or save the pain and give the boot 🥾

Buy him a copy of Unmatched and send him on his way. Edit: I see from your comments that you want him to play DnD but he's unfamiliar with it. My real suggestion is that you craft a truly epic encounter with a massive enemy. Use things other than straight rolls, have the beast grapple, give some sort of object interaction for characters, add chaff to kill. Make it truly epic and not just rolling to hit. Toss the party straight into the encounter and let him see what DnD can be as a team. For inspiration, the first episode of Dimension20's Fantasy High Junior Year is incredible.

My DM allowed PVP in our first session, we got into a fight over if we should keep a small sentient spider in our party. One of the members who disagreed tried to attack the spider, the rest of the party defended. 2 of the PCs died, including the spider and our campaign ended as no one wanted to play after that. In my opinion, PVP is never a good option. If I was DM for a campaign, I would never allow it unless it was some massive betrayal of the PC and they want to ditch the character and make a new one, or something like that.

I have 2 ways of handling this: 1) is that if someone want s to move, or hit a fellow party member, then the defender has to consent, or it's an auto-miss. And then if they both consent, then all attacks are non-lethal strikes at disadvantage(since your party members, you should know how each person fights, thus how to defend). 2) inbetween missons, if anyone wants to compete, I have a specially designed arena I have dubbed "The Kobold Fight Club" that they can use proxy characters in a gladiator fight and they can bet their main characters money on the outcome (I randomly generate lvl 3 kobolds on dndbeyond, and they pick a name out of a box and that's the one they get)

The worst part is how eager they seem to enable PVP. Like, I could imagine it being legal at a table if it was a background hypothetical possibility sort of deal. But this is some weird party-focused blood lust. Massive red flag.

Keep saying no. explain to him that this game isn’t about his fun, it’s about everyone’s fun. You run a game based on collaboration and PvP goes against that. You’ve made a rule to protect that fun. If he feels his fun has been ruined by this ruling, maybe he needs to consider if this is the right table for him. Any player who attempts to push the boundaries set by another player, including the DM, is a bully and should not be tolerated. Treat your explanation like a warning, then kick him the next time it comes up.

Say "No. If you want your PVP you run it yourself." Seriously people, stop being scared of conflict. You're the director of this movie, you decide what happens, nobody else.

I had my players travel to a temple that had an arena with a built in revivify spell constantly active so anyone that died would be revived outside the arena with 1 health. But I discouraged them from using it by punishing them harshly if they didn’t “entertain” the crowd enough with their fight. Hope this helps!

Stick to your guns and make clear to him that you're prepared to just kick him out of the campaign. Bad DnD is worse than no DnD and a player who cannot understand the fundamental parameters of cooperating together in a social activity is a player who's not compatible with good DnD. EDIT: Also... IDK, man. I can't stop looking at the fact that DnD is a squad-level game, where players choose different character types to fulfill different roles cooperatively. This guy sees the character class designed to do damage, and thinks "wow, this totally stomps all those other guys." This is just me being a bit of a hater, but I can't help but see that as kind of... a meathead conclusion? Like he sees that he gets the biggest hammer, and immediately thinks "oh, I now get to dominate those other guys," rather than trying to understand how these differently designed pieces are meant to work together. It's a mild yellow flag, but I can't help but notice it.

Tell him 'No PvP is the table rule here, period stop. This is the end of the discussion on PvP. If you can't accept that, go find another table to play at.' If he brings it up again, 'The matter of PvP at this table is closed and not being re-opened.' If he tries to PvP at the table, say 'no. The rule is no PvP at this table, you know this. Think of something else to do.' If they just won't take the hint? 'I'm sorry, this table is not right for you; nor you for this table. Goodbye.'

"No" is a complete sentence. There is nothing more you need to do other than stare at them while saying nothing more.

I hate to say it but this guy sounds a bit like a psychopath, l've played with people who are selfish and worked against other players "because it's fun/funny/a joke" and it ruins everyone else's fun. And none of them were as bad as this guy sounds. They just stole from other pc’s or tried to do some harm to random npc’s (that went against their character’s alignment) and was detrimental to the party’s goals. But not actively trying to kill other players characters or important npc’s. He sounds like he wants to kill puppies or pull the wings off flys in real life and is holding himself back. I wouldn't feel comfortable playing with this guy at all.

