Darrin Drader
Explorer
[Evil DM] I've orchestrated it. 
[/evil DM]
[/evil DM]
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
[True/False] There is a point in every campaign when the PCs come to blows.
- Thread starter el-remmen
- Start date
NebtheNever
First Post
I've only had this happen via an Umber Hulk's confusion, but there's a little more to the story than that.
I'm currently playing an Elan Psion who is rather obsessed with becoming a legend. Part of this, of course, involves her being an immortal aberration. She has to hide her immortal nature from the rest of the party, especially the ranger, because he doesn't look too kindly upon the concept of undying freaks.
A few sessions ago the Binder in the party made a pact with the first elan who then became a vestige but failed the roll to control the vestige. I made a Knowlege Psionics check and couldn't help but notice who it was the Binder had merged with.
Seeing this, she comes up to me and starts asking lot of questions about elans and immortality, trying to figure out what I know because of my experience with psionics. My psion is made very uncomfortable by this whole conversation and tries to aovid the binder from that point forward. This was the first unhappy happening for these two characters. The second came some time later.
...
Flash forward, and we are battling monsters in an abandoned dwarf stronghold. Out pops an Umber Hulk, who promptly confuses the Binder. We try our best to get the Binder away from the Umber Hulk, and after we're successful, the Binder - still confused - attacks my psionic crystal. Seething with anger, I begin to wallop the Binder with my quarterstaff to little effect. After dispatching the Umber Hulk the rest of the party wades in and manages to subdue the Binder until her confusion wears off.
Everyone told me not to blame the Binder because she was obviously under some sort of mental distress, but I refuse to acknowledge this. Being a psion and an elan, I understand perfect control of mind and body, and I believe there is no excuse for losing that control (read: failing saving throws).
So now my character has two reasons to dislike one of the other PCs, and it's led to some pretty interesting roleplaying situations. So far, the animosity does not extend beyond the characters in game.
I'm currently playing an Elan Psion who is rather obsessed with becoming a legend. Part of this, of course, involves her being an immortal aberration. She has to hide her immortal nature from the rest of the party, especially the ranger, because he doesn't look too kindly upon the concept of undying freaks.
A few sessions ago the Binder in the party made a pact with the first elan who then became a vestige but failed the roll to control the vestige. I made a Knowlege Psionics check and couldn't help but notice who it was the Binder had merged with.
Seeing this, she comes up to me and starts asking lot of questions about elans and immortality, trying to figure out what I know because of my experience with psionics. My psion is made very uncomfortable by this whole conversation and tries to aovid the binder from that point forward. This was the first unhappy happening for these two characters. The second came some time later.
...
Flash forward, and we are battling monsters in an abandoned dwarf stronghold. Out pops an Umber Hulk, who promptly confuses the Binder. We try our best to get the Binder away from the Umber Hulk, and after we're successful, the Binder - still confused - attacks my psionic crystal. Seething with anger, I begin to wallop the Binder with my quarterstaff to little effect. After dispatching the Umber Hulk the rest of the party wades in and manages to subdue the Binder until her confusion wears off.
Everyone told me not to blame the Binder because she was obviously under some sort of mental distress, but I refuse to acknowledge this. Being a psion and an elan, I understand perfect control of mind and body, and I believe there is no excuse for losing that control (read: failing saving throws).
So now my character has two reasons to dislike one of the other PCs, and it's led to some pretty interesting roleplaying situations. So far, the animosity does not extend beyond the characters in game.
The_Warlock
Explorer
True & False.
I've learned, sometimes the hard way, that some of my friends that I have run with & for have disturbing misconceptions about morals, anti-heroes, and world views, often contrary to their stated character concept, or the agreed upon tone of the run.
That has often caused more conflicts with less relevance to the run as a whole.
On the other hand, several of my players strength of concept/ability to play varying moral and ethical perspectives in a group has led to some of the best "moral" roleplaying I've ever seen. However, the "heated discussion" is usually as far as it went among my players when they were playing their characters.
Coming to blows, unfortunately, was usually restricted to one or two individuals who possessed a self aggrandizing interpretation of the alignment system and a use of metagame/system mechanics knowledge to justify stabbing supposed friends in a fit of pique as perfectly acceptable.
So, I've found in my runs that frequently the Players come to "verbal blows" when really into their characters, and physical blows (with the exception of charm/confusion/domination) tended to be relegated to folks who had a hard time comprehending the division between game mechanics and role-playing their characters.
