While it is a group effort at times, ultimately the DM does more work and more effort, and is running the show. He gets final say.
-
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!
Should I let my players kill each other?
- Thread starter Noumenon
- Start date
While it is a group effort at times, ultimately the DM does more work and more effort, and is running the show. He gets final say.
Noumenon
First Post
I dunno, it's kind of like dying to a random encounter, where the fight is exciting but there's ultimately no reason for it and it's unsatisfying. (I edited my other response to this post because it wasn't good.)
"You meet in a tavern... because you're all brothers, and you come here every week! And, you're conjoined twins!!" No, seriously, this would have worked because the players could have appealed to the shared backstory for a trust factor.
Pierson_Lowgal
First Post
I second El Mahdi's thoughts
Problems like this might be avoided by a group template, something I first heard about on the feartheboot podcast but have since heard about in two other places. Here's my description of it:
A group template is a set of pre-existing relationships between party members that explains why these characters are together as a group. It serves to avoid the “a dwarf, an elf and a peg-legged half-orc walk into a bar, having never met before, they agree to go camping in the woods and put their lives in each others hands.”
The prior-relationships makes possible a party of divergent personalities, while avoiding groupings of character with unresolvable personal conflicts or goals. The template can also be used to create a common motivation for the first story arc. For example, all the characters are childhood friends from the same neighborhood, newly reunited, with the first story arc centered on the deteriorating condition of the neighborhood.
The sorceror's being disgusted by the half orc is an opportunity for role-playing, but it seems as though the half orc player is pushing too much. Its perfectly ok to go outside of game to make sure all the players are happy. Beware of solving problems by replacing characters, because you haven't solved the player problem.
Problems like this might be avoided by a group template, something I first heard about on the feartheboot podcast but have since heard about in two other places. Here's my description of it:
A group template is a set of pre-existing relationships between party members that explains why these characters are together as a group. It serves to avoid the “a dwarf, an elf and a peg-legged half-orc walk into a bar, having never met before, they agree to go camping in the woods and put their lives in each others hands.”
The prior-relationships makes possible a party of divergent personalities, while avoiding groupings of character with unresolvable personal conflicts or goals. The template can also be used to create a common motivation for the first story arc. For example, all the characters are childhood friends from the same neighborhood, newly reunited, with the first story arc centered on the deteriorating condition of the neighborhood.
The sorceror's being disgusted by the half orc is an opportunity for role-playing, but it seems as though the half orc player is pushing too much. Its perfectly ok to go outside of game to make sure all the players are happy. Beware of solving problems by replacing characters, because you haven't solved the player problem.
juggler434
First Post
Roleplaying should not be an excuse for something that makes the game less fun. Thats not to say that good roleplaying shouldn't lead your character to make some poor decisions, but if its affecting the fun for the rest of the players, then maybe it should be toned down.
DrunkonDuty
he/him
Facetious Reply:
Yes, you should. And video it and put it on the web as a snuff movie.
Serious answer:
If the people playing are having fun then yes. If it's actually disrupting the game then no. Step up wearing your GM hat and say: 'let it go, let's play the game!'
Yes, you should. And video it and put it on the web as a snuff movie.
Serious answer:
If the people playing are having fun then yes. If it's actually disrupting the game then no. Step up wearing your GM hat and say: 'let it go, let's play the game!'
Ginnel
Explorer
I really don't get your reasoning for charm person being less offensive than a hit with a sword, I'd go as far to say that it was much more offensive, can you think of anything worse than someone having control of your mind? basically you aren't you anymore, you can't trust anything you do as it might just be someone elses influence, thats some dam scary stuff.
That being said the player didn't know what was being cast on him except that it was an unknown spell, thats bound to create mistrust and you as a DM can do nothing about that, its up to the offending character to redeem himself earn back the other persons trust (all in character of course) and if he doesn't want to see the next paragraph
You live and learn as a DM and player, next time come out from the start of the game saying that you don't want player killing and you want the characters to have a background where they trust each other, and if it does go that way, make clear you will want that player to retire and use it as a fun NPC/Villain instead.
