PC threatening PC. What to do?

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) they've both said that they won't accept reforming the group during this campaign, pretty much regardless of the situation.

Ultimately this is your call as the GM. Sometimes players will have characters do things because they believe that the GM or the others players will simply have to accept it, because the other players won't boot them, or the GM won't scrap the campaign that has taken a long time to devise, or they believe that they are somehow indispensible (like everyone is playing at their house). A GM has to be careful not to let the tail wag the dog.

In the type of campaign you are running, you need the players to create characters that form a cohesive party, one group, with their goals aligned with one another. Tell the players this is what you require for this campaign and they can either adjust these characters or create new characters and set these aside for the time being to be picked up later for a different campaign. If they cannot do one of those two things, then this is actually a player problem and you will need to decide what changes to make in that department. If the players don't understand the first part regarding the characters, you can either let them know that you will have to make player changes and see if that helps them understand how serious this is to you, thus moving them toward making the necessary adjustments, or just form a seperate group unilaterally to run this campaign and keep going with the current characters in whatever direction they go.

It might be fun to watch them destroy one another. I once had a group so bent on PC vs PC conflict that they didn't realize I had adjusted the setting to be villain, monster, and practically conflict-free (not too tough as it was mainly a city campaign). I ran for three sessions before one of the players mentioned to the others that they hadn't been in a combat outside of the party for a while. The five player party had gone through nearly a dozen PCs by this point. I allowed new PCs in at the level of the group which was fifth then sixth after experience from PC kills. Yes, they actually leveled during this three week period and even chuckled at the idea that some experience came from PC deaths. When I explained what I had done, the two biggest instigators left the group and a new core group emerged that was very tight-knit going forward.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

In the type of campaign you are running, you need the players to create characters that form a cohesive party, one group, with their goals aligned with one another. Tell the players this is what you require for this campaign and they can either adjust these characters or create new characters and set these aside for the time being to be picked up later for a different campaign. If they cannot do one of those two things, then this is actually a player problem and you will need to decide what changes to make in that department. If the players don't understand the first part regarding the characters, you can either let them know that you will have to make player changes and see if that helps them understand how serious this is to you, thus moving them toward making the necessary adjustments, or just form a seperate group unilaterally to run this campaign and keep going with the current characters in whatever direction they go.

I'm not sure if you're actually referring to the fact that it's a playtest by saying "the type of campaign you're running" but that's still something that hadn't crossed my mind. I suppose there's no point in testing out a campaign that's not going to be PC vs. PC if the characters are trying to play PC vs PC.

I may still let them kill each other, but I doubt I'm going to split the group and let them keep going on their own now that I've considered the whole point of playtesting. Either they resolve their differences (which they said they can't do, but we'll see) and we continue, or they'll end up in an official fight to the death very soon. One side wins, and then I tell everyone to make new characters (ones that will actually cooperate) and we start again.

 

[RoryN]

I can't even put into words how frustrated I have gotten in the past with inter-party fighting. I have walked out on more than one session as DM and player because of actions similar to what happened in your campaign. While I have "seasoned" a bit as I've aged, I still find no place for this type of thing in a campaign as the players and characters are supposed to be working together towards a common goal.

It's a tough decision no matter how you decide to figure it out, and I wish you luck with that.

I remember back in 2E AD&D that when a cleric changed alignment it sometimes would affect their relationship with their deity, so I guess that's a possibility (if I'm remembering correctly). I just can't stand by the "I was in character" argument in this situation as it has been said that the cleric wasn't evil. Sneak attacking a party member is pretty far from CN in my mind. Maybe a review of alignments and how they react to one another is in order? I don't know.

 

[Water Bob]

I can't even put into words how frustrated I have gotten in the past with inter-party fighting.

Interesting. I've had it in the past, and I quite enjoyed it. It's interesting to see how many DMs and players discourage this.

I do understand it can cause some problems, and I've played (but never DMed) in a group where there were major problems due to party in-fighting (in two different groups, a player got booted from the group over it, and that's not good).

But, both times that happened, in my opinion, it happened because of the DM's inability to manage the two players.

It's happened in my games a few times (the last time was at least 20 years ago), and each time, it was a very fun element of the campaign. I remember keeping both players happy reminding them that they just need to play "in character", and that the other player didn't mean anything by it outside of the game.

In a 2E AD&D game, I had a player playing a thief that was getting upset with the goody-goody-two-shoes way the cleric and the paladin in the group were dominating the party with their Lawful Good ways. And, to be sure, those two players were reining in the thief. After all, the thief was true neutral.

The King had made the cleric and the paladin hire the thief in the first place--they needed someone with those skills for their mission. And, it was a mission for the Church (Tyr, in the Forgotten Realms, the God of Justice....doesn't mix well with "thieves").


Well, it came to a point where the thief had enough. It was a random encounter. The party was traveling across a field of chest-high grasslands and encounter a few basilisks. As the party went into tactical mode, the theif player started passing me notes unseen by the other players. The thief was hiding in shadows and moving close to first the cleric, then the paladin.