Suffice to say, I've become a bit more choosy about players in my old age.
I've learned, sometimes the hard way, that some of my friends that I have run with & for have disturbing misconceptions about morals, anti-heroes, and world views, often contrary to their stated character concept, or the agreed upon tone of the run.
That has often caused more conflicts with less relevance to the run as a whole.
On the other hand, several of my players strength of concept/ability to play varying moral and ethical perspectives in a group has led to some of the best "moral" roleplaying I've ever seen. However, the "heated discussion" is usually as far as it went among my players when they were playing their characters.
Coming to blows, unfortunately, was usually restricted to one or two individuals who possessed a self aggrandizing interpretation of the alignment system and a use of metagame/system mechanics knowledge to justify stabbing supposed friends in a fit of pique as perfectly acceptable.
So, I've found in my runs that frequently the Players come to "verbal blows" when really into their characters, and physical blows (with the exception of charm/confusion/domination) tended to be relegated to folks who had a hard time comprehending the division between game mechanics and role-playing their characters.
Suffice to say, I've become a bit more choosy about players in my old age.
RandomCitizenX
First Post
When I ran a 3rd ed game for some friends in college every game session was a fight between the Human Samurai and the Halfling Rogue. Every session they would find something to fight about, and then during the week when we were on campus just hanging out the Samurai would take the antagonism of the Rogue from the previous game session personally. That was a frustrating game at times.
Remathilis
Legend
Surprisingly, its happened a lot less as my game group got older. It happened a lot more when I was 14 then when I was 28...
I wouldn't say it happens in every campaign, although it's not unknown for someone to need restraining after an unsuccesful save against various enchantment spells. My group has been pretty stable for several years now though and in my experience it's mostly younger players (we've got one teenager, and 6 30/40-somethings) and in groups that have not been together long.
Here's one little story though. I was in one group back when I was at university where there were a couple of players who had an argument before the game session about something. During it one of the players cast a fireball that affected the other players fighter. And then the players started to argue, and the fighter attacked the wizard. Which was followed by the two players coming to blows, and getting separated by the rest of us. That was two people I never played with again.
Here's one little story though. I was in one group back when I was at university where there were a couple of players who had an argument before the game session about something. During it one of the players cast a fireball that affected the other players fighter. And then the players started to argue, and the fighter attacked the wizard. Which was followed by the two players coming to blows, and getting separated by the rest of us. That was two people I never played with again.
el-remmen
Moderator Emeritus
Just to be clear about my own experiences that inspired this thread have never been about personal issues between players and have rarely been lethal combat (usually fistfights/grappling).
Also everyone in my group is in their 30s/40s, except one. .. uh, what? 28 year old. So it is not a matter of age - it has always arisen from in-game circumstances.
Also everyone in my group is in their 30s/40s, except one. .. uh, what? 28 year old. So it is not a matter of age - it has always arisen from in-game circumstances.
Not every campaign. I haven't seen any PC-on-PC violence in any of the campaigns I've had with my current group. One of those went straight through for 20 levels, and aside from a few dominate incidents, the worst we had was a few in-character arguments.
Some of it might be because we're relative oldsters who have been playing for years. Most of us have had bad experiences with intraparty conflict in past games, so we go out of our way to avoid it now. We tend to create characters who can mostly get along together, and if one PC is going to take an action the others disagree with, he'll contrive to do it when nobody's looking.
I admit that on rare occasions this involves serious metagaming, like when the player of a very straitlaced PC avoided putting ranks in Sense Motive, to make it easier for the less ethical PCs to fool his character. But that's really an exceptional case. In practice, all the PCs tend to have similar goals and motives, so conflict simply doesn't occur.
Some of it might be because we're relative oldsters who have been playing for years. Most of us have had bad experiences with intraparty conflict in past games, so we go out of our way to avoid it now. We tend to create characters who can mostly get along together, and if one PC is going to take an action the others disagree with, he'll contrive to do it when nobody's looking.
I admit that on rare occasions this involves serious metagaming, like when the player of a very straitlaced PC avoided putting ranks in Sense Motive, to make it easier for the less ethical PCs to fool his character. But that's really an exceptional case. In practice, all the PCs tend to have similar goals and motives, so conflict simply doesn't occur.
