Chacters that hate other characters

[arwink]

I don't foster it, but I don't turn my back on it if it happens. Sometimes it's just the way a party gets set up, and as long as the conflict doesn't take over the game and it makes sense in contect, I'm fine with it.

Outright betrayal - I'm not so pleased with it. Lesser betrayal, well thats something else entirely.

 

[EverSoar]

It was weird in our group. I could totally argue with the monk, about being a hypocrite, but it just stays in the game, we dont' argue out of the game.

You need it, but its gotta be controlled.

OH and when i argue, i was so deadly serious, and pissed off the way he acts, but its in character.

 

[Fenes 2]

I prefer it, when the PCs are not too harmonized, if there is some conflict potentional, but if it stays at the "fun"-level - i.e. ribbing, some snide remarks, arguments or pranks, but nothing that would lead to a PC quitting the party, or a fight.

 

[Mark]

I discourage it...strongly, if need be. It tends to ruin the game for most people and good games are hard enough to find as it is.

 

[Leopold]

i say have at it. The more the party talks amongst themselves the more they feel like they ARE the player. IF a player has angst against someone else and is in their nature to confront them I sit back and watch as it does lead to good roleplaying.


IF they want to draw weapons and kill each other, go for it, I don't stop that at all. I as the DM tell a story, my story revolves around them. If the story happens to have one or 2 of them killing each other than that's the way the story goes. I don't throw a god hand in there and say "Now play nice". No then I would be running their PC's and that's way above and beyond me.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't actively encourage such behaviour, but I don't disallow it either. If there is a good reason for the antangonism, that's one thing. If the antagonism is not warranted by past circumstances or legitimate character concept, then I will probably intervene in some manner or another. I find that these things tend to work themselves out in the end.

-Tiberius

[EDIT: removed a half-formed and subsequently discarded thought.]

 

[nick]

The game isn't much fun if the whole session involves the two characters fighting each other. And there is definitely going to be a grudge created, especially if the fight occurs for no good reason.

 

[Ilen]

Last gaming session I went to there was PvP action. Of course my character was wielding a sword that was slowly driving him insane, and then tension between the two characters involved had a long build up to the point where he swung at me in annoyance and I returned with a full fledge attack. He died, he was mature enough not to freak out, and he simply shrugged and rolled up a new character.

My character ended up getting himself killed due to the insanity but it was a good gaming session and everyone had fun, irregardless of the death of two of the characters. I can see though how things could easily end up sour from character on character tension.

P.S. And I’m aware that character on character tension doesn’t necessarily mean a brawl.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

My personal experience is that inter-party conflict comes from one of two sources.

1. Players who just like to screw with people. This should be discouraged at all costs and if need be dump the player.

2. DM's who either show favoritism or DM's who allow a player to heavily abuse the rules in a manner that other players really hate. This should also be discouraged but it should be discouraged at the DM level. The game should be fun and fair all around.

 

[Umbran]

I think such things can be incorporated into a long-term campaign, in theory. I've yet to see it be anything but disruptive in practice, so I don't encourage it.

I don't require PCs to be close buddies. I don't even need them to like each other. Open hostilities (be they flashing swords or intrigue) between PCs generally doesn't help build a story. More often than not, it tears down what story was there, and takes over so no otyher plot can develop until it's resolved. It also tends to bring hard feelings between players. Even when it doesn't, it isn't usually much fun for peole who aren't the principles in the conflict.

I've seen such stuff work well in one-shots, short campaigns lasting a few sessions, and the like. But if I intend the game to last for years, it seems a bad idea to encourage infighting.