Tell him to fuck off

If he tries to initiate, rocks fall and he dies. He doesn’t want to play within your rules, he’s not allowed in the game.

Let him.  I told my players they could do anything they wanted, but there were always consequences. If you went murder hpbo'ing dont get mad whem the village puts you in prison. If you enter pvp, dont be upset when the whole team kicks your ass and refuses to heal you. If he gets free reign to do what he wants, then so does the rest of your party after all, and if your party wants to work together for the good of the group, then dispatching one wayward paladin sounds like the way to go. If you dont want to have the players figure it out, remind them that as a paladin they have vows and their god may not be happy with the path they've taken. They could rescind the power they granted the paladin if the paladin continues to use it for evil.

I had a DM set up a magical dualing ring and had a noble force us to use it against eachother (2v2 PVP) to showcase our skills. (Home brew, essentially it let you fight until each person was "dead" and then be fine afterwards) It was a lot of fun for a session, made for a nice PvP encounter, without opening up the whole PVP everywhere chaos.

Let him try, and have everyone make builds that are overpowered min max bullshit. When he gets humped into submission and realizes that he isn't having a great time he will probably think that's not a great idea anymore. Paladins don't have Con saves, so hit his ass with a level 2 levitate spell and then make fun of him while he's stuck floating in the air for up to 10 mins.

You could do a pit champion session. No repercussions just a bit of play. If some players don’t want to be involved, fine. I would say that it was a magical arena where all damage and injuries are erased after the session. Maybe everyone ponies up ten gold and winner takes all Edited to say: All of that aside, DO NOT let it happen on a quest or adventure. It needs to no outside of that

That could be fun, thanks for the suggestion!

You're the DM. If he tries something like smiting his companions, his God could quite possibly be so upset that the God wants to do some smiting himself. You can make up anything. Let him act out and face the consequences.

Your beloved DM npc Melody fae? Ugh. Let me guess, she's actually the hero of the story too, right?

My rule for pvp is unless you are under a compelling magical effect (like charm ) if you engage in pvp you can just hand me your charecter sheet because it just became my new pc and you need to roll a new char

Simple let him and when he does say "Oh there's no need to roll the as the target in PvP decides the outcome if they want you to roll they can choose to do that."

How about "no and gfy"?

PvP is a sensitive topic due to enemy spells it is kinda ok but should be used rarely friendly competition might work drinking contest, grapple matches or skill contest are ok but going as far as to say i will use my most deadly weapons is not team friendly. ​ in all my groups the characters had to be team players or if not they should be able to fake it.

Personally, I would reiterate to this guy D&D is a team game in which you are to work constructively with the rest of the players as an adventuring party against the threat. In a oneshot, it is very important to have team cohesion as you are doing a mission or a singular quest as a group, and pvp will actively undermine the point of the game. In a larger campaign, differences can arise between party members that are worked out in one way or another with civility, but active combat between PCs is never acceptable aside from the most remarkable circumstances - like a duel that is agreed to by both parties, the same as it would be IRL in the medieval ages, if you murder a friend or fellow countryman the rest of your friend group and/or king will come looking for justice. If he is actively opposed to working as part of a team, then his options are to go to a different table, or perhaps, you allow him to play the big bad of the one shot so the rest of the PCs can kill him.

There's always the, probably bad, option to just say "sure you can do PvP" and then warn everyone else to not be alone with him and let them kill him together when he makes an ass out of himself

Just say no. It derails the adventure and likely makes no sense (the party would split up, ending the adventure). You can offer to do a "battle royale" if you feel like it, where it's a non-canon fight amongst the whole group, without an adventure. But when you're running an adventure, there's no pvp. Or maybe the funniest thing to do would be to tell the other players (without him) that if he picks a fight in the game, they should all gang up on him and kill him, since it's "what our characters would do if one of the party turned against us"

You could allow it and when he swings at someone, it breaks his oath and he loses the ability to smite, so now he’s just a NPC jerk with a sword, then he gets arrested for attempted murder etc. then he leaves and you go back to having fun and not worrying about him!

