green slime
First Post
ValhallaGH said:
Spoilsport.
Do you allow murder within the party?
Spoilsport.
Ian Demagi
Explorer
Pvp
In the old days if guys were dertermined to kill another PC I allowed it, but I made an announcement to the group that if they were wanting to play in a deadly game then everything goes, and that included the DM running the monsters top speed, and no DM "fudging" to keep players alive.
Best example I can remember was three guys wanting to kill each other in a 7 PC Dark Sun game. Two of the three killed each other in a real bloody fight. The person left was down to about 3 hp, when He turned the corner and ran into a Gaj lair. I laughed myself silly, and I tickled his pc to death. He begged and pleaded for DM benevolence, but I had none of it.
The other four guys were so happy to get rid of the 3 fueding ones, they didn't even look for the bodies for resurrection.
After that we went back to no PVP.
Now I dont play with guys who like that kind of crap.
Ian
In the old days if guys were dertermined to kill another PC I allowed it, but I made an announcement to the group that if they were wanting to play in a deadly game then everything goes, and that included the DM running the monsters top speed, and no DM "fudging" to keep players alive.
Best example I can remember was three guys wanting to kill each other in a 7 PC Dark Sun game. Two of the three killed each other in a real bloody fight. The person left was down to about 3 hp, when He turned the corner and ran into a Gaj lair. I laughed myself silly, and I tickled his pc to death. He begged and pleaded for DM benevolence, but I had none of it.
The other four guys were so happy to get rid of the 3 fueding ones, they didn't even look for the bodies for resurrection.
After that we went back to no PVP.
Now I dont play with guys who like that kind of crap.
Ian
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
I have always allowed it. The privilege has not been acted upon for many years now. In the days when it was not uncommon it was a privilege that was too-frequently abused. Players eventually came to the realization that it SUCKED to have your PC killed by another player on a WHIM, and if it was YOUR PC doing the killing then it sucked to have the other player get so rightfully furious and have to deal with the fallout. So the practice generally became self-limiting. Players stopped taking it that far because they knew what the in-game and meta-game consequences would be.
Players do still come close to it. It's now always a properly role-played outcome rather than arbitary or out of spite and that makes the possibility easier to accept. But I'll not OVERRULE the possibility unless my perception of unfolding events IS that the causes for it are insufficiently roleplayed and/or the reaction from the player of the victim would be problematic. It's always allowed - but it's not FREE of restrictions.
Players do still come close to it. It's now always a properly role-played outcome rather than arbitary or out of spite and that makes the possibility easier to accept. But I'll not OVERRULE the possibility unless my perception of unfolding events IS that the causes for it are insufficiently roleplayed and/or the reaction from the player of the victim would be problematic. It's always allowed - but it's not FREE of restrictions.
Last edited:
It depends on the type of game I'm running - but in a "standard" D&D game, I effectively don't allow it. I say effectively, because as a DM I reserve the right (since I don't like that sort of thing in a high-fantasy heroic game, and most if not all people I play with don't either) to squash any anti-social behavior that will waste our time on arguments, before it ever gets to the point of PCs fighting each other.
Though if I were to run, for example, a game of Shadowrun where people play career criminals and everyone was fine with PC-killing, it'd be another matter.
Though if I were to run, for example, a game of Shadowrun where people play career criminals and everyone was fine with PC-killing, it'd be another matter.
On the subject 'stopping' players from a given action, like the murder of a comrade... I give you my approach to RPG's, what I like to call the "Zork Paradigm".
Under the "Zork Paradigm", players declare their intended actions, which are parsed by the DM, who then states the results. But nothing actually happens until the DM says it does. Mostly actions simply succeed or fail, but if a player tries to "Get all" or initiate unwanted conjugal relations with Lord Dimwit Flathead or a grue, the action is never even begun.
I tell the player "You can't do that."
I've almost never had to do this, but I reserve the right to. It's the context in which my games have always operated. Stories about new players who ruin long running campaign by peevish acts of murder (and other childish mischief) baffle me. What possible benefit could there be in allowing that, when it can be stopped with a simple 'no'?
Under the "Zork Paradigm", players declare their intended actions, which are parsed by the DM, who then states the results. But nothing actually happens until the DM says it does. Mostly actions simply succeed or fail, but if a player tries to "Get all" or initiate unwanted conjugal relations with Lord Dimwit Flathead or a grue, the action is never even begun.
I tell the player "You can't do that."
I've almost never had to do this, but I reserve the right to. It's the context in which my games have always operated. Stories about new players who ruin long running campaign by peevish acts of murder (and other childish mischief) baffle me. What possible benefit could there be in allowing that, when it can be stopped with a simple 'no'?
the Lorax
First Post
"Allow" is such a strange word to use in this situation.
Encourage? No.
Most of my players have been together for close to 20 years. If player conflict occurs all of the players understand the root causes. If something seems headed towards conflict, the group of CHARACTERS is more likely to shatter before actual blood is spilled. If it is one character that is the root of contention, that character is likely to be asked to move on. In a situation like the one described... well things happen. Its unlikely that in a one-shot game anyone at my table would have any reason to start with contentious activities like robbing each other, but in no way would I take action to stop players from taking actions with their characters, and I wouldn't bar a friend from my table for taking such action.
Encourage? No.
Most of my players have been together for close to 20 years. If player conflict occurs all of the players understand the root causes. If something seems headed towards conflict, the group of CHARACTERS is more likely to shatter before actual blood is spilled. If it is one character that is the root of contention, that character is likely to be asked to move on. In a situation like the one described... well things happen. Its unlikely that in a one-shot game anyone at my table would have any reason to start with contentious activities like robbing each other, but in no way would I take action to stop players from taking actions with their characters, and I wouldn't bar a friend from my table for taking such action.
Last edited:
ha-gieden
First Post
We have a rule that any character a player brings in must have a reason to want to cooperate with the party. You may worship the same deity as the cleric, be the warrior's cousin, whatever, but there has to be *something* that makes you joining with the others a logical thing.
Once the party is together, what they do is up to them. The DM doesn't tell them they can't kill one another - that's roleplay. Since it's a roleplaying game, telling others what they can and can't roleplay can easily squash the fun, even if the DM does feel like it's "for their own good".
We had a scenario a while back where I was playing a completely naive little girl. I was lawful good and completely trusted a classmate of mine (PC) who happened to be chaotic neutral (he didn't wear a badge that labeled him as such, you see). We uncovered a plot by an evil necromancer that involved human sacrifice. My character was on his list. The other character had a shot at becoming the necromancer's apprentice if he handed me over. He came to my character and told her the whole story...but then he suggested a way to trap the necromancer that involved drugging my character and using her as bait. Out of character, I knew that the other guy might actually turn my character over to the necromancer, but in character, I trusted the guy completely. This made for a lot of fun between games, and a lot of laughing around the table. (Him: Here, just drink this and let me tie you up... Me: Sure!) In the end, my character was not betrayed and the necromancer was taken out, but not knowing what would happen made things a lot more fun.
I think the point (and what we all seem to agree on) is that we should play to have fun. Whatever is fun for your group is what you should do.
I also think there's a HUGE difference between "allowing one PC to kill another" and full on "PC versus PC" gaming. As has been said several times, just because the DM doesn't disallow it doesn't mean it happens often.
I chose "Always".
Once the party is together, what they do is up to them. The DM doesn't tell them they can't kill one another - that's roleplay. Since it's a roleplaying game, telling others what they can and can't roleplay can easily squash the fun, even if the DM does feel like it's "for their own good".
We had a scenario a while back where I was playing a completely naive little girl. I was lawful good and completely trusted a classmate of mine (PC) who happened to be chaotic neutral (he didn't wear a badge that labeled him as such, you see). We uncovered a plot by an evil necromancer that involved human sacrifice. My character was on his list. The other character had a shot at becoming the necromancer's apprentice if he handed me over. He came to my character and told her the whole story...but then he suggested a way to trap the necromancer that involved drugging my character and using her as bait. Out of character, I knew that the other guy might actually turn my character over to the necromancer, but in character, I trusted the guy completely. This made for a lot of fun between games, and a lot of laughing around the table. (Him: Here, just drink this and let me tie you up... Me: Sure!) In the end, my character was not betrayed and the necromancer was taken out, but not knowing what would happen made things a lot more fun.
I think the point (and what we all seem to agree on) is that we should play to have fun. Whatever is fun for your group is what you should do.
I also think there's a HUGE difference between "allowing one PC to kill another" and full on "PC versus PC" gaming. As has been said several times, just because the DM doesn't disallow it doesn't mean it happens often.
I chose "Always".
Doghead Thirteen
First Post
Some years ago, things got so bad that I had to bring in a new house rule. Telling players they weren't allowed to PK simply didn't work. I had things like, player 1 accidentally caused the death of player 2's character, player 2 generates new character, first action of player 2's character? Murder player 1's character for absolutely no reason other than 'he killed my last character'. On occasion we'd have two players spending virtually the entire session generating characters which promptly got killed 
for tat.
So I made it the rule that, if you ever killed another PC, you were subject to instant karma.
In other words, your PC would be dead through some insane coincedence in the form of an F14 mysteriously crashlanding on their head, irrespective of where they were.
The real problem player has since moved on, and my players have matured enough that the F14 Rule is no longer necessary. I've had a PK fairly recently during a cyberpunk themed campaign; what happened was that the new character hacked into the borderline psychotic mercenary's cybernetic brain augmentation.
We wrote it off as character suicide.
for tat.So I made it the rule that, if you ever killed another PC, you were subject to instant karma.
In other words, your PC would be dead through some insane coincedence in the form of an F14 mysteriously crashlanding on their head, irrespective of where they were.
The real problem player has since moved on, and my players have matured enough that the F14 Rule is no longer necessary. I've had a PK fairly recently during a cyberpunk themed campaign; what happened was that the new character hacked into the borderline psychotic mercenary's cybernetic brain augmentation.
We wrote it off as character suicide.
ha-gieden
First Post
To Quote Doghead Thirteen (I don't know how to do a regular quote box):
"Murder player 1's character for absolutely no reason other than 'he killed my last character'."
That's not roleplay, nor is it fun. While my group would not disallow killing a PC for in-game reasons, we would definitely disallow it for out-of-game reasons. There's a pretty big difference.
"Murder player 1's character for absolutely no reason other than 'he killed my last character'."
That's not roleplay, nor is it fun. While my group would not disallow killing a PC for in-game reasons, we would definitely disallow it for out-of-game reasons. There's a pretty big difference.