I think the guy who wants to let it go and create a new character should be able to if he really wants to. I've been involved in one game where a player character killed another player character, it ended that campaign, sure it was fun and dramatic, but still it prematurely ended the campaign which was not fun and dramatic.
That being said the player didn't know what was being cast on him except that it was an unknown spell, thats bound to create mistrust and you as a DM can do nothing about that, its up to the offending character to redeem himself earn back the other persons trust (all in character of course) and if he doesn't want to see the next paragraph
You live and learn as a DM and player, next time come out from the start of the game saying that you don't want player killing and you want the characters to have a background where they trust each other, and if it does go that way, make clear you will want that player to retire and use it as a fun NPC/Villain instead.
I think the guy who wants to let it go and create a new character should be able to if he really wants to. I've been involved in one game where a player character killed another player character, it ended that campaign, sure it was fun and dramatic, but still it prematurely ended the campaign which was not fun and dramatic.
Frankly, I think you are wasting your time. You shouldn't have to explain to the player in question that having characters kill each other is ruining the fun for everybody. There may be people who disagree on this, and that's nice and well, but I just wouldn't want to play with them. In my experience, it's not worth it having the discussion.
The DM can state what classes, races, feats, etc are banned from the game.
The DM can veto character concepts.
The DM can decide what setting the game is, and how strictly it's adhered to (if it's a published campaign).
The DM can determine house rules to decide how something works. Rule 0 is "It's up to the DM."
The DM has final say on, pretty much, everything. Even if you're of the opinion that a game is a collaborative effort "It's not his game that we're all invited to; we all own this game", the DM is the referee. And a referee can call a player out, call a foul, or negate a point.
The DM has a lot of responsibilities. Keeping the story running, understanding the rules, (in many cases) organizing and coordinating the where and when of the actual game session. He also Maintains Order at the table. With those responsibilities come the benefits listed above.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
A good literary example would be the Original Dragonlance Trilogy. This is a really good idea.
As an aside, does anyone know of any products that are about, or list, pre-existing relationship ideas and concepts. This would be a pretty cool product to have.
Depending on the situation, if there's just a subset of the players involved, I've handled it a number of ways:
1) XP penalty for killing another player
Before I go on - - -most of these yahoos in my experience are doing this to assert their superiority - - 90% of the time when a player is telling me that attacking another PC is something their character would do, it's either wrong, or they've created a character that shouldn't exist. They need to know that their character is superior.
2) Have a wandering or set encounter occur directly after, or even DURING the PVP battle - this does a couple of things. One, it likely ends the fight...two, it absolutely establishes that PVP is a bad thing in your campaign, as it becomes quite likely that any PC deaths will be those PCs involved in the brouhaha. The only downside of this approach is the risk to other PCs, particularly if a PC didn't 'start it' but is still weakened.
3) Allow the fight, wait for one PC to kill the other, then turn that PC into an enemy NPC under your control.
"Yep, Bob, you were right, you WERE playing in character...but it's clear to me that THIS character you were playing was not a member of this PC team, but an NPC villain with other aims"
1) XP penalty for killing another player
Before I go on - - -most of these yahoos in my experience are doing this to assert their superiority - - 90% of the time when a player is telling me that attacking another PC is something their character would do, it's either wrong, or they've created a character that shouldn't exist. They need to know that their character is superior.
2) Have a wandering or set encounter occur directly after, or even DURING the PVP battle - this does a couple of things. One, it likely ends the fight...two, it absolutely establishes that PVP is a bad thing in your campaign, as it becomes quite likely that any PC deaths will be those PCs involved in the brouhaha. The only downside of this approach is the risk to other PCs, particularly if a PC didn't 'start it' but is still weakened.
3) Allow the fight, wait for one PC to kill the other, then turn that PC into an enemy NPC under your control.
"Yep, Bob, you were right, you WERE playing in character...but it's clear to me that THIS character you were playing was not a member of this PC team, but an NPC villain with other aims"
Similar Threads
