D&D 5E Advice wanted on Player Vs Player Situation

iserith · Dec 27, 2017

Chris633 said:
They are mature players and I think they can handle this.

If you only think they can handle it and do not know for certain, then it sounds like you haven't had a conversation about this sort of thing with the players prior to kicking off the campaign.

And if you haven't, you're well-advised to do so before any player takes unilateral action against another player's character.

In my campaign, if any player attempts to attack or otherwise hinder another player's character, the player of the character who is being attacked or hindered gets to decide how it is resolved. This generally has the effect of stopping any sort of thoughts of PVP in its tracks, but leaves the door open to players mutually agree to such conflict, if it helps the group achieve the goals of play, that is, everyone having a good time and creating an exciting, memorable story in the doing.

So, again, if you haven't discussed with the group before, now's the time, even if it potentially ruins the surprise. Better that surprise is ruined than the entire play experience in my view, especially right at the end of the adventure path. It's best to go out strong than to end on a sour note.

Li Shenron · Dec 27, 2017

Chris633 said:
So Harry plans to kill Derek the next time they stop for the night. I’ve decided to let it play out. They are mature players and I think they can handle this. This is also my first time dealing with this kind of situation. Should I tell the other player what is going to happen next time we play? I am thinking that I should. The PC will get broadsided by this, but maybe the player shouldn’t. Or should I just not tell him and let it play out?

I would veto it.

Being a "mature player" does not mean they must accept having all their character story plans destroyed purposefully by another player, or abide to someone else's idea of fun based on effectively picking on them.

So if Harry's player really wants to bring on this story idea, you should definitely bring it up in the open, and everyone involved must agree, or otherwise scrap Harry's idea and figure out together another story solution that doesn't involve betrayal and backstabbing.

Li Shenron · Dec 27, 2017

Shiroiken said:
DM as neutral arbiter. The DM provides plot hooks and controls NPCs/monsters, nothing more. The players are free to act as they see fit, including against one another. The DM is not to interfere, serving only as an impartial judge to narrate the outcome of the actions and dice rolls of the involved players. DMs who do this are generally more old-school, often running sandbox type games that are player driven.

DM as story enforcer. The DM has a plot, and shall interfere with player activity that strays from said plot. The players must abide by table rules set by the DM (usually negotiated with the group during session 0), including how much PvP behavior is acceptable (it must be plot related). The DM may intercede, including forcing player actions if needed, to keep the game on track. DMs who do this normally are running epic stories, such as Adventure Paths, where the players need to remain focused on the story.

That's all good, but you're making it sound like they are mutually exclusive, while in fact they are not.

I am mostly a "neutral arbiter" excluding letting PCs act against one another.

Li Shenron · Dec 27, 2017

77IM said:
I wouldn't allow this at all. My rule, as DM, is: one PC can't screw with another PC without the victim's player's consent.

I don't care if it's in-character for Harry's PC to kill Derek's. Whether the assassination is successful or not, Derek's player might get really pissed off about it. And this would be entirely justified, even in a group of very mature role-players, because it takes control of Derek's PC's fate away from Derek. You're basically letting Harry decide the ending of the necromancer's story instead of Derek, and that's not at all cool. I could imagine that from Derek's point of view, getting killed in your sleep by the party rogue has all the fun and excitement of "rocks fall, you die."

Well put.

I would also add that the "mature player" flag can be used as a subtle excuse to bully players into accepting someone else's will, as in "come on, you're a mature player, so you surely must accept <whatever I want>, or are you immature?"

Harzel · Dec 27, 2017

thorgrit said:
Short advice: don't pvp

Longer advice: Tell Derek, or better yet the whole group, about Harry's desired character arc. Let them come up with ways to highlight the conflict, let it come to a head, and resolve it in mutually agreed upon ways. You should only let one PC ambush another with intent to kill without informing the victim's player if you're the kind of DM that feels it would be fair to have a very strong NPC do the same, and the group has reason to expect that kind of playstyle.