It sounds like his mind is made up by saying things like, "You, the DM, are ruining the fun of D&D." If he's this laser-focused on this extremely niche aspect of RPGs, I'm guessing that his head won't really be in the game that you've worked hard to bring to your players, as he'll always be looking for ways to either argue his way into the game as it plays or he'll be bumming out that his PvP needs aren't being satisfied. Both instances would be disruptive or distracting. If this was my game with a player like this, I would straight-up tell him that my campaign isn't likely to meet his needs and that he'd be better off finding another table, or online game, that caters to PvP gameplay. Just make sure he understands there's no hard feelings, it's just a difference in opinion.

I would do what they do on the vldl channel for pvp situations. One player says I attack another, you turn to the player being attacked and ask do you let him attack you? They say no and you tell the attacker their attack missed. Pvp over. I would never allow open pvp in my games, what's fun is to plan a pvp though. Like introduce it at like a festival tournament in game or have a one shot where everyone is pulled into another dimension for pvp. Maybe something like that will quench their thirst. If not, that's a potentially problem player if they want to hack up their adventuring companions. Supposed to be a team. Maybe ask what exactly they're looking for in pvp?

Then the answer is no. If they try, they die. Pvp has little to no place in DnD IMHO. 20 years DMing, it never ends well. And has killed every campaign its happened in.

I'd say explain to him that there are many different game styles with different focuses. Some people lean more on the narrative and role play, some lean more on the combat, etc. If this is the only issue, let him know that it may be worthwhile to try different styles to find what works best for him. If he joins the one-shot and feels like he missed out with no PVP, he's welcome to find another group. But you sound like you already have an established group with an established style, and adding PVP (with a new player who's excitedly looking to take advantage of that out the gate) would be a drastic shift. Also, I'd say talk to your existing players to do a general heat check.

The answer is no. It will be no the next time he asks, and will remain no until you explicitly say otherwise. If he wants pvp, he can play in another game.

Ask the other players if they want to have a battle royale with their characters. Collect everyone who agrees and set up a one-shot on a different night and let them have their PVP. Keep the no-PVP rule for the regular campaign.

Just say no?

I feel like I would just pre warn every other player and the minute he tries to catch one by surprise have the entire group turn hostile towards him. 1 pc even going first isnt going to beat 3 or 4, especially if they know it's going to happen. Then when getting absolutely destroyed by everyone maybe he will understand PvP isn't fun. Lots of people like PvP until they are the one getting killed I had a rogue do this a lot. it was agreed at the start PvP could happen but wasn't to be a focus but the rogue took that as anyone who disagreed with him would be ended. He ended up rage quitting when another players new character was designed to fuck with him entirely. He tried his usual tricks only to fail and insight and stab a decoy then get destroyed.

"It doesn't sound like my table is a good fit for you. Sorry about that. Good luck with finding a PvP table. They're out there." Then kick him.

Just DM it. Casts divine smite. There is a fizzle followed by a booming voice "I did not empower you to act like this." You can then have their god apply a curse to him. Of course, the main thing is that he is not listening to you and respecting you and the organiser of this thing. "If you can't respect my boundaries for my campaign, please leave"

irl PvP, 9mm

Thoughts/suggestions from me, in order of importance: 1. Your game, your rules. He needs to respect that or move on. If he continues going against the grain with you then you do what you gotta do. 2. You could try to appease him without breaking your game world. Is there a way you can incorporate PvP into the game without it having a lasting affect? Maybe a powerful entity creates a simulation where they pit fighters together in a brawl pit? And the party must take place in the tournament to escape? That way he and the rest of the party can get a kick out of it, with the winner receiving a prize? If you think this is doable, gauge his reaction. If he wants something more substantial with consequence, then revert back to point one or perhaps point 3... 3. The rest of the party are aware of his intentions and if he starts PvP they do what any sane group of people would do and "take care" of the problem. I would stick with point 1 though: your game, your rules.