As the party concerned itself with the basies, the thief did a sneak attack on the cleric, putting a bag of devouring over her head.

The entire table cracked up. You did what?!

So, the cleric is running around, trying to rip this bag off that is eating her head. Finally, she slumped to the ground, motionless.

The paladin saw this and darted right for the thief. Everyone at the table thought the thief was a gonner. The the thief was a clever one. He'd planned for this. Just as the paladin approached, we threw initiative. The thief won, then tossed a pinch of dust of sneezing and choking at the paladin. No save.

And, the paladin went down, dead.

The table was astonished.

The thief looked at the remaining two characters and said, "OK, I'm running this outfit now, and there are going to be a few changes."

My entire game changed.

The story had been centered around the Church of Tyr, with the cleric and the paladin in charge.

As things will go, that was just the preamble to a much different type of campaign. The group became bandits, of a sort, and using the information about the church relic that they had obtained earlier, they went on the same quest that I had planned for them, but had a different outcome. They sold the relic instead of handing it over to the Church.

The fighter in the group stuck, but the ranger left at the next town. The player playing that character rolled up a half-orc fighter, and the players playing the cleric and paladin rolled up new characters.

And, from then on out, we played a very neat game about these scoundrels (they weren't very evil in the things they did--if you don't count the cleric and paladin murders --kind of like fantasy Han Solo's) and their adventures that turned into quite a campaign.



We still talk about that game, today. Hey, remember when that thief took out the cleric and the paladin....? We still laugh about it.

The players liked it because it was proof that they truly were in charge of their own destinies. I had talks with the players of the cleric and paladin, making them assure me that their new characters could not use meta-game animosity against the thief. Those characters were completely separated from the original ones.

And, it was just a very neat, bad-assed game.

All because of party in-fighting.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

Interesting. I've had it in the past, and I quite enjoyed it. It's interesting to see how many DMs and players discourage this.

I think causing tension between players if often a big part of why it's discouraged, although that isn't always the case considering both your example and my current situation the players seemed to be fine out of the game. I agree that it can make for interesting fun games, and that perhaps some of the stricter objections to it may not be to my taste either, but there's still a time and a place for PC vs. PC and this wasn't it.

But honestly another big issue is that it messes up plans for the DM. I've spent night after night preparing this campaign, so it's rather frustrating for them to derailing weeks of my work by killing each other. If they'd risked derailing my plans by, for example, coming up with a great alternative on how to take down the villain, then by all means, that makes things pretty interesting. Throwing my whole story off because they can't cooperate though is another issue.

Really in this situation the fighting may not seem like that bad a turn of events to the players, but for me it's a giant pain. If they want to kill each other then by all means they should tell me that from the start. I won't object to running a PC vs. PC game, I just don't want PC vs. PC inserted into a campaign of mine that wasn't supposed to have it.

 

[RoryN]

Now, I wouldn't have gotten bent out of shape with the scenario Water Bob talked about. All of that revolves around the players being "in character". The times I have walked out it was always because one of the players was being a total a-hole...backstabbing party members for no reason other than he was a thief, stealing from party members for the same reason. The party had a mission that they all agreed upon and one person just sent the whole session into the crapper by being a total d*ck. It wasn't playing "in character" because the character had no reason to do the things he did...he was being paid, rather well, for the mission the party was on, far more than 2nd or 3rd level characters should have been paid, but he thought it would be fun to screw with everyone.

 

[Lanefan]

[MENTION=6677945]SnowleopardVK[/MENTION] - From your first post, along with what you've said since, I have three words of advice:

Let. Them. Fight.

Seriously. It sounds like your players are cool with it, so let 'em throw down if they want. Let 'em die if that's what it comes to, let 'em split up if that's where it leads; then DM what's left (or DM two concurrent parties, maybe alternating sessions between them) - you could, if you're all three of really good*, really lucky**, and really nasty, set it up such that the two parties become each others' rivals/enemies in pursuit of the same goal! Then at the climax you have the parties meet each other and let things go where they may.

* - to pull this off without the players realizing what's up will take a very, very deft hand on your part; but it'd be brilliant if you could do it.

** - lucky in terms of the two parties staying concurrent in game time - the whole thing gets blown if one party decides to spend a month in port, for example. Also lucky in terms of keeping the players in the dark.

===============================

My session last night: half the party went through a teleporter (one-way) and wound up in the high arctic. The other half stayed put and got into a brawl with themselves; one death and another teleported PC later, I now have two parties to run: 6 PCs up north with no quick way home, and 3 remaining PCs trying to finish the original adventure (that they had barely started!).

Lan-"these people never met a red herring they didn't like"-efan

 

[Water Bob]

But honestly another big issue is that it messes up plans for the DM. I've spent night after night preparing this campaign, so it's rather frustrating for them to derailing weeks of my work by killing each other.

My motto: No prep work ever goes wasted.

I may not use it all at once, but everything I spend time creating out of game makes it into the game at some point.

With my earlier example, I was lucky in that the "new group" (the one formed after the thief took charge) was still interested in going after the holy relic. My original story centered around the Church of Tyr. The PCs were all of "good" alignment, and the Paladin and the Cleric were the leaders of the party.