Agreed. And to extrapolate a bit, if those conditions apply (you would allow a potentially lethal NPC ambush and the players know that), then Derek should have whatever opportunities he would if Harry were an NPC. Depending on how you run things, that might include, for example, 1) Deception checks which if failed might alert Derek that something was up with Harry, 2) the possibility that other PC are not asleep and notice something going on, 3) the possibility that Derek is not actually asleep, 4) Stealth checks against the possibility of waking Derek up even if he is really asleep, 5) the possibility of the attack missing, 6) the possibility that the attack will not one-shot Derek, etc. And Harry's player should know that that is how things are going to work, as well as the other things about consequences that others have mentioned. In short
Harry: I want to kill Derek.
DM: Well, you can certainly try...

Shiroiken · Dec 27, 2017

Li Shenron said:
That's all good, but you're making it sound like they are mutually exclusive, while in fact they are not.

I am mostly a "neutral arbiter" excluding letting PCs act against one another.

They are two ends of a scale. You are not a completely neutral arbiter, because you limit PvP. There's nothing wrong with either style, and as I said in a part you didn't quote, most DM's will fit somewhere between the two.

5ekyu · Dec 27, 2017

First, unless this group had already established a policy, i would not allow this. It tends to spiral if not something everyone has already embraced. So out-of-game group discussiins are in order.

Second, a lot of this can be avoided with pre-game considerations of PCs. Whether or not the character behavior has crossed a line already articulated or not matters.

Third, remember, characters are not as opaque as their character sheet. The decision to murder your teammate and the ongoing or growing distaste for your teammate would likely not be easy to hide. (I wonder - did that character express displeasure when these acts were being done or discovered? Have they tried to stop it out in front, rally the others? Seems like an ongoing insight v deception roll, likeky with adv guvwn frequent proximity) is called for the victim ti be unaware.

Finally, depending on how thought thru this is, most groups tend to raise fallen PCs if allowed and to revenge their deaths. Unless the others have signed on, more checks for insight to see something is up, then its possibly going to lead to two PC gone.

All in all, without group acceptance of ground rules, its rare that this works out well.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

Imaculata · Dec 27, 2017

I would discuss this situation with both players. If the necromancer-player is not cool with this bit of pvp, then veto it. Ask the other player to come up with a reason to continue playing peacefully with the necromancer, or have him make a new character that DOES get along.

But on the off chance that both players are totally cool with it, then I would try and make this a very epic and memorable confrontation. Make it so that regardless of who wins, both players are satisfied with the way it played out.

Warmaster Horus · Dec 27, 2017

I've never seen (serious) PvP work out for the betterment of a game. The players and our enjoyment of the game come are more important than any party interpersonal drama that harshes that experience.

I'd have the two of them discuss it and if they come up with a good story resolution they both like, have it play out in narrative. Otherwise move on.

Rhenny · Dec 27, 2017

From my experience, tension in party is ok, but once it crosses the line into pvp it turns sour and ends the campaign.

When I was a teen, we played an evil campaign for 2 1/2 years. We would tease and threaten each other in character, but when we realized our mutual survival depended on our cooperation, we kept playing and had a great run. Late in the campaign the DM allowed us to cross into pvp and two factions emerged. Ultimately, we fought each other and the campaign ended. It was far less satisfying as a player at that point.

If you are willing to end the campaign, and shift the goal away from defeating Tiamat, let the players fight. If you are not willing to risk the bitter ending, tell the player who wants to kill that he has to wait until Tiamat is dead, or find another way to have his character express his mistrust of the necromancer. From my experience, the tension he can create by not killing is much more entertaining than the bitterness he'll infuse by killing.

D&D 5E Advice wanted on Player Vs Player Situation

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

Li Shenron

Legend

Li Shenron

Legend

Li Shenron

Legend

Harzel

Adventurer

Shiroiken

Legend

5ekyu

Hero

Imaculata

Hero

Warmaster Horus

Explorer

Rhenny

Adventurer

Similar Threads