A single person not playing dnd as a team game usually ruins it for the DM and other players.

Tell him there's no PVP. If that player really wants it, he HAS to go somewhere else. Hold your boundary.

>he keeps telling me "I'm ruining the fun of D&D" "Fun for who? You? What about the fun of everyone else at the table? Doesn't their fun count, too? And what about mine? Does mine not count? Look, I'll be the first one to tell you that no D&D is better than bad D&D, and if this is bad D&D to you, then I'm not gonna be offended if you decide not to play. But if you *do* play, your fun isn't the only fun that counts."

Just say “goodbye” and find another player. If they aren’t going to listen it’s just not worth it for everybody involved

If I had to guess, I'd say this person plays a lot of competitive multi-player video games? Maybe overwatch, CoD, or WoW? It sounds like he feels that DnD is a "me vs. them" style game instead of "us vs. the DMs creations". People like this are only content if they're the best. Everything needs to be a competition, and they need to be winning. Stand firm. This person is going to try again. You'll say no again, they'll try it DURING the game, you'll say no, and they will likely make a scene because you shut him down. It really sounds like dnd isn't the game for them, and they don't want to look for a group of the right game.

LET THEM FIGHT

You are the dm. You can just make consequences in game for it. One player isnt going to overpower a group, they can maybe self regulate. We have some occsaional pvp in our games, nobody dies, everyone long rests later, and its fine. If the other players are annoyed by it, they kick / kill their companion. Or turn them in to the authorities. Or you could just say no. My dm would just have our clerics god just come down and incinerate the player character for messing with his sacred quest. Anyways, it might be ok, and the player might realize through gameplay and social pressure not to be disruptive. Or dont let them play. Ask them what about pvp os so interesting to them and find a compromise. See if any other player is down to throw down occasionally. Or make some npcs to fight?

Played with a guy like your player once. He attacked my character ,tried to cheat while in combat, got absolutely destroyed and never spoke with me after that. He just left the campaign. Your friend is trying to do pvp only because he thinks he will dominate, showing him that he is wrong is a good way to get rid of this wish.

https://youtu.be/DwMCmY7A76E?si=VPpxxFiG81PinyZP so he’s this guy?

The DM from Viva la dirt just lets a PvP attack auto miss, if the targeted player doesn't want to be effected. For in character conflicts where a player might agree to get hit it's suitable, but it hinders real PvP

"No." is a complete sentence. What's the problem? If he doesn't like the rules he can start his own game somewhere else. You absolutely should talk to him one on one and explain how it work in your game. If he doesn't accept that, then kick him. It feels like you already know the answers and I don't understand what you are asking us? Is it permission to kick him out? If so, you have it! Is it a secret way to convince him that he's being a jerk? Well, after getting kicked out of the group he may start to figure that out. Is it a way to meet him halfway? You tried that already with the "if both players agree and it's non-lethal." It didn't work. Is it a way to snap your fingers and have him agree with you and be super grateful for you having mended his thinking? That is probably a fantasy land.

Some people do play antagonistic D&D with PvP and screwing over each other. I'm so curious if this was the jerk also named R from one of my BitD games.... * Tell him privately there is ZERO PvP in your games and if he brings it up again he'll be kicked out mid-game. You can drop him now if you want to not deal with it too. Frankly, I would at this point. He sounds insufferable and not listening. * If you wanna be slightly kinder, point out if he wants PvP, he can run his own oneshot or have someone else run it who wants to do that. Paid DMs exist. * Discuss start of game zero PVP. Again, if he brings it up either 'R we said no PvP. Do you want to leave?' or 'R, we talked about this, gtfo' * Don't engage and fight him over this, it doesn't matter what he thinks D&D is you are agreeing as a community what you want and only running what you enjoy. Look up DARVO for patterns usually used by abusive and unreasonable people and how to deal with them. Greyrocking is also one but less effective for this since your in a position of power as a DM.

"I'm really glad that you're excited about playing DnD. Unfortunately, I don't think the experience I'm offering at my table is what you're looking for. I know there are servers and groups online that do PvP, I wish you the best in finding a game. I'd also suggest talking with other players just to start conversations and ask them what aspects of the game they enjoy most. Maybe you can find a group of people who are like minded. Good luck out there"

He may be under the impression pvp is normal in D&D because his intro, when it's always been highly discouraged. You should just talk at the table, collectively, and ask if the table has opinions on PvP. Not a vote, just a round table discussion, starting with why you don't normally allow PvP, but you'd like to get the other players opinions and see if they have had any good or bad experience, or have any opinion on PvP. Some may have negative stories, some may say they don't like it, but if they say "eh I'm neutral" then lay out an example where a player steals from another player, and keeps the item, or another player gets upset and kills another player because "it's what my character would do". Would anyone be okay with their player being killed by another player and having to roll a new one? What about casting hold person on them when they're about to do something they don't agree with, or using charm person to control their behavior? Dominate? Chances are the player asking for PvP is not going to enjoy thinking about his character being turned into a sock puppet by someone else at the table. Or being stolen from and having zero recourse because they failed a spot check. Have they thought of that? You'll have you table vocally disagree, collectively, and he'll have to shut up. Or they won't, they'll all be like "hell yeah I love in-fighting and wasting time" in which case... well give them what they want I guess, just don't bother with any real rp heavy stuff and throw them into a basic module who aren't invested in so they can figure out why that is a mistake. Regardless you should have an open conversation about why these characters are together, why they feel like they are a team, how they mesh well... if they don't then ask why they are together and sort that out before your start playing. Don't tell someone they need to play a new character because one hates the other after you already began.

PvP needs to be agreed upon by everyone in the party, and if allowed, should serve a purpose to develop the story. Otherwise, it’s a no-go imo.

I have a solution I included in my last campaign that scratched that itch. The dream arena is a stadium where the participants are put to sleep in a shared dream, then use of the dream spell lets them fight (whilst being projected for an audience) using their stats. It's a chance for the characters to smack talk, settle scores etc in a 0 consequence environment. Literally went down so well that the players kept bringing it up (giving me some super easy sessions to run at high levels) and one of the characters bought out the entire industry to make it an international phenomenon.

Depending on his Oath, you could consider his PvP actions evil and therefore break his Oath. The second he tries to Divine Smite one of the party members, his god could pull the plug on his magical powers. Now he becomes some regular dude and subject to the consequences.

Kill the player with an npc! 

Give him something to fight like an interesting monster, or better yet run a battle royal pvp one shot for him. They are telling you what they want to do just give it to them in a context that won’t ruin everyone else’s fun.

Kill him with a wizard super fast, then explain dnd is not balanced for pvp.

I have 2 steps for this that have yet to fail for senseless PVP hungry players. (Outside of a roleplay reason for conflict) 1. Either during character building or privately after a session I have a conversation that starts something like this: "Seems like your character doesn't work well with others and is a bit of a lone wolf. Characters in parties need to work together to survive dangerous situations. In the world, people with personalities like your PC aren't ever accepted as party members because they are unreliable and a liability. You've made a cool PC, but it seems we should either change your PC's personality to one that would work in a party or make a new PC that would work in a party. Which sounds good to you?" Note that edgy isn't the same as hostile. Edgy can be loyal and trustworthy. 2. "Ok. One time. Pvp. But if you attack a PC or important NPC we roll initiative before you attack with everyone present, party member or not, and you are at the party's mercy. This means that their characters decide what to do with your character if you lose the fight or can't get away. Typically, this ends with the traitor dead, stripped of all gear and cast out, or stripped of gear and in prison. Senselessly attacking a teammate isn't the sort of thing a party forgives. Would you still like to do that?" If they back down, after the session I do step 1. If they attack and get away, they become an NPC under my control because the game's storyline follows the party, not the player. I then make them roll a new character. Remember that having the party forgive the character just because they are all PC's and you don't wanna kill or kick out the player's character is METAGAMING! Slippery slope. Let's a lotta crap bog down the game. Make the party do what their character would do.

Stick to your guns. It's your game. These are the parameters. Don't like it ? Fine. Don't like it but don't expect to play and if you do don't expect PVP

Seriously? Please stand up for yourself and your table, if someone said “You’re ruining the fun of D&D for me” I’d be kicking them immediately. No second chance, no debate, fuck you you’re gone. I wouldn’t need to hear anything else, if I’m over here sacrificing my time to run a game and someone is that ungrateful they need to go.

Tell him to find another game then. However, part of me wants you to get all the other players on the same page to gang up and kill his character immediately. Then ask him how fun that was.

I don’t allow PvP unless both players agree to it, but I have ran PvP tournament scenario one-shots on some off days where one or two of the players couldn’t make it for the main campaign. Even done a charades type tournament where everyone recreates some pop culture character. Everyone gets one guess at the start of their turn, and if they guess someone’s character correctly they get advantage on their next attack or a basic healing potion, something like that.

You said no. That's it. If they continue to push, I'm sorry but this isn't going to be a good fit.

What we did in my friend’s campaign is there was a fighting ring. If we wanted to do some pvp then it would happen in the ring. This was fun for some of the players and since I didn’t want to I just sat on the side lines and watched. It was fun to see people go at each other and have a “healer” on the side to fix people up. You can also have tag team matches against npc’s. One of our npc’s was a goblin and would only go for peoples knees. So always watch your knees xD

It’s your world. Make PvP impossible. What ever quest they are given have them also be given an amulet of protection. This amulet protects them from all non magical damage (that isn’t a weapon) inflicted by other wears of the amulet. Once he amulet is on it cannot be removed by any means. This means they can’t attack each other with their weapons but they can still f*** each other up with an accidental fire ball. If (when) the player with the PvP intentions inevitably works out a way of circumventing the protection, malicious fireball from a wand or pushing them into a trap, the amulet can read their mind and their intentions and paralyse them.

It’s your world. Make PvP impossible. What ever quest they are given have them also be given an amulet of protection. This amulet protects them from all non magical damage (that isn’t a weapon) inflicted by other wearers of the amulet. Once the amulet is on it cannot be removed by any means. This means they can’t attack each other with their weapons but they can still f*** each other up with an accidental fire ball. If (when) the player with the PvP intentions inevitably works out a way of circumventing the protection, malicious fireball from a wand or pushing them into a trap, the amulet can read their mind and their intentions and paralyse them.

Speaking from experience PvP is fun and is only fun when everyone's on board. Story campaign is not the time. Maybe run a gladiator arena oneshot if people are interested in PvP. Otherwise it's the DM and table's prerogative of when PvPs allowed. Retcon anything else.

“No, we don’t find that sort of thing fun here. If you ask again you will no longer be welcome here”

Just continue to say no. Maybe give him alternative chances for PvP later in the campaign if he learns to live with it, like a magical arena where he can go all out with another character or wrestling matches/brawls at camp. Your Session Zero for the campaign will be key in setting expectations and also working together to find ways he can engage with other players without breaking your rules. Maybe he plays a fighter with a chip on his shoulder for whatever reason, and someone else plays a barbarian who constantly taunts him. Player-to-player conflict isn’t an issue so long as it’s friendly and moderated. It might even be how his character actually forms bonds within the party. That said, if he’s going to break the rules and attempt real, lethal damage on a PC, then you can either (a) let the party deal with it together and put him down as a minor villain before letting him roll a new character, (b) play the “hand of god” card and deus ex machina him out of that situation as an all-powerful DM, or (c) kick him from the campaign. It’s not allowed, that’s the rule, he needs to follow it. Period.

Let him PVP but suddenly his dirty won’t allow divine strike against his own companions and give companions magic weapons and basically kill his character. Or the the fight play out and then some tough monster appears and he dies because he killed off the rest of the party that could have helped him. Or agree that PvP can be done and have the party murder him in his sleep on the first day.

“Apologies, but I’ve been clear on my preference to not include PvP. I understand this is something that you want, however, so I wish you luck in finding a game more suitable for you. All the best, B08A.”

What oath is he? If he’s talking about smiting literally everyone, it may conflict with his oath, like the compassion tenant of devotion. At the very least if he’s some flavor of good he may be conflicting with his alignment.