The first game session saw them bring in a thief because they needed his skills. We played an entire adventure (that's when the animosity built) before the "relic" mission came up and the thief took over.

As I say, I was lucky in that the thief--the new leader of the party--was still interseted in the relic. Instead of returning it to the church, he would sell it, instead.

So...which your story changed, can you salvage, adapt, change your story so that it fits with the new PC vs PC dynamic?

I'm not sure what your story is, but maybe you could change gears, do something else for a bit, and then bring this story back up at a later time. Maybe assassins are out to get them unless they make good on their earlier agreement? So, they're forced to finish what they started?

All I'm saying is two things: First, be creative. I'm sure you can change your story a bit to somewhere, somehow not let your work go to waste.

Second, never, never, never let your prep go to waste. Cut it up into pieces and sprinkle it out. Keep it for a diversion when the players give you a curve ball, and you need time to prep. Whatever. Use all of your work.

If you put on your thinking cap, I bet you'll find a way to do it without railroading the players to where you need them to be.

I always realize that if the players aren't going to where I want them to go, then I haven't given them enough story elements to want to go that way.

Things I've used in a the past: If the PCs have a beloved NPC that they like dealing with (maybe a merchant that they get a good deal on good from), have that person either killed or kidnapped--whatever fits into yoru story. This is self-motivating if the Players really do enjoy the NPC.

Whenever I see an NPC that the players seem to really like....I know I've got some ammo.

Another thing I've done is give the players a curve ball. Something that they weren't expecting.

For example, one time I wanted the PCs to follow a rumor to a cavern out in the woods some distance from the town. I made the mistake of not making this important enough to the players. They only picked up a rumor in an inn, and I thought this would be enough.

It wasn't. The PCs had decided to go a different direction entirely.

So, I made the trip more personal. That night, I had a PC wake up. He had been "transported" some some strange cavern. There was writings on the walls, but he couldn't read it. And, he saw this gleaming sword sitting on a rock pedastal. The PC reached for it, and I had the character wake up. He was back at the inn. It was a dream.

Now, what I did was take the player out away from the others and played out this dream--that he didn't know was a dream until he woke up. He figured he was magically transported somehow.

After that, the player did all my work for me because I showed him a magic item that I knew he woud desire. He got the rest of the players to go to the cavern--and all I had to do was sit back, smile to myself, and play out what I had created.

The Point is: You're the GM. Be creative. Figure out a way, in game, to get your players to do what you want them to do without them feeling railroaded. Get the players to somehow want to do what you need them to do.

Sometimes, it's not as hard as it seems. Just think out of the box a bit.

 

[Water Bob]

The times I have walked out it was always because one of the players was being a total a-hole...backstabbing party members for no reason other than he was a thief, stealing from party members for the same reason. The party had a mission that they all agreed upon and one person just sent the whole session into the crapper by being a total d*ck.

To me, this falls under the header of the GM not controlling his game. If a GM sees that happening, he needs to do something about it.

I'd handle it "in game". All actions have consequences. If the a-hole stole from the party (and I felt it wasn't "in character", helping the story, and just blatantly hurting my game), I'd slip the victim a message without the player seeing--something that says the big red ruby he got from the last loot haul is missing.

Now, I've turned something negative into a positive, as we all watch the rest of the PCs gang up on the a-hole.

The a-hole can't be a a-hole if he's dead--or if he can't get away with it (knowing that the GM is going to rat him out like that). That, alone, should calm him down.

Then, if the a-hole and another PC go off alone, and only one comes back, that will be interesting, too. Maybe the a-hole character is playing a psychotic? A serial killer?

I'd try to find story possibilities to turn the game into a fun one.

I'd also keep the other PCs in the "fair zone". Once suspension is set upon the a-hole, no telling what the PCs may do to him, in-game.

Wouldn't it be cool if the other players started to figure a way to strand the a-hole PC in the worst circumstances, without the a-hole player knowing? Sort of giving him a taste of his own medicine?

He's the thief, right? What if they let him crawl down a hole into a room to check for traps, then they pulled up the rope and left him there.

The GM goes on playing that night with the main group. That, right there, is a lesson teacher. The GM removes the threat to his game. The players are all quite pleased with themselves. And, the a-hold player really gets the message. With the added bonus of this all being "in game".

 

[SnowleopardVK]

My motto: No prep work ever goes wasted.

Fair enough. Although time can still be wasted. This is a playtest, so the whole point is supposed to be that these players are helping me test the setting and campaign so that in a few months I can try it out with another group made up of friends of mine who are for the most part closer to me than these four.

The campaign and my prep work, even if this game ends and a new one starts, will still see use with the other players. I still intend to test the whole thing before it gets to them though, meaning if this group kills each other and ends it I'll have to make them start anew for further playtesting. It took them about 40 hours to reach the point they're at in the game I'd say, and while that time itself isn't wasted, the time they spend catching up to this point in the story from a fresh start feels like it would be wasted time. Likely hours